Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to all the fishermen who fish our waters, particularly those who fish off the beautiful cost of South Dorset. They are an integral part of our community, and a very valuable one, and we must fight to do all we can to retain them. I agree with the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) that fishing within the 12-mile nautical limit should be for British boats. I, too, would be most grateful if the Minister could give some indication of whether that will be the case, when she or he sums up at the end of the debate—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It’s definitely a she!

[Richard Drax]

I see a she there, but we do not know who is going to sum up the debate. That is why I added that disclaimer.

We all know that the fishing industry is totemic. Like all fishermen, those in South Dorset feel let down and neglected, as do many others in this country. Before I came here today, I spoke to Andy Alcock, a fisherman in Weymouth who runs three boats. He is secretary of the local Association of Weymouth and Portland Fishermen and Boat Owners. I asked him what his views were, and what he wanted me to say today. His views mirror mine. He says, “We want our waters back. That’s what you told us when we argued about leaving the EU, and that’s what we expect to get.” He says that 18% of all fish sold on the continent comes from within our 25-mile limit. He would rather that we caught that fish and sold it to them. Both he and I hope that Ministers will stand their ground during the negotiations with the EU and not allow fishing to become a bargaining chip.

At the beginning of this year, I reminded the Prime Minister of a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who sadly is not with us at the moment. In December 2019, my right hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister:

“Will he guarantee that we will not make the mistake of the 1970s and allow the allocation of fishing resources to be a bargaining chip in the treaty negotiations? Will he guarantee that we will become a normal independent maritime nation and conduct negotiations on an annual basis for reciprocal deals to mutual advantage?”

The Prime Minister replied that we need

“to restore to this country the advantages of its spectacular marine wealth, and that is exactly what we will do, once we become an independent coastal state.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2019; Vol. 444, c. 148.]

Nothing less than that will do.

The Bill provides for that and I welcome it. Of course I will support it tonight, but fears remain in the fishing industry that fishermen might still, at this late stage, be betrayed as negotiations reach a critical stage at the end of this year. I urge the Government to stand firm, whatever they do, and not to betray our fishermen or our country. We have fought so hard, and it would be a tragedy if we betrayed them on this issue.

I have a message for Mr Barnier: “Hands off our fish!” My wife, who speaks fluent French, texted me a short time ago, so if he is listening, I say, “Monsieur Barnier, laissez nos poissons!”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a real privilege to close the debate on this important Bill. I will try to address what I can in the moments I have, but where I do not, I undertake to follow up specific issues with hon. Members directly; this has been a very wide-ranging debate.

There has clearly been a lot of interest in the status of the negotiations with the EU. Indeed, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), also raised the important negotiations that are going on with Norway and the Faroes. I understand the level of interest, and of course I share it, but this is not the place to discuss the current position of those negotiations. The task before us tonight is to make progress with this important Bill. It is a framework Bill that gives us the power to implement whatever we obtain in the negotiations. The measures in the Bill are required regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, and we must press on with our legislative programme.

The Bill has been developed in collaboration with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations, and with their help it has been improved. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, Minister Ewing recognised this last month when he confirmed the Scottish Government’s recommendation of consent for the Bill, saying:

“Unlike for other UK bills, the co-operative working between officials and indeed ministers in the Scottish Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the other devolved Administrations has demonstrated what can be achieved”.

At their request, this Bill gives the devolved Administrations more powers than ever to manage their fisheries. This is an opportunity to create tailored approaches to fisheries management across the UK.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). It is clear, on tonight’s showing, that he will be an outstanding leader of the Scottish Conservatives, and we have seen tonight—if we ever doubted—that he is very firmly on the side of the Scottish fishing fleet. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) made an excellent speech, and I would also like to mention the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who, because of his ministerial responsibilities, was unable to speak in the debate. I think it is fair to say that the Scottish industry is well represented in this House, as those Members take a great interest in every decision that is taken.

In a perceptive speech, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that there is a great deal of consensus for what the Bill is trying to achieve, and many Members from across the House spoke about getting the balance right—namely, the complexities of managing a diverse ecosystem with the interests of an equally diverse fishing fleet.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) made a stand-out speech. Of course, she helped to craft the Bill, and spoke passionately about its aims and objectives.

We heard some superb and wide-ranging Back-Bench speeches from across the House. The issue of safety was rightly raised on both Front Benches, and most passionately by my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell), the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who I welcome back from maternity leave, and many more Members across the House. Much work is being done on the issue. As Members have said, there is absolutely no need to wait for the outcome of the Bill to do this important work, and it is right to say that the Department for Transport, the Marine and Coastguard Agency, and Seafish are working hard on this issue. Unusual though it may be, I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State for the work that he has done to raise this issue again and again in this place. It is not a matter particularly for tonight’s debate, but definitely a matter of concern to all of us in this House—and that should have been heard loud and clear.

Other speeches that stood out for me included that of the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who gave us an important historical round-up of why we are here. On the specific point that he raised, I will ask the Scallop Industry Consultation Group to raise the issue of gear conflict. I undertake to report back to him on that.

Many Members encouraged us to eat more local fish and to promote British seafood, and many noted what had been done during the pandemic to support that and said how much more direct selling was being undertaken at the moment. I refer specifically to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), who represents the proud port of Grimsby, my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for West Dorset (Chris Loder), for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and for Witney (Robert Courts)—all of them proud eaters of seafood who were encouraging their constituents to be the same—and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I am not sure that it is Government policy yet that Southend should become a city, but there can be no doubt that he sticks up for the rights of his fishing industry and the rights of his people to eat what they produce.

We also heard some passionate speeches about the marine environment from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). The strong voice of Cornwall was heard around the Chamber and, indeed, acknowledged by the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who accepted that many of the issues raised mirror those of his own fishermen. It is great to have so many Cornish colleagues who, in their own words, would say that they had done a proper job at standing up for the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who is married to a fisherman, cannot be here tonight, but we heard strongly about the worries that Cornish colleagues have about the inshore fleet. I would like to reassure them that we are working with a number of recently formed groups—again, supported by Seafish—to collaborate on more sustainable management for specific stocks such as whelks and crabs. We have noted that parts of the industry have had louder voices than others in the past, and these new groups are an attempt to address that.

I should also mention the work of REAF, the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who mentions it frequently in this place. Its report contains some excellent ideas, which the Government will continue to look into.

Fisheries management plans will revolutionise how we manage our precious fisheries. They will allow us to take a holistic approach to management, managing fisheries at an appropriate level, not fettered by lines on maps or differences between inshore and offshore, between Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities districts or even between Administrations. We will continue to work with industry and interested parties in a much closer way, developing plans together and ensuring that we use the best possible evidence and local knowledge, so that we can create a management for fisheries that is truly appropriate.

A number of Members mentioned funding. Of course, with a fairer share of fish and more opportunities, we expect that profitability and investment in the sector will increase. However, we recognise that this will take time, so I would like to restate that the Government will maintain funding for fisheries across the UK’s nations throughout the Parliament, as we said in our manifesto commitment. The Bill provides new, expanded funding powers, which will allow us to fund infrastructure such as port development and training—I see the right hon. Member for Tynemouth nodding; I know that that has long been a concern of his. These new domestic funding schemes will support our priorities, and as a devolved matter, each Administration will lead on their own programme.

We all recognise the importance of the inshore sector, not just our Cornish colleagues. I am really pleased that, over the summer, tourists have been able to travel to our coastal communities and enjoy the very best of what our seas have to offer. As a family, we enjoyed some wonderful weather in Tenby over the weekend. It has been rather a shock to come back, straight into this important Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those seafood businesses that have adapted and innovated as a result of the pandemic and are encouraging more and more people to eat locally caught and directly sourced fish. We are determined to continue to work on this as a Government; it is a real priority for us.

Fishing is a key part of our heritage as an island nation. The injustices felt by so many concerning the common fisheries policy loomed large in the debate over our decision to leave the EU. This Bill gives us the opportunity to put that right and reclaim our position as an independent coastal state. It is a framework Bill, and I look forward to working across the House to put meat on the bones of the Bill, but it does what it needs to do, which is give us the powers we need to act in a flexible and responsive way, providing sustainable fisheries for future generations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Draft Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020 Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing rules. The spaces available for Members are marked; please do not sit in between those spaces. If Government Members wish to sit on the Opposition side of the Committee Room, that is perfectly okay. Hansard would be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 576).

[Victoria Prentis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The draft Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020 were laid before this House on 9 June. The two instruments have been grouped together for debate because they both amend retained EU law. The statutory instruments largely maintain the status quo from the 2019 scheme, and thus provide continuity for farmers. They do not change the rules that farmers have to meet. Both instruments are UK-wide and have been made with the consent of the devolved Administrations.

Before I explain a little more about each SI, I would like to explain why the Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 are subject to the made affirmative procedure. The procedure is specified in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020. That procedure was required because the EU law under that Act became domestic law on exit day, and amendments to make that law operable were also needed by exit day. That avoided a legislative gap in the direct payment schemes for this claim year. The instrument makes some further operability amendments using the same powers, and they, too, need to be made without delay. That will avoid any ambiguity that would result from the statute existing longer than is necessary.

The draft Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020 amend the UK national ceiling and net ceiling for this claim year, 2020. Those financial ceilings are used to calculate payments to farmers under the direct payment schemes. The amendments to ceilings take into account previous policy decisions made by the Government and devolved Administrations, such as the transfer of funds from direct payments to rural development. Each part of the UK has decided to make the same level of transfer in previous years. The amendment to the national ceiling and the net ceiling also reflect the findings of the Bew review and the subsequent funding decisions made by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.

The Welsh Government have decided to use the additional funds allocated to them for 2020-21 for their 2020 direct payment schemes. They have been added to the national ceiling and the net ceiling to account for that. The Scottish Government have decided not to use any of the money allocated to them following the Bew review for their 2020 direct payment schemes. We understand that they are still considering how they wish to use the money allocated to them for 2020-21, but it will be ring-fenced to be spent on farms in Scotland.

The net ceiling has also been amended to take account of the decisions made by the Government and devolved Administrations on the level of reductions to be applied to large payments. They are existing reductions that are separate from the phasing out of direct payments in England, which will not begin until 2021 under the Agriculture Bill. Each part of the UK has decided to maintain the same approach to the existing reductions as in previous years.

