Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly the details of these two statutory instruments and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing a briefing last week. I have listened to the knowledgeable contributions of other noble Lords; this is a complex issue and one of the few where I wish I were a farmer. During our debate at Second Reading, we strayed into areas covered by the Agriculture Bill which had relevance to direct payments. I do understand that, due to the Brexit date of 31 January, the made affirmative process is needed to ensure that farmers get the payments they deserve, and are relying on, in a timely manner. Many of your Lordships would not have started from here, but here we are. We must make the best of it and ensure that our farmers do not suffer financially this year.

The EU makes CAP payments in arrears, to the UK Government and not to farmers themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said, the euro to pound exchange rate is important during this process: I understand that this has previously been set in September each year. However, we were told at the briefing that this exchange rate will be calculated “soon”. Can the Minister be more specific on when soon will be? There are a number of aspects to these payments, including the young farmers’ scheme to encourage new entrants into farming. Farming is a vital industry on which we all rely, not only for the management of the land but to provide some of the food we eat. Despite what government advisers may think, farming, and indeed fishing, is a vital component in both social and economic prosperity. The basic payment awarded to young farmers, classified as newcomers under 40 years of age and established in the previous five years, is increased by 25% for the first five years and 2% of the national budget allocation is used to finance this supplement. This payment comes on top of other measures young farmers can benefit from under previous rural development programmes. Under the EU, this payment was mandatory for member states. Can the Minister give reassurance that this payment will continue, despite the leaked information over the weekend? I welcome the changes to guidance for young farmers, and the removal of the need for new entrants to produce a yearly certificate of proof of their youth. This change in the bureaucracy is welcome and I look forward to more of this in the Agriculture Bill.

At Second Reading, we debated the environmental land management schemes which are currently being piloted and are due to begin rollout in 2024. Under the previous EU regime, the greening scheme gave the farmers involved, in addition to the basic payment or the single area payment, an additional payment per hectare for using climate-friendly and environment-friendly farming practices. This was previously 30% of the national funding allocations for this greening payment. As the Committee has already heard, this included crop diversification, maintaining existing permanent grassland and maintaining an “ecological focus area” of at least 5% of the arable land. I am sure all noble Lords are aware that stiff penalties existed for failing to meet these greening requirements. Are these previous greening schemes the ones now being replaced by the environmental land management schemes? Is the money received under ELMS by farmers who previously participated voluntarily in the greening schemes likely to be equivalent to, more than or less than what they could have expected to receive previously?

Lastly, I understand that the payments due to be made under the Bew review do not form part of these two statutory instruments. Scottish and Welsh farmers are keen to know when these payments are likely to be made. When will the Bew review money pass through the statutory process and arrive with farmers? I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate and am happy to approve these two statutory instruments.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction to the order before the Committee today. I also thank him for making himself available for the meeting he convened with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and myself in connection with these instruments. The regulations on the working of the CAP can have certain peculiarities. I am aware of many of these and declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of EU funds.

As the Minister explained, through the parent Act, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, and the withdrawal agreement, these regulations put the existing EU payment schemes into UK law to maintain continuity in the agricultural sector for the year 2020, pending the introduction of the Government’s new regime in the Agriculture Bill, presently in the other place. As he emphasised, this will not entail any changes in policy but will merely put the regulations on a UK basis, correcting inoperabilities and providing necessary continuity and certainty to the agricultural sector. Any disruption could have a severe impact on farmers’ financial viability, especially in Wales and other more disadvantaged areas, as my noble friend Lord Jones highlighted. One or two explanations necessarily need further clarity, which it would be helpful if the Minister provided. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others drew attention to many of these at our meeting.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh, brought up the dreaded three-crop rule and the necessary financial disciplines being maintained by the RPA. To avoid the UK being drawn into the multiannual EU budget cycle, the withdrawal agreement disapplies the 2020 claim year from the implementation period. The payments will become the responsibility of the Treasury, yet the payment exchange rate, normally set each year in September, has yet to be set. Given that the EU will no longer be reimbursing the UK Government, could not the same payment in pounds be maintained as was implemented in 2019? Would that not provide further simplicity and clarity?

One of the challenges that Defra endured every year was having to make payments and then see them being examined by the EU, which led to disallowance from retrospective reimbursements when the EU determined that a member state had not made payments in conformity with the regulations. The Minister will confirm that this often came to many millions of pounds each year. I am sure that the Minister’s department will rejoice at disallowance disappearing; nevertheless, these are public funds and must be administered effectively. The memorandum accompanying the regulations does not entirely clarify whether there will be a distinct, similar process conducted over the year 2020 payments, other than stating that existing domestic public accountability frameworks will apply. I understand that the Rural Payments Agency will still maintain the scheme’s disciplines and infringement penalties, but will there be anything comparable to the specific auditing conducted by the EU, and will that operate this year? How will any potential operability shortcomings be satisfied? Any pursuit of scheme applicants would be a clear departure from previous policy.

A key feature of BPS is the distinguishing of Pillar 1 payments from Pillar 2 payments for rural development, whereby the EU scheme allows member states to convert up to 15% of Pillar 1 payments to Pillar 2—known as modulation. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to apply a modulation rate of 12% for the 2020 year? Can he indicate whether the devolved Administrations will or will not depart from the rate they set in 2019? It would be helpful to have explicit reference today. Pillar 2 payments contribute to various multiannual schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, which was the focus of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Can the Minister clarify that such schemes, and any new applications that may come forward this year, will continue to operate and be funded for the remainder of their respective terms, up to proposals yet to be implemented following the passage of the Agriculture Bill? Would any termination clause be in this year’s applications, should new measures become features of the new policy of reward for public goods? Can the Minister provide details of any pilot scheme under consideration?

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a question to this. To understand what the equal access objective is about, one should look at Clause 17 of the Bill. If a Scottish fisheries authority were to grant a licence to a non-UK fishing boat under the new regime, that would be a licence to fish in Scottish waters. Both this current objective and, indeed, the related amendment on the determination of fishing opportunities say that, when a ship is licensed, or when fishing opportunities are allotted, this cannot be done to British boats on the basis of where they come from. If I understand correctly—I put this simply because I am sure the Minister will put us both right when we have presented our questions—the object of the equal access objective is to make sure that, when the administrations put forward their joint fisheries statement, they must do so on the basis that a British fishing boat can go anywhere in British fishing waters. That seems a desirable objective because otherwise we could well end up with not British fishing waters but entirely separate Scottish, Welsh or English fishing waters. I do not regard that as the objective we are seeking, so to that extent, I rather like keeping the equal access objective and I would not see it removed from the Bill.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, poses some serious challenges in his amendment. Indeed, quota allocation is already a highly complex and opaque feature in fishing. The tabling of Amendments 17 and 95 affords us a brief opportunity to probe the Government over how equal access will work in practice once the constituent parts of the UK have the freedom, at least theoretically, to determine their own quota allocations and wider regulatory frameworks.

