Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

That is precisely the point I was coming to. The European Union instructed OLAF, its own anti-fraud body, to look at that sort of thing. Even this year, in Slovakia, journalist Ján Kuciak was murdered along with his fiancée after he exposed widespread fraud involving the Italian mafia, Slovak business and politicians in Slovakia. That resulted in the fall of that Government, so widespread was that fraud. We have seen similar problems in Bulgaria, where, rather surprisingly, a farmer wanting to get agricultural support must first register to pay health and pension insurance, so the very smallest farmers, who we would want to help in this country, do not get help in that country.

If we have that type of fraud in this country, even though there has been no evidence and no cases of widespread manipulation and fraud in the system, there is already criminal and environmental law under which farmers could be prosecuted. The worry among many farmers—I hope the Minister will reassure us and perhaps even clarify this on Report—is that this could be an opportunity to create lots of new criminal offences and punitive financial penalties for farmers who are trying their best. The Minister mentioned the farmer who accidently ploughed an extra 20 cm on his headland margin. Indeed, when I spoke to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I was told that if my daughter rode her pony on the field margin strip, that would be against the rules and, therefore, that we could have been penalised.

We have no similar cases of widespread fraud in the UK. This type of offence is already covered by existing anti-fraud or environmental legislation. There is some worry that trivial offences or mistakes could be penalised and that farmers could be unnecessarily criminalised. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance that that is not the intention of clause 3(2)(h), and that he will give further clarification to ensure that some future Government could not use the clause in a way that was not intended.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I will not detain the Committee for long. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I note that the hon. Member for Stroud does not intend to press the amendment at this stage, but it is important to reflect on the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Minister said in this morning’s debate when he outlined the Government’s intent in devising the new schemes: they are intended to be less onerous on the recipients of financial support than the schemes that they replace under the CAP.

In the same spirit, I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to enlighten the Committee that this power to create offences is designed primarily not to create a mass of further offences that would allow people to be criminalised if they made inadvertent errors in the receipt of their financial assistance, but to—as I understand it—replicate existing Government powers. Anything he can do to reassure us that there will not be an extension of the kind we have described will be very helpful.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I think there are two things that taxpayers would presume to be inherent to this, and which they would require. First, the hon. Member for Stroud alluded to the need for transparency and to know that moneys being provided by the Exchequer through DEFRA to support any public good or food production scheme are being spent wisely. There must be public confidence in this, and I go back to a point I made in Tuesday’s debates: in the increasingly urbanised country we live in, which is less interested in rural life, it is imperative that the public know that, just as we insist on transparency, fairness and rectitude in, for example, the welfare system or other things.

The balance that I detect, certainly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, and which I echo, is that while we must have these powers to allow public confidence to set in, be fostered and flourish, we must also have proportionality and discretion. It would be frankly bonkers to trot somebody off to the magistrates court, the Crown court or indeed the High Court over somebody’s daughter riding a pony on a bit of set-aside, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby has said, or other such small things.

We need within the Bill—I think it is referred to in other subsections of the clause—the discretion to say, “Right, we have overpaid you for that, or you haven’t done this in-year, so we will roll over,” and so on, which provides the transparency and accountability.

However, we must remember that a lot of our farms and farmers are small businesses, where people do not have time and space to go off and instruct a solicitor, get their defence ready and take those two or three days off to go to court—only to find that the court hearing has been adjourned because the judge is not available or the chief usher has a heavy head cold. In many of our smaller courts, which are also constrained in terms of manpower, there is a huge delay in the delivery of justice.

I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on what I appreciate are often competing demands, namely for transparency and discretion. The heavy hand can often fall on, “Let’s go really big on the criminal stuff,” and we have a pretty crowded statute book at the moment. I think that is why lawyers are able to charge so much money, because there is a hell of a lot of reading involved even in making a case for a minor or small point.

Let us not overcrowd the statute book with statute law and criminal offences if we do not need to. We should ensure that the robustness is there, as in those other clauses, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister—not today, but either in the other place or on Report—to reflect on the considered and informed remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, and on my small and amateurish contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

Thank you for the clarity of your guidance, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to clause stand part and to pose some questions to the Minister following the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud. The proposal is very complex and the explanatory notes make it clear that this is a novel system. The concept of de-linking payments is welcome, but because it does not exist at the moment, it is hard for us to get our minds around it, so when the Minister responds, I encourage him to give us as much clarity as he can about the intent of how the de-linking scheme might work.

First, hon. Members have raised several challenges about how the structure of ownership and tenure of land might be affected by such a de-linking payment, which is designed to facilitate the transfer between one generation of a farming family or of a farming business and another. Farming businesses are very diverse, however, as is the nature of all businesses in this country, so it is difficult to assume that they will all fit in a neatly prescribed and, dare I say, bureaucratically designed structure.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to his farming business with his wife. My farming business is in partnership with my wife too, but I was previously a partner with my father. The advantage of a partnership structure is that it allows generations to come in and to retire in the same business. If the scheme is not capable of coping with that kind of structure, it will not apply to several family-run farming businesses. We need clarity about how the scheme will be designed to cope with the business structure.

Secondly, it is unclear to me, although I might not have picked it up in the drafting, whether the de-linking payments will cover the entire transitionary period or just a number of years that are yet to be determined and spelt out through the regulations. Any clarity about whether they are likely to be for a limited number of years or the entire period would be helpful.

Thirdly, it would be helpful to understand whether, when the regulations are proposed, the way the transition payments are reduced over the period will be determined through regulation and fixed, or whether they will be capable of adjustment. If they are adjustable payments, that will not provide the clarity that would help somebody to make a decision about whether to accept the de-linking payment at the beginning of the period, or whenever it is first allowable, because they will not know whether that is the right judgment to make.

