Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Whitty Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Yes, and I think it has been clear from the department that, like any responsible Government or department, we would act if issues arose. The noble Lord mentioned the sheep sector; in the temporary tariff regime we brought forward, we recognised the sensitivity and potential vulnerability of that sector. He is absolutely right: we need to be alive to, and ready to act on, issues of weather or markets. That point is well made.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the euro. Defra and the DAs have agreed to retain references to the euro in retained EU legislation at the point of exit. This is because, at the point of exit, the CAP will be part-way through making payments under current schemes. To minimise disruption and avoid a difference in sums paid to farmers before and after exit, we will retain the euro until an appropriate time when we can make the change to sterling with minimal disruption. We intend to bring forward regulations to amend euro references to sterling later. These regulations will of course be subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny. In addition, we will work with the devolved Administrations on any changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked about retention. On implications for farmers, I reiterate that the Government have guaranteed that the current level of agricultural funding under Pillar 1 will be upheld until 2020 as part of the transition to new domestic arrangements, and that all CAP Pillar 2 agreements signed before 31 December 2020 will be fully funded for their lifetimes. The exchange rate for BPS 2018 is already set for the scheme year, meaning that farmers paid either side of exit day will be subject to an identical exchange rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked how many state aid rules there will be after exit. The state aid regime will be rolled over by this statutory instrument, as will the whole architecture through the BEIS statutory instrument. We are not making any changes to the current EU regime beyond those required to make these matters operable.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether the SIs will be necessary if the Agriculture Bill gains Royal Assent before the end of the current implementation period. If the current withdrawal agreement is agreed, these SIs will still be needed to ensure that the retained EU CAP legislation is operable in a UK context at the end of the implementation period. This will be the case even once the Agriculture Bill has gained Royal Assent. This is because the horizontal framework regulations, as amended by the SIs, will be required while we continue to operate legacy CAP schemes under retained EU law. Likewise, some CMO regulations will remain after the Agriculture Bill comes into force.
The noble Lord asked about the discontinuity in state aid: will DAs have their own rules and do they take effect at exit day or at the end of the implementation period? This is a reserved policy area, but, as with all the SIs I have had to deal with, there has been a close working relationship with the devolved Administrations. BEIS is working on a memorandum of understanding with the DAs, and my noble friend Lord Henley is working on this. If there is any further information I can bring forward from that, I will let your Lordships have a copy.
In a no-deal scenario—
Lord Whitty (Lab)
I intervene because I have been dealing with state aid provisions more generally. The European system regards state aid for agriculture as part of a block exemption. In other words, it does not regard it as state aid.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord was not in the Committee at the start of debate.
Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Whitty Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have a fairly fundamental objection to this set of regulations. I am sure that most of the detail is absolutely correct and necessary and I cannot say that I have read every sentence of these two regulations, but I have long held, going back to my days as the Minister in Defra, that the current regime for the regulation of pesticides, both at British and European level, has been inadequate for a number of reasons, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I am rather afraid that the “solution” of leaving the European Union is going to aggravate that position.
Most of the issues I have approached the department on in recent years have related to human health, but it is a much wider issue than that. I believe that the totality of the approach to pesticide regulation does not take into account the widespread effects of misuse of pesticides, the lack of enforcement on the way pesticides are used and the relative ease with which new pesticides and modified pesticides come on to the market. In some cases, the EU regulation has actually been held back by previous British interventions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I commend the current Secretary of State on neonicotinoids, but in general it is the Brits who have held back and there has been a lot of pressure—corporate pressure, one has to say—on the totality of the system. This could reinforce that tendency.
I understand, and I have been in some contact with the department about, the need to introduce provisions on chemicals broadly—on REACH provisions. These regulations tend to mirror, in a sense, the broader regulation structure of REACH. In the main, I think it is very sensible to maintain the success of the REACH provisions, but pesticides are different. They are different because they have a serious and often unacknowledged human health impact. More particularly, I want to emphasise tonight the effect they have on the environment in general: the effect of pesticides on the air, the water and the soil.