A key purpose of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 is to confirm what the euro-to-sterling exchange rate for payments will be for the 2020 direct payment schemes. The Government and the devolved Administrations have decided that it should be the same as for 2019. We are confirming that exchange rate three months earlier than happened under the common agricultural policy. That is to provide extra certainty for our farmers.

This instrument also addresses other, minor operability issues arising from the UK’s exit from the EU that were not fully dealt with at the time. For example, it removes redundant cross-references to provisions that are not part of retained EU law. It clarifies that, in some instances, the EU legislation being referred to is the version that had effect immediately before exit day. It removes some remaining references to the European Commission and makes other minor drafting amendments.

These amendments will enable the law governing the 2020 direct payment schemes to operate effectively in the UK, with no ambiguity. I commend the two sets of regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

Of course our time here is not wasted, Mr Robertson. The instruments before us do omit some redundant provisions that we have previously discussed and cross-referenced. Part of the purpose of the transition period is that events move on. We hope for a full free trade agreement. In fact, we hope for a number of them. We now need to omit some of the regulation-making powers relating to EU financing rules, which are not necessary for domestically funded schemes, and some of the rules on the European Commission’s budgetary management, but I look forward to looking more closely with the hon. Gentleman at the specifics of the measures that he referred to.

We are providing farmers with a good deal of certainty; that is the aim, partly, of the changes we are making today. The Government announced on 30 December nearly £3 billion of funding direct payments for 2020, which matches the funding that was available last year. The instruments that we are debating are consistent with that announcement. More broadly on funding, the Government’s manifesto guaranteed the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament; that, too, is designed to give certainty and comfort to farmers. This will enable the Government to provide financial support to farmers in England for the purposes set out in the Agriculture Bill.

We have been clear, consistent and as transparent as possible about the maximum reductions in the direct payments in 2021. We first announced those in September 2018 so that farmers would have time to prepare. We will throughout this transition period continue to consult genuinely as we conduct our tests and trials of ELMS and as the policy continues, quite properly, to evolve. We will provide much more information about our plans for the agricultural transition both in July and September this year—something we announced fairly recently—so there will be considerable flesh on the bones of the hon. Gentleman’s favourite ELMS policy document. Our new schemes will be a more effective way of rewarding farmers for the work they do, and will help them to prepare for the future.

We remain committed to introducing new schemes that reward farmers for producing goods that are valued by the public. That is why the ELMS discussion is going ahead at pace—and, yes, we want to conclude the first part of it next month. I know that the hon. Member for Cambridge will be keen to engage with that discussion. We recognise that farmers and land managers need certainty, which is why we have committed to a seven-year transition. During that time, we will free up money so that we can continue to offer an improved country stewardship scheme.

We are already working closely with the devolved Administrations to find approaches to the framework to co-ordinate agricultural support after 2022. We will at this point be using the money in slightly different ways—but all to the benefit of farmers. Rural development projects, through which we will channel the money in England, can of course include funding for hedgerows, which are critical to the way in which we feel ELMS will probably develop in the next few years. It would be wrong to say that that money is being sent elsewhere. It will be used for the benefit of English farming.

Farmers need stability, certainty and a smooth transition, so we will not switch off direct payments overnight. During the transition period, we will offer financial assistance to enable growers to invest in their equipment, technology and infrastructure; to improve their productivity; to manage the environment sustainably; and to deliver other public goods.

The statutory instruments make the necessary amendments to enable the Government and devolved Administrations to pay 2020 direct payments to farmers in line with the approach taken in previous years.

Question put and agreed to.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 576).—(Victoria Prentis.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to protect small-scale farming in the north of England in trade negotiations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

We are clear that any future trade agreements must work for both our farmers and consumers. This week, DEFRA and the Department for International Trade have jointly announced a package of measures to help food and drink businesses grow their trade overseas. The package is aimed in particular at small businesses, which make up 97% of the food and drink industry. This will benefit businesses across the UK, including those in the north of England. We will always stand up for British farming and we will use our negotiations to make new opportunities for our businesses large and small.

[Chi Onwurah]

As lockdown eases, many of my constituents are once again enjoying the glorious Northumbrian and County Durham landscapes. That depends on farmers small in scale but with really high production standards, whether it be for the cattle they graze on the town moor, or the sheep on the Cheviots, or the grain sold through local co-operatives such as Tynegrain. Why will the Minister not commit to writing into law that we do not import food with lower standards than those that our farmers already meet, so that they are not undercut by the American agro-industrial complex?

[Victoria Prentis]

The Secretary of State has already answered that in some detail. As my right hon. Friend set out. a range of measures are available to protect the hon. Lady’s farmers, including existing regulations. We have great transparency in this House and with the general public in our trade negotiations. There is a great deal of scrutiny of exactly how those negotiations are taking place, and they will be put before the House again before they are signed. We also have a further range of measures—we will be consulting in detail on labelling before the end of the year—which are all designed to protect her farmers.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to promote high animal welfare standards.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

This Government are committed to the highest standards of animal welfare. Our manifesto made it clear that we will bring in new laws on animal sentience, end excessively long journeys for farm animals and ban the keeping of primates as pets. We have introduced one of the world’s toughest ivory bans and will be supporting the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill.

[Felicity Buchan]

I was disappointed that, because of coronavirus, the Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill was delayed. Will my hon. Friend assure me that it will be heard in the House at the earliest opportunity?

[Victoria Prentis]

We all shared my hon. Friend’s disappointment, and I am pleased to be able to reassure her that the Bill is due to have its Second Reading on 23 October.

[Stephen Metcalfe [V]]

Our constituents expect us to uphold animal welfare and high food standards. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that maintaining the UK’s high food standards and excellent animal welfare record is, among other things, in the Government’s interest, as that is what customers at home and abroad expect and demand from UK producers?

[Victoria Prentis]

I absolutely agree with hon. Friend on that. The Government are proud of the high animal health and welfare, and environmental standards that underpin our high-quality produce. The UK’s growing reputation for quality food and drink, with high standards of food safety, animal welfare and sustainability, serves as a great platform from which to expand our exports.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Minister has been hearing a strong message from the House this morning about animal cruelty, because, sadly, the lockdown has seen an increase in it, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reporting 47,000 incidents —the Daily Mail calculates that that is one case every two minutes. As we have heard, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill has been constantly delayed. The Bill has cross-party support. The Government are supposed to be supporting it and they are supposed to be running this place, so will the Minister guarantee that Finn’s law will be on the statute book by the end of the year and available to the courts?

[Victoria Prentis]

As I said a moment ago, 23 October is the date available for Second Reading. I have supported the Bill from the beginning and I am pleased it will be moving forward just as quickly as we can do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to increase the productivity of UK farms.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The Agriculture Bill will allow us to introduce ambitious new schemes in England based on the principle of public money for public goods, so that we can reward farmers who protect our environment, improve animal welfare and produce high-quality food in a sustainable way. The Bill will also help farmers to stay competitive.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Despite spending £3.4 billion each year under the common agricultural policy and subsidies for our farmers, the productivity growth rate has not significantly increased since the 1990s. This is in stark contrast with unsupported sectors such as egg production, where in 2019 alone productivity increased by 3.8%. Does my hon. Friend agree that the removal of the damping blanket of the CAP, as well as increased competition, will drive productivity growth throughout farming, allowing Government support for farming to focus on public money for public goods?

[Victoria Prentis]

I absolutely agree that moving away from the CAP provides the opportunity for a more prosperous, competitive and self-reliant industry. We will support UK farms to focus on their business modelling and to improve efficiency, which may well, in turn, reduce their environmental footprint.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to support the UK fishing industry during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

We understand that this is a challenging time for the fishing industry and we have taken steps to support the sector. In April, we launched a £10 million financial assistance package for England’s fishing and aquaculture businesses, which included a £1 million grant scheme to support the sale of fish locally. The sector is also able to benefit from the wider financial support measures available for businesses. In addition, the Sea For Yourself campaign has encouraged people to eat more fish.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. The process of determining which businesses received funding through the domestic seafood supply scheme has been criticised as being unfair. While one project in the Lowestoft area was successful, two good applications were not. What assistance will be available to these and other businesses so as to enable the East Anglian fishing industry to meet the infrastructure and other costs in preparation for the end of the transition period?

[Victoria Prentis]

I cannot discuss the individual cases, but I can say that applications were reviewed by a panel of experts, including several representatives from the catching and processing sectors. The judging panel awarded funding to projects that best met the criteria, especially those that could deliver benefits to a range of fishing businesses.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

What estimate his Department has made of the increase in plastic waste as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to maintain food supplies for vulnerable people during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

We have mobilised an unprecedented package of support for our most vulnerable people, including over 3 million food boxes and priority supermarket delivery slots. An additional £63 million has been confirmed by the Government to be distributed to English local authorities to help those who are struggling to afford food and other essentials. The Government are also providing £16 million to food support through charities, including FareShare and WRAP.

[Richard Burgon [V]]

The current pressure on food banks is absolutely immense, and we know that income is at the heart of food poverty, so will the Government take the urgent social security measures needed now to get people the financial support they need, so they can get food on their plates and on their children’s plates, by ending the five-week wait for universal credit and abolishing that punitive two-child limit?

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government have introduced a package of support of over £6.5 billion to help families on benefits to cope with the financial impact of covid.

I would like to use this opportunity, if I may, to pay tribute to the taskforce, which I have led for the last few months, on feeding the vulnerable. We have worked very closely with colleagues across Government—in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and other Departments—as well as, of course, with an excellent team from the supermarkets and volunteers. I am pleased to say that, in so far as we have been able, we have ensured that everybody who needs it has access to food.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Protection of UK Food Standards

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this important debate. This is a subject that Members across the House are rightly passionate about, and not just Scottish colleagues—all four nations are well represented this evening. It has been good to hear from Northern Ireland, Coventry, the highlands and many other places in the course of the debate.

