Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Baroness Quin

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

[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.

[Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, a number of amendments before the Committee refer to nature-friendly farming in general. Others refer to specific activities within nature-friendly farming. While each of us may know what we mean by that, and the kind of schemes that we would favour, a comprehensive definition of what it means is more challenging. Amendment 96 certainly makes a good attempt to define “nature-friendly”; I support it, and the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. However, there are clearly different views, with some favouring low-input farming, some talking about agroecology and some about organic farming. Others favour conventional, or intensive, farming, sometimes combined with a precision approach and with generous field margins and set-aside schemes. These would create habitats for particular animal, bird or plant species and could, therefore, also qualify as nature friendly.

Like other noble Lords, I was struck by the figures quoted by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, showing that the UK seems to be moving away from organic farming, in the opposite direction to many of our European neighbours. What is the Government’s view of this trend? Do they want our organic sector to expand and, if so, by how much? Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, soil quality is one of the key aspects to take into account in deciding what nature-friendly farming is. Do the Government agree that monitoring soil quality, then acting on those findings, needs to be done? Do the Government have their own definition of nature-friendly farming, or will they limit themselves to funding schemes judged to be nature friendly or, as has just been said, working with the grain of nature.

I turn, finally, to the main point on which I would like assurance. Will the Government commit to taking a regionally sensitive approach in England to supporting eligible projects and schemes under the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about the distinctiveness of the natural environment in his part of the north of England. He mentioned the curlew, a bird which is the symbol of Northumberland National Park. I declare a non-financial interest as president of the Northumberland National Park Foundation. I am glad to tell the noble Lord that, during lockdown, I have seen many curlews in the river estuary in my locality. I hope that the Government will agree that working with regional and local wildlife trusts and other environmental organisations, as well as with farmers in the different regions and localities, will be important in evaluating schemes and identifying which species of animal, bird and plant life are under threat in particular areas.

To conclude, I ask the Government to ensure that regional diversity is built in to their overall policy of ensuring that agricultural and environmental policies work hand in hand.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Baroness Quin

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that. It would be good to look before Report at the different views expressed on thresholds to see how the matter might be taken forward at a later stage, if indeed there is a feeling that it ought to be pursued.

Quite understandably in all the various debates about thresholds the concern has been that on issues of major importance people feel uncomfortable if the vote is decided by a very tiny margin on a very low turnout. That, of course, explains why there have been so many initiatives in the past about having thresholds in such legislation. Looking through the history of this I cannot discern any particular party affiliation to any one notion about any particular threshold. Looking at the amendments tabled in the past on referendums legislation, some have been tabled by Conservative Members in the other place, some by Labour Members and some by Liberal Democrat Members and, as I say, these issues have come up on practically all issues where a referendum has been proposed. In a way, we need to bear all this in mind when deciding how to move forward.

I was helped in my own thoughts about it by an excellent research note prepared by the House of Commons on thresholds in referendums, which gives a lot of food for thought. It could be food for thought that we ourselves could have before Report. I should say too that how we are looking at this issue is also very much part and parcel of political debate about referendums in other countries. The very good research note from the House of Commons looks at countries around the world—not only in the European Union but in Australia, for example, and in non-EU member states such as Switzerland—and it looks at the various requirements in those countries for thresholds in referendums.

At this stage, this is very much an opinion-gathering exercise in order that I and my fellow signatories may decide how we might pursue this issue later in our proceedings.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, my name is added to some, but not all, of these amendments. It appears that two important aspects are covered in different ways. The first is whether a threshold should be required for the outcome to have credibility. There are arguments both ways on that, and there are dangers. I do not need to remind my noble friend Lord Foulkes that in 1979 Scotland voted by a majority in favour of having a Scottish Parliament—or Assembly, as it was then called—with 33% voting yes and 31% voting no. However, because of the 40% threshold rule, it did not happen. My noble friend will be very aware of the consternation that that caused, with the feeling that a majority had been in favour.

It is very important to set a threshold at a level that is acceptable and which does not appear to be loaded one way or another. I suppose that a 25% threshold is an absolute minimum, but I should be very interested in hearing the response of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on this. Depending on what is said between now and Report, we will no doubt need to come back to refine these thoughts further.

The other element built into these amendments—which, grouped together, bring in different aspects—is the question of the results from the four nations of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, touched on this in an earlier debate. I put it to the Committee that there is a strong argument for each of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom to know how they have voted. If they do not, assumptions will be made, and those assumptions may be the cause of much more political rancour than dealing with the reality of the situation. If Scotland votes yes and England votes no and the English vote dominates the rest of the United Kingdom, there will undoubtedly be pressures in Scotland, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes rightly said, to reopen the whole question of the independence referendum, assuming that it is not carried the first time round. We know what happened in Quebec when there was a rerun of a referendum: it came very much closer than had been the case on the first occasion. Therefore, these issues need to be thought about very carefully.

I come from a different viewpoint from virtually everybody else in the House with regard to the Scottish referendum but I recognise that, whichever point of view you come from, the outcome needs to be logical, transparent and acceptable, and I hope that we will work towards that in the context of these amendments.