Soil has been degraded as a result of the overuse of pesticides. Pesticides in the air have affected both human and particularly insect life: this week we have seen very serious effects in the form of the worldwide reduction in insect life, some of which has been caused by pesticides here and elsewhere, and on the water system. One of the successes, to some extent, of the water framework directive has been to reduce that effect; nevertheless, there is still a very serious problem in our water supply, as the effect of pesticides comes through the soil, into the water and has an effect on insect life and on whatever you call those creatures that crawl on the bottom of our rivers—I am sure that my noble friend Lady Young can name them all, but I cannot—and therefore on our diversity. A lot of those are affected by the misuse or overuse of pesticides.
It is true that successive Governments have attempted to rationalise and pinpoint the use of pesticides more effectively in terms of agricultural use. However, unlike the industrial chemicals that will be covered by the transposition of arrangements on REACH, the use of pesticides—this particular form of chemical—is a matter not so much of industrial use but of agricultural use: its effect on the environment, on land management, on soil management and on air quality. I therefore find it somewhat surprising that we are to retain the HSE rather than an environmental body to oversee this. I know that the HSE has access to significant scientific information, and the transfer of a separate pesticide arrangement into the HSE probably was an improvement, but would I argue that if we are going to move to a new regime post Brexit, the appropriate body is actually the Environment Agency, because it has responsibility for agricultural practice and land use; for air, water and soil.
That is where, together with human health, pesticides have an impact. I am therefore disturbed that the whole rationale for these arrangements is to assign that role to the HSE and not to the Environment Agency and devolved environment agencies. I ask the Minister to think about that; it is not necessary, but we are moving into a new era, and the responsibility ought to be with an environmental body rather than with one which deals with the industrial use of other chemicals.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his courtesy in meeting us before this debate. I also thank the two noble Lords who have raised a number of important issues about these SIs, all of which I agree with. They both made very powerful points.
These SIs go to the heart of our concerns about the transposition process. This goes right back to our earlier discussions on the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The use of pesticides is of huge public interest—a point made by the noble Baroness—and they present significant environmental and public health challenges. It is an issue where the use of the precautionary principle is vital—supported of course by strong scientific evidence and detailed scrutiny of the potential impact of the new products.
At the moment, we have in the EU a thorough process of evaluation of products. The responsibilities for risk assessments are shared out across member states. There are clear decision-making roles for the European Food Safety Authority, the rapporteur member state, individual member states and the European Commission. All this is supported and backed up by access to the best scientific advice. While no process is perfect, there is considerable assurance that within the EU a detailed assessment of the risks has been carried out and cross-checked.
These proposals are intended to replace all of this with an assessment by the Health and Safety Executive and a decision in the hands of one person, the “competent authority” as described in the text—otherwise known as the Secretary of State. Under these proposals, full power to make, amend or revoke guidance, principles and regulations for the UK rests with the Secretary of State and the devolved Ministers. There is a major loss of scrutiny, checks and balances, and audit powers.
This really is not good enough. It does not represent an accurate transposition of the current EU provisions into UK law. It also reopens our argument about the need for an independent environment watchdog to oversee the application of these new rules. This is a point other noble Lords have made—my noble friend Lady Young made it very eloquently in the earlier debate. That watchdog clearly needs to be in place from day one. I know that the Minister has said he cannot be precise about the timetable for this, but it would be helpful if he could reassure us again that the watchdog will be in place from 1 April, and that there will be no delay.
There is another big issue about what we will lose when we transpose to the UK. How can it be acceptable that the only reporting mechanism on national decisions for new active substances will be to publish the information online, when the previous EU regime required a report to be made to the EU Commissioner and a proper process of scrutiny and approval?
It also raises once again the fact that, by leaving the EU, we are cutting ourselves off from access to a huge resource of scientific data and analysis. Should we not be taking urgent steps to agree with the EU that we will continue to share this data for mutual benefit? For example, we will no longer have access to the advice of the European Food Safety Authority and will therefore have to pay considerable sums of money to try to replicate its advice. Would it not make sense to negotiate a mutual recognition agreement with the EU so that decisions taken in the EU and the UK continue to be mutually honoured? Can the Minister say whether discussions are taking place to create a shared register of approved pesticides and a mutual recognition scheme across the EU and UK, and what the timescale is for the outcome for those discussions?
Environment (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Whitty Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this section of statutory instruments and have listened carefully to what he said: there is no change in policy. Indeed, it is important that we pass these statutory instruments to maintain the existing regulations that we have been connected with.