Fourthly, if a payment is made in relation to a farming business, does that make the land to which it relates sterile in relation to other payments in future? Does that land become eligible only for public goods payments under the new scheme, or is there flexibility? If a business is sold, and the land is sold to an existing or neighbouring farmer, will that preclude them having any access to the transition payments? Those are my main points and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Sandy Martin]

I do not particularly want to address the amendments or the whole de-linking scheme in detail, but we need to bear in mind one or two basic principles. Obviously, if we support the movement to payment for public goods, and a tricky transition, people who have farm businesses that will be involved in that transition need to understand what will happen to them before they get there.

We do not want large numbers of farmers to move out of the business involuntarily. Subsection (7) provides the opportunity for support for somebody who has voluntarily decided to leave the business. However, there is a problem with small farmers in particular, who might have extremely delicate finances. They need to know before they get to the year in which they might find themselves unable to continue financially—indeed, they would need to know three or four years before—whether they are going to get there. They need to know that before deciding whether to take the lump sum payments under subsection (7). If they do not know whether they will be financially viable under the new payments regime more than three years before, that might become a fatal position for them. They might take the payment and go anyway, even though it might turn out that they would have been better off and happier continuing to farm under the new payment for public goods system, rather than the current system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

I have a query, which I am sure the Minister will be able to answer easily, relating to the decoupling of cross-border farms. There are many on the Welsh-English border, as there are on the English-Scottish border, that will own land in both England and Wales, or both England and Scotland. I can give many examples of farmers in my constituency who own land in Herefordshire or Shropshire—well, not much of Shropshire, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow owns most of Shropshire.

[Mr Dunne]

None in Shropshire.

[Chris Davies]

None in Shropshire, all in Herefordshire—all in Wales.

Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman has plenty of carrots, although I do not know about sticks. For those who do not know, he is in the carrot business. I have already said that I get a bit fed up with the constant refrain that we have the highest animal welfare standards in the world, because I think it suggests a slight degree of complacency and we should constantly aim higher. The Minister is probably sick to death of the number of written questions that I table about slaughterhouses and conditions on farms, but we have seen from undercover investigations some of the conditions under which the more intensive farms operate. I am by no means tarring all farmers with the same brush, and it is good that we take animal welfare so seriously in this country. However, there are a lot of examples of when we do not, and we should not be too complacent about it.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I should declare that I am a livestock farmer and am in receipt of single farm payment. I understand that she may not have had much experience of visiting livestock farms, though she might have done so as a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She would be welcome to come and see the livestock on my farm—both cattle and sheep—and how they are looked after. That might encourage her to consider whether she wants to continue to be a vegan.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have visited quite a few farms. The hon. Gentleman is completely missing the point. Anyone could take me to a farm with happy cows or happy sheep, by his definition, but that does not mean that there are not places where abuse occurs—where animals are not kept in the best possible conditions or treated well. That is exactly the point I have just made. I accept that we have high animal welfare standards generally, but I am also saying that we should not be complacent. As for the vegan thing, I have been a vegan for 27 years, so the hon. Gentleman would have to do a lot more to change my mind than simply show me his cows.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

rose—

[Mr Dunne]

May I help the Minister on that point?

[George Eustice]

I think it is probably best if I answer one intervention before I take another.

We are in the middle of a huge decision to leave the European Union. An enormous amount of work is needed under the withdrawal Act to ensure that we have a functioning statute book on year one; we all recognise that, and it will necessarily take priority in the months ahead. However, I reassure the hon. Member for Stroud that all the EU regulations that bind us on this issue will still be in force in UK law when we leave the EU at the end of March. That will be unaffected by whether a Bill that recognises animal sentience has been introduced, because none of the regulations that we are bringing across are contingent on the overarching principle of animal sentience.

[Mr Dunne]

I have the distinct privilege of serving on the European Statutory Instruments Committee. The Leader of the House has reassured us that the volume of work for us in determining whether the forthcoming statutory instruments should be laid under the negative or the affirmative procedure will be very similar to that of scrutinising the routine number of statutory instruments that the House considers year on year. The forthcoming SIs should not give rise to the kind of concerns that the hon. Member for Stroud has voiced.

[George Eustice]

As a member of that Committee, my hon. Friend has to digest those points, so he probably has a clearer idea of the work that will be involved, but we recognise that it is a big exercise.

The hon. Member for Darlington raised an important point. I can reassure her that the Government are committed to publishing legislation that will recognise animal sentience. We do not believe, however, that it is right to bring that into the Bill in the way that she has by linking it only to the narrow issue of how payments are made, when we are talking about purposes that inevitably recognise animal sentience, because that is why we are incentivising farmers to adopt high standards of animal welfare.

Amendment 71, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East, also seeks to establish an additional rule that says broadly that financial assistance cannot be given unless it is over and above the regulatory baseline. I understand her point, and it is a legitimate question to ask, but it is wrong to try to prescribe it in that sort of amendment, for reasons that I will explain.

As a country, we have done something new in including animal welfare as a public good. I have been clear that I wanted to do that for the last couple of years. I have worked closely with the RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming, Farmwell and other organisations. We are trying something new. Just last week, I met Peter Stevenson from Compassion in World Farming.

We are considering several things in the design of a future animal welfare scheme. One of those is the possibility that we could financially reward farmers and incentivise them to join some kind of United Kingdom accreditation service-accredited higher animal welfare scheme—perhaps the RSPCA one or others that may form. We may also choose to support farmers to invest in more modern housing that is better for animal welfare. In the pig sector, there are some issues with outdated housing that does not lend itself to providing for modern welfare needs such as enriched environments and straw in barns. We may also have a third category of payment for the adoption of particular approaches to husbandry, such as lower levels of stocking density, systems that are more free range or even pasture-based systems.

Finally, we are interested in the potential for payment by results. Farmwell has done some work on that. The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned Compassion in World Farming and its view about payments for curly tails. If pigs go to slaughter with intact curly tails that have not been damaged, that is a good indicator that they have had a higher-welfare existence. Likewise, Farmwell has developed a feather-cover index for a depopulated flock of laying hens, which is a good indicator as to how well people have approached farm husbandry. In a free-range system, there can be good and poor farm husbandry.