I am proud that I, with all my colleagues on the Government Benches, stood on a manifesto commitment that, in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. It is always good to hear about farms in my hon. Friend’s constituency. As a farmer’s son, he is well placed to champion Scottish farming and Scottish produce—I am not saying that only farmer’s children make good MPs, but it certainly helps. I know he feels that this is in contrast to those who have chosen to put nationalism before farming. I have fond memories of visiting his constituency and attending the ridings nearby, and I am pleased to hear that Kelso produce is being enjoyed around the world, even on the Orient Express.

I know that many Members were keen to get involved in this debate, and I look forward to speaking to them further about this important subject in the weeks and months ahead. Across the House, we are all united by a desire for British producers to sell their great produce around the world. The debate on how to promote high standards here while ensuring that we do not import goods produced to standards we find unacceptable is not new. It predates our departure from the EU and will doubtless continue well after the end of the transition period.

To tackle this issue, we require a comprehensive package of measures, one of which is, of course, regulation. I would like to reaffirm once again the Government’s commitment to upholding our high environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards as we leave the EU. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 will transfer all existing EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, on to the UK statute book after the transition period. Those requirements include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in domestic and imported products, and they make it clear that no products, other than potable water, are approved to decontaminate poultry carcases.

Transparency is also key to this debate. We are going into all our trade negotiations, including with the US, clear that our standards will be upheld in future deals. With regard to the US and other live talks, our negotiating objectives, economic assessment and updates from the initial round have been provided to the House. We will continue to provide further detail as we progress. It is a great pleasure to have my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) here for this debate. The Department for International Trade and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working closely together at the moment to promote British produce around the world.

All trade deals are also subject to the scrutiny procedures laid out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which means that once free trade agreements have been signed, they need to be laid in Parliament for 21 sitting days, alongside an explanatory memorandum, before they can be ratified and enter into force. There will be ample opportunities for scrutiny.

[Patricia Gibson]

We know that one of the concerns raised by farmers is the flooding of the UK market with cheap imports from America. It looks pretty clear, apparently, that the US negotiators will oppose labelling of their products in the UK as US products, so that consumers will not know which food comes from the US. Is the Minister concerned about that?

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Lady, whom I definitely consider to be a friend, for her intervention. Labelling was raised by a few Members. We have committed to a serious and rapid examination of what can be done through labelling in the UK market to promote high standards and high-welfare goods, and we will consult on this at the end of the transition period. I would like to reassure her that we have already started work on that consultation. Labelling is undoubtedly one of the tools in the armoury that we will need if we are to produce the situation that we all want—namely, to trade around the world while promoting high standards.

[Deidre Brock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I fear that I need to make some progress. [Interruption.] Oh, well, if it is very quick.

[Deidre Brock]

The Minister is very kind. I wonder whether she is prepared to comment on my remarks about the US ambassador having said recently that, basically, the UK would have to accept US standards in the UK if it wanted a trade deal.

[Victoria Prentis]

That was answered extremely well earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, so I will carry on, if that is all right.

The Government have in place a range of stakeholder and expert groups that feed into our policy specifically on trade. Those include the strategic trade advisory group, the agri-food expert trade advisory group—that trips off the tongue—and the sustainability expert trade advisory group. We are always looking at how to enhance representation on those groups—although I do not know that the US ambassador would be a candidate to be on one of them—and we are keen to put in place measures to ensure that we keep the groups as closely informed of the negotiations as possible.

DEFRA also runs various supply chain advisory groups, such as the arable group, the livestock group and the food and drink panel. We are strongly supported by expert advice on food standards. Colleagues will know that the UK’s food standards, for both domestic production and imports, are overseen by the Food Standards Agency and, indeed, Food Standards Scotland. Those are independent agencies that provide advice to both the UK and Scottish Governments. They will of course continue to do so, to ensure that all food imports comply with our high safety standards. The Government are and always will be keen to continue to work closely with stakeholders across the food chain to understand their concerns about the impact of new trade deals, as well as the opportunities that they will give us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk spoke passionately about the opportunities that the UK’s being an independent trading nation presents for British farming and, indeed, for the public at large—sentiments that I really share, as I hope does everybody across the House. I am confident that, from what I have laid out, the House should be reassured that we will both protect food standards through the range of measures that I briefly outlined, and really seize the benefits of our new trade policy for all people and parts of the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Direct Payments to Famers (Crop Diversification Derogation) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 475).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, in this novel proceeding. It is good to be here. If hon. Members cannot hear, they can wave a hand; we will manage.

This statutory instrument will remove the crop diversification requirements from the direct payment scheme in England in 2020, which means that farmers in England will not be required to grow more than one crop in order to receive their full greening payment. Although it is hard to remember, England experienced prolonged wet weather last autumn and winter, which had a serious impact on farmers’ ability to comply with the greening rules. This SI presents a sensible and proportionate response to that situation, and it is fully supported by farmers and landowners.

The SI is made under article 69(1) of regulation 1307/2013, which was incorporated into domestic law for 2020 by the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, and relates to this year only. We are continuing to act in accordance with the EU legislation that has been rolled over, in line with our decision to operate an equivalent direct payment scheme for this year in order to maintain the state aid exemptions that were laid out in the withdrawal agreement.

I want to say a bit more about the wet weather that came upon us over the autumn and winter; that will hopefully make it clear to hon. Members why this SI is so necessary. We really did have extreme wet weather last winter, and it had a very significant adverse impact on farm communities. Large areas of farmland were under floodwater or were severely waterlogged. It left farmers thinking over the winter that they might have the option of planting spring crops, but those plans were pushed back by yet more rain following two severe storms in February, which left land flooded and waterlogged again.

From September 2019 right through to February 2020, England experienced significantly higher rainfall than the long-term average. In February, when farmers were preparing to enter the period when they would normally plant spring crops, rainfall was at 267% of the average. Where farmers could not even get to flooded land, or land was simply too waterlogged to plant on, there were obviously significant difficulties with cultivation. That meant that it was very difficult for some farmers to meet crop diversification requirements.

Without this SI, there would have been penalties for not meeting the greening element of direct payments, which is worth approximately 30% of a claim. Farmers welcome our approach, and industry stakeholders such as the National Farmers Union have told us that it

“will make a huge difference to thousands of farmers in England”.

The Country Land and Business Association has also been very supportive of our decision. We hope the derogation will provide much-needed relief for the thousands of farmers who have not been able to plant the crops that they wished to plant this year.

The SI is about supporting farmers who faced a very difficult cropping season. I stress that the derogation is not a covid-19 response measure, but in the context of what is going on, it is all the more needed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I always enjoy debating with the hon. Gentleman. He will be glad to know that the document to which he referred is known throughout the Department as “Daniel Zeichner’s favourite document”, if I may use the hon. Gentleman’s name. We spent many happy hours on the Agriculture Bill Committee discussing it. I hope I will deal with all his points; if I do not, I am happy to follow up in conversation afterwards.

On the serious matter of when the decision to make the policy change that led to this SI should have been taken, the answer is simply that as the wet weather continued and Storms Ciara and Dennis kept raining down on us, the Department concluded that the mitigations that had initially been recommended were not plausible, and were not a sensible course of action for farmers to take. For example, as I said earlier, spring cropping became in no way a sensible solution.

We continued to monitor the weather between September and February, and to evaluate all the available options. The Rural Payments Agency published guidance in January on how farmers could meet the rules, or use existing exemptions that were built into the greening scheme where applicable. However, shortly after the really big, named storms, a general derogation became sensible. We continued to consult with stakeholders, but the legislation had to be introduced by early this month to ensure that farmers remained compliant with the rules, so the reason was to do with the weather and legal complexity.

I turn to the environmental impact of this change. I am confident that removing the three-crop requirement for this year will not have a negative impact on the environment. It is generally recognised and well documented that the three-crop rule and crop diversification rules do not deliver the environmental or climate-related outcomes for which they were designed. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I hope might become a favourite document: the European Court of Auditors’ 2017 special report on greening. That document bears inspection, because it makes it clear that greening has been something of a blunt instrument, to use his terminology. While he is right that monoculture is not the way forward, we do not want to end up with a system that uses binary rules in such a way.

On the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the future farming programme, I reassure him that rotation will be in there, as he would expect. This derogation, however, is necessary because of a prolonged period of wet weather and flooding across England. As the wet weather got worse over spring, it became clear that the problem covered all regions. I accept that that is unusual, but we have good, detailed evidence that it was a real problem for the whole of England. That was something else we had to monitor continually. That is why the derogation is appropriate.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this year we are operating under retained EU legislation and maintaining an equivalent scheme to the basic payment scheme. For future years, the Agriculture Bill provides us with powers to modify legislation and remove the unnecessary bureaucracy associated with that scheme. He will also know that we want to remove that bureaucracy at the earliest opportunity. Simplification for next year could, for example, see the removal of some or all of the greening requirements, including the crop diversification rules.

The regulations, which amend retained EU law to remove crop diversification requirements for this year, are welcomed by the farming industry as a much-needed measure to support England’s farmers in the aftermath of the very bad weather over the winter. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Agriculture Bill

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I now call Minister Victoria Prentis, who is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should start by declaring my interest: my family has farmed on the Oxfordshire- Northamptonshire border for many years, and I am also a keen smallholder. This is a very important moment for agriculture in this country. This Bill is the first of its kind for more than 70 years and it will allow us to shape farming for the future. This Bill is about farmers, and sets out a framework policy for rewarding them as they produce food and provide public goods.

I thank all Members who have tabled amendments. I apologise if the hybrid nature of the debate prevents me from engaging fully with every point—it is not ideal. I am, however, reassured that the Bill has been thoroughly scrutinised by not one but two Public Bill Committees. I am keen to continue to engage with Members across the House as we develop the details of the policies. I must also record my thanks to those who have worked so hard to ensure that we have all been fed in these frightening times: farmers, manufacturers and retailers. They are food heroes, and they have worked together and struggled on despite workforce shortages and social distancing measures. I hope that a lasting legacy of this pandemic is that we all think a little more about where our food comes from.