My noble friend also talked about sustainability in the long term but recognised that the current audit and labelling schemes will no longer be valid. Perhaps I might press him a little more on that because clearly we will have to introduce a scheme to replace the existing ones. Is he able to tell us a little more about that and how the department will approach it? Also on that issue, I think he said that we were going to be consulting more widely. Again, it is a matter of timeframe: how soon that will happen? Clearly, that would help us in dealing with this statutory instrument.
Lastly, my noble friend mentioned that some aspects of existing EU law have become out of date and we would need to transfer powers to a new set of regulations. Can he give us any indication of how many of the changes taking place are to regulations that are considered out of date?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, in general, this is obviously a sensible regulation. However, I have a number of queries, one of which is exactly the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. There are references to redundant and inappropriate regulations, but there is no list, as far as I can see, of which regulations they are or whether further regulations might be deemed to fall within that category. I may have misread the rather complex way in which the regulations are presented, but there may be a whole batch of regulations which, down the line, Defra officials may decide are redundant and use the power under the Act to take off the statute book.
My other two questions are these. It is true that EMAS and Ecolabel have been a bit of a slow burn, but, nevertheless, there is a degree of consumer recognition and take-up. Is the Minister saying that in no circumstances could we use those terms under British law to continue to reflect the qualities that some consumers have now come to recognise, or will his consultation be directed to providing an entirely new British scheme—which, by definition, will require a further educational and informational period before it begins to be recognised? Even in the more benign context of a deal of some sort, would it not be sensible for some mutual recognition and continued use of the existing labels to operate post the UK leaving the EU?
Finally, I declare my presidency of Environmental Protection UK, one main concern of which has been air pollution and air quality. The Minister referred to that in passing. The problem with the air quality regulations is that, hitherto, the effective enforcement of those regulations has depended substantially on the Commission’s intervention and on campaigners—ClientEarth, mainly, in this case—taking the British Government through the courts on the basis of EU law.
In both those respects, I am not entirely sure what mechanism replaces that. Is it the much-heralded but still unclear new environmental statutory body, which will presumably appear in the environment Bill when we eventually get it, or is it simply to be enforcement of these new regulations, having become British law, or retained EU law, enforceable through the British courts? The problem hitherto has been that it has been government bodies at local and national level which have failed to meet, for example, the provisions on maximum NOx levels for air quality. Unless we stipulate in the new regulations who will enforce equivalent standards to the European standards, we may well have something on the statute book but we will be unable to enforce it.
Water Abstraction Regulations
Lord Whitty Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I welcome any opportunity to speak about the environment, in particular its relationship to agriculture. My most relevant interest to the debate is the work I do with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and the fact that I am an honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.
I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Byford said. I will make some additional points. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said that this was a long time. Fourteen years is indeed a long time, but seven of those years were under the stewardship of a different Government, who had every opportunity from 2003 to 2010 to bring forward the regulations. It would be interesting to know for what reason they did not have the chance to do so. The noble Baroness also said that she felt that the Government were placing more importance on the business community than environment concerns. I disagree. The statutory instruments before us clearly show the extent to which business interests, the various uses of water and the environment are intrinsically linked.
I will follow up one of the questions the noble Baroness raised with my noble friend the Minister as to what the position is on abstraction policy, in the sense that the Government made a very clear commitment when I was in the other place. We need to set out our stall as to what the abstraction policy will be. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, there have been stresses. The number of licences that have already been issued in East Anglia show how they are more subject to water stress, as opposed to areas such as Yorkshire where we seem to go from lots of flooding one minute to near drought the next. It is incumbent on the Government to come forward with a revised abstraction policy.
I would also be interested to have confirmation that the 25-year environment plan also covers the farming and agricultural aspects. It was of real concern to farmers and agricultural industrialists that there would be two separate plans competing with each other. It would be very neat if all the farming issues could be addressed under the 25-year plan.
I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have stated that the regulations comply with the requirements of the water framework directive but without gold-plating. I do not know whether my noble friend is in a position to say this, but I am very exercised as to what the arrangements will be when the water framework directive and other daughter and sister directives that are currently being revised are approved before or just about the time we propose to leave the European Union. Is there any way the department can let the House know before the agriculture and environment Bills come through? That will be very helpful indeed. My take on this is that we will comply with the new commitments, but my concern is that Ofwat will agree a price review before that time that will apply for the next five years from 1 January 2019. If we are to sign up to these new commitments we ought to give the water companies the chance to put this in their five-year plans. I note that the cost of introducing and applying the regulations will be £89.6 million, with the benefits estimated at only £15.3 million. The costs are substantial.