It is a complex area. If there is a mixture of payment for capital items to renew housing, which may have higher welfare outcomes, payment for joining accreditation schemes and, potentially, payment by results, it is not always obvious how that would be benchmarked against a regulatory baseline, which by definition does not cover everything.

If the hon. Lady is concerned about money being spent in that area in a way that simply pays farmers for what they are already doing to comply with the law, I guarantee that there will be no shortage of push-back and pressure from within the internal machinery of Government—the civil service, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and other Departments—to ensure that money is spent only to get additionality. We will not have the problem that she perceives, which is that we would spend money on things that are already a requirement by law, but if we were to accept her amendment, we might have a different problem, which is that we would place barriers in the way of policy innovation. For that reason, I hope she will not press amendment 71.

--- Later in debate ---

There are reasons why we would always import and export food, being a major export of the British economy. Knowing what will happen to the way we treat farmers and other users of the land is crucial. That is why we are probing with this amendment. No doubt we will come back in future with a slightly more thoughtfully worked-through amendment, which would allow us to bring both the environment and food production elements together. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minster has to say to allay some of our fears and show the way forward, and to hear what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say.

[Mr Dunne]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, and to follow the hon. Member for Stroud, whose amendment bears a striking resemblance to mine. The prime difference between my amendment 88 and his amendment 52 is the order of the subsections, and I do not think that is substantive. As he just described, my amendment came from the wording in schedule 3 relating to Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, who inexplicably left the room just before I rose to make my contribution, asked me to assure the Committee that he supports the amendments.

One reason for tabling the amendment was to pick up on some of the comments made in the evidence sessions, in particular from the representative of the farming industry in Scotland. They welcomed as close an alignment as possible of the regimes that will stem from the Bill, and once we leave the CAP regime, to try to minimise difference among the four schemes. I am conscious that we do not have any of the regulations that will implement the schemes but, in terms of the regulatory environment and the legislation, the more commonality we have between the four nations, the better for farmers and the industry.

I must remind the Committee of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a farmer who will be affected by the regime, in common with other farmers. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government’s intent in relation to agricultural support. I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Stroud said. We are designing a scheme that replaces the legislative environment of the 1947 Act, which put in place an initial set of agricultural support. We are also replacing the CAP system that we have been operating under since the 1970s. The legislation is designed to set in place agricultural support for the future. Yet the challenge to us, as members of the Committee, is that the purposes as set out under clause 1, thus far, are not agriculture-heavy; they are agriculture-lite; or barely existent.

There is a challenge, which I think we will see when the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs comments on the Bill. It is keen to see specific references to agriculture, horticulture and forestry in the purposes of the Bill. That was what lay at the heart of my amendment 88, and in particular proposed new subsection 2(d) of clause 1, which refers to

“supporting the production of such part of the nation’s food and other agricultural produce as it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom.”

When I intervened on the Secretary of State on Second Reading, I asked him what his view was about food security being an important purpose of the Bill. As a former journalist with an ability to encapsulate pithily what he means in as few words as possible, he replied with four words: “Food security is vital.” That is why I felt that it was important to probe where the Government stand on the issue, because that objective is not as apparent in the drafting that has emerged in the Bill as the Secretary of State was on Second Reading. Amendment 88 would help to make that objective explicit.

The Secretary of State went on to describe how he sees food security providing the opportunity for UK-based farmers to compete internationally by way of exports. Of course, the UK competes internationally in global food and food product markets. At the moment, we produce about 60% of the food we consume in this country, so we are importing 40%—not quite as much as we are producing. There is clearly a risk that once we move to more internationally competitive markets, we will find imports coming in to a greater degree. We are now setting up a legislative programme that will allow for unforeseeable events in the future, and future Secretaries of State may therefore find it advantageous to have a power on the face of the Bill that allows future Governments to design or redesign a scheme in the event of market conditions changing.

We will talk about exceptional market conditions later in our consideration of the Bill, and I welcome the clauses that deal with that topic. They represent a very good idea. However, when responding to the amendments, I urge the Minister to consider whether it is desirable for Secretaries of State to have that power, which may—rather than must—be used. At some point in the future, in the event that there are challenges to local production, that power may be called upon. Food security is not just about how much food we grow in this country; it is about how readily accessible food is to our populations in the event of difficulty. We have already seen from previous incidents of industrial disturbance and severe weather that, on occasion, distributing food to the population is not as easy as it is during normal times. Having the ability to grow as much food as we can in this country will be of benefit for the future.

[Mr Goodwill]

Is it not the case that the amendment is absolutely in line with the 1975 Government White Paper entitled “Food from Our Own Resources”?

[Mr Dunne]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his encyclopaedic knowledge of previous agriculture Bills.

I move on to some brief remarks about amendment 89 and the consequential amendment 90, which would amend schedule 3, “Provision relating to Wales”. Those amendments seek to make it explicit that agricultural support should be payable to those who are responsible for managing the land. Under the previous system, that support has been paid to farmers. We are trying to devise a system of public goods for farmers to do things of environmental benefit that will replace income that they would otherwise derive from growing food, food produce or horticultural forestry products on the land. That aims to provide farmers with some incentive to generate environmental benefits. It is the farmers—all 83,500 of them—who currently receive direct payments through the RPA basic payment scheme who are most deserving of the support that will be made available in the future, rather than other worthy, worthwhile groups who will be able to advise them and generate benefit for the environment. But they are the people who are responsible for delivering most of that public good; that is, the people who manage the land.

That was explained by the Secretary of State in a letter that he sent to MPs when the Bill was published last month. He said:

“For too long our farmers have been held back by the stifling rules and often perverse incentives of the CAP… Our new Agriculture Bill marks a decisive shift. It will reward farmers properly at last for the work they do to enhance the environment around us. It recognises the value farmers bring as food producers.”