In view of the earlier discussion today, I am sure the Minister will argue that these amendments are unwise as they undermine the work that the Government have already undertaken with the devolved Administrations in drafting the Bill. I also pre-empt his commitment that the various issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will come out in the mix once the Bill is in place and the various statements and management plans begin to appear. Be that as it may, I am sure that fishers in different parts of the UK will be interested to hear his comments on how all of this will work in practice.

For example, how will the Government and devolved Administrations work together to ensure that the regulations of each part of the UK are compatible, being both available and accessible to those who will have to rely on them? How will issues such as enforcement be managed to ensure that the devolution settlement is upheld, while also respecting the equal access objective, as it is currently drafted, when they could diverge over time? This topic arose during the Commons Committee stage on the previous Bill, so I hope that the reassurances offered tonight will meet all the Committee’s expectations. A significant amount of time has passed since those debates and we are only a short time away from potential problems ceasing to be purely hypothetical.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

22: Clause 1, page 2, line 34, after “minimised” insert “, in particular through efforts to—
(i) improve the environmental performance of fishing ports, and(ii) promote the decarbonisation of fish and aquaculture activities”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the “climate change objective” by requiring action to improve the environmental performance of ports and decarbonise the catching process.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 22, I will speak also to Amendment 23. These amendments are tabled with slightly different intentions in mind, so while they may be grouped together, they address slightly different aspects of climate change. The addition of the climate change objective is very much to be welcomed, and must be fundamental to all policy developments, perhaps second only to the sustainability objective, as debated earlier tonight.

Amendment 22 would strengthen the climate change objective by requiring two sets of actions: one on land to improve the green credentials of ports and the other at sea to help the fisheries fleet decarbonise. Both are important and must reflect together the environmental sustainability practices on landed catches while making the industry undertake precise measures on decarbonisation. Either step or both would have a positive impact on the country’s net zero aspirations. The amendment was tabled to probe how action the Government propose to take will be specified and measured, including what support they will provide in the future to allow the industry to improve its environmental footprint. The Bill allows financial assistance to be provided for a variety of purposes, including many linked with the overarching fisheries objectives. Can it, therefore, be safely assumed that such support would be made available to fishers who wish to fit cleaner engines, and perhaps to ports and processing plants that want to upgrade equipment to run on low-carbon technologies?

Amendment 23 deals directly with achieving net zero in the industry. I was disappointed to see no link between this framework legislation and the legally binding targets for the UK to achieve net zero by 2050. Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, seeks to achieve a link and we support such a consultation. However, we propose that the Government are not taking action quite as seriously as we would like and need to proceed faster, with more urgency.

We have been told time and again, and will no doubt be reminded in the Minister’s response, that the UK is a world leader in the race to decarbonise, with this Government being the first to adopt a binding target to achieve net zero by 2050. However, I hope the Minister accepts and can forgive that, across your Lordships’ House, many are sceptical of the Government’s claims. Reference need be made to the court’s ruling only last week on Heathrow expansion to see that, just because an environmental target has been adopted, it does not necessarily filter through to everyday decision-making in Whitehall. There remains a gulf between stated ambition and reality. The UK, working alongside others, needs to do more to tackle the climate crisis before it is too late.

As part of that, industries such as fisheries should be encouraged to be ambitious by working to an accelerated timescale. Although it would require significant effort, we believe this could be achieved. If the Minister rejects the premise of achieving net zero in fisheries by 2030, or if he believes that decarbonisation is better dealt with in the upcoming Environment Bill, he at least needs to indicate what progress he would like to see made in the next decade.

With this in mind, what will our fishing fleet look like after nearly 10 years of the UK operating outside the CFP? What is the size of the Government’s ambitions? What gear will our fishers be using? How will the way that their catch is processed and transported be different from today? When will emissions targets be made binding on international shipping? These are but a few of the questions to which we need answers, and we ideally need them before either this or the Environment Bill reach the statute book. To include ambition in the Bill, the House must be assured that it will be key feature in the drawing up of fisheries statements and management policies. There is a climate emergency now and every sector should play its part in addressing it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 125 in my name, also in this group. I also lend my support to the two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. This is very welcome. I start by being positive about the climate change objective being added to the list of 12—or however many we have now. It is good to see it there. As I stated earlier, there really is no business as usual anymore. Climate change impacts are upon us and we are living through an age of consequences. This will permeate all the discussions around fishing policy that we bring on the back of the Bill. Fishing quotas will change, the availability of fish stocks will change and the resilience of the natural environment will be increasingly affected and diminished, so it is incredibly important that we take this seriously.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, rightly goes to the heart of the definition here. It seems a little lacking in ambition and specificity, as stated in the Bill, which refers to

“the adverse effects of fishing and aquaculture minimised”.

What does “minimised” mean when, really, they should be eliminated? In fact, any economic activity now taking place specifically within the natural environment should not just seek to have zero emissions, it should be seeking to be a positive sink. We will have to use policies and the framework for managing the natural world to ensure that we are not just reducing our outputs, but seeking to enhance the ability of the natural world to absorb carbon dioxide.

That has to be an aim because we have left it so late. We are about 20 years behind where we should be in reducing emissions on a global level, so the challenge now will be that of eliminating emissions in a decade. Thereafter it will be about soaking out the greenhouse gases that have been emitted. The oceans and the marine environment are a huge component of that, so we should be ambitious. I think that the bare minimum should be to achieve net zero, not simply minimising adverse effects and adapting to climate change.

My third point is about accepting that we may have to implement the precautionary principle, which states that for the period we are in, where there is so much uncertainty, we will be allocating below scientifically determined maximum sustainable yields because of the risk of climate change that overlays everything. We might have to get used to allocating quota on a very precautionary basis because we are entering uncharted waters, if I may be excused the pun.

I turn to my Amendment 125. Amendments that seek consultation always feel a bit redundant in primary legislation, but my point is that, under the powers granted under the Climate Change Act 2008, we have the ability to introduce a policy. Before any activity that causes a net contribution to greenhouse gases, we can simply consult and then use secondary legislation to introduce that policy. If the Government were minded to get going on achieving the net zero target, simply asking for public consultation would be the trigger to introducing secondary legislation to bring in very targeted, market-based policies to encourage investment in low-carbon activities. The Government now have the opportunity to consult on how we can best make this sector carbon neutral and use the powers that already exist to bring in those policies; hence the quest for a public consultation.

It is worth stating that, at the moment, the fishing industry has an effect on climate change in a number of ways. It is not just about how vessels are propelled or the energy choices made by processing plants, it is also about how the degradation of the natural environment can release greenhouse gases. Trawling activities, for example, can disturb the sediment at the bottom of the ocean, which releases otherwise stored carbon. There are plenty of examples and reasons why one would want the sector to take this issue seriously.

This is an opportunity to do something really positive. We must think about the provision of licences to cover the activities that take place in this environment with a positive vision that will create jobs and allow activities to be carried out in the natural world that will help us as we seek to combat climate change. There is no reason why fisheries cannot be part of that process. There are particular types of fish stocks and particular ways of fishing that can lock carbon up while low-impact aquaculture can make a net-positive contribution to our carbon budgets. I hope this is not seen as an imposition; rather, it should be seen as an opportunity.