The feeding the vulnerable taskforce, which I chair, has worked hard to ensure that those parts of society on whom this crisis falls the hardest can access food. On Friday, we announced £16 million of funding for food charities. Measures in this Bill would have been very useful two months ago. I commend in particular the powers in clauses 18 and 19, which would have made it easier and quicker to support farmers during these difficult times. Under Clause 17, for the first time, the Government will have a duty to take a regular, systematic view of our overall food security at least every five years, giving time to observe trends. That is not to say that we have to wait five years between reviews at all. The majority of data covered will, of course, be available between reports, and we certainly have no intention of waiting until the end of the five-year period to publish our first report. That report will, of course, take into account what we have learnt from the current pandemic.

This is a domestic Bill. It is not about trade. However, I have heard colleagues across the House—I am sure I will hear them again this afternoon—voice concerns about the effect of future trade agreements on UK agriculture. Some are concerned about a reduction in standards, particularly those for animal welfare. Others are concerned that there will not be a level playing field between our products and those coming from abroad.

Like the rest of my colleagues on this side of the House, I was elected on a very clear manifesto commitment—one that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reiterated since—that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. This Government will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure that any deals live up to the values of our farmers and consumers. We are keen to ensure that parliamentarians, consumers and businesses have access to the information they need on our trade negotiations. Trade talks with the US opened formally last Tuesday. Ahead of that, the Government set out the negotiating objectives and associated documents, and a similar process will be replicated in the coming months as we do the same for deals with Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

I am grateful for the continued contributions of the National Farmers Union and others who sit on our expert trade advisory group, which helped shape this trade policy and feeds straight into the negotiating team. I assure the House that we are actively exploring how to build on that industry participation.

I reassure colleagues that all food coming into this country will be required to meet existing import requirements. At the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert all EU standards into domestic law. That will include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in beef. Nothing apart from potable water may be used to clean chicken carcases, and any changes to those standards would have to come before this Parliament. We will be doing our own inspections to ensure that those import conditions are met.

While we all want to support British farmers, if passed, the well-meaning amendments would have unintended consequences. The supply of food would be significantly disrupted if goods that meet our current import standards were blocked. New clauses 1 and 2 would affect UK exports to countries with whom, as part of the EU, we currently have trade agreements. I am concerned that the extra conditions in the two new clauses could result in countries refusing to enter into continuity agreements. For example, accepting new clause 2 would risk whisky exports worth £578 million. Another example is the impact on potato exporters. Some 22% of potato exports went to countries with whom a continuity agreement has not yet been signed.

If the amendments were passed, an assessment of our current UK production standards, followed by an assessment of all relevant standards in a third country, followed by an assessment of how those compared with UK legislation and UK production standards would be required to make sure that any FTA complied with them. That would all have to be done by the end of December.

I understand that Members want to ensure safeguards for our farmers. However, I have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of the amendments for our producers and exporters. Our manifesto commitment is clear that the Government will support farmers and protect our standards. All the rules, regulations and robust processes are already in place for that.

On labelling, I am looking forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on her labelling amendment. I understand that she will be championing consumer choice in the domestic market, which is very important. Other colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder), have asked us to explore whether labelling approaches could be used to differentiate products that meet domestic production standards from those that do not. This would include exploring mandatory labelling. Any scheme could not be devised until we have completed the transition period and would of course need to recognise World Trade Organisation obligations, but I assure Members from across the House that this is something we will consider closely and on which we are prepared to consult.

We all hope that UK food producers will benefit from increased export opportunities as we open up foreign markets. For example, in the last year, we have seen the lifting of a 20-year ban on the export of UK beef and lamb to Japan. Our “Food is GREAT” campaign targets consumer audiences abroad and is boosting global demand for our food and drink.

I turn now to amendments relating to financial assistance. I defy anyone to maintain that the common agricultural policy was good for either environmental protection or the productivity of British farming. It has held us back. It has paid those with more land more subsidy, regardless of what they did with it. It has favoured some parts of the industry over others. We are really keen that that changes now. We have an exciting opportunity to reset and plan for the future.

Passing the Bill will give farmers and land managers a clear direction. In England, it will enable us to deliver direct payments, simplified countryside stewardship schemes and productivity grants next year. I assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that that is why this Bill is top of the queue. The gradual seven-year transition will allow farmers and land managers time to prepare for the new environmental land management scheme, which is currently being tested. Upland farmers, for example, will be well placed to benefit from it. We will also create a UK shared prosperity fund to address the needs of rural businesses and communities. Delaying the start of the agricultural transition to 2022 would just delay the many benefits of moving away from direct payments. To provide reassurance again, for 80% of farmers, our maximum reductions for 2021 will be modest at under 5%.

Improving the health of our environment as set out in the “25 Year Environment Plan” is a priority. The measures in the Bill will help us to combat climate change, but the Bill is not the place for targets. Environmental land management will be critical in helping us to deliver against our legally binding target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We recognise that for these policies to be effective, they need to be properly funded. In our manifesto, we committed to maintain current agricultural spending for each year of this Parliament. Of course, this is a framework Bill, and this is only the beginning. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House and with groups such as the NFU to develop the policy that will flow from this legislation.

I turn now to amendments tabled on agroecological farming practices, and on reducing the use of pesticides. We are already testing how ELM can support farmers to take a whole-farm holistic approach. We have 50 tests and trials in progress, with many more planned before the national pilot starts in 2021. We are considering innovative solutions such as integrated pest management, which aims to reduce pesticide use on farms. We absolutely agree that pesticides should not be used where that use may harm human health, and we have a robust regulatory system in place to ensure that.

I turn now to the many benefits that the Bill will bring farmers in the devolved Administrations. Clause 33 tackles an unfairness in the red meat levy system and will allow the levy collected from animals that have crossed a border for slaughter to be returned to where the animals were reared. The levy boards are working very hard to devise a scheme, and our aim is to have one in place by April 2021. New Clause 9 is for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister to consider. I understand that he has no plans, at this stage, to introduce a sunset clause. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations. I reiterate our commitment to consulting with the devolved Administrations on our proposals for regulations to be made under the WTO clauses.

I turn to the amendments on fairness and transparency in the supply chain. No decisions have yet been taken on the subject of the appropriate enforcement body. We are exploring options with the industry first before designing the enforcement regimes and appointing a regulator, but I will keep the House up to date on that.



I turn to the amendments on tenancies. Tenants should be able to benefit from our new payment policies, and we will continue to work closely with the industry—we had a large consultation last year—as we develop these policies further.

Finally, three minor technical Government amendments have been tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the request of the Welsh Government. These are needed in order to bridge the gap until new powers are provided by Welsh legislation in the Senedd.

The Bill provides a framework for an exciting future for farming. It will ensure that those who produce our food are properly rewarded, and that farming efficiently and improving the environment will go hand in hand in the future. I very much look forward to working with colleagues across the House to develop the environmental land management policies, and to working out how they will work not only on the ground, but above and beneath it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I now call Minister Victoria Prentis to wind up for the Government. I ask that her speech lasts no more than 10 minutes.

[Victoria Prentis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon. I do not think that that is just because it is my first time out of the house for some weeks. We have heard from passionate colleagues on both sides of the House—colleagues who are passionate about farming, food and food security. We have heard from distinguished former Secretaries of State. We have heard from farmers. We have heard from those from farming families. We have heard from many Members who represent farming constituencies. We have heard from a vet, and we have heard from a number of colleagues, some mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who love both food and food security. We also heard, indirectly, from the cows of Wantage.

I would like to take this opportunity to reassure Members that the Government understand the importance of agriculture to the nation. I know that British farmers are the best in the world. The Bill will ensure that they receive the support that they need to give us the food that we need and enjoy; to protect and enhance our beautiful rural landscape; and to ensure the health of the wider rural economy.

We have had a robust debate, which was well-intentioned on both sides. I need to reiterate at this point that there can be no question of sacrificing the UK livestock or other farming industries for the US trade deal. To the contrary, it is our view that a US trade deal is perfectly compatible with a thriving UK farming industry and very high standards. We have heard mention of the dreaded chlorine-washed chicken several times, and I would like to reassure the House that under existing regulations, which we will put into English law at the end of this year, chlorine-washed chicken is not allowed, and only a vote of this House can change that.

I think I also need to restate that the Government are willing to commit to a serious and rapid examination of what can be done through labelling, to reassure colleagues. It may well be that that would help colleagues to understand that we do intend to promote high standards and high welfare across the UK market. I agree that we must consider the case for consumer choice more fully when we look at this in some detail. I agreed earlier in the debate, and reiterate now, that we will consult on this at the end of the transition period. It is important that we look at how it would affect both the industry and consumers, and indeed retailers. I am keen to take that forward.

I thank my predecessor—now the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—for making the Agriculture Bill such a great piece of legislation. We will hear from him later, on Third Reading. I would like to gently tease the hon. Member for Cambridge about this. Isn’t it great that we have a Secretary of State who stands up for high standards of British farming; and isn’t it great that this framework Bill, and what has been said by our trade negotiating teams, and indeed by the Prime Minister and in the Conservative manifesto, again and again has reassured that champion for high standards in farming, who is behind this Bill, as I am sure he will tell us very shortly?

I am very grateful to the members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent scrutiny. It is fair to say that this Bill has evolved, and indeed improved, during its passage through the House. I am so sorry that many of them have not been able to speak in this debate, but I think that given the hybrid nature of the proceedings we have had a pretty good go at discussing the issues that, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, concerned the Committee.

I would like personally to thank especially our Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the Department. They have been towers of strength at a difficult time, when it is difficult to communicate with colleagues in a way that we would like to and are used to. I express my thanks and gratitude to all the civil servants who have worked on the Bill, especially Nathalie Sharman, the Bill manager, who is in the Box this afternoon.

I thank, more widely, those across the four nations who have worked hard on the Bill to get it to this stage. During the work that we have done in the taskforce for feeding the vulnerable over the past four months, we have worked very closely with my colleagues across the four nations, and I hope that we can continue with that spirit of co-operation as we take these policies forward.

I would also like to thank the Clerks and the House authorities for helping us to make history as the first Bill to be voted on using electronic voting. I hope I have not spoken too soon, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that it works!

This is, as we have said many times, a framework Bill. We have a long, long way to go, and many tests and trials, before the agricultural transition period comes to an end in 2028. I would like to reassure farmers that the Government will support them and ensure that consumers will continue to have access to great-quality British food to eat. We very much hope that that will mean consumers from all over the world.

