Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Inglewood and Lord Wigley

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to these amendments because I believe that each and every one of them is important—not least because of their implications as much as their substance, which matters a lot. After all, the legislation around which they are drafted was made entirely properly via the so-called community method, endorsed by Parliament during our membership of the European Union. As a result, they are as legitimate a piece of law as any domestic statute.

When we left the European Union, it was entirely sensible to slide the then acquis directly on to the domestic statute book and to add a provision enabling amendment by statutory instrument. After all, there is a need for all kinds of consequential adjustment. But it does not follow from this that they have to be amended by statutory instrument, merely that they can be. Equally, perhaps, they can as effectively be amended by Act of Parliament.

Clearly, too, when we left the European Union, the power that Parliament bestowed on the Union in respect of international agreements fell away. This means that such international agreements now again revolve around the use of the royal prerogative. However, as has been pointed out on many occasions, the character of the interdependent world in which we now live means that binding international commitments have a much bigger impact on this country than much domestic legislation, which of course is why the CRaG Act was put on the statute book. The reality is, as many people have pointed out, that the procedures under the CRaG Act are a shadow of substantive full parliamentary procedures in terms of scrutiny, checks and balances, transparency and so on, not least because the crucial international decisions are essentially completed before and not after UK parliamentary deliberation, and by then it is a bit late.

The reality of the world that we live in is that Parliament is given Hobson’s choice. In my mind, for serious, wide-ranging legislative change, that is very undesirable and comes about because of a congruence of our leaving the EU and the role of the royal prerogative. Its effect on legislators and the public is substantial in terms of diminution of their involvement, and scrutiny of what is going on. That is one thing for minor technicalities, but not for major policy changes.

The Government have argued this afternoon that they have made promises in respect of a whole range of these things. Of course they have, but, equally, it was interesting that the Chancellor said earlier today that he would try—I repeat, “try”—to deliver as many manifesto promises as he could. Already there is a bit of a let-out there. And let us be clear: it is not unheard of for Governments to change. After all, I think we have had four in the last five years and, dare I say it, sometimes promises are broken. While it is convenient for Ministers to have Parliament rubber-stamp their wishes, it is not Parliament’s role to do so. Rather, we should deliberate on and then accept, refuse or amend the Government’s proposals—and that is slightly different.

The bulk of the amendments in this group reinforce Parliament’s role in developing agricultural and/or food law. It is difficult to think of anything more important domestically than the quality, wholesomeness and origins of the food that we eat here, be it from the perspective of human physical and mental health, its impact on the NHS and public expenditure or its impact on land management and the environment across the country. In a properly organised world, I suggest that significant changes in respect of these matters merit full parliamentary scrutiny, and at least the amendment is a move in the right direction.

The environment and climate change are in the same category. After all, all carbon emissions, wherever they may originate, do not respect national boundaries, and the effect of excessive emissions, regardless of where they originate, is in general terms a bit like putting the whole globe into a microwave.

On top of all this, where proposed domestic change to ex-EU legislation involves breaches of international legislation—something which it is clear from the events of the last few weeks that the country does not like—I do not believe that the Government should be able to proceed towards that unless either the proper international withdrawal legal procedures have been followed or they have first had express parliamentary authority to proceed.

These amendments do not go as far as I would like, but they are a real step in the right direction.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to speak very briefly in support of the amendments that address issues of food safety and the importing of agricultural goods. I had intended to add my name to the lead amendment, Amendment 20, and I concur very much with the points made very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.

As was mentioned in the first bank of amendments that we debated last week, dealing with environmental issues, in this Bill we are overlapping significantly with the debates that we had on the Agriculture Bill. That is again the position as we address the safeguards needed against importing food of inferior quality to that produced in the UK or the European Union.

I am not going to repeat the arguments that I put forward on Report of the Agriculture Bill, but it might be as well to remind the Committee that amendments on those issues were carried in the context of that Bill and they are equally relevant in the context of this one. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind as they seek to pass a Trade Bill—namely, to make it acceptable to all parts of this House. I commend Amendment 20.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Inglewood and Lord Wigley

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

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

My Lords, having had the opportunity to read last Thursday’s part debate, I cast my short remarks in general terms. When I read what was said on that occasion, I was reminded of what my father said to me many years ago: real farming—that is, responsible farming—is farming with the grain of nature, because farming, agriculture and forestry are about cropping, not quarrying. This is why soil fertility matters, whether impoverishing the soil or treating it in such a hard way that the topsoil might blow away, as I understand has happened in parts of the Fens.