He was very clear that the Bill is designed to provide support to farmers in lieu of what they would otherwise do in managing the land by trying to stimulate a greater public good.

I therefore encourage the Government to respond on whether the Bill seeks future support to be able to make payments to those who deliver public benefit from stewardship of the land, or whether it should go to other bodies that do so only indirectly, and for which there may be benefits through subsequent legislation, such as the environment Bill, which might be a more appropriate place for it.

[Sandy Martin]

The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report stated that if the Bill is passed in its present form,

“Parliament will not be able to debate the merits of the new agriculture regime because the Bill does not contain even an outline of the substantive law that will replace the CAP after the United Kingdom leaves the EU”.

What the House of Lords was looking for and what, I believe, farmers are looking for is a far clearer expression of the support that farmers will get and the activities for which they will get that support than is expressed in the Bill.

However, at least one thing is clear in the Bill as it stands. The Secretary of State does not envisage rewarding farmers just for being farmers. They need to be supporting the public good. I think farmers would support that, but the problem is defining exactly what the public good is and the extent to which any definition should be left entirely to the Secretary of State, rather than laid out clearly in the Bill. If the hon. Member for Ludlow supports the idea that access to healthy local food grown sustainably is a public good, I am a little mystified as to why he could not support our amendment.

We all want what is best for this country. One of the supposed benefits of Brexit was that it would enable us to decide for ourselves what would be the best agricultural support regime, rather than having to rely on the common agricultural policy. However, I am afraid that amendments 88, 89 and 90 fall down at that hurdle, because they very much advocate supporting farmers simply for being farmers. In the words of amendments 88 and 89, following the meaning across from one amendment to the second:

“The Secretary of State may also give financial assistance”

to

“those with an interest in agricultural land, where the financial assistance relates directly to that land.”

In other words, that means paying farmers for being farmers or, indeed, paying landowners for being landowners, which neatly expresses the worst aspects of the current operation of the common agricultural policy.

I have been a keen advocate of much of the support and protection that we have achieved through our membership of the European Union, and I fear that we will lose a good deal of it when we leave. However, even I would never claim that the common agricultural policy is perfect, and the UK has been at the forefront of attempting to reform it over the years. I think that that reform was intended to ensure that any financial support through the common agricultural policy aligns better with the support of the public good, but I do not believe that it was altogether successful. Payments to landowners simply for being landowners is one of the aspects of the common agricultural policy that this Bill was designed to end, so amendments 89 and 90 would be a serious step backwards.

Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

I disagree with my hon. Friend on this point because, as I said, I was not simply citing the 1947 Act. I also cited the Science and Technology Act 1965, which predated our membership of the EU. Even more recently, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 used “may”, and things have not changed much since then.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has given the Committee a history lesson on different Governments introducing different powers in different scenarios. To help the Committee, will he remind us whether there is any unifying theme in those three Acts? Which party, for example, was in government on each of those occasions?

[George Eustice]

I think, if memory serves, a Labour Government were in power in each of those three examples. That point is well made. We have to understand the sentiment that lies behind the concern for duties on Government rather than powers for Government to exercise, as is traditional in our constitution. A lot of this stems from the fact that we are leaving the European Union—from a sentiment that says, “Whatever will we do when we have not got the EU to tell us what to do, to impose regulations on us, to launch infraction proceedings against us and to send in auditors to complain about the width of our hedges and gateways or about how we record payments?”

The answer is that as we leave the European Union, we should, as a country, embrace self-government—as we used to, and as we did in the 1947 Act. We should have more confidence in our ability to translate powers in an Act into actions and commitment for Government.

Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I do not think we will reach a conclusion on that this afternoon.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

Q Mr Burgess, you are very welcome. You are in an invidious position, if I may say so, in coming to this Committee, and I am very pleased that you have. In the light of what you just heard from Mr Hall, what confidence can the Committee and Scottish farmers, particularly those whose farms cross the border, have, given the lack of engagement by the Scottish Government? Absent what you just told us about the letter, which we get to see in your proposed amendment, what confidence can the Committee and farmers have that the Scottish Government will respond to the call from its farmers to have common standards with the rest of the UK?

George Burgess: Essentially, the Scottish standards and arrangements are not changing here; it is the ones on the other side of the border that will change. Under the powers in the Bill, as yet we do not know quite what they will change to. We know what the Scottish standards are, but we do not know quite what the English standards will look like. Any disparity would arise in that situation as a result of a change in England rather than a change in Scotland.

[Colin Clark]

Q In one of the pieces of evidence we heard today, Jack Ward of the British Growers Association said it would be a nightmare if we had four producer organisation schemes. That is not about cross-border farming or farms; that is about strawberry growers in Angus working with strawberry growers in Kent; and equally, potato growers in north-east Scotland operating with potato growers in Lincolnshire. We have spoken about common frameworks, but surely, for the sake of the unitary market of the UK, we must have an absolute, concrete commitment that we will not have market- altering divergence. Can you foresee a situation in which we had four producer organisations?

George Burgess: It is important to understand the way the producer organisation recognition system operates at the moment. This is a devolved area, but one in which all the Administrations, in our case through agency agreements, have chosen to delegate the function to the Rural Payments Agency. There is one body that does the work on behalf of all the Administrations. That system works well in a number of other areas that I am aware of. We are certainly not proposing that that should change. That it is devolved has been well recognised. There was a court case in recent years—a challenge to a Scottish-based producer organisation. Although the work was done by the RPA, the Scottish Ministers were ultimately in the frame.

We have absolutely no difficulty with a system of producer organisations. We do not quite see the need to have the provisions in the Bill, given the existing European provisions on producer organisations. All that we are suggesting through our amendments is that, in relation to Scotland, to mirror the existing position—nothing new—the powers should be with the Scottish Ministers. I would fully expect them to be delegated in turn to the Rural Payments Agency, as they are at present.

Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

Q Mr Cross, you have been talking about the livestock information scheme. Is the intention, as you move towards a digital system, also to do away with the ear-tag identification system and move into higher technologies, with chips implanted in animals? And if it is not, are the powers of clause 1 to provide support to the health and welfare of livestock sufficient to enable payments to be made on a productivity basis, to allow livestock farmers to upscale into this digital environment, which will come at some cost?

John Cross: The investment required to change the way animals are identified from the way they are identified now, in fact a system like the livestock information system—in order for it to work, be real-time and achieve what everyone desires—would have to be based on individual electronic identification. So, over a period, we would have to mandate bovine EID. That would mean a small increase in cost in the tagging of cattle, but as scale develops that extra cost diminishes.

We have not yet looked at the technology required for on-farm reading and the rapidity of uptake. It may be that something could be done to enhance training and equipping at farm level. However, we are making sure that in the planning of this system, those farmers who do not wish at the time to invest in reading equipment, or feel that they do not understand it, will have access to collective reading facilities. In other words, that is where the livestock auctioneer sector is so important for smaller producers who do not want to upscale. They can actually get their livestock read, so that they can adhere to the system without having to equip themselves. So we are trying to make it as flexible and as kind as possible, but industry in particular is fairly ambitious about the timescale of change. We must not try to run two systems alongside each other, because the aim is to go from paper to digital, and trying to run both systems would be fraught with problems.

[Mr Dunne]

Q Thank you. I have one question for the Environment Agency. At the moment, you have responsibility for monitoring water quality but not soil quality. As water, soil and air are the three primary tests of environmental benefit, should the Bill give you powers to do that? Or who will have responsibility for soil monitoring?

Professor Fox: We currently have little responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the state of soils. We are aware of the importance of soils to the production and productivity of our whole landscape, and we are worried about the scale of soil loss, particularly that emanating from farming. It has a large cost associated with it, as well—water companies clearing up the soil and the dredging of rivers that is required as a result of soil loss.

So we would strongly support a greater focus on soil if this Bill could provide it, and more opportunities to help and support farmers to maintain that core productivity. It is absolutely in everybody’s interests that we keep soil on the farmland. I think that greater focus on soil would be entirely beneficial.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Q This is for the Environment Agency, really. In your experience, does paying people to change behaviour work, or do you think there are better ways to do that? Also, what happens if payments get stopped by future Governments?

Helen Taylor: In answer to the question whether payments or other mechanisms change behaviour, I believe that we need a variety of mechanisms working together. At the moment, regulations are set to prevent pollution from occurring, for example from the water side of things, and then payment is given to raise that standard and deliver more for the environment and the public goods that we want to achieve. Those things together, or combined, have a better effect than either one or the other.

Alongside that, there are all sorts of mechanisms for providing advice and guidance and showcasing how people could best carry that out. I firmly believe that a combination of mechanisms is needed for the future.

Professor Fox: I support that very strongly. The role of the supply chain and producer organisations in helping to promote and assure good environmental practice is a fantastic adjunct to any enforcement effort, and also helps support and promote the delivery of public goods. It is about that mixture of carrot and stick, if you like, to achieve the right outcomes for society and the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandy Martin]

Q As you said earlier, the devil is in the detail. There is very little detail in the Bill at all. Most of what will come out of the Bill will be in regulations, and there is very little written into it about consultation. Would you feel more comfortable about having more consultation written into the Bill so that you will know that, when the regulations are coming up, your concerns and those of other people involved in the industry will be taken into account?

Helen Browning: I think it would be helpful because we are in a situation where we do not know so much of what is going to transpire over the next year or two. I think that there will be a huge amount more policy making to do, and this is just the starting point. What we must make sure of, with this Bill, is that it does not close off avenues that we may need open to us, depending on what happens to trade and the Brexit deal itself. It is base camp, and as everything else starts to become a little clearer, I think more consultation, as we start to look at the regulatory framework, would be really helpful.

Jack Ward: From our point of view, I think there is a case for saying that the lack of detail is not a bad thing, given the timescale we are working on and the need for this Bill to be in place before the end of March. The worst thing would be to rush forward with schemes and solutions that had not been properly thought through. We work very closely with DEFRA on the development of schemes, and in our experience it is really important that those who are going to operate them at ground level are part and parcel of the development process, because we have seen just how difficult it is to implement some of the EU schemes. God forbid that we go around the buoy of producing schemes that are inoperable, having designed them ourselves. I think there is an onus on all of us to work together to make sure these things work for the benefit of everybody involved, from taxpayer to grower, through to consumer.

[Mr Dunne]

Q Mr Ward, you have touched on public procurement, and you gave some examples of procurement in other existing EU countries. As we come out of the EU, do you think there is scope for this Bill to make provision for us to be much freer as to public bodies procuring locally? Should that be specified in the Bill?

Jack Ward: Yes, I think public procurement would be really helpful; but we have to recognise that we only produce a percentage of the total requirement. Inevitably, there are periods of the year, or there are crops, where it is not that easy to get locally grown produce, simply because it does not exist. We need to factor that in to our thinking. It is all very well to say, at a design level, “Yes, wouldn’t it be great if you specified that it had to be British?”, but eight out of 10 tomatoes are imported, so, by definition, they will not be local.

[Mr Dunne]

Q Ms Browning, you might want to come back to procurement, but my question relates to your role in the Soil Association. You used the word “biodiversity” earlier. Do you think there is enough in the Bill to allow for R&D and greater understanding of soil composition? My sense is that we have much less understanding of the biology and chemistry of our soil than we do of many other areas of life. Does the Bill facilitate a greater understanding among farmers of what is going on in their land?

Helen Browning: I was surprised that soils were not mentioned explicitly in the list of public goods. As I said earlier, it mentions land but not soil. You are right that, on an R&D front, there is still a lot to learn on the biology side, but there is a lot that is already known that could be implemented quite quickly.

I was surprised because the Minister has been so vocal about soils. I would like to ensure that it is absolutely core within the Bill, that we are specific about that and that we start to set ourselves some targets for reversing the decline in our soil, particularly in the organic matter levels in our soil.