Farming is more than a job. We must cherish the deep personal connection felt by those who farm the land to the soil and landscape they care for, and build upon it in the reforms that we make. This Bill gives us that framework for the future for farming and for our countryside outside the EU. It will allow us to reward public goods such as environmental improvements, it will support investment in technology and research to improve productivity, and it will help our farmers to produce the high-quality food that they are renowned for and that we all so enjoy eating. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I now call Simon Hoare to wind up, and ask that his speech lasts no longer than two minutes.

Maximum Sustainability Yield: UK-relevant Quota Stock Species

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I would like to update the House today on a change to the number of total allowable catch limits (TACs) for quota stock that the UK has an interest in that will be fished at or below their maximum sustainable yield in 2020.

Analysing the UK’s progress towards delivering sustainable fisheries management including fishing at MSY is complex. This is because few total allowable catch (TAC) spatial management areas directly overlap with their corresponding International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) biological stock advice areas, with examples of both pooled TACs comprising elements of multiple biological stocks, and other biological stocks being split across TAC areas.

Noting these complexities, and in partnership with our scientific advisers at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), we have now reviewed the outputs from the fisheries negotiations for 2020. In doing so we have identified some corrections need to be made to the number of TACs at MSY that the UK has a fishing interest in for 2020. With these adjustments—a change related to one stock—accounted for, the UK had 36 (67%) TACS set at MSY out of a total of 54 TACs derived from stocks with MSY assessments in 2020. These figures are different from the figures previously communicated for 2020 i.e. 37 (69%) TACs set at MSY out of a total of 54. The figures for 2019 are unchanged: 30 (59%) TACs set at MSY out of a total of 51 TACs derived from stocks with MSY assessments in 2019.

As we have left the EU and the common fisheries policy, the UK Government will undertake a further forward-looking review of the methodology applied to assess the sustainability of fishing opportunities. In doing so we will seek the views of stakeholders. The new methodology will inform our negotiations for fishing opportunities in 2021 and will represent a fresh and transparent new approach to assessing outcomes on TAC setting including in relation to MSY that will reflect our objectives for delivering sustainable fisheries as an independent coastal state.

[HCWS213]

Sentience and Welfare of Animals

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It really is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Sir Roger. I am not sure that we have yet reached a point on animal welfare where we are sharing glory, but if there is glory to be shared, you should certainly have a part in that, as should many of the hon. Members who have spoken in today’s debate. I recognise that many hon. Members here have been involved in this area for a long time and will continue to be involved, and that is to be welcomed.

I thank in particular the Petitions Committee and its representative in this Chamber, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I also thank the 104,000 people who signed a petition to say that it is important that the House have this debate.

I start by saying that we should be proud of this country’s animal welfare record. In preparing for the debate, I had a little look at the history books. We started legislating for animal welfare in the 1830s—a long time before we put into place many other provisions that we would now consider essential, such as for the protection of children—so it is true that we are keen on protecting animals in this country.

It has never been in dispute that, of course, animals are sentient beings. Today’s debate demonstrates once again that we are a nation of animal lovers. All colleagues will know how deeply their constituents feel about these issues. We see that all the time in the love and money that people give to animal charities. We have heard today about the work that the Barnsley Brownies have been doing, and the excellent work that Give a Dog a Bone has been doing in East Renfrewshire. I pay tribute to all those who are involved in that way.

[James Daly]

If we are mentioning community groups, I must speak up on behalf of my constituent Helena Abrahams, who runs Gizmo’s Legacy. We talk about how we treat animals and how important they are to us, but, as the Minister knows, thousands of cats are disposed of every year without being scanned for a chip by local authorities. Cats are part of the family and need to be returned home rather than simply thrown into landfill. Will she agree to meet me or Ms Abrahams to discuss the matter further?

[Victoria Prentis]

It will give me enormous pleasure to agree to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. I am a former officer of the all-party parliamentary group on cats and, indeed, the proud keeper—I certainly would not call myself the owner—of Midnight, voted parliamentary cat of the year the year before last. He definitely keeps me fully under control and has no difficulty in telling me about all his welfare needs.

Until 31 December, we are covered by article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, but the Government have committed to introducing new laws on sentience, as we heard many times. We had an extremely clear manifesto commitment to do that, and I confirm that we will do so as soon as we can, but I am sadly unable to say exactly when that will be.

Obligations on keepers of animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 make it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal, and anyone responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps to ensure that the animal’s welfare needs are met. At this point, I thank those vets, charities and animal welfare organisations working around the clock with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials in these difficult times of reacting to the spread of the coronavirus to develop guidance for pet and livestock owners. We want to help owners and keepers to take proportionate hygiene measures while supporting animal welfare.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) spoke of the comfort that animals can give us in these frightening times, which was an important, well-made point. We are pleased to support the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who has just popped out of the room. It had its First Reading on 5 February 2020. It is the same Bill that the Government introduced in the last Parliament, and this small but critical piece of legislation will increase maximum sentences for animal welfare abuses tenfold, from six months to five years. It was good to hear the breaking news during the debate that we will next hear about this important Bill on 12 June.

I understand the concerns raised about the loss of protections as we leave the EU. I have never spoken ill of Government lawyers, and I certainly would not like to start now, but article 13 of the Lisbon treaty was proposed and promoted by UK Government lawyers. It states, as I think we all agree, that animals are sentient beings and that the EU and member states should pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when formulating and implementing policies, but only in relation to a limited number of EU policy areas. Article 13 also provides some wide-ranging exemptions for cultural and religious practices and so on. It does not—I hesitate to criticise it, but we must—confer directly applicable rights or legally enforceable requirements. Frankly, it does not provide the sort of protection for animals that we want going forward.

Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West said so powerfully, to do things differently and in a way that reflects the importance we attach to animal welfare. Of course, what really matters is that we can enforce standards of animal welfare. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly). We must find a way to ensure that sentencing acts as a deterrent, and I am extremely happy, given my legal background, to have many conversations with him about that, so we shall take that offline.

We have some world-leading animal protections in place in this country. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) will be pleased that we have introduced a ban on the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens, known as Lucy’s law, and I pay tribute to the charity from her constituency that worked on that. The ban will help to clamp down on puppy farming and to ensure that our much-loved pets have the best start to their lives. It comes into force on 6 April, which will be welcomed.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My birthday.

[Victoria Prentis]

On your birthday? That is good news. We have coupled the ban with a very effective public awareness campaign—not everything is to do with legislation; there are other methods of getting the animal welfare message out there—called “Petfished”, on how to source puppies and kittens responsibly and how to watch out for the tricks that clever and deceitful sellers use in this area. I encourage all those who have not seen it to have a quick google.

The Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 recently came into force, ensuring that wild animals can no longer perform in travelling circuses. CCTV is now mandatory for all slaughterhouses in England. We also support the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019, commonly known as Finn’s law, which increases protections for police animals. It was mentioned by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). I spoke from the Back Benches in favour of that Act, as I think he did, and I met Finn, which was truly an honour.

The Government will introduce the necessary legislation on animal sentience as soon as we can, and I look forward to debating the details of the legislation with Members, particularly those present. Several useful points have been made during the debate, which I will take back and feed in.

There is considerable and growing interest in cephalopods and decapod crustaceans and whether they are sentient. At DEFRA, we have to follow the science, and because we want to ensure that this matter is progressed, we commissioned an independent review of the science on the sentience of those creatures, as the hon. Member for Bristol East said. A tender for the review was published on 6 March, and its findings will provide us with a robust scientific view later this year. I do not know the history of this matter, I am afraid—I have been the Minister only since just before the review was commissioned—but I think it is important that we look carefully at what that review says. It will be a full review of the evidence out there, and I look forward to sharing it and discussing it with the hon. Lady.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I sort of look forward to that, but if the research is due to run from May to November, and if this legislation has to be in place by the end of December, and given that we will obviously break up for Christmas, when will we actually have that debate? What is the window for that legislation to be brought forward? I do not see that it can make it.

[Victoria Prentis]

While absolutely committing to bring forward the legislation at some point, I am not committing to bringing it forward this year, which I am seeking to explain is not necessary because other protections are in place.

I have listened with interest to discussions on sentience, including on whether a new animal welfare advisory body should be created. It is clearly important that the Government receive the right expert advice when assessing the impacts on welfare needs. Various models might be appropriate. DEFRA already has an animal welfare committee tasked with providing independent, impartial advice to Ministers on welfare matters. We heard from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) about the introduction of the Scottish animal welfare commission to provide advice on sentience. It undertakes interesting work, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we follow the progress of that commission extremely closely. The Home Office’s Animals in Science Committee advises on all matters concerning the use of animals in scientific procedures. There are a number of models that we can choose from, and we are actively exploring the options.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for securing the debate on this important issue. I know that she attempted to introduce a private Member’s Bill on it in the last Parliament. Unfortunately, there was no parliamentary time to debate it, but I look forward to debating our new proposals with her when we can bring them forward. The Government place great importance on the welfare of animals, and the measures I set out demonstrate the steps that the Government have taken, and continue to take, to strengthen our high animal welfare standards.

I end, because it is important that I do this, by putting to bed the ghosts of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and reaffirming, whether necessary or otherwise, that the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining high standards of animal welfare, food security and environmental protection. The Secretary of State, as the shadow Minister rather teasingly referred to, is very committed to high standards, as am I. Chlorinated chicken is absolutely not allowed under English law; it is simply not something that we have to worry about. High standards are here, and we hope that higher standards will come in the future. Nobody need be worried about spooks in the night.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call Kerry McCarthy to wind up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

Okay. I will not take up that much time.

The Minister’s response has left me thoroughly confused and more than a little concerned, and I think that the people from the campaign “A Better Deal for Animals”, some of whom are watching here today, will be equally alarmed by what she said. It might not have been my belief, but my understanding was that the Government were committed, in their manifesto, to introducing the law as soon as possible. First, there was the original promise. Let us not forget that there was going to be a Back-Bench revolt. New clause 30 had been introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The Government were going to lose on that. The Government made a promise that they would legislate, so that they did not lose. They bought off their own Back Benchers, as well as the Opposition, by promising to legislate.