I have a particular question on the impact assessment. With drainage boards being so prevalent across North Yorkshire, this is of particular interest to me. On page 34, paragraph 6.44 says that Defra is in,
“ongoing discussion with IDBs about their abstraction and none of these discussions has led us to believe that there will be curtailment”.
So it goes on, but it says that there is a certain degree of “uncertainty” owing to the “complexity”. At this late stage, it would be very helpful to know exactly how the regulations will impact internal drainage boards. If it is possible to know that today, that would be very helpful indeed. It would be helpful to know on what date the statutory instruments will come into effect. With those remarks and those questions to my noble friend the Minister, I would give swift passage to these statutory instruments.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on raising this issue and on the forensic way in which she approached the analysis of the regulations before us and the history of how we got to this position.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who was my opposite number for a large number of years. I was responsible for taking the 2003 Act through this House, in the teeth of her forensic analysis, and we came to a compromise, in effect. I asked my officials at the time why on earth there were still licences which provided for unrestricted abstraction and why there were significant exemptions. Logically, neither of those should have existed if we were going to have a rational approach to the management of water, particularly in the upstream areas which have such a dramatic effect downstream, both in relation to agriculture and to droughts and floods.
The answer was that, as far as the exemptions were concerned, there were relatively small companies—farmers, miners and quarriers—who would be very severely affected by removing the exemption. We accepted that argument, and we also accepted at the time that there was the possibility of technological solutions, in particular in mines and quarrying but also in relation to farming, primarily if the Government could be somewhat more encouraging of storage of water for those parts of agriculture which were likely to be hit by shortage of water at particular times of year and where the intensity of water use, unfortunately, usually coincided with the least precipitation and the least access to water—namely, the summer months.
While the mines and quarries, I am informed, have actually restricted and reduced their use of water, and some farmers have restricted their use of water and some storage has existed, actually, government policy never, under any Government, came closer to encouraging, as part of an agri-environment scheme or whatever, that storage of water would be provided. This was particularly important for the horticulture sector, and it has not happened.
The reason we did not immediately move to consult on ending the exemptions after the passage of the Act was principally that we needed time for those changes to take place. The Labour Government did, of course, consult in 2009, and part of the result of that consultation was that not enough had changed for the industry to be prepared to accept the change.
Most of the House will have completely forgotten this, but for one very brief period during the coalition Government I sat on the Front Bench when water legislation was being introduced at that time. That was mainly about introducing competition within the water industry, which has not gone quite as smoothly as it might have done and as we all hoped it might at the time. At that time, we also received assurances from the Government that we would have a strategic approach to abstraction. Indeed, there was some hope of new measures at the upstream end of water, which might involve water trading and possible trading of licences, so that we could gain efficiency at that end in the same way that we are trying to gain efficiency by introducing a degree of competition at the retail end. None of that has happened either, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just said.
Effectively, the coherent approach to abstraction reform has been put well and truly on the back burner. All we have, therefore, is these regulations to do the easiest bit of it, albeit that it is a slightly painful bit for some abstractors—namely, to end exemptions. It seems to be sensible that we do that. It is, however, now 14 years on, as people have said, and we have also missed the deadline under the water framework directive.
Generally speaking, the water framework directive is regarded as a good exemplar of European legislation because effectively it is outcome related and is not overprescriptive, but it is a relatively good piece of European legislation, one which we would have thought we would be very happy to comply with. We have actually failed to comply with it in a number of important respects, some of which are being put right by these regulations tonight.
Brexit: Environmental Enforcement Agency
Lord Whitty Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I assure your Lordships that it will be a full and proper consultation. We want to have detailed consideration with stakeholders and your Lordships so that we get the right decision because we recognise that something needs to be done to fill what we acknowledge is a governance gap. I am not sure about the precise timings, but the whole purpose of an early consultation is so that we can move this forward.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, this will be a powerful new organisation, which I understand will have the ability to fine or otherwise sanction other public bodies. In that case, is it the Government’s intention to produce primary legislation for the introduction of this body or are they still assuming that it will be dealt with in delegated legislation? My other question is: will this body have some jurisdiction in the remaining seven years of the present system of farm support in fulfilling the role of making sure that environmental standards are met by agricultural practitioners?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the whole purpose of the detailed consideration and our consultation is to decide, and to have reflection from stakeholders, on the best way forward. That is why, at this stage, we have not made a firm decision as to the route because we think we should not pre-empt what is a serious consultation. As to the matter of agriculture, we have been very clear that we wish there to be a transitional phase. However, the arrangements in the withdrawal Bill are that existing EU law will be brought on to the UK statute book. What we are looking at is how we deal with the situation after we have left the European Union and, potentially, after an implementation period.