Again, to finish on a positive note, seeing this objective included is very welcome. I happen to be in the camp of thinking that sustainability is the primary objective, so this climate objective is integral to that. However, we need to see a little more action and commitment to some of the specifics of what making this a primary objective would really mean for how we manage our fisheries. I am glad to have had the opportunity to discuss these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this Government have committed to ambitious action to tackle climate change, including reaching net zero by 2050. To support this objective, it is right that we have included a climate change objective in the Bill.

The Government share the ambition of Amendment 22, which is to make sure that we take meaningful action to decarbonise fishing and aquaculture activities and the infrastructure that supports them, as we must do across our economy. Indeed, I believe we are the first major economy to include an objective of this kind in legislation in relation to fisheries.

Evidence of the links between fishing and climate change continues to grow, and our approach must adapt to follow new evidence over successive iterations of the joint fisheries statement. Therefore, while I agree that action to support decarbonisation of ports and fishing activities must form part of our policies, I am reluctant to prioritise these in primary legislation ahead of the full development of, consultation on and scrutiny of the joint fisheries statement. This is also an issue for other departments, and we will work together to ensure that our functions under this legislation and other specific climate change and environmental legislation are carried out effectively.

The amendment would also have broader unintended consequences. For example, it could lead to future fisheries funding having to prioritise subsidies for fishing port energy efficiency measures that may better be delivered through measures other than fishing policy, such as planning and energy efficiency regulation, over measures to support directly the industry-focused infrastructure such as auction halls and landing sites. It could also lead to future fisheries funding having to priorities support for energy-efficient engines over more targeted fishing gear. The Government should be able to change their priorities for a future funding scheme in consultation with stakeholders so that it best delivers the government policies needed in response to the conditions at the time. We should always take an evidence-based approach to deciding which areas to prioritise in achieving this objective. We believe that the best way to do this is through the joint fisheries statement, rather than in the Bill.

Amendment 23 enables me to highlight that the UK—as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said—is at the vanguard of global ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, having last year committed to achieving economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050 through the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019. While I fully support the noble Lord’s ambition to transition to net-zero emissions in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, we have a clear target already enshrined in primary legislation. To introduce a further acceleration of that target in the Bill would create a sectoral disparity that could unfairly disadvantage an industry already facing challenges to adapt to the impacts of climate change. This is not to say that we should not seek to be ambitious as we work towards decarbonising our fisheries and aquaculture operations, but rather that we take a measured approach that supports the sector through the transition on a timescale achievable for all—from small, single-vessel operators to large processing operations. Legally binding policies will be contained in the joint fisheries statement, which will set out in more detail the steps we will take to deliver against the objectives in the Bill.

Turning to Amendment 125, I take the opportunity to set out some of the work already going on across the UK to support the fishing industry’s progress, along with the rest of the country, towards achieving economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050. I apologise to noble Lords who were aware of this, but I shall put this on the record.

The national adaptation programme—NAP—sets the actions that Government and others will take to adapt to the challenges of climate change in the UK. Published in 2018, it sets out key actions for the following five years across a wide range of sectors, including fisheries and aquaculture.

The UK Clean Maritime Plan, published by the Department for Transport, sets out a national action plan for the whole of the UK maritime sector. The plan includes commitments to support maritime innovation, establish a maritime emissions regulation advisory service and consult on how the renewable transport fuel obligation can be used to encourage the uptake of low-carbon fuels in maritime sectors. The aim of the plan is to achieve zero-emission shipping by 2050, as set out in the Government’s Maritime 2050 strategy. This recognises the need to take action to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement and the UK’s 2050 net zero ambition. Together, both plans ensure the fishing industry will effectively contribute to the target for zero net emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2050.

The climate change objective in Clause 1 will support this ambition by requiring the fisheries administrations to consider these matters in consultation with industry and interested parties, as they develop the policies that will sit in the joint fisheries statement. I recognise, and I am pleased, that a number of noble Lords have recognised, in the hurly-burly of the exchanges, that we did insert this new climate change objective. It is absolutely right we did so, because it is at the very heart of what we have to do. For the sake of tonight, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I take it entirely in the spirit in which he makes it. We are all committed to this objective, and we all work as fast as we may. We will study the Bill’s words very carefully, to look at where it is appropriate to put in a little more ambition, and whether it is right to leave it to the fisheries statement or whether we could devise some plan to escalate it up to being a stronger commitment. But at this stage—

[Baroness Worthington]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I want to comment on the Minister’s list of activities that relate to this. It is welcome to hear about the marine plans and the alternative fuels. We also need to integrate into this that the Government are pursuing nature-based solutions and carbon stored in the natural environment. We are doing that in the Agriculture Bill, and will be talking about it a lot as we go into the Glasgow talks, but the definitions the department is thinking about in the fishing sector are quite limited; for example, just the propulsion of the vessels. We are not thinking holistically about nature-based solutions, which are very important. When we have discussions following on from today’s debate, I encourage us to think about this holistically to make this a positive thing the maritime sector can help deliver, as we think about the net zero question.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for reminding me of the important issue of nature’s ability to store carbon at sea. This is part of the wider implications of what we are seeking to achieve through amendments to the Bill’s climate change provisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for introducing at last the other people who deal with our fish stocks—other national authorities. The fundamental flaw of this Bill is that it seems to ignore the rest of the world, while our fish stocks—most of them, including their spawning grounds—are outside our exclusive economic zone. Later in the Bill we come to amendments where, I hope, we can strengthen it so that it notes and acts on the real world, where this resource is not exclusive to us.

I welcome the Bill in relation to the scientific side, which, to give the Government their due, is well advanced in terms of using ICES and stock assessments, for example, and I hope that the Minister will tell us about a lot of other things that they are doing with regard to keeping within those international areas. However, we are a member of all sorts of regional fisheries organisations, such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and various tuna organisations, as well as UNCLOS, as the noble Baroness mentioned. These are basic, fundamental aspirations that we need to exceed to make sure that we have the sustainability that we need.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the thrust behind Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seeks to add a reference to appropriate international co-operation to the scientific evidence objective—an extension to the debate on a previous grouping. I am sure that we will return to the point about science and international co-operation throughout Committee—and, depending on the Government’s clarifications, perhaps on Report as well.

As your Lordships’ House has observed and debated on numerous occasions in recent years, fisheries management is complicated not only by the fact that fish have no knowledge of, or respect for, the boundaries of national waters, but that each species’ habitat shifts as ocean temperatures and conditions fluctuate—a phenomenon that is likely only to increase with climate change. This was the thrust of the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

The Government are committed under international law to co-operation with neighbouring states. They have indicated that they want annual negotiations with the EU on access to UK waters and quota, although on the premise that a fishing deal has been concluded by 1 July. While commitments to work with neighbouring states exist, such co-operation is important particularly for the gathering and analysis of scientific data. We are lucky to have world-class scientists and conservationists in the UK, but that does not mean that we cannot engage with and learn from others from wherever they come, and with organisations that the UK may also wish to co-operate with long into the future.