[Craig Tracey]

Q My question follows on nicely from your last point, because, as you say, the Minister has emphasised the importance of soil health. Measures to promote it are covered by the purposes of clause 1(1)(c) —I think it is in the additional provisions. What sort of specific interventions do you think would best deliver improvements in soil health?

Helen Browning: Jack may want to come in on this as well. Generally, it would be about moving into more rotational farming systems, which is usually integrating grassland with growing cover crops. Reducing tillage can sometimes help, although it is not always the way through. Some of the agroforestry opportunities are there too. Rotational farming systems usually improve soil health.

Another is making sure that manures and other inputs are going back on to the soil. One of the things that I have a complete hysteria about is the burning of straw for fuel, when it should be going back to the land—that carbon should be going back to the land. It is about making sure that carbon-based inputs are being recycled into our soils and that we are not damaging those soils by over-heavy machinery, which is a big problem—I am looking forward to the days of little robots running around doing our work for us, rather than all the great machines that are crushing our soils to death—or about leaving soils bare over the winter or even during the summer months.

There is a whole host of well-known factors. A lot of those come together, obviously, within an organic farming system, which is demonstrated to have much higher levels of soil organic matter on average, which is the key indicator that we are looking at in our soil. We know how to do some of those basics.

Moving towards targets for soils at a farm level is difficult, because every soil type is different and will have different capabilities, so we need to be careful about how we use the metrics. We know enough about what husbandry methods we need to be encouraging, however. Good mixed farming is a good place to start.

Agriculture Bill (Second sitting)

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

Q You mentioned earlier that livestock and lowland farms were identified as being particularly at risk. Given that they are already on fairly poor land—they are often coastal farms—does the Bill allow any mitigation to support those farms, and if not, what does the NFU recommend?

Andrew Clark: At present, the Bill does not go into that detail. That is something that would fall into the policy measures that would follow from this. There is potential for agri-environment schemes to help deliver support to those type of farms. Equally, I would see measures on the productivity cornerstone the NFU has been advocating as being suitable for those types of farm business so they can, as I say, be better, more sustainable food producers, but also sustainable in the environmental sense.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

Q Do you think the categories of extraordinary measures that can be introduced in the event of market failure or disease having a particular impact on certain sectors of agriculture are sufficient if the country, as a result of the introduction of these new schemes, loses its position on food security and imports take over a much higher proportion of the food consumed in this country?

Andrew Clark: You make an important point. We are very pleased to see provision for measures to be taken in exceptional market circumstances. The concern we have around that comes down to a couple of things: first, the power is a power and not a duty. In the circumstances that exceptional market conditions exist and are recognised, Ministers may choose to take action rather than have any expectation or duty to do so. We would expect that would be more likely a duty that should reside with Ministers. Secondly, that it is qualified; there are a number of circumstances that have to be in place for that to be taken into account. We would like to see, for example, a consultation with the industry and consideration given to the marketplace and market returns to understand whether an exceptional market situation exists or could exist in the near future. There is more work to be done on that.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q Everyone agrees that certainty on how and where to invest, and so that people can lend money to farmers and the agricultural sector for investment, needs to be safeguarded as much as possible in the Bill. To put it another way, that is something on which the major political parties can coalesce and which will not be subject to tinkering every six minutes or every change of Parliament, and so on. What is your hunch? Is there enough in this Bill? Is it robust enough to give the agricultural sector—those who wish to invest in the staff working within it or to lend to it—the option of doing so in the confidence that there will be a UK agricultural sector 20, 30, 40 or 50 years hence?

Andrew Clark: It is the start of that. There is certainty through to the end of this Parliament. The reason I raised the issue about a multi-annual budget is because we are not certain about the future. There is a transition path which sees the movement of money away from the basic payment scheme. We are not clear, apart from policy statements, about what that looks like or about the certainty and security that provides for farm businesses to invest in the future. Farm businesses are long-term investments. The food sector relies on 60% of its inputs from the farm sector in the UK, so we would hope that, by the time it leaves Parliament, the Bill will create that certainty and security for farm businesses and the rest of the food sector to invest with confidence. At present, without that budget certainty, I am not sure that there is that absolute cast-iron certainty.

Agriculture Bill (First sitting)

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome witnesses to the first public sitting of the Bill. Before we start, do any Members want to make declarations of interest for the record?

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In addition, I am a member and tenant of the National Trust and a member of the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union, the Countryside Alliance and the Woodland Trust, as well as of the Shropshire Wildlife Trust and the Small Woods Association. The Forestry Commission has a long-term tenancy of some woodland for which I have beneficial ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q I will target this question particularly at you, Mr Lancaster, because you have mentioned this area several times. Clauses 12 to 16 of the Bill focus on data protection and data sharing, with a view to increasing transparency in the agri-food supply chain. In practical terms, how will that transparency help, and how can we avoid making the data collection too burdensome on, for example, farmers?

Thomas Lancaster: I mentioned it recognising its importance, as opposed to being an expert on it, given that I am from a conservation organisation. This is not just about the data collection; from our perspective, if anything, some of the other clauses about first purchases and producer organisations may be more important. I can see that there would be concern about some of the data collection. The Government might get a bit carried away in terms of what data they collect, so there should absolutely be a principle underpinning that. The Government should ask only for data that they will actually use, and data that will further their aim of improving transparency. They should have to be really clear about why they are asking for that data.

On how the powers in the middle of the Bill can improve transparency and the position of farmers, if you take producer organisations as an example, in the Netherlands there is a huge culture of co-operation in farming. That is really lacking in farming in the UK. The powers in the Bill create producer organisations in which farmers can work together to manage supply, market their produce, add value and, effectively, cannibalise some of the roles in the supply chain where a lot of the profit sits. That is how you can return more of the profit back to the primary producer.