Plans to Improve the Natural Environment and Animal Welfare
Lord Whitty Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his introduction and for setting out the starkness of the challenge but also the possibilities of our succeeding in it. My intervention will be a little more depressive. I have the terrible feeling that the likely post-Brexit changes in our regulatory structure are likely to undermine what appear to be the noble Earl’s objectives and those spelled out by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State. I start, for example, with the interrelationship between what regulatory aspects of farming and land use apply here in a new and different trading pattern.
It is certainly true that the CAP, particularly in its earlier stages, was pretty detrimental to much of our natural capital, with overintensive use. However, in recent years the EU’s environmental objectives have countervailed that. Indeed, the CAP itself, through its cross-compliance arrangements, has moved closer to protecting the environment as a natural good. Legislation such as the habitats directive, the birds directive and the water framework directive will all need to be transposed into our own legislation, but they have been positive and will continue to be.
On animal welfare, mainly the UK has pushed EU standards higher, but we need to ensure that we can maintain them. If we are to move into a different trading pattern and the EU ceases to be our major trading partner, and we abandon near-alignment with EU legislation and instead seek to do deals around the world, particularly with America and South America, where the standards are considerably lower, our exporters there will have to meet standards different from those of imports here from America, Brazil or Australia, and will not meet the same standards of environmental objectives and animal welfare. If we prioritise those markets, there will be big pressure for us to down-prioritise our own environmental welfare standards.
The other aspect is the withdrawal Bill and how we deal with it. Yes, the EU legislation will be transposed one way or another into UK law as regards individual regulations, and of course we have already transposed most of the directives in one way or another. However, the whole element of the regime protecting the environment that exists in EU law will not be so transposed. First, there is the question of enforcement. The noble Earl referred to Michael Gove’s commitment to a new statutory environmental body but it is not clear what powers that will have. It will have not only to deliver the strategy for a better environment and protection of our natural capital, but will also have to be the main enforcement mechanism for duties which have hitherto been conducted by EU-level institutions. Can the Minister enlighten us about any further thinking in relation to that body? When will we see what is proposed, and will we see it at the same time as the 25-year plan or are we expecting it earlier?
In relation to the withdrawal Bill, while we are transposing the letter of many regulations, some of the key principles are not being so transposed either because they are found in the treaties, from which we are withdrawing and to which we will no longer be a party, or because they are in the preambles to directives and regulations, which English law does not like and does not transpose. In the environmental field, these include such vital principles as the precautionary principle, the principle that the polluter pays and general principles of sustainability, and, in the animal welfare area, the principle that farm and pet animals and most wildlife are sentient beings. In default of these principles being explicitly transposed into English and UK law, can the Minister please tell us how they will be observed, enforced and used as guidance in the interpretation of regulation post Brexit?
Of course, not all existing EU or UK legislation is conducive to preserving or enhancing our natural landscape and protecting our wildlife—some does quite the opposite. Take pesticides regulation, for example. The use of chemically based pesticides, often on an industrial scale, can be damaging to our soil. Pesticides and fertilisers have had a greater effect than excessive ploughing on the deteriorating quality of our soils over the past 200 years, referred to by the noble Earl, as well as on our waters and water-based wildlife, and on our air, posing a threat to human beings and wildlife as a result, with direct and indirect reductions in biodiversity.
More targeted use of chemical-based pesticides does not remove those threats, although it reduces them. Ultimately, only a major move from chemical-based pesticides and herbicides will reverse the negative effects on health, biodiversity, soil and water. However, I am afraid that at EU level, at UK level and, even more so, in the councils of some of our potential future trading partners, the influence of large chemical companies is likely to mean that such a move is blocked. I ask the Minister what the plans are for pesticide regulation post Brexit and for the development of less intensive, less chemically based crop management measures.