I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to offer assurances that his department will engage with international partners as appropriate, not just to agree high-level terms on access but to share science, practical knowledge and best practice, and that this will be included in the Bill.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I take the amendment very seriously. I will point the Minister in the direction of Clause 1(6)(c) refers to,

“bycatch that is fish is landed”,

and then goes on to say,

“but only where this is appropriate”.

I would be glad of some clarification of that. It continues that it,

“does not create an incentive to catch fish that are below minimum conservation reference size”,

and perhaps that is exactly what is meant by it. Certainly, we have had discussions over the weeks about discards, about which I think many of us are concerned. My question is on the phrase that they have used here. Is the Government worried that moving from the discard to the new bycatch will help to disincentivise people from catching fish that are below a minimum standard? Why was the decision made to change it from discarding to the particular wording of the Bill? When we come at a later stage to discuss how we can look at the way we record and know what is being discarded and what is being landed at ports, it will be immensely important. I am just a little bit unhappy with the wording that we have in subsection (6)(c), and would be glad of some clarification.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 16, specifically on subsection (6) on page 2 of the Bill; it is grouped with this Amendment 3 on page 1, on the issue of discards, or “bycatch” as referred to in the Bill. It complements the tabling of Amendment 3 by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which alludes to the inclusion of a dedicated objective on fish discards among the list of objectives. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her probing on this.

For a variety of reasons, and as I am sure we will hear from the Minister, it is virtually impossible to avoid catching some of the wrong species—or, indeed, the wrong sized members of the right species—when fishing. There have been some great advances in techniques and technologies, but some degree of bycatch remains an inevitability.

The Bill's bycatch objective, which is lifted from the common fisheries policy, rightly seeks to reduce the catching of fish that are below minimum conservation size and to ensure a proper audit trail for those caught. The latter also raises issues around monitoring and recording; this will in turn contribute to better data that can be used to inform future quota decisions.

Paragraph (c) of subsection (6), which my probing amendment proposes leaving out, refers to allowing bycatches to be landed

“only where this is appropriate”

and an incentive to catch undersize fish is not created as a result of the landing. As we sought to make clear in our explanatory statement, we wish to understand the circumstances in which Ministers believe the landing of bycatch will be “appropriate”. Presumably this is meant in the context of the landing obligation, in order to prevent fish simply being discarded back into the sea—a practice which we have fought for many years to bring to an end.

If this is the case, would it not be better for the Bill to be explicit in this regard, and for the references to the prevention of incentivising the landing of bycatch to make clear that such fish cannot be sold for human consumption, thereby producing an economic benefit? Or, if the phraseology does not relate purely to the landing obligation, perhaps the Minister could outline which other circumstances are deemed as being appropriate for landing bycatch at ports?

We are very much probing at this stage of proceedings, but I think I speak on behalf of many across your Lordships' House when I say that we need confidence that, whether we use the terms “discards” or “bycatch”, the Government and devolved Administrations will be properly equipped to build on recent progress and answer the wider probing made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the Government remain fully committed to ending the wasteful discarding of fish, acknowledging the impact this can have on fisheries management and the marine environment. I fully support that the issue of illegal discarding should be addressed within the fisheries objectives. In doing so, we will ensure that policies in the joint fisheries statement will focus on this important area.

The prevention of illegal discarding is addressed in the fisheries objectives through the “bycatch objective”, which sets out a series of “sub-objectives” to address the issue of illegal discarding. These include avoiding or reducing bycatch, ensuring that catches are recorded and accounted for, and ensuring that fish stocks are landed. It is overfishing and the catching of unwanted bycatch that result in illegal discarding, and the objective has been named the “bycatch objective” to address the root cause of the issue. For example, unreported catches, whether landed or discarded, contribute significant uncertainty to the scientific assessment process. Such uncertainty enhances the risk that stocks are fished at levels beyond MSY.

One limb of the bycatch objective is that catches are recorded and accounted for. We will improve the accuracy of the data available on fishing mortality and enable sustainable quota setting that avoids overfishing. I therefore believe that my noble friend’s aims are already met through the existing bycatch objective. An additional discards objective—which the amendment does not seek to define—risks adding complexity and confusion when read in conjunction with the existing objective, which already serves the purpose of setting a clear framework for tackling discards.

In future, we will have the opportunity to be creative and adopt new measures and flexibilities outside the current common fisheries policy toolkit, to implement a workable discards ban. The Fisheries Bill—we will no doubt come on to this—sets out provisions to introduce one such flexibility: a discard prevention charging scheme to provide a mechanism that allows fishers to pay for additional quota to cover any excess catch that would otherwise push them into illegal fishing. Alongside the MMO and industry, Defra is exploring the use of remote electronic monitoring—REM—as a cost-effective and efficient way of monitoring fishing activities, including the effectiveness of selected gear types, and ensuring compliance.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for saying that his amendment is a probing amendment. I am aware that he seeks to understand the circumstances in which the Government believe that landing bycatch will be “appropriate”. I believe that this is something to which my noble friend Lady Byford also referred. Under the common fisheries policy—CFP—the landing obligation, which was fully implemented last year, requires all species subject to catch limits to be landed and counted against quota rather than discarded at sea, subject to certain exceptions. Now that we have left the EU, the UK will develop a discards policy that is tailored to our industry. It will have an emphasis on reducing the level of unintentional and unwanted bycatch through sustainable and selective fishing. However, even when our fishing practices are highly selective—this is a point that the noble Lord absolutely recognised—there will be instances when this unwanted bycatch cannot be avoided entirely, given the high number of mixed fisheries in UK waters. The sub-objective that the noble Lord seeks to remove with his amendment specifies that bycatch is landed only if appropriate. This is because, for example, if catch is scientifically proven to have high survivability, it could be beneficial to the long-term sustainability of the stock for it to be returned alive to the sea, rather than landed dead. I use that as an example that we need to think through.

However, the crux of the amendment is that the Government would not have to describe how and when bycatch would be landed in the joint fisheries statement. I have already set out the critical importance of understanding what is taken from the sea; removing this sub-objective could undermine our future discards policy and our ability to advance our scientific understanding of the state of our fisheries.

I should add an embellishment for my noble friend Lady Byford. Where we refer to a good chance of survivability—which I have already raised—there could, for instance, be high-survivability exemptions. Where it is accepted that unwanted catches of certain species in certain fisheries are unavoidable and costly to handle, a small percentage of the catch is permitted to be discarded through the de minimis exemptions.

I say in particular to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, with whom I was pleased to discuss this matter, that in further consideration of the Bill the word “bycatch” is not intended to denigrate the absolutely clear requirement that discard is addressed; rather, “bycatch” is a better description of dealing with the issue and its root causes. My noble friend knows that there are, as I said, references to “discards” in the draft legislation. The point about bycatch as an objective is precisely that we think this wording covers and addresses the matter in a wider sense. However, I think we all want the same objective, and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 11th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this important and strategic Bill.

