EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fishing Industry

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, but his answers on this real crisis in the fishing industry at the moment are inadequate. When Michael Gove introduced the Government’s negotiating strategy for Brexit, in the House of Commons last spring, he said, with great enthusiasm, that Brexit would bring tens of thousands of new jobs in fishing to Britain. Does the Minister now regret that those promises were made?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I said that there would be a £100 million programme to modernise fleets and improve and increase the fish-processing industry. I also said that the agreement involved the equivalent of 25% of the total value taken by EU vessels from UK waters going to UK fishers. This is a feature of the first section, of five and a half years, of our new relationship as a sovereign state. I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that my answers are not adequate, but the investment we intend to undertake is because we think there is a very strong future for British fishing.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

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

Potential problems with the drafting of this clause have already been identified in this debate; for example, does the support go to the landlord or the tenant? The drafting of this amendment should be tightened up before Report stage, when I hope it will come back to the House.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I am no expert on agricultural questions but, as a Cumbria county councillor, I am deeply interested in them because they are so important to our local area. I hope that the Government will listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, has just said. The prospect of failing to avoid tariffs in agriculture in our current discussions with the EU represents a serious threat to the agricultural sector and, frankly, makes our present considerations under this Bill look relatively insignificant.

We have an opportunity to create a better system of support for farming and for the countryside. The debate on this group of amendments brings out my view that there is a lack of clarity about the objectives. Is this about farmers or about the wider rural economy? I strongly support Amendment 103, which outlines a broad set of objectives for financial assistance. I would be interested to know the Minister’s reaction to that amendment. Are the Government supportive of it, or do they think that it stretches the definition of eligibility for the ELM payments too far?

I have another concern. The common agricultural policy, which had many faults, was introduced as a measure almost of social assistance to facilitate economic transition on the continent from a rural to an urban society. In the 1950s, 30% of people in France worked on the land, while 25% did so in Germany and 40% in Italy, yet we saw in the decades after that a tremendous move to the cities. This was achieved with little social friction, and the support for farming was an important part of that transition. Of course, the way it was done had serious snags to it. Initially, it was done by giving subsidies to production. Why was it done that way? Because there was no other way of regulating it—no other simple way of handing money to the agricultural sector when it was in this process of transition.

I have two doubts about the Bill, both of which I think are relevant to this group of amendments. The first is: what are we setting these objectives for, farming or the countryside, and who will be eligible to receive the payments? How will these objectives be regulated? The Government give us little detail on that point. How are we going to tell whether farmers have met these very worthy objectives that are being debated in this set of amendments?

My second point is that, while I dare say economic assessments have been done—this is an economic question—when it comes to the problems of low-income farmers, who fulfil a vital social function in areas such as the hill farms of the Lake District, can we be sure that this new system of setting them environmental objectives will give them a sustainable living? That is what matters: are they going to get enough money to continue to do their job? The answer is that I do not know. What the Government are saying about environmental land management sounds very good and of course I support it—who would not?—but how is it going to be done and what will its economic consequences be for different farming communities? The Government have to give better answers to those questions before we can give proper consideration to the Bill.

[Lord Marlesford [V]]

I want to follow on closely from what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was saying. I believe that the Bill has to be changed somewhat. First, the emphasis should be more on the rural economy, of which farming is of course a key element. I believe that the way forward is to consolidate and formalise the diversification approach that many farmers have already moved on to. We should do so through the concept of the rural business unit, or RBU, as originally set out in 1992 in the Bunbury report of the CLA. At that time it was not adopted by the Government, but the CLA, of which I am a member, has developed the idea and recently presented it to the Treasury.

Historically, farmers have been among the earliest entrepreneurs, always open to new ideas of how to make the best use of areas of land, large or small. Equally, they have always seen themselves as being custodians of the land. That custodianship must continue to be buttressed by a strong and sensible planning system. The planning system that we have in this country is, together with the NHS, one of the two great inheritances from the post-war Attlee Government, and I have been rather concerned at stories that the Government are in some ways aiming to try to dismantle part of it. I say right away that they will have no support from me if they weaken the planning system.

The sort of activities that should be encouraged through the rural business unit include, obviously, tourism in its many forms; the protection and enhancement of the landscape; conservation and encouragement of our diversity of flora and fauna; forestry, as has been referred to, especially hardwoods; the provision of additional housing, especially through the sensitive conversion of redundant farm buildings into dwellings; the development of premises for small businesses to use, whether for homeworking, offices or manufacturing; the provision of additional access, with facilities for walkers and riders; sporting facilities, including shooting and fishing; and, certainly not least, the adding of value by processing the products of agriculture or forestry, whether arable, vegetable or animal. All this may involve changes to the tax rules to offer the same advantages of accounting integration that have long been encouraged for other industry and commerce. I hope that the Minister might look favourably on this approach.

Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, my interest in this topic arises from my role as a county councillor in Cumbria, where, of course, there are many issues to do with farming. In a sense, some people might think that this is a trivial regulation. It actually commits the Government to spend £2.8 billion, which I do not regard as a trivial amount of money. I welcome the certainty that it gives the farming community. All I would say—and this is no personal criticism of the Minister—is that in Cumbria we are also very dependent on structural funds, and we have no certainty about what will replace them at the end of this year.

I am a very strong pro-European and I greatly regret Brexit, but I was always a critic of the common agricultural policy, and I think that this is an opportunity for better arrangements for agriculture.

I welcome the curbs on payments to large farmers—I always thought they were excessive—but would like to have seen a further shift from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 in the allocation of money. That would have been a step towards the fulfilment of the environmental land management goal which, in principle, most of us support. However, we are stuck in what appears to be a very lengthy transition period, from direct payments to these new arrangements.

Opponents of the European Union’s agricultural policy were always very critical of direct payments for their bureaucracy, but we appear to be sticking to them for a long time. At the same time, Europe is going ahead with reforms of its own, such as trying to ensure that 25% of food is grown organically. I would just like to ask: why the slow pace of change? Could we not do better?

I think these issues are very relevant to hill farmers who, as I have discovered, are often in very desperate poverty. We do not tend to think of very poor people living in the countryside but some of our hill farmers are in a very bad situation, and a shift to a system of payment with stronger environmental objectives would be of great assistance to them.

I support the measure, but there are many unanswered questions.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

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

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, this is major legislation and I am sure that the goal of having a better set of arrangements for agriculture than we had under the common agricultural policy, including better environmental land management, has wide support on all sides of this House. However, it is easier to state these goals than to work out how you will make them work. The question just asked by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, about how public benefit will be measured, regulated and rewarded is very relevant.

Within this policy are two big unresolved tensions. On the one hand, the Government want something better than the common agricultural policy and when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, he set out ambitious objectives for something better. On the other hand is the Government’s ambition for global Britain and their determination to use the new freedoms of an independent trade policy as a result of Brexit to make up for the loss of access, or more constrained access, which there will undoubtedly be, to the EU single market.

The Government tell us that there will be no detriment to the EU standards that are now incorporated in UK law. We have the letter before us from the two Secretaries of State. I am not trying to argue that they are in some way misleading us; in fact, I have great personal respect for the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who has become the Trade Minister in this place. But our Ministers are rather naive about trade negotiations and will find that in the force majeure of trade—particularly if we get a bad deal from the EU, which I think we will—they will be under enormous political pressure to demonstrate that they can do deals elsewhere. Those deals will generally be bad deals for British agriculture. They will involve either some sacrifice of standards or increased quotas—for example, for Brazilian beef, US beef and that sort of thing—which will cause a lot of competitive pressure in certain parts of the industry.

That brings me to the second tension—that between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Environmental land management strikes me as a matter that should ideally be devolved, but the UK will control the trade negotiations, which will determine a lot of the standards to be applied. My forecast, which I am afraid is pessimistic, is that what happens in the trade negotiations on agriculture will be a cause of huge tension with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will set off political consequences that could threaten the unity of the United Kingdom. I am sorry to be so pessimistic but, while this is a good Bill, it is fatally flawed.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Crop Diversification Derogation) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I accept the case for this derogation and thank the Minister for introducing it so clearly. However, I would like to ask him some questions.

I was a great supporter of the CAP reforms of 2013, which introduced environmental and sustainability conditions into the single farm payment. It covered permanent grassland, ecologically focused areas such as field margins and the three-crop rule to prevent monocultures taking root in Europe. When Michael Gove became Secretary of State for Defra, he made a great thing of how the Government’s intention was to be more environmental and sustainable, and that the rules would be changed to reflect that. This measure is of course temporary, but it is a retreat from that objective. I would like to be clear that the Government see this as a temporary and not a permanent thing. With what do they intend to replace the three-crop rule to achieve the objectives of that rule?

I am also concerned about what the future will hold as a result of a UK-United States trade agreement. Will that not give incentives to arable farmers to go in for more monoculture in order to stay competitive? That is a worry, so I would be grateful if the Minister would answer these points.

Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I would always actively encourage everyone in Parliament to eat British fish and products—they are the best in the world. I would therefore encourage the consumption of any products from Northumberland, at Chequers or anywhere else. But the point, as I have tried to explain, is that there is a distinction under international law about access. It is in the mutual interest of the United Kingdom and the EU to have free and frictionless trade between our borders. That is in the interest of every part of the European Union and the United Kingdom.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I accept that the common fisheries policy has been a very difficult part of our EU membership, and I very much welcome Secretary of State Michael Gove’s commitment to high environmental standards—so I am in agreement with the Government on both those points. None the less, it is the case that one cannot dissociate the question of reasserting national control over our waters from the question of how much of that market will be shared with the EU 27. There will have to be an agreement with the EU 27 about the market share. I do not know whether that agreement is regarded as very disadvantageous by the EU 27, but there will have to be some means of enforcement of it, and I do not know how many ships of the Royal Navy will be available to police it. Is the Minister aware that the EU has available to it trade defence instruments that it can use against us if it feels that we are behaving unfairly, as it did when Scottish producers thought that there was unfair competition in relation to Norwegian salmon? Does he therefore recognise that there will have to be a fair agreement if these trade sanctions are to be avoided?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, clearly we wish to have positive and productive negotiations with the EU 27, and under international law “the reasonable approach” needs to be taken. However, I think that all would conclude that what has happened to UK fishing vessels has not been fair, and that cannot be right. The sorts of arrangements that we have now are absolutely against the interests of the UK fishing industry. That is why we need to address this matter and why I think that the White Paper is the beginning of a much more positive situation for coastal communities.

I do not want to pre-empt what may come up but, as the noble Lord mentioned enforcement, I am of course very pleased about the support of the Royal Navy and the replacement of vessels by five more-capable Batch 2 offshore patrol vessels. We are working very closely with the MMO, the Royal Navy and others, because other independent coastal countries undertake enforcement very well indeed.

Brexit: Agriculture and Farm Animal Welfare (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, on his maiden speech. I think I am right in saying that it is many centuries since his ancestors first appeared in this Chamber but his speech tonight shows that he has a very good contribution to make to the modern House of Lords, and so we welcome him. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on a quite brilliant extempore exposition of his committee’s report, which showed tremendous clarity of thought about the complex issues involved.

I am no agriculture expert but I approach this as someone who has looked at European Union affairs in the round for the last quarter-century. I should declare my only interest in this debate: I am a member of Cumbria County Council and although I am not a landowner or a farmer, I am well aware of the views of many hill farmers who find themselves on the margins, many beef farmers who are pretty prosperous and many middling dairy farmers who somehow or other manage to survive. That is the knowledge which I bring.

For me, the real problem in the question of agriculture and Brexit is the clash of goals, which the Government have failed to resolve. This is the clash between, on the one hand, what Defra says in its response to the Select Committee’s report about securing,

“a more productive and environmentally sustainable future for UK farming”,

and, on the other, what we saw in the White Paper on trade that the Government published last week. That was an ideological commitment to Britain having an independent trade policy in which I fear British agriculture is literally going to become the sacrificial lamb. Dr Fox’s commitment to an independent trade policy is evangelical. The paper is full of statements about the benefits of free trade and about how Britain is going to take advantage of the boundless scope for new agreements with the Commonwealth, old and new, and the new economic powerhouses of the world. I do not think the picture of a free-trade nirvana for Britain is realistic.

I worked in the European Commission for three years; I went there to work in Peter Mandelson’s cabinet when he was Trade Commissioner. I went as a committed but rather naive free trader, and I quickly learned that there is no such thing as a free lunch in trade relations. Only hard bargains can be struck. Our trade partners are not going to lay wreaths on the statues of Cobden, Bright and Robert Peel. They see trade relations as fundamentally about economic power, and you will get no deal unless you put bargaining chips on the table. What are our British bargaining chips? I am afraid to say that the bargaining chips we have are the same as the bargaining chips the EU has in its trade relations, which are the tariff and quota regimes in agriculture. This is what the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Americans, the Brazilians and the Argentinians will be trying to get at in return for our greater access to their markets. As we have heard from other speakers, there will be very serious consequences as a result of this policy. As many speakers have said, it will make it impossible to have a free trade agreement with Europe that covers agriculture, and our exporters will face huge tariffs which will be a big problem for them. But it will also mean that our domestic producers are undermined by low-cost producers from other parts of the world.

Some people will say that that is what free trade means. We saw it in textiles. In textiles, poor people are benefiting from cheap clothes and cheap shoes as a result of free trade. I do not think the same argument quite applies to agriculture. It is an approach that shows the price of everything and the value of nothing. From my Cumbrian experience, I know that agriculture and farming are embedded in the county’s way of life. Hill farmers do not just live off their sheepmeat sales; they sustain the landscape and a culture that has rightly just been awarded world heritage status. There are things of great value that we have to fight to preserve.

I also believe that getting this wrong could have a profound impact—I would like the Minister to comment on this—on the unity of the United Kingdom. I believe the reckless pursuit of an independent trade policy could easily give the Scottish Government the excuse they want to raise again the question of Scottish independence and the Scots’ control of their agriculture. Similar pressures might well come in Wales. This would be a very high price for Britain to pay for an independent trade policy. I hope the Government realise that they are facing a clash of goals which they have to resolve very quickly.