The repatriation of agricultural policy to the UK, whether Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast, gives us the opportunity to move away from current hectarage-based subsidies towards overall environmental management, so that farmers, foresters and land managers are brought into a system which, as the noble Earl said, rewards them for contributing to the public good with better land management—better management of the water system and better landscape protection. Therefore, we can move away from the basic farm payment to support for sustainable land management.
However, that switch will be difficult. The Government need to do it gradually. They need to plan for it and farmers need time to adapt to it. It should also be done in a way that continues to recognise that food production is still a major policy objective and that land managers have a major role to play in it. In my view, we should probably keep in aggregate roughly the same quantum as under the CAP to support land managers, but it should be differentially distributed, contributing to environmental objectives, and probably be geared more to smaller farmers than to large-scale landowners.
I would like to hear the Minister’s reaction to those points and would particularly like to hear when we will see the 25-year plan.
Farm Support
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for initiating this debate. I have five minutes in which to make five points. Contrary to the noble Earl, my first point is: do not rush this. Broadly speaking, the Government have already committed themselves to paying under the present system until 2020, although I think that we should take a little longer going into the transition period. That is because it takes time for farmers to adjust and we can phase it in over a longer period once we know what we are doing.
Secondly, let us remember the inexorable relationship between the nature of our agricultural industry, trade and the pattern of support which is desirable. As has been said, 70% of our trade is with the EU, so we need a new relationship with the Union. If it works, that is fine, but if it does not, we will have a different form of agriculture in this country. If there are barriers between ourselves and the EU, substantial parts of our upland livestock will disappear because the EU is the main market. On the other hand, if we have, as some advocate, a global free trade area with virtually no barriers to the world, we will have very cheap and less-well-regulated imports from Brazil, the US and Australia. Again, significant parts of our agricultural sector would be eliminated and much of our consumer protection would be challenged, to say the least. We could opt for an autarkic “Fortress Britain” structure, which Mr Chris Grayling MP seems to think will lead to quadrupling our agricultural output. It certainly would do wonders for self-sufficiency, but unfortunately it would also increase costs and ensure that consumers have less choice. It would almost certainly drive lower regulatory standards and would probably stop us doing any deals whatever with anyone else in the world. So a support system that is appropriate will depend on the trade system that we have adopted.
Thirdly, we should remember that there were originally multiple objectives in the CAP which we are attempting to replace. The original treaty of Rome effectively saw protection and uprating the productivity of agriculture plus increasing the income of farming communities as its objectives. Added to those over time have been environmental objectives, although quite often they are seen as constraints rather than objectives. I will applaud Michael Gove for trying to ensure that whatever form of agricultural support eventually comes out of all this will in effect be a greener Brexit. We need more detail about the objectives in order to be clear.
The key inputs to agricultural production are the quality of the land, particularly of the soil, as the noble Earl said, and the quality of the labour applied. Unfortunately, the quality of both have rather suffered over the 50 years of the common agricultural policy in one way or another. Yes, productivity has increased through better breeding and more science being applied, but it has also led to the over-application of chemically based fertilisers and pesticides, and of course we have suffered the effects of development and therefore our soil has been degraded over time. It has also polluted our rivers and threatened our biodiversity, some of which the industry itself is dependent on, most obviously the bee population.
We also need to look at the quality of labour. The system needs a modernised, land-based workforce. We need to change from the overdependence of some our agricultural sectors on migrant labour and, at its most extreme, seriously exploited labour in a way that gives the whole of the industry a bad name. We need to eliminate extreme exploitation and control and reduce the dependence on gangmasters. Where imported seasonal labour is still needed, we need a properly regulated replacement for what was once the SAWS system.
I believe that most of our labour could be recruited from the settled population here, but we need to ensure that those workers are better paid and better trained. On the latter, it is unfortunate that agriculture spends less money on training than any other sector in the economy. On the pay and conditions side, since the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, wages in agriculture have fallen relative to average wages in the economy, even in a period of low or negative growth in real wages generally.
On the management of land, we need to develop a holistic system of managing land, soil, water, wildlife and forestry. I think that is the way Michael Gove is moving but we need to be clearer about it. This cannot simply apply at the individual holding area level. We need co-operation between landowners and land managers. I see that the CLA is proposing a new land contract, but that has to be mandatory in form and not voluntary, although it may have voluntary elements. It needs also to be less bureaucratic, not more, than the worst features of the CAP.