In the region of 470 days has passed since the Government published the first version of their Fisheries Bill, back in October 2018. The then Secretary of State, Michael Gove, spoke of how the Government was finally putting our hard-working fishers and hard-up coastal communities first after years of them being ignored and undermined by the workings of the common fisheries policy of the EU. However, as the Conservative Party found itself in trouble and its numbers in the Commons began to fall, this Bill was mysteriously stalled before Report. It never made it to your Lordships’ House—meaning that we are now looking at implementing an entirely new fisheries regime on an accelerated timetable. That hardly provides the due consideration to bring the clarity that UK fishers urgently require.

I am sure we will hear some of the same rhetoric from the Minister today, but we are all serious about improving the prospects of the UK’s fishing industry and coastal communities. The Minister shares this commitment—he has demonstrated that in his correspondence and briefing to Peers, for which we are most grateful—but Labour needs to be sure that this Bill does all that it needs to do to have confidence in the Government’s proposals.

I certainly welcome the more collaborative approach that has been adopted with the devolved Administrations. We have not always seen such a productive approach in relation to Brexit legislation. The priority now is to instil the further confidence that devolved Ministers will be able to play their role in shaping the delivery of the new regime, with the inclusion of their priorities.

As was the case with the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill—and as we will see with the Agriculture Bill and Environment Bill when they reach this House—the Government have chosen to amend the legislation following the recent election. Following some of the criticisms of the original Bill, many of these changes are welcome. However, some need to be enhanced further. For example, we recognise and appreciate the clarity provided by the new Clause 1. This replicates and adds to the number of principles and objectives which underpin the common fisheries policy that has governed access to British waters in previous decades. However, the clause does not include the necessary objective to land fish from British waters at British ports if it is to bring prosperity back to coastal communities.

Several other aspects of the Bill do not quite meet Labour’s hopes and expectations. The Minister will tell us that the Bill has sustainability at its heart, and I agree. However, there is a worrying lack of detail over the Government’s plans regarding maximum sustainable yield. The common fisheries policy has disappointed in relation to the protection of fish stocks, but we will need more detail from the Minister to be confident that the new regime will present a genuine step forward. As part of that, we will explore mechanisms for the Government to provide periodic reports to Parliament on the impacts of their new fisheries regime.

We also see in the Bill that the Government have inserted new commitments on climate change. This is great news. However, there is no mention of how fishers will be assisted in cutting down on the use of harmful plastics or adopting the use of greener technologies, both at sea and during processing. Nor is there any statutory commitment for the sector to meet net-zero emissions. The challenge is that the Bill needs to bring across aspects of the commitment of public goods in other Defra Bills into this framework. There are areas where we would like to see real progress over the course of the next decade, and I certainly do not want us to look back on this Bill as a missed opportunity.

We are not alone with such concerns. While they acknowledge the progress made since publication of the first Bill, groups including the Marine Conservation Society and Greener UK have called for the toughening and tightening up of the Bill’s measures on climate change and ecosystem sustainability. We stand ready to work with those organisations and others to facilitate those debates. It is encouraging to see that your Lordships’ sub-committee report on discards has been well receive and that the Government have included new mechanisms in the Bill to tackle this. Amendments will be tabled in Committee to examine how this will work. We certainly welcome the increased responsibilities of the Marine Management Organisation.

Having promised to cut the much-derided red tape of Brussels, the Government have produced a second iteration of the Bill that has somehow become more cumbersome. The fishing industry needs the Government to understand that many regulations must be much clearer, more viable and realistic, in tune with the evidence from those who have to abide by them. After all, that was the promise made so frequently and forcibly during the campaigns.

Despite 40 pages having been added since the first Bill, the document omits other important topics. While we accept the need for a new licensing regime and a new power to set annual fishing quota opportunities, there is very little information on the interplay between the two. Will a boat need a licence to secure quota, or will having quota be a precondition of receiving a licence? How will the quota regime operate? What will happen with regard to the UK’s share of UK quotas on 1 January 2021? With Britain now an independent coastal state, will the Government unilaterally take back 100% of the quota on day one, before redistribution, or will they adopt a phased approach? Will Ministers seek continued access to non-British distant waters where some of the UK fleet has such an interest?

While the Bill introduces offences for illegal fishing, we do not yet know what enforcement will look like on the ground—or, rather, on the open seas. Recent media reports suggest that the Government are bolstering the number of both boats and personnel, but I know of colleagues, including my noble friend Lord West of Spithead, who want more detail; indeed, he has put down a Question on the Order Paper for tomorrow.

The Bill lacks detail on how fishers will be protected and conflict avoided. This will need to be tested long before the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement. In Committee, we will be probing the Government’s plans to ensure that a fair quota is allocated to small boats, facilitating the creation of new jobs at sea, in ports and in the food supply chain. There will be amendments to ensure that a majority of catch in UK waters is landed at UK ports, that UK-registered boats have the first option to take up further quota, that the Government retain a strategic reserve of quota to assist with achieving maximum sustainable yield and that foreign vessels cannot undercut UK boats on safety or employment standards. The Minister referred in his opening remarks to the dangers faced by those at sea. Recognising this, we call for the raising of standards and not an undercutting of UK livelihoods.

I very much hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the Commons are willing to work collaboratively on this legislation. It can be improved and, whatever the changed circumstances in the other place, it is clearly in the interests of our fishers that the Government approach this process with a commitment to work with your Lordships’ House. We will be tabling a number of amendments, some of which we have already suggested to the Minister and his departmental officials. I very much hope that the responses to those amendments throughout Committee stage will be constructive and that, whether through government or opposition amendments, we will ultimately send a much-improved Bill to our colleagues in the House of Commons.

Trade Deals: Animal Welfare

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Prime Minister was not saying anything new: Ugandan beef already has tariff-free access to our market. As a less-developed country, Uganda has duty-free and quota-free access for all products, with the exception of arms and ammunition. However, there are currently no imports of Ugandan beef because it does not meet the standards applied on imports into the European Union or the standards that will be required now that we have left the European Union. The situation therefore remains exactly the same.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his Front-Bench duties and declare my interests in a farming enterprise as recorded in the register. Regarding fair competition for farmers and consumer confidence for the public, equivalence of standards will be a difficult area in trade Bills. During the recent Trade Bill in the last Parliament, amendments ensured the maintenance of UK levels of statutory protection of welfare and environmental standards. Can the Minister confirm that this is now a way forward for government policy and that such necessary provisions will be contained in the various Bills and regulations that will need to be re-enacted?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I will make two points. First, the Government are committed to introducing a new sentience clause—a much debated issue in the last Parliament. That is not simply a case of translating an EU principle into UK law; when translated it will go much further. It will not have the exemptions, and it will not only apply to a few narrow sectors but will cross the entire decision-making process of government. Secondly, our Environment Bill, which was introduced in the other place just a few days ago, is in and of itself, because of what it contains, a non-regression Bill—a non- regression commitment that will require the Government legally to build on the standards we are proud of, but which we would all like to see improved.

Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to this very important matter for the UK. I am grateful to him and his officials for their time in providing a very helpful briefing.

Some of the language in this extensive SI is unfathomable to anyone not steeped in the science. As just one example, Regulation 4(6)(b)(ii) in Part 3 refers to,

“an official statement that it has been squared to entirely remove the natural rounded surface”.