Similarly, on the first purchaser of agricultural products clause, we know anecdotally and through reports of the Groceries Code Adjudicator that there are many instances where farmers are not treated well by the first purchaser. At the moment, the GCA extends only to retailers, whereas that clause would effectively extend that regulation of the supply chain—of that commercial relationship—to all famers who sell their products. In better regulating that relationship, you can do things such as ensure that farmers are paid within an acceptable timeframe, which effectively strengthens their position in negotiating a price for their product with whoever buys it first.

[Mr Dunne]

Q Mr Begg, as one of the largest landowners in the country, do you think that the proposals over de-linking, which might allow residual payment over the transition period to be paid up front to facilitate a retirement or some such, are in practice likely to be applied by any of your tenants, and what does it leave for the continuing tenant if there is no transition funding available for subsequent years?

Patrick Begg: Will it be attractive to some of our tenants? I suspect that it will. There may be lots of reasons for that, which we do not have time to go into. There is the risk that you have just identified: will there be a vacuum, in which case nothing could be done, or it is not an attractive place for someone to come and farm? We need to tease that out. I can also foresee a bigger risk. We do not want long-term naked acres where the money is effectively retired out of the resourcing system. We really need to safeguard against that as the Bill progresses and as we design the scheme, because I think it does have the potential to unlock quite a lot of enthusiasm.

We turn over tenancies relatively regularly. The signals out there, both from us and with regard to where the debate has been going, is that we are probably creating a queue of people who are enthusiastically waiting to get tenancies to deliver the kind of things that the Bill sets out. I have confidence that plenty of people are waiting to do this and to make great farming businesses out of vacant tenancies, but it would be a worry if that support was retired out of the scheme. We need to attend to that risk, as the Bill goes through. Is that right Martin? You have plenty of our members in the Nature Friendly Farming Network.

Martin Lines: Yes. The question is, if one goes, what support is left for the new one coming in? There are a whole load of new entrants to whom this will hopefully give a kick-start, so that they get the opportunity to get on the renting ladder.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Q I will direct my question to Mr Begg and Mr Lancaster, if I may. Mr Begg, in your submission, you have mentioned dovetailing food production and land management. Looking from the arable fields to the livestock producers on your estates, do you feel that the Bill will reduce livestock production in this country? In 10 years’ time, when we reach the end of the transition period, do you expect to see less livestock in this country, or more?

Patrick Begg: I think we would all love a crystal ball, so that we could anticipate all that; I am not sure that we can. There will definitely be change. For some of the large livestock businesses that we see, quantum has been the only way to keep their nose above water. This scheme, as I think Tom mentioned, allows people to breathe a little more—perhaps to de-intensify in some places, and change the mix of livestock. We might see a change in the balance between sheep and cattle in some areas.

There are lots of ways that this can go. I see that this has a load of benefits at the back end for individual farmers. If I think about some of the farmers we have worked with in Yorkshire, Cumbria and Wales, rebalancing towards a more mixed livestock system that has less onerous duties for them to manage seven days a week, 24 hours a day—they were looking after huge numbers of livestock—has produced huge benefits for family life. Farmers do not have to spend all their time constantly working, and still get a higher margin by adding value to their produce.

The big thing we need to get right is the support that we give farmers in making that transition, as we start to change to that slightly different balance of livestock. The advice available and the measures in place during the transition for investing in different things to make the livestock system work better are absolutely critical; otherwise, 10 years from now, we will find that people are being asked to do something that they are culturally and practically ill equipped to do.

Thomas Lancaster: Upland sheep farmers are a good example of where you might look to the whole of the Bill. Long-term demand for lamb is in decline, as the age profile of lamb consumers is quite old. Young people do not eat it; they eat chicken and pork. In the long term, demand for lamb is likely to reduce. We export 40% of our lamb to the EU, and to north Africa under its free trade agreements with the EU, so what happens if there is friction there? We already hear about sheep farmers in Belgium and France gearing up effectively to pick up some of the demand currently met by UK farmers.

Where you have a chronically loss-making industry, in terms of the profit it makes from the core agricultural operation, direct payments have effectively masked that. We have done some economic analysis of our agricultural operations in the uplands, and direct payments are transformative, in terms of the economic performance of those businesses. You are talking about some of the most incredible, iconic landscapes and places in the country, and at the moment they are just being used for commodity land production, with no added value at all. Can we look to the provisions of the Bill on producer organisations to enable us to work with farmers in south or north Wales to create brands around Brecon lamb or Snowdonia lamb, or whatever? Those farmers could then work together to regulate supply, add value, process and brand the product, and develop markets, and they could focus much more on profit and provenance than on the total production that goes into a commodity market—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

Q I note what you say about the positive comments from DEFRA on the animal welfare that we have at the moment, but the Bill needs to be future-proof, and not all future DEFRA Ministers might be as cute and cuddly as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. You talked about a level playing field with the European Union. We need to make sure that we maintain at least that. I am told that we have probably the best animal welfare standards in the world. How can we make sure that the Bill stands the test of time and that we maintain that position? Some people argue that we ought to be almost pegging our standards to those of the EU so that we do not fall behind, and future Governments might experience pressure in the light of trade deals that might come in future years.

David Bowles: One of the most exciting things about trade deals at the moment—if I can use the words “exciting” and “trade deals” in the same sentence—is that we are starting to see language in them about equivalence on animal welfare standards. The EU has been a driver for this. It started with South Korea and has now got it with Chile, and it is looking at getting it with Mexico as well. That is a real incentive. We want to see similar language on equivalence with the EU, as well as with others. RSPCA Assured has shown that raising animal welfare standards can be done on a commercial basis—consumers will vote with their purses if they are given the right information and if there is enough transparency on the retailer market shelf—but some specific language on equivalence needs to be put into trade deals.

ffinlo Costain: Being in the lead is not something that continues unless you keep working at it. There are areas in which other countries are catching up with the UK, and possibly one or two in which they are starting to move ahead. It is therefore critical that we have metrics to measure the inputs and outcomes, and to understand at a national level where we want to be and how successful policy is at making that progress. We should be leaders—this is our opportunity. We will not win the race to the bottom, but we can win on quality by selling at home and selling abroad.