Therefore, there was a promise to legislate before Brexit, which has turned into a promise to legislate before the end of the transition period. There was a manifesto commitment to do this as soon as possible, but the Minister has just said that it might well not be this year.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is important to clarify this matter, as the hon. Lady has raised it specifically. The manifesto commitment is to bring forward the legislation as soon as possible. That is absolutely our position and that is what we will do. However, being realistic, we are in an emerging situation. We do not know what will happen over the next few months, and there are three very important DEFRA Bills going through both Houses of Parliament. I cannot, in those circumstances, absolutely swear to her that it will be this year. I tried to give reassurance in my speech that we already have animal welfare safeguards in our law, but the Government’s position remains the same: we will bring the legislation forward as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I do not know exactly when that will be.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The manifesto was obviously for the election towards the end of last year, and we then had a Queen’s Speech. One would have thought that if there was a manifesto commitment to do something as soon as possible, the Bill would have been mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. I appreciate that there are pressures on DEFRA and I certainly appreciate that there are many more pressures on the Government now than there were back then, but I do not think that we can use the coronavirus as an excuse for not having put something in the Queen’s Speech when none of us knew about that at the time. My concern is that the Minister seems to be trying to have it both ways by saying, “We will legislate; we have promised to legislate,” while also saying, “We don’t really need to legislate.”

This might genuinely be the Government’s view: “We do not feel that we need to legislate; we already have protections in law, but we know that at some point we will have to bring in a law, because we promised to do that to get out of an awkward situation.” We saw that with the Bill that became the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019. That was a far smaller matter, but again there was, I think, an Opposition day debate, and a huge number of people were supporting the change. Then it was dragged out; there was pre-legislative scrutiny and all sorts of things for a tiny little Bill that applied to, I think, 21 animals. It took forever.

My fear is that the Minister is trying to kick this issue into the long grass in the same way as the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill was in the long grass for an awfully long time. Many people outside the House will not be happy at all with this situation. Therefore, I will conclude by saying that there was a commitment to bring the concept of animal sentience into UK law. There was not a commitment to show people or illustrate by examples that it is already covered in UK law. We had that argument.

The commitment was to put this into UK law. There was then a manifesto commitment to put it into UK law as soon as possible. This is all very much Brexit related, and it was meant to be done by exit day—the end of January this year. Perhaps the transition period will be extended. Who knows? But the Government have made a clear commitment, and everyone expects them to live up to that commitment.

Caging of Farm Animals

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I think I will call you “Mr Chairman”, Mr Davies. I do not think I will call you anything else in the circumstances.

I thank the Petitions Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject, and it is a pleasure to follow excellent speeches from Members of all parties—particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who I have heard speak passionately about such issues many times. Indeed, we rehearsed many of the arguments in the Agriculture Bill Committee when he was the Chair and was prevented from opining on the subject, so it is good to hear from him today. I also thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition and brought this issue to our attention, and I acknowledge and praise the animal welfare campaigners who have played an enormous part over the years, with celebrity endorsements, advertising and general encouragement to improve our animal welfare standards. We have come a long way, particularly with the welfare standards of chickens such as Trevor.

The Government have made it clear that we place great importance on the welfare of farmed animals. The “End the cage age” petition calls for a ban on the use of barren and enriched cages for farmed animals, and I assure hon. Members that the Government are keen to explore the issue. Indeed, the Prime Minister noted in Parliament last year that he was keen to introduce animal welfare measures. We will continue to focus on maintaining world-leading farm animal welfare standards through both regulatory requirements and statutory codes.

The welfare of our farmed livestock is protected by comprehensive and robust legislation, backed up by the statutory species-specific welfare codes. The codes encourage high standards of husbandry, and keepers are required by law to have access to them and to be familiar with them. As part of the welfare reforms, I am pleased to say that the third of our newly updated welfare codes—for pigs—came into force on 1 March, and I will say a bit more about that later.

The Government have set ourselves a challenging agenda of animal welfare issues that we will tackle, and we are taking action on many fronts to improve the health and wellbeing of farm animals. A major example is that we are committed to ending excessively long journeys for live animals going for slaughter and for fattening. We will soon launch a consultation on how we deliver that manifesto commitment, and I am keen to press ahead with that as soon as we can. Our “Farming for the future” policy statement, which is favourite reading for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), was published last month and reiterates that, in line with our national values, we wish to continue improving and building on our position.

As part of our reforms to agricultural policy, we are developing publicly funded schemes for English farmers to provide public goods—including animal welfare enhancements, which are valued by the public and not sufficiently provided by the market. Such enhancements could include improving animal welfare in relation to the use of cages and crates. Not all the examples that I am about to mention are absolutely relevant to the debate, but given that this is a matter which the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and I have discussed many times, it is important that I explain our thinking. We intend to develop publicly funded schemes to support farmers in England to deliver enhanced animal health and welfare, so the schemes are intended to reward them for going above and beyond already high standards, which I think the hon. Member for Bristol East recognised.

To take broiler chickens as a specific example, delivering enhancements may include farms using slower-growing, high-welfare breeds of chicken that have the freedom to exhibit natural behaviours through increased communication and a stimulating environment, or through the freedom to roam, peck and scratch outside. For dairy cattle, the enhanced freedom to exhibit natural behaviours could involve increased access to stimulating loafing or outdoor space, and the freedom to access and graze good-quality pasture. I will come to welfare enhancement for pigs later, but they could include rooting and foraging as well as addressing the issues of crates and tail dockings.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I assume the enhancements will be delivered through environmental land management schemes. Would the measures that the Minister is describing be delivered through the tier 1 system?

[Victoria Prentis]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the system is currently being devised. I am very keen to include him as much as I can in the way we do that. Some of it might well be tier 1 funding, some might be tier 2, and some—though I doubt it—might even be tier 3, but I do not want to rule anything out at this point. It is really important that we keep an open mind, look at how the tests and trials are going, and then look at how the scheme is developed through the pilots. The point I am trying to make today is that it is certainly intended that public goods include animal welfare.

All hon. Members present can think of many improvements that we would like to see. For example, we might want to look at animal health improvements, such as reduced lameness in cattle and sheep, and at lower levels of antimicrobial resistance. We will focus on welfare enhancements that deliver the greatest impact and benefit, based on scientific evidence. I do not want to stray too far from the parameters of the debate, but it is helpful to continue to have such conversations as the system is devolved.

I want to emphasise that cages are not used in England to keep some of the farmed animals referred to in the petition—namely farmed rabbits, broiler chicken breeders, layer breeders and guinea fowl. It has been mentioned already that the UK unilaterally banned veal crates in 1990, 16 years before the rest of the EU, which eventually caught up. Conventional battery cages for laying hens were banned here in 2012. I am pleased to say that we already have a much larger free-range sector than any other EU country, and free-range sales represent about 67% of retail egg sales—not necessarily eggs incorporated into food—in the UK.

The Government are currently examining the future use of cages for all laying hens, and I welcome the commitment from our major retailers, with positive support from our egg producers, to stop retailing eggs from enriched colony cage production systems by 2025. I was interested in what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said about Morrisons, and we obviously welcome its going further. The Government are also considering the use of cages for game birds, including the systems used for breeding pheasants and partridges. The hon. Member for Cambridge outlined how they are governed by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and its associated code of practice, which provides keepers with guidance. The Act and DEFRA’s code are enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West described farmers as big softies, and I should probably confess at this point that I have kept pigs in the past. They are one of my favourite animals—if a Minister is allowed to have favourite animals. My pigs were extremely free range, to the extent that they sometimes caused a nuisance in the village—the Agriculture Bill Committee heard a lot about that. As we heard earlier, the UK has led the way on improving pigs’ welfare by banning the keeping of sows in close confinement stalls in 1999. I am not in any way criticising that decision, but it is worth noting, as my hon. Friend did, that we were about 80% sufficient in pigmeat in 1998. The figure had fallen to about 50% by 2003, and it is currently about 56%. I am extremely keen not to outsource animal welfare issues to other countries.

The Government have made it clear that we remain completely committed to the ambition that farrowing crates should no longer be used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code, which I mentioned earlier, clearly states:

“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.”

It is important that we make progress towards a system that both works commercially and safeguards the welfare of the sow and her piglets, and that we do so as quickly as possible. The UK is already ahead of most pig-producing countries on this issue, with about 40% of our pigs living and farrowing outside. Good progress has been made, but there is more to do.

As the hon. Member for Bristol East said, DEFRA has funded research into alternative farrowing systems. The commercial development of farrowing systems and practices is not sufficiently advanced to recommend the compulsory replacement of all farrowing crates, but I am keen to work with the industry on this—using both carrots and sticks—because it is important to not simply move production abroad.

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. The Government place great importance on the welfare of all our animals. The measures that I have set out demonstrate clearly the steps that the Government have already taken and will continue to take to strengthen our high animal welfare standards. We are actively exploring options to do with the use of cages and will work with industry to improve animal welfare in a sustainable way. The provisions in the Agriculture Bill will help us to do that.

Agriculture Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock]

I will be brief, because this is basically a rerun of arguments I have made in Committee on earlier amendments on Scottish Ministers getting a say over areas of devolved competence. We are concerned that the views of Scottish Ministers might be overlooked or overruled in future. In our view, the agreement of Scottish Ministers should be sought in all areas of devolved competence. Again, I cannot see why it is possible in other Bills being scrutinised by this Parliament to insert that the agreement of the devolved Administrations is required, not simply that their views will be taken into account, only for that perhaps to be subsequently ignored by this or future Secretaries of State. I will leave it there, but our views on the issue are particularly clear. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a pleasure to be back for a busy day in the Agriculture Bill Committee.

We do not dispute that agriculture is a devolved matter. However, this particular provision is about ensuring UK-wide compliance with an international agreement. That responsibility is, rightly, reserved to the UK Government. This is not about whether the devolved Administrations have the competence to implement and observe international agreements; it is about ensuring UK-wide compliance in an international sphere.

We therefore maintain that the clause is reserved, and we cannot concede that the regulations may be made only with consent from Scottish Ministers, because that would impinge on our powers to ensure our compliance with the World Trade Organisation agreement. We recognise that devolved Administrations have significant interests in these matters, and we are working closely with those Administrations on the draft regulations. We have made a firm commitment to consultation now and in future in the making and operation of the regulations.