This seemed an absurd statement to me and I am extremely grateful for the explanation that squaring a tree trunk removes the bark, which harbours many pests and diseases. This bark is then chipped or made into sawdust. The SI sets out regulations for how that by-product is to be treated, dependent on the country of origin, before importation, thus avoiding the transfer of disease.

The biosecurity of our native trees, shrubs and plants against pests and diseases is one of the most important aspects of ensuring that our countryside and way of life are preserved into the future. When and if we leave the EU, being confident that imported pot-grown oak trees are free from oak tree moth is vital. The oak tree is such a national icon that it would be devastating if it were to suffer the fate brought by Dutch elm disease and ash dieback. There appear to be a number of processionary moths attacking our trees, as the Minister has said, from oaks through to pines. It will be important to try to ensure that imports come only from areas and countries which are declared protected zones and to import at the time of year when the pests are known to have died off due to temperature or are dormant.

I turn now to cut flowers and pot-grown plants, some of which are seasonal. We are currently approaching the season when hundreds of thousands of poinsettias will appear in nurseries, florists and supermarkets. Some of us may even be given them as gifts. Poinsettias are grown under glass in cold climates, but in the open in warmer areas such as the southern states of the USA. Plants grown under glass are susceptible, as the Minister has said, to tobacco whitefly, which is undetectable to the naked eye. This pest spreads a virus which, if imported, could get into our salad crops, which are also grown in glass-houses. In an age where climate change is high on everyone’s agenda and in which we should be moving towards more self-sufficient, homegrown food production, the protection of salad crops is extremely important.

Another flower import is the cut rose. Most of these come from EU countries or east African countries such as Kenya. All come from protected zones, free from the rose rosette virus, which causes leaf curl and flowers to drop. India and the Americas are not protected zones and have the virus. It is obvious that importing cut flowers from across the world by air is not sustainable and doing little to help with climate change, but buying flowers only in season is a difficult message to get across to the public.

On 14 February and Mother’s Day, vast quantities of roses will be imported, especially long-stemmed red roses. Those coming from protected zones will be flown to airports close to our flower markets, such as the one in Bristol, in my own area. Can the Minister say how many flower markets there are in the UK and whether they receive roses and flowers imported from rose rosette-free zones? I regret that I can envisage a scenario where unscrupulous flower sellers and importers looking to make a quick buck will see the opportunity, especially around 14 February, to buy and import roses from unprotected zones such as Canada, America or India. This could be devastating for one of our country’s national treasures: the English rose. Will the Minister give assurances that there will be measures in place to prevent this happening? Will licences for importation be scrupulously checked around these sensitive dates in our calendar?

While it is very touching to receive a bouquet of red roses on Valentine’s Day, personally I would much rather have a bunch of UK-grown daffodils and tulips. These flowers bring such colour and hope to us all when they start to emerge in the spring, heralding the passing of winter.

Lastly, I understand that in the UK we have 24 protected zones. Will the Minister say where the protected zones are around the country?

This is an extremely important SI which will help protect our trees and plants. I fully support the measures we are debating this afternoon.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his excellent introduction to the regulations before your Lordships’ House this afternoon. I am very grateful to him and his officials at the department for the detailed briefing they organised yesterday. I declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of EU funds.

As the Minister said, these regulations include the latest updates agreed at EU level. I commend his department for taking the lead in EU discussions on protection against the rose rosette virus and extra protection measures against the oak processionary moth. But that begs the question: what mechanisms do the Government envisage are necessary to continue the UK’s influence and the exchange of information should the UK leave the EU? What are the sharing arrangements around biosecurity post EU exit date? Under the withdrawal Bill, will the UK still have access to the surveillance notification systems of the EU? What contingency arrangements are in place in the event of there being no access, which would occur if the UK was so careless as to let a no-deal scenario come to pass? Will the Minister at least assure me that all future updates that the EU may undertake are being carefully monitored?

As the Minister explained, these new regulations follow the latest risk assessments to protect biosecurity while facilitating the exchange, trade and movement of plants and plant material. There are many reasons for such movement, from access to genetic material, research and development and commercial trade to the movement of plants and food for retail to the consumer. The overriding and most important factor is to reduce all risk to biosecurity. I approve these technical amendments as being necessary to ensure that all EU protective measures against the introduction and spread of harmful organisms are in place and effective on any EU exit date.

Controls must take precedence over and above commercial pressures. Nevertheless, the Government must ensure that trade is facilitated within these parameters. For example, one of the measures taken is against tobacco whitefly, which pose risk to greenhouse produce through the supply of poinsettias, which are much in demand at Christmas. The pest is endemic in regions that produce poinsettias. Is the Minister satisfied that the APHA will have the necessary resources available to cope with supply chains sensitive to such dates, whether it be poinsettias for Christmas, roses for Valentine’s Day or flowers generally for Mother’s Day? What contingency arrangements are in place to deal with seasonal spikes in demand?

One of the points of discussion yesterday involved protected zones whereby the UK recognises zones as free of certain risks to enhance exchange with biosecurity. Interestingly, many of these areas are in Ireland. Can the Minister say whether these zones will continue to be recognised and even increased to include areas outside of the EU? Will other defensive measures be taken to restrict areas and entry points? In the canopy of agencies and inspectorates, is the department developing strategies around controlling access to specific entry points, ports or airports, or even restricting trade to disease-dormant limited periods in the calendar, in order to spread not only the load of biosecurity but also the risks of any breaches? Are there any such restrictions in place at the moment and is the noble Lord confident that such controls are working and sufficient?

Rural Economy (Rural Economy Committee Report)

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an excellent report and a credit to your Lordships’ House. I welcome this debate and am grateful for all the contributions on the wide-ranging issues generated by the report. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for chairing the Select Committee and for his excellent introduction to the debate. He gave a very good synopsis and I agree with his conclusions. I also thank all members of the committee for their contributions, drawing attention to the rural economy. I declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of EU funds and, in previous times, as a director of the Cheshire & Warrington Economic Alliance—a sub-regional body under the North-West Development Agency—and other organisations.

Rural England faces significant and wide-ranging challenges, as demonstrated by the sheer size and breadth of the committee’s report. The committee is to be congratulated further in that the report brings with it reflections of the long tailback of different approaches and attempts by different Governments over many years to deal comprehensively once again with the challenges of the rural economy. I concur with the report’s conclusion that current government policy does not take enough account of the contribution that rural economies can make to the nation’s prosperity and well-being, or the specific needs of rural economies and the challenges facing them.

For too long, these issues have been sidelined and not considered in the context of wider policy-making, which has resulted in the application of policies devised largely for urban and suburban economies, which are often inappropriate for rural Britain. The report is timely and urgently needs to be responded to more adequately by the Government and by Defra in particular, as the UK has to regenerate from the misguided policies of austerity as it stands on the cusp of a decision on its future place in the world. There needs to be a concerted focus on putting the rural economy at the heart of policy-making. We have heard several proposals recently concerning whether this policy area should be separated from the current Defra brief. The Government and Defra need to consider carefully the language and names they give to policy initiatives if they are to embrace the right culture. This tends to have the bureaucratic straitjacket of the machinery of government and how that interacts with businesses and communities at all levels, whether central, regional or local. To talk universally about an industrial strategy is immediately to paint all areas with one brush. The word “industry” is not one that resonates with rurality or diversity. While there may be different interpretations of demarcations and structures, there is a need for a different tone and use of language to reflect the rural perspective with titles such as “rural enterprise strategies” or even “local enterprise strategies” rather than using the word “industrial”.