We need to have clear sight of our objectives and to determine the quantum and not be dominated by the Treasury. We need to allow for a period of engagement, not only of farmers and the rural community but of the whole of the food chain and the rest of us. We have an opportunity, but let us get it right.
Brexit: Non-chemical Farming Methods
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as the noble Lord has raised that issue I will look into it. To repeat, there is strong regulation on pesticides; that is why it is so important. The truth is that we often need to use herbicides in order to ensure that rights of way are clear for people to enjoy the countryside.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, over a decade ago, when I was doing the noble Lord’s job, we had a programme of looking at non-chemical ways of doing what pesticides do and improving the method of application. Will the Minister update us? Do the Government still support that work? If so, by how much and when can we expect the results?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is continuing. I am sure that, with his experience, the noble Lord will know about the UK national action plan on pesticides and that it is an ongoing process. We will continue to develop and adapt as further knowledge becomes available. My whole point is that the national action plan and the pollinator strategy are designed to assist in enhancing the environment and to have pesticides used when necessary and with precision.
Agriculture, Fisheries and the Rural Environment
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for this debate and for his wide-ranging introduction. He is of course right to have begun with the real historic importance of this debate: the retirement from this House of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I first met the noble Lord, when he was plain Sir Henry, back in the European Parliament days when he was leader of the Conservative group. In those days the Conservatives were a very influential group within Europe and in the European Parliament and had many friends, but times change. My conversations with him then must have revealed to him that I did not have a very clear grasp of agriculture. Since he knows the way of the world, it can hardly have come as a surprise to him that a few short years later I was appointed as the Agriculture Minister in this House. That was in very difficult times in the immediate aftermath of foot and mouth; indeed, it was still going on. I think I speak for everyone on every side of the House who has spoken on agriculture or had responsibility for it when I speak of the importance of the contributions we had from the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, in the Chamber, in Select Committees and in private conversations. I thank him for that. I am not saying we always agreed. I am not even saying he was always right, but he usually was. This House and many people in it will miss him.
I have two points to make today. First, the noble Earl is clearly right that we have an opportunity to substitute for the CAP a new British agricultural policy. As I said a few days ago, we need to remember that the CAP had multiple objectives and multiple effects. It was not simply a protectionist policy, although it was that and a very effective one; it also had environmental aims, land-use aims, rural development aims and aims that affected the whole of the food chain, which accounts for well over 10% of our employment and our GDP. Whatever reform and replacement there is of the CAP, which was never a perfect fit for the UK in any of its manifestations, has to recognise all those multiple dimensions. If we regard it simply as an agricultural or environmental policy, we will not have done the job of replacing it and taking this opportunity seriously. I will not expand on this, given the time.
My second point relates to an issue that rarely gets referred to here and, to be honest—looking at the list of speakers—may not be quite so popular, as in some cases it is the dark side of certain parts of the agriculture and food-processing industry: the labour force and the industry’s treatment of it. The last 40 years have seen an increasing dependence on migrant labour for certain parts of agriculture and food processing. It may not be politically correct to say so, but that imported labour and its effects socially and locally have led to social tensions in some parts of our country. It is no coincidence that many of the largest votes for Brexit were in the small towns and villages in counties in the east of England where these issues are at their most acute. It is also ironic but no coincidence that many of the farmers who, contrary to the advice of the NFU, advocated Brexit and shouted most loudly for it are now among those who are shouting for exemptions from what will be a stronger migration policy following Brexit. I am not against a new and properly regulated seasonal workers scheme; in fact, I am for it, and I hope it is part of the outcome. However, the more general outcome needs to see a situation where the workers within the agriculture and first-line processing sectors are treated better than they have been over the last few decades.
Contrary to the reassuring noises made by several noble Lords when we debated the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board a few years ago, the reality has been that in a period when real wages for the rest of the economy have not gone up, the relative position of agricultural workers, as far as statisticians can make out, has still deteriorated. The abolition of the board and, for example, the restriction until recently on the activities and resources of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority have meant that the problems within that sector had not been properly addressed. Whatever we do in terms of the new agricultural and rural development policy, we must make sure that we have a workforce who are invested in it, properly trained and properly rewarded.