Turning to amendment 99, the clause underpins the Government’s commitment to continued compliance with WTO regulation following European Union exit. The UK is a founding member of the WTO, but, as a member of the EU, was bound by the regulations of the common agricultural policy, which ensured compliance by all member states with WTO obligations. Outside the common agricultural policy, we will have to have a new regime and a new approach to ensuring compliance with our continuing WTO obligations.

Agriculture is devolved in the UK, so each Administration will decide their own future policy on farm subsidies. The clause allows each Administration to do that, but it gives the Government powers to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO obligations. We will continue to work closely with devolved Administrations officials, as we have been doing for more than a year. I am assured that the relationship is good and that that work is going well. It is important to ensure that all parties’ views are properly considered.

An agreement between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government contains commitments that the draft regulations will be presented to the UK’s four Agriculture Ministers with the aim of securing agreement, followed by an exchange of letters. In that context, I ask that the hon. Lady withdraw her amendment.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak—I am double hatted—not as a Whip, but as a shadow Minister with responsibility for European affairs, formerly Brexit, which I still am at the moment.

I shall speak to amendment 99, which I hope will offer a balance. The Minister obviously understands that we recognise that WTO compliance is a reserved matter, but also that agriculture is devolved. We therefore feel that placing requirements on the devolved legislatures, without a corresponding requirement on the Government to at least consult them, is not fair. This is a delicate balance to strike, and we feel that amendment 99 is a balanced way forward.

It is interesting that clauses 40 to 42 will mean that we have to adhere to WTO rules—specifically, the agreement on agriculture. They bind us to supranational rules, which is an interesting take on where we are as a country, given that so many Ministers and Brexit-supporting MPs have for many years made the Brexit case by stating, and in fact restating, their devotion to sovereignty and their desire for the UK Parliament to have complete control of our laws, borders and money, to use a phrase, which they appeared to want. However, here we are putting into legislation the requirement to adhere to a supranational, unelected body, with its own court of dispute resolution, the findings of which we will all be bound by. I want to make sure that Government Members are aware of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

indicated assent.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Good. Excellent. We have that on the record. I happen to like supranational rules—provided that nation states have debated and agreed to them—which advance the course of human wellbeing, equality, sustainable development, animal welfare, biodiversity and all those other wonderful things that the Bill will put into law. I would like us to amend the Bill with amendment 99, so that the way we do that balances out the responsibilities between the nations of the United Kingdom.

Signing up to an international treaty is not a loss of sovereignty—clearly the Government agree in relation to the WTO, which is quite interesting—but an exercise of it. We believe that co-operation with other nation states is good. Contrary to what some have said, nations do not do better when they isolate themselves from supranational co-operation; I definitely heard a Minister say that recently.

I am curious, because it appears from these clauses—I might have this wrong—that the Government seem to want to take back control not to share that control with the nations of the UK, but to concentrate power in ministerial hands. We would like to make sure that that power is properly shared with our elected representatives in the regions and nations.

Clauses 40 to 42 are perfect examples of that concentration, because they give Ministers the power to make demands of the elected legislatures on a devolved matter, but with no reciprocal requirement on the Government to involve or even consult those legislatures. Given that the previous Government found that the WTO-only option was most damaging to the economy, and that the current Government do not seem to want to release any more recent assessment of the impact of downgrading our ambition to the much inferior WTO-only agreement, we think it even more necessary to make sure that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted.

WTO means tariffs on some products and a regime for which our farms are not ready. The amendment cannot fully ameliorate the potential damage to our economy and farms from reverting to a WTO-only deal, but it would at least mean that the devolved legislatures were properly involved.

During the evidence session, I asked the Welsh Government’s director of environment and rural affairs whether he wanted a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved legislatures on the operation of those provisions. I said:

“This is about classifying domestic support in so far as it affects the agreement on agriculture and relates to our position in the WTO. It is a very specific question: do you think that Wales—and Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, as well as required to provide information?”

He said:

“This is an issue that we had extensive conversations with the Minister about”—

I am absolutely sure that that is true—

“regarding the equivalent text in the previous version…we would love a consent provision”.

He also said that

“in the context of the last Bill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UK Government—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how the provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister”—

that is the previous Minister, who is now Secretary of State—

“has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried over with this Bill. We look forward to him”—

presumably, this now means the new Minister—

“making that statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a later stage in the House, about how we would work together on that, about the advice and about, were there to be disagreement, our opposition being formally presented to the House of Commons to be part of your decision-making process.”

He wanted there to be a way that any opposition by a devolved legislature could be presented to the House of Commons. He said:

“We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is heard effectively.”

I do not doubt that, but when I asked him again about what that agreed way of working was, saying that it was not in the Bill, he confirmed that it is not in the Bill, but said:

“It is an exchange of letters”.––[Official Report, Agriculture Public Bill Committee, 13 February 2020; c. 94, Q145-46.]

Exchange of letters is a good thing, but it is not legally binding. Bilateral conversations, again, are a good thing, and I have absolutely no doubt that DEFRA, the Welsh Government and other devolved Administrations are consulting properly, but we want this in the Bill, because an exchange of letters is not adequate. It relies on the good will of Ministers. I have no doubt that the Minister has good will towards all the devolved nations, but we want to ensure that that good will is bound into law with a modest requirement to consult the devolved legislatures.

I ask Government Members, and the Minister, to note that the backdrop to these clauses is that the WTO now appears to be no longer just the backstop, but the frontstop—I do not know whether there is such a thing as a frontstop, but this seems to me to be a problem, because that is the worst of all the possible options identified by the previous Government. At the very least, we should be ensuring that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted.

[Victoria Prentis]

Very briefly, the hon. Lady has made an entertaining speech, in which, I politely suggest, she is trying on this particular issue to have her cake and eat it. The reason we cannot agree to these amendments—though we share her views on the importance of talking to and consulting with devolved Administrations; I do not think there is any doubt in this room about that—is that we keep as a reserved matter compliance with WTO rules. We are absolutely part of the WTO; she is right on that. I take on the chin her sharper comments about whether that is fully understood, but it is certainly understood by those on the Government Benches, and she should be in no doubt about that.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point about what Mr Render said in evidence and the assurance given by my predecessor, who is now Secretary of State, I am happy to look at whether we should restate that commitment, and I undertake to do so.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I completely understand that agriculture is devolved and compliance is reserved. That is why our amendment would require consultation to take place. It would not be a veto on the part of the devolveds, which I understand others might wish to have. I would like the Minister to consider that as a compromise.

[Victoria Prentis]

We need to ensure that the provisions made under the clause are fair and proportionate. We want to involve devolved Administrations and I have set out how we intend to do so. In my view, that is adequate, so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to withdraw her amendment.

[Deidre Brock]

I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West that power is being concentrated under this clause towards the UK Government and the Secretary of State. Once again—when there is a common view among the four National Farmers Unions of the four nations that any common frameworks covering anything to do with agriculture must be agreed, not simply consulted upon—I fail to see why this quite reasonable suggestion is continually disagreed with by Ministers.

I speak here, I suppose, on behalf of the Scottish Government, rather than every devolved Administration, because I would not presume to do that. However, I assume that they feel exactly the same and follow the views of their National Farmers Unions as well. The possibility exists within this clause and others for our Ministers’ policy choices to be constrained. Those policy choices reflect closely the conditions of their own nations, and they must be taken into account. Their views must be listened to and their agreement sought.

That is why, although I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bristol West has said, properly involving the devolved Administrations means respecting their wishes and seeking their consent, rather than simply seeking to consult with them but ultimately, perhaps, ignoring them. I will therefore push the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I wish to make a few remarks on amendments 32 and 33. We will not support amendment 32 because it provides a veto for Scotland on the reserved matter of WTO compliance. The hon. Lady is right about the WTO; we could have a whole discussion about why and how we have ended up with the WTO and where we seem to be going, but today is not the day for that.

On amendment 33, we still feel that our amendment to clause 40 would have provided a good compromise of a consultation process, whereas the SNP amendment removes the requirement on the devolved Administrations to provide that information. It would have been better to be more balanced. We will not vote against that amendment, but we wish the Minister to take into account the fact that we offered a compromise in amendment 99, and we urge her to consider that at a later stage.

[Victoria Prentis]

Starting with amendment 32, now that the UK has left the EU, we have become a fully independent member of the WTO. That means that the UK Government are responsible for ensuring that the whole of the UK complies with its obligations. In fully federal countries such as the USA and Canada, the WTO always insists that agricultural trade is reserved—that is how the WTO functions with federal states. One of the UK Government’s obligations under WTO rules is to notify the UK’s use of agricultural support to the WTO membership. It is essential that the nations of the UK take a consistent approach to classifying agricultural support in accordance with those requirements.

Clause 42 provides for a decision-making process that will, quite properly, involve all four nations of the UK. That will be set out in regulations made under the clause. Where a decision cannot be reached through that process, the UK Government, as the hon. Member for Bristol West said, must ultimately be responsible for the final decision, but we hope that agreement can be reached. The amendment would remove the safeguard of final decision making from the Secretary of State and potentially impede our ability to comply with WTO obligations where we cannot reach agreement, although we hope that we will.

Turning to amendment 33, the whole clause must be read in the context of “securing compliance” with the WTO agreement on agriculture, which is incontrovertibly a reserved matter. We need to be able to reassure WTO members that, despite the unusual degree of agricultural devolution in the UK, we have the means to ensure that we will have the relevant data to be able to comply. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations for securing, from any part of the UK, the information necessary for the UK Government to meet those international obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to withdraw the amendment.