It is not as though some help, of an appropriate sort, cannot be applied. After all, there is a difference between a sensible and responsible application of fertilisers and certain pesticides to unlock the soil’s potential and simply using the earth as a kind of binding agent—a chemical mixture from which crops are derived. The same general approach applies to animals. I have considerable sympathy with proponents of organic farming, but if you have animals there are occasions when you simply have to use antibiotics, as we do on my farm.

All this shows that there is an interconnectedness in good farming practice, which brings us to questions of agroecology and agroforestry. Again, it is all a matter of integrating land uses and techniques, which is why agroecology is so important. Different uses on the farm need to complement each other in an ecologically and economically sustainable balance. I cannot see that there is any alternative but to have a degree of bureaucracy, because every farm is different.

In particular, I will touch on the espousal of agroforestry by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is important that we are clear, in this wider context, about the difference between trees, woods and forests. In particular, trees, copses and belts are important parts of farms, while forestry and large woods are something slightly different. Of course, the noble Baroness is an enthusiast for wood pasture. That is a very tricky one, because once you introduce stock, unless it is at a very low density, the trees get destroyed. In the north of England, where I come from, wood pasture has been very badly damaged by the introduction of livestock. It will cost a considerable amount of money to reinstate it, which is not to say that that is not the right thing to do.

All this is about human intervention in the workings of nature. If we do not run with nature’s grain, we shall destroy our countryside and degrade its products, which, as a number of noble Lords have said, are what we eat. That is why we must treat these things with such care. I suspect that the golden rule is that we must not be greedy. Of course, that includes the state, which must recognise that all of a farm’s outputs, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, commented last week, are important in whatever form they come.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests in agricultural matters and my membership of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. I give enthusiastic support to Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to which I have added my name. I pay tribute to the excellent work that she has undertaken on these matters, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke with similar professional authority earlier in this debate last week.

My support for the amendment arises for three reasons. The first relates to the very real dangers of disabilities being triggered by exposure to chemicals among children, including babies in the womb. As an MP, I served for 11 years as vice-chair of the All-Party Group for Disability, working closely with the redoubtable Jack Ashley on these issues, not least regarding thalidomide. That experience taught me that we must always be guided by the precautionary principle. If there is any doubt whatever about possible ill effects of herbicides and pesticides, they should be banned unless and until it is proven beyond doubt that they are safe, not only for human beings, but for animals.

In this context, I respectfully disagree fundamentally with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, the last speaker in this debate on Thursday evening. The break has allowed me to study his precise words. He said that leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to develop our own food standards, avoiding the

“unnecessary and costly burdens on farmers”

because of EU regulations,

“which rely too much on the precautionary principle”.—[Official Report, 9/7/20; cols. 1324.]

I fundamentally disagree with this approach and invite the Minister to indicate whether the Government will distance themselves from the noble Viscount’s remarks.

My views are coloured not just by my involvement with disabled children. I have previously referred in the House to my late cousin, Owen Wigley, a Minnesota farmer who died from a condition that his family are convinced was triggered by exposure to the weedkiller Roundup, which is the subject of a raft of court cases in the United States. I have seen the devastating impact on the natural environment in my home area, where use of such chemicals in too strong a mix, which had not been adequately dose controlled, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, had the effect of wiping out all plant life in a field for a whole season, leaving it unusable for agricultural purposes. My wife also had a relative, a farmer in Wales, whose close family was convinced that his health suffered enormously from the effect of such chemicals in sheep dips. When I was an MP, I had a constituent whose family were convinced was severely disabled from exposure to such sheep-dipping chemicals.

Thirdly, I add my voice in support of the need to safeguard the process of pollination. The vital contribution of bees and other pollinators to our wildlife is fundamental to the survival of our natural environment and, in turn, humanity itself. This amendment provides an opportunity to place a responsibility on all engaged in the production of food to have a proactive awareness of these dangers at the forefront of their minds, and for the living world to be protected from such dire consequences.

If we are, rightly, to place such responsibilities on our food producers in these islands, they must also, most assuredly, be criteria against which the standards of all imported food should be measured. Products that fail to meet the required standard should be denied access to UK markets. I was so glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, highlight this. I urge the Government to accept Amendment 259.