Air and Water Pollution: Impact
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for introducing this debate, and her impressive introduction. I want to use my time mainly to focus on the regulatory framework for controlling air quality in the UK in the post-Brexit scenario. I declare an interest, in that I am the current president of Environmental Protection UK, Britain’s oldest environmental charity—formerly the National Society for Clean Air, which was instrumental in bringing into being the Clean Air Act 1956.
I make no apology for repeating my reference to that Act, which I did in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, in July. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I have another, personal interest to declare. As a 10 year-old living in west London with heavy congestion on the ground and under the Heathrow flight path, I was diagnosed with severe asthma. I continued to live in London for many years and, as a result of the Clean Air Act 1956, it began largely to clear up. But for a lot of other people, air pollution is still a problem in London, as it is in many urban and semi-urban parts of the UK.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we have made progress. We have drastically cut sulphur dioxide emissions, for example, and many other pollutants have been reduced. This is partly because of the elimination of dirty factories, partly because emissions have been better managed and partly because there has been better regulation. Whatever the reason, we have made progress. The remaining area is principally, but not only, traffic and that is mainly, but not only, diesel—the wear and tear on the tyres and brakes also contribute to air pollution. Traffic volume is an important issue, but some 50% of air pollution is non-traffic—it comes from construction sites, agriculture, static plant, wood burning and gas appliances. Nitrogen dioxide and particulates have proved very difficult to reduce. Some are stubborn; some have been reduced but are now going up slightly again. There are more than 40 areas within the UK which are not meeting EU standards, which were supposed to have been achieved by 2010.
The medical effects have been spelled out this week in a substantial article in the Lancet and by evidence which, I suspect, we have all received from the BMA, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal College of Physicians. So we are looking not only at the statistical evidence of air pollution on mortality and on general ill-health, but our physicians have now identified the plausible means whereby damage is done and have shown that very small, ultra-fine particles enter the bloodstream within minutes of being inhaled. As has been said, this is particularly a problem for infants and young children and for children in the womb. The net effect on adults and children has been to contribute to 40,000-plus deaths nationwide, through pulmonary, cardiovascular and other diseases and aggravation of pre-existing conditions.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, there is also a social dimension. It affects the least well-off, and children are the least well-off in our society. One could say that the diesel cars of the top 25% are damaging the health of the bottom 25%, and the children in particular.
The way in which this has been dealt with has been very dependent on EU regulations and ultimately on EU enforcement. These regulations have not been met, either within the UK or within many other European countries. Enforcement has been difficult. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, indicated, the Volkswagen crisis has shown that the power of the German car manufacturers has overridden the health of the European population. Whether or not there were other ways of dealing with that, it greatly aggravated both the problem and the credibility of the system. The value limits in these EU regulations are at twice the level which the World Health Organization suggests are safe.
Even to meet the EU standards, the UK Government will need a more effective air quality strategy than they currently have. Having been found wanting in the courts twice over the last few months, the latest July version of Defra’s air quality plan admittedly includes a number of new elements—in particular, a target of 2040 for the end of petrol and diesel cars, which is less than other public authorities in Britain and Europe have set. It also provides some funds to support low-carbon vehicles. However, if you add up the totality of the air quality strategy, it is, in effect, a call for local authorities to draw up their own plans without any significant additional powers or resources. It is still not a coherent strategy, nor is it a coherent way in which to develop clean air zones. Local authorities have been somewhat slow in developing those. There is a real need to focus on the areas of worst pollution and to ensure that all central and local government-sanctioned developments near the areas of highest pollution do not cut across that.
This may be a minor example in some ways, but the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to trees reminded me that just this week I saw an article in the Camden New Journal, which said that it was proposed to cut down 50 plane trees, which absorb pollution, to house temporarily the taxi rank displaced by HS2. That is an absurd counteraction. There is an even worse one: the London mayor has begun to develop an ambitious programme to introduce charges on all diesel vehicles and develop ultra-low vehicle emissions zones, but that could be undermined by the decision on Heathrow. Only yesterday, the Times stated that the latest reports suggest that the evidence relating to likely air quality problems arising from the building of a third runway at Heathrow mean that even the EU’s current levels will be undermined. I say to the Minister and his transport ministerial colleagues that the Times also stated that the risks of those limits not being met are low at Gatwick but very high at Heathrow. Given that new evidence, is the Minister inclined to change the approach to the building of a third runway at Heathrow?