Some 72% of people in rural areas are employed in SME companies, compared with 42% in urban areas. There can be little embedding of new approaches and outcomes are unlikely to change if there is a lack of recognition in the Government’s approach, as characterised by their general complacency in their response, emphasising local authorities when they are highly constrained by central government financial statutory straitjackets and where public-private partnerships struggle with bureaucratic interpretations of what their areas need most. The report concludes correctly that there is a huge disparity and inconsistency between delivery in different areas. Devolution, regional authorities, city-based structures, development agencies and LEPs all face challenges in engagement, effectiveness and relevance. The restructuring tends to lead to tarnishing changes with a political hue. The report underlines the target of successful evidence-based outcomes in individual areas that work best for them.

Perhaps Defra as a whole should be the champion of the rural economy given that the nomenclature of “rural affairs” carries with it the downplay of the rural economy into an odd mixture of miscellaneous activities on the periphery. Being the champion of the rural economy does not mean that the department must be diminished by hiving off parts to the DCLG, the Cabinet Office or DCMS. A key undercurrent of the report is the emphasis it places on rural-proofing as a vital ingredient to embed the interests of the rural economy into government. This is fundamental and cannot be emphasised enough. I welcome the recommendations made in the report in this respect. It draws attention to the inclusion of a rural impact assessment in all legislation and providing an annual report to Parliament to include non-departmental public bodies, local authorities and all spending bodies.

Our rural towns and villages are home to 9 million people and the vital role of genuinely affordable housing in thriving rural communities must not be underestimated. An understanding of this, together with the report’s recommendation for adequate rural-proofing of our housing and planning policies is critical to the very survival of rural communities. They are feeling the pressure of the broken housing market as much as towns and cities are. A quality affordable home feels out of reach to so many, given that most such homes cost 8.8 times the average lower wages in rural areas as compared with 7.5 times in predominantly urban areas excluding London. I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for her remarks on housing and its central role in rural communities.

The rural housing crisis has been exacerbated by government policies. Indeed, the report highlights that since 2012, of every eight homes sold under right-to-buy schemes, only one is replaced in the rural community. Unless action is taken now to replace the affordable homes that have been lost to right to buy and rocketing house prices, there is a real danger that living in the countryside will become the reserve of the wealthy and that the diversity of rural communities will be undermined. Access to affordable homes can enable generations to stay in close proximity, keeping families together and tackling the other scourges of rural living—loneliness and social isolation—as highlighted in the report. Affordable homes provide critical support for the rural economy, including the labour force needed for the farming and food businesses that contribute so much to the rural economy. The National Housing Federation and housing associations believe that genuinely affordable homes are the key to equipping rural communities to thrive.

Successful rural economies depend on a wide range of services and support to help individual businesses grow and attract people to work and prosper in our countryside. However, as local people struggle to remain in their communities due to the housing crisis, we are seeing the loss of vital services. Education and colleges were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. Schools in rural areas have made up 40% of school closures over the past decade, up from 20% in the decade before, while we are losing rural post offices at an average of three per month. Travelling to appointments further afield is made even harder due to the cuts in bus services in rural areas. This, together with cuts to rural post offices, banks and enterprise through the Plunkett Foundation mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has made life for people in rural Britain extremely difficult, hitting the hardest those most in need of public services.

Any consideration of the rural economy and its needs is answered by the number one priority, that of digital connectivity. It is the cornerstone that shapes the transformation of all areas of rural life and success is dependent on it. All the contributions to this debate have mentioned it. The nature of the rural economy means that it is much more diverse, with challenges around costs and scarcity. This needs to be recognised in the targets for the delivery of broadband and mobile phone signals. Some 95% of premises in the UK have access to broadband, but this covers only 75% of rural businesses.

Figure 3 in the report gives the percentages of registered business units in rural England and portrays that the largest of them are, first, agriculture, forestry and fishing, and, secondly, professional and technical services at 15% each, with the accompanying food and tourism sectors at 5%. It also reveals that more than 35% of enterprises are SMEs. Development can only proceed in step with the digital economy. The revolution of computerisation and data management in agriculture is needed both at the cow side, as I can vouch for in dairying, and in the tractor cab, where precision farming is necessary for minimum tilling and the avoidance of soil compaction. It is not clear from figure 3 where transport and integrated supply chains for goods come in this appraisal, but necessarily professional and technical services provide vital support across all enterprises. Tourism, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is crying out for a rural sector deal and is characterised by establishments all needing connectivity for their customers.

However, in the digital world, the government targets are too slow. Currently, 4G coverage is at only 67% of geographical UK coverage even though this may be at 98% in urban areas. For rural areas to benefit from the expansion of 4G, 2026 is too slow: 95% coverage is needed by 2024. Focusing on 5G fails to recognise that the basic infrastructure of 4G has to be in place for areas to be able to benefit from 5G. Treasury spectrum auctions need to recognise the payoff between price and a more ambitious, quicker coverage, with more capacity throughout rural areas. No modern business—certainly not a rural-based one—can exist without 100% coverage of fibre to the home.

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this thorough and well-considered report, as well as all those who have participated in this excellent debate. While many of the challenges identified and discussed are not new, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the challenge Brexit presents to the rural economy. Indeed, the report acknowledges that rural economies and the farming sector in particular are significantly affected by the CAP, including its rural development pillar. Some rural areas have also received considerable support from other EU structural funds. The UK will lose access to such funding after its departure. Although the Government have committed to replacing these funds with a domestic shared prosperity fund, it is not yet clear how such a fund will be administered or how it will be delivered in rural areas, or even if the same total funding will be available.

With just three weeks until the Prime Minister insists that we will leave the EU—“do or die”—businesses remain very concerned about the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, which will have a catastrophic impact on the rural economy. I make no apology to the Minister for drawing attention once again—building on the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—to the fact that farmers are particularly vulnerable to a no-deal Brexit. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to address these concerns and additional challenges in his response. I note that nearly every speaker today has expressed disappointment in the Government’s reply.

Peatlands: Commercial Exploitation

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am pleased to say, as I think I may have said before, that we have already allocated £10 million to restore nearly 6,500 hectares of degraded peatland. These projects started last year and are due to complete in 2020. They are about raising the water table and re-wetting peat, along with the revegetation of bare peat. A lot of work is going on and we absolutely recognise that we need to roll these large-scale projects out more widely.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, what work—and to what conclusion—has the Minister’s department undertaken on the application of a carbon tax on sales of peat?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, obviously, that is a possible action, but we want to find the alternatives that will make the use of peat redundant and unnecessary. Peat is a very important natural resource that we need for our ecosystems, which is why we want to pursue that route. However, the noble Lord is right: in the end, if we cannot get it done through this voluntary approach, we will have to look at all eventualities. That is where, with the peat strategy, we will need to be determined to improve the peatland situation.