Look at Origin Green in Ireland. It is a unique national brand, although its climate outcomes are nowhere near as strong as what I would like to see. If we had a national brand based on metrics for climate change and biodiversity, with farm animal welfare used as a critical indicator of progress in both areas, it could be part of our gold standard work. It would underpin our progress and ensure it continues, and be a national brand that we could sell abroad. Origin Green is a really good place to look for an opportunity that we could quickly overtake and surpass in export and home production.

Simon Doherty: There is a huge commercial advantage from other parts of the world opening up to exploring improved animal welfare. We have consultancy firms such as FAI Farms that are working globally to help other jurisdictions to raise their standards towards those that we work at in Europe and in the UK.

I mentioned the underpinning research and development that is going on in the field of animal welfare. There are certainly other parts of northern Europe that are working on curly tails on pigs, for example, or improving health indicators such as mastitis or lameness in dairy cows. We have that world-class expertise across the board, and we need to continue to build on it. We also need to ensure that the funding is there to underpin that research.

[Mr Dunne]

Q I know that we are almost out of time, but I have one more question. The Government are looking to simplify some aspects of inspection regimes and so on through the Bill. In the areas that you are responsible for in animal welfare, do you have any recommendations that are not already in the Bill for improving but simplifying things?

David Bowles: We have been working with Dame Glenys Stacey on her review. Slightly worryingly, she has said that its recommendations will not be published in time for the Bill. There is a mismatch in terms of how we ensure good enforcement, particularly now that cross-compliance is ending, so we would like to see a commitment in the Bill to implementing some of the Stacey review’s recommendations on enforcement. The Government’s own research has shown that those who farm under a welfare assurance scheme, particularly one such as RSPCA Assured, are much less likely to break the law. We would like to see payments given to higher welfare assurance schemes, not just because they produce animal welfare benefits, but because they improve enforcement.

ffinlo Costain: We would like to see a reduction in the paperwork that farmers need to do. Reducing that burden is important if farmers are to become more productive and efficient, but we also want to see an increase in what is measured. We can achieve that by promoting self-assessment on farms and farmers’ participation in assurance schemes, and by increasing the measurement of data collected on use of technology to assist farmers, so that they feel the benefit day to day. We also need to work with slaughterhouses on livestock to ensure that we are doing much more measurement and standardising it. By pinning all that work together—self-assessment, technology, use of data and use of slaughterhouses—we can measure more, measure more effectively and reduce the burden.

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Agriculture Bill

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Gove]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne).

[Michael Gove]

This Government have emphasised that we will ensure that the high environmental and animal welfare standards of which we are so proud and which our farmers uphold are defended. We will not enter into trade or other agreements that undercut or undermine the high standards on which British agriculture’s reputation depends.

[Mr Dunne]

My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. I congratulate him on his opening remarks. Speaking as a farmer and for the many farmers I represent in my constituency, we are heartened to hear that he is putting farmers front and forward in the Bill. Further to his response to our hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), will he elaborate on the extent to which food security will be improved by the Bill, to ensure that we protect a viable agricultural sector in this country?

[Michael Gove]

Food security is vital. Throughout the history of the United Kingdom, food security has depended on both quality domestic production and access to food from other markets. Some 60% of our food, and 75% of the food capable of being grown or reared on our shores, comes from the United Kingdom, but of course we also have access to food from other nations, and it is vital that we continue to do so. The Government’s approach as we leave the European Union is designed to ensure both that we have the best possible access to European markets—I am sure that the House knows that we import more than we export to the EU—but that we take opportunities for our farmers to secure new markets. Critically—I am sure the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) will be interested to hear this—the sheepmeat sector not only has significant exposure to the EU, but benefits from trade deals with the middle east and the far east, where there is a growing market for the high-quality lamb and mutton that we produce in this country. Leaving the EU therefore gives us an opportunity not just to maintain our existing trading links, but to expand them.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 12 July 2018.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister back to her place. On the proper stewardship of trees, is she satisfied that the existing arrangements between the Forest Holidays group and the Forestry Commission fully accord with the commission’s statutory objectives?

[Dr Coffey]

We are not happy about the arrangement that the Forestry Commission has entered into with Forest Holidays, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Colin Day—the Department’s non-executive director and chair of its audit and risk committee—to undertake a review. He will be investigating the matter carefully.

[Official Report, 12 July 2018, Vol. 644, c. 1092.]

Letter of correction from Dr Coffey:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) during questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Dunne Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well; I call Mr Philip Dunne.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister back to her place. On the proper stewardship of trees, is she satisfied that the existing arrangements between the Forest Holidays group and the Forestry Commission fully accord with the commission’s statutory objectives?

[Dr Coffey]

We are not happy about the arrangement that the Forestry Commission has entered into with Forest Holidays, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Colin Day—the Department’s non-executive director and chair of its audit and risk committee—to undertake a review. He will be investigating the matter carefully.[Official Report, 16 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 2MC.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) wants to ask about the Clewer initiative, on which he has a related question which might otherwise not be reached. I am all agog. Let us hear the fellow.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

11. I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, particularly for mentioning the Churches’ Clewer initiative, which encourages members of the public to use an app. Admirable though that is, does my right hon. Friend think that it should have been left to the Churches to take the initiative to protect vulnerable people from exploitation in unregulated hand car washes, or should regulatory bodies themselves have taken such a step?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

My hon. Friend is an assiduous member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has launched an inquiry into abuses in unregulated car washes, and I can only commend his work and that of the Committee. Hopefully, in return, he can commend the ingenuity of the Church of England in making a leap into the digital age and developing an app that helps all of us to identify circumstances which we suspect may involve slavery or exploitation. That is but one example, and I imagine that other apps could be created that would really help us to stamp out modern-day slavery in our society.