[Deidre Brock]

I heard what the Minister said and we are clearly having great difficulty in coming to an agreement between the two Governments and between us on the Committee. From my point of view, decision-making powers that allow not for agreement but simply for consultation do not seem fair or equitable, so I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I will make a few brief remarks on behalf of the shadow European affairs team. As we leave the European Union, we want to make sure we do not lose anything in terms of our high standards and that we try to spot the places where there is potential for loopholes, which I hope none of us wants.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East admirably made the case that the Secretary of State’s real views are in alignment with ours. We therefore present the Government with an opportunity to vote for the Secretary of State’s actual views. We in the European affairs team feel we are here to make sure that the transference of Europe-wide rules to UK standards is not undermined by trade agreements with other parts of the world. We simply want to safeguard that. So, on behalf of the shadow European affairs team, I want to add my support to the case made by Opposition Front and Back Benchers, which, after all, reflects the Secretary of State’s views.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank hon. Members for tabling these new clauses. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to talk once again about the importance of food standards. The hon. Member for Bristol East will never find me sneering at or questioning the importance of food standards. This is an important debate, and it is right that we have it here, and while considering other Bills, as we move to a new world where we have left the EU and hopefully have free trade agreements with many other countries.

I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to not lowering our standards as we negotiate new trade deals. The Prime Minister has consistently stated that we will not compromise our high environmental, food safety or animal welfare standards now that we have left the EU. We made that commitment in our manifesto, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade reaffirmed that commitment to the House earlier this week in respect of a US trade deal.

[Kerry McCarthy]

rose—

[Victoria Prentis]

I will give way, but I have a long speech and a lot to cover.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sure the Minister does, but the problem is that I suspect I know what she will say. To cut to the chase, given that it would make everybody so much happier if that commitment was in the Bill, what is the reason for its not being?

[Victoria Prentis]

I will set out the Government’s position on that. The hon. Member for Cambridge was kind enough to say that I was an esteemed lawyer. I do not know whether that is true, but I am certainly a very experienced Government lawyer, and I gently say that the purpose of primary legislation is not about making people happy, although the purpose of the policy behind it might well be that. We come at this from the same place: we all like high standards in British agriculture and want to support our farmers. However, I will set out why the Government have come to this conclusion, which will take some time, I am afraid, and I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East.

To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol West, we are retaining existing UK legislation, and at the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert on to the UK statute book all EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards. That will ensure that our high standards, including import requirements, continue to apply.

The hon. Member for Cambridge said I was an esteemed lawyer—who knows?—and also that he was waiting for a letter from the Department. I am certainly an experienced enough lawyer not to wish to interfere in that process. If a letter is being drafted, I will make sure to look at it. However, he asked specifically about hormone-treated beef and washed chicken. I will give him the directives and the way they are transposed into British law as I see it. The top line is that all EU law on food safety standards was carried over by the 2018 Act.

EU Council directive 96/22/EC, as amended, which bans the import and production of hormone-treated beef, was transposed into UK law through national legislation. It is found in various regulations, including the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015; Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Wales) Regulations 2019; and the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that, because I do not expect him to take a note of all those, or the Secretary of State will write to the shadow Secretary of State. I do not want to interfere in that letter-writing process.

On the washing of poultry, European Union controls on the surface decontamination of poultry—regulation 853 /2004—will be retained through the 2018 Act, and have been made ready to be carried over into UK law immediately after the transition period through the Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which will maintain the status quo that no product other than drinking water is currently approved in the EU to decontaminate poultry carcases. That will remain the same in the UK. I will write to the hon. Gentleman properly about that, so that he has the details. It is complicated, as he says.

The regulations I have mentioned include artificial growth hormones for domestic production and imported products, and we would require legislation to change those regulations. Both hormone-treated beef and washing of poultry are covered. The Government have said that any future deals must respect our regulatory autonomy, which means that we will not sign agreements that threaten our ability to set our own high standards, of which we are proud. Our standards are driven by consumer and retailer demand and frequently go above current regulatory standards; most of us would welcome that. The Agriculture Bill will help to ensure that we continue to maintain those high standards in line with the needs of our farmers, retailers and consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Is the Minister not making my case that the WTO is therefore the lowest common denominator? It is a real problem that we have ended up heading in this direction.

[Victoria Prentis]

I feel that the hon. Lady was partly making my point: we have to stick to WTO rules. I think she and I agree that we want to comply with WTO rules. As a lawyer with many years’ experience, I am explaining my concern that the new clause would possibly not comply with WTO rules—I put it no more strongly than that.

Prior to the start of negotiations for each new free trade agreement, the Government will publish—indeed, we have done so this week—our approach to negotiations, including our negotiating objectives and other explanatory material. We did so on 27 February ahead of the start of negotiations with the EU, and on Monday this week for the US negotiations. Right hon. and hon. Members, and the general public, have a chance to scrutinise those documents and the Government will rightly be held to account. Once negotiations are under way, we will continue to keep the public and Parliament informed. We believe that that approach strikes the right balance of allowing Parliament and the public to scrutinise the trade policy, while maintaining the ability of Government to negotiate flexibly in the best interests of the UK.

I turn to new clause 30 and new schedule 1. As several hon. Members have said, the provisions were tabled when the previous Agriculture Bill was before the House during the last Session. The hon. Member for Cambridge will recognise that domestic legislation already provides for a prohibition on the use of substances listed in new clause 30, and for maximum residue limits for substances to be specified. My response to the comments about the new clauses that were tabled by the current Secretary of State is this: are we not fortunate to have a Secretary of State who is a champion of standards in our food and agricultural sector? Quite frankly, to turn around the words of the hon. Member for Bristol East, the Secretary of State wholly supports the Agriculture Bill as drafted. He has been reassured that this is not needed in primary legislation, and if it is good enough for the Secretary of State, it is good enough for me.

To go into detail, as the hon. Member for Cambridge did, new clause 30 does not refer to the operability amendments and other provisions in the exit legislation made last year—obviously, because it was drafted before that. That legislation deliberately took a flexible approach to the specification of maximum residue limits, rather than the more onerous scrutiny that the new clause would lead to. The legislation will come into force at the end of the transition period. Setting a maximum residue limit for a particular substance does not overturn the legislative prohibition on the use of substances as growth promoters.

Parliamentary scrutiny is, of course, important. But, as was explained in debates on the exit statutory instruments last year, a non-legislative approach when setting maximum residue limits is more efficient and likely to avoid unnecessary delays, which might have financial implications for industry and make the UK less attractive to pharmaceutical companies looking to market veterinary medicines. If that were to lead to a reduction in available medication, it could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As such, although we recognise that there are arguments for increasing the level of parliamentary scrutiny, the Government prefer to maintain the approach set out in our exit legislation—of course, it was not around when the amendment was drafted—that was considered and approved by Parliament at the end of last year.

Turning to new clause 31, I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge can agree that there are instances in which substances other than drinking water are already deemed appropriate for the specified purposes, having been subject to rigorous risk analysis processes. In fact, the EU has approved lactic acid for treating beef carcases, recycled hot water for carcases of certain species and clean water—not drinking water—for fishery products. I hope we can agree that it would be regressive to undo what are already considered safe practices. The unfortunate effect of the new clause would be to stymie any process for considering new substances for use in the UK in future. It could restrict the potential for innovation to realise new hygiene benefits.

The wording of new clause 31, whether intended or not, goes much further than existing restrictions—I do not want to talk about sloppy drafting, but I am concerned that such a provision could result in serious animal health and welfare implications. Live animals could no longer be effectively washed or treated with antiparasitic treatment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, such as sheep dips. Udder washing is a perfectly normal practice to stop mastitis, and we would not want to interfere with that. Maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we eat remains a high priority for the Government, and the current regulatory framework ensures that.

New clause 32 would prevent meat and other products from conventionally reared meat chickens from being sold or supplied in the UK unless they are produced to a stocking density no greater than 39 kg per square metre, which is our current maximum in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has set a maximum stocking density of 42 kg per square metre. As such, the new clause would mean that meat chicken legally produced in Northern Ireland over 39 kg per square metre could not be sold in the UK. I am sure that was not the intention when the new clause was drafted.

Further, although we have a strong domestic sector producing around £2.4 billion of poultry meat per year, in 2018 we imported £2.1 billion of chicken meat and chicken products. Some of those, including imports from some EU member states, do not meet our stocking density requirements. Imposing a restriction of this kind on imports might result in food security issues, and it would certainly impact cost. We all want to move in the same direction on animal welfare, but we may not be able to do so by means of new clause 32.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to standards and to highlight Parliament’s role in scrutinising our negotiation approach to free trade agreements. However, as I mentioned, we have retained EU legislation for existing protections on food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards, and I therefore the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have listened very closely to the Minister addressing a range of complicated issues. In responding, I will work backwards.

We fully accept that drafting the detail in these proposals was a complicated process, and we pay tribute to the current Secretary of State for the work he did in attempting to deal with this conundrum. I have to say that I think the Bill—this is the part the Minister was not really able to address—in effect takes apart what the Secretary of State was trying to do, which we think was really important. I invite the Minister to reflect on whether it would be possible to work cross-party before we get to the next stage of the process to amend some of the detail. That would seem to me to be a good way forward, and it would reflect what I suspect we can probably all agree on. Knocking this down on the basis that there are problematic points of detail—I do not dispute that it is complicated and difficult—is not the right way to go.

That leads us to the Minister’s point about our relationships in the WTO. We know that the WTO is a troubled organisation at the moment, but we also know that there is plenty of opportunity all the time for people to challenge. The question is why they do it at some times and not others. That goes back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West.

There is a political set of questions about how trading blocs deal with disputes. The sad truth is that we are now outside one of the big trading blocs and we do not have the power of an umbrella that would probably prevent others from making challenges that we might not think reasonable. We have seen that in the new world order, with Trump and so on, quite spurious challenges may be made that generate a whole raft of legal procedures, which take time and are difficult to deal with. A small player is much more vulnerable than a big player to being picked off, because big players have more resources in their armoury to fight back with.

I am afraid that is the difficult situation that the Government have got us into. On the WTO rules, I recognise that there is some potential for challenge, but that is where we are at. We must ensure that we do everything we can to protect our people in this new world. The clearest and most helpful way of doing that in negotiations would be to put what we have proposed in the Bill; if we did so, the others in the negotiations would know it was non-negotiable.

That goes back to the basic point that the Minister made at the beginning of her speech. I am afraid the harsh truth is that when the Prime Minister makes a series of promises, they are not believed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made some excellent points: for all the reasons we have heard about today, including the piece that the current Secretary of State wrote all those months ago, how can we believe the Prime Minister when—

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James Morris.)