Brexit: Plant and Animal Biosecurity

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee for this excellent report on biosecurity in the context of the Brexit challenge. The report is part of a series of reports on different environmental, agricultural and trade aspects of Brexit that it is important to debate and consider together. I congratulate the committee on its work and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his introductory remarks. This has been an excellent debate and I declare my interest as noted in the register.

The report highlights four strands to the inquiry: the biosecurity implications of leaving the EU in relation to animals and animal products, plants, food safety, and invasive non-native species. I thank the Minister and his department for the Government’s extensive 15-page response. I think this shows that the Government are by and large aware of all the issues and have covered the implications under a no-deal exit scenario through the immense number of statutory instruments brought before your Lordships’ House over recent weeks.

From recent experiences, Defra could be said to be well equipped to deal with the import and export of animals and animal products. I refer to the lessons learned from BSE, FMD, avian flu and potential zoonosis diseases. While the report highlights the dependence on EU systems, the UK in many regards shares and reciprocates the data and monitoring necessary. The debate has also shown that complacency must be guarded against. Veterinary scanning surveillance enables early detection and investigation of new or re-emerging animal diseases. The diagnostic service is the cornerstone of the scanning surveillance system. In England and Wales it is delivered by APHA’s network of VI centres and partner providers contracted by APHA. It will be important to ensure that the capacity and capability of the domestic surveillance system, which has been under financial pressure for many years, continues to work effectively. Can the Minister inform the House how many VI centres remain in the UK and whether they are still adequately positioned within an hour’s travel from farms, to ensure relevance for disease monitoring to be able to be fed into the national surveillance system and to improve detection and animal management on farms?

The Government state that UK laboratories that lose EU reference laboratory status have already been provided additional funding, and that this will ensure a strong level of expertise and research resource. However, the Government have no immediate plans to introduce an independent body to replicate the audit and advisory support of, for example, DG SANTE in Brussels to ensure biosecurity standards in non-EU countries. This new entity could reduce biosecurity risks posed by trade. Will the Government commit to review the situation in the light of any final outcome, not only to EU negotiations but to future international trade agreements?

Quite distinct from reference laboratories, biosecurity facilities will need to be developed further at entry points to the UK. What is the Government’s intention regarding entry and exit points for trade—ports and airports? Is it the Government’s intention that all ports for trade will be facilitated equally for inspections, certifications and monitoring, or will the Government concentrate on specific reference status points for enhanced protocols, such as may be required of the UK to abide by the new biosecurity phytosanitary certificates necessary following the UK’s change of status to that of a third country?

The Government are correct to recognise the importance of a balance between rights and responsibilities in international trade, underpinned by biosecurity being the definitive requirement that will not be compromised by any future trade deal.

The report highlights the staff requirements and underlines the reliance on vets from overseas. Can the Minister update the House on the shortage occupation list in the new immigration policy proposals? The reliance on EU veterinary surgeons is particularly acute in the meat hygiene sector, where 95% of the veterinary workforce graduated overseas. This inspection work is crucial to food standards and labelling, necessary to minimise the risks of food fraud in the international food chain, to promote animal welfare and to provide public health reassurance to consumers at home and overseas.

All biological trade is accompanied by documentation under TRACES. The Government’s preferred option is to retain access while developing a UK notification equivalent. It must be recognised that this applies only to commercial activities, and the protocols around the pet travel scheme appear to have been abused through the option to trade as non-commercial rather than under TRACES. Will the Minister commit to review the pet travel scheme of 2012 in the light of the undercover investigations by the Dogs Trust and others that reveal serious loopholes in biosecurity measures, highlighting ineffective border controls and negligible sharing of evidence, the falsification of data and treatments, and a lack of sufficient penalties?

Following ash dieback, first identified as resulting from imported nursery stocks in 2012, the Government have moved quickly to bring about plant biosecurity under a more robust system, commensurate with the standards pertaining in the animal sector. The spread of the disease in the UK, through the planting of infected nursery stock and wood, can also be enhanced by the wind-borne distribution of fungal spores, such that the disease could well have been in the country much longer.

I thank the Woodland Trust for its briefing on the report, and for its proposal to the Government that a wide assurance scheme be introduced for all plants on sale in the UK. The Woodland Trust created its UK-sourced and grown assurance scheme to ensure that all native tree stock is healthy and pest free. Assurance schemes are well understood and recognised in the animal sector, and I ask the Minister to take this idea back to his department and consider extending it to plants, alongside developing and providing best practice guidance on how to deal with affected trees and broader messages to the public.

The need for symmetry of controls for biosecurity across both plant and animal risks and threats needs to be recognised. The Government have committed to implement the new EU plant health law in the UK. The report also highlights the importance of similar clarity on the EU animal health law which is under development.

The last of the four strands concerns invasive non-native species, or invasive alien species. This is intrinsically a cross-border undertaking, given that organisms do not respect national boundaries and can enter the UK via land, sea or air. The UK will continue to need the benefits of EU data sharing, collaboration and cross-border liaison to keep indigenous flora and fauna safe in the future. The report urged the Government to ensure ongoing access to the EU IAS information system. The Government’s response did not answer this point. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to negotiate continued participation in as many of the EU’s notification and intelligence-sharing networks as possible, including continued access to the EU IAS information system?

The EU IAS regulation provides some preventive, reactive and management measures for tackling IAS, and includes the responsibility of restoring damaged and destroyed ecosystems based on the “polluter pays” principle. An amendment to the withdrawal Bill to enact this measure was not accepted by the Government. This measure, together with the creation of the environmental protection office, is due under the future environment Bill, as the UK faces a governance gap because there is no independent authority to which reports on actions on invasive species can be made or by which any UK biosecurity failings can be held to account. Will the Minister explain how the governance gap will be filled in the interim? Will a new biosecurity Bill be brought forward to prevent the introduction of unwanted invasive species with additional unknown pests and diseases? The Government’s response under paragraphs 43 to 186 of the report suggests that proposals are being developed to provide further clarification on this and on the land border on the island of Ireland being treated as a single epidemiological unit. That would be extremely timely.

The report also highlights the challenge to the UK framework from the devolution settlements and the various differences in approach. The need for a close working relationship between all parts of the United Kingdom is recognised, so that all parts can play a full role in developing a UK-wide biosecurity framework, where ecological and geographical differences that give rise to different solutions do not create either internal borders, vulnerabilities or trade distortions. While the Government’s response does not comment on this, I am sure the Minister may wish to underline its relevance in the debate.

With the backcloth of the Chatham House report on the threats to biosecurity against the imperative action needed on climate change, this report is timely in the consideration of threats to the UK ecology and recognised way of life.

[Baroness Barran]

Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the timings.

[Lord Grantchester]

I am well aware of the timings. I thank the noble Baroness and I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion.

As the future trading relationships behind the glib phrase “global Britain” still need to be agreed and reconciled, this report has underlined the most important relationship of all—how the UK interacts with its nearest neighbours. The Minister has a long list of questions to address on a wide-ranging report with many serious risk management issues.