Sheep Farming: No-deal EU Exit
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
When I was first elected to this place in 2010, I never thought I would find myself standing up to challenge the Government about the decimation of the UK’s sheep industry. The ancient practice of shepherding is as old as the hills, but it is now facing an unprecedented challenge brought by the threat of a no-deal Brexit. The threat of no deal brings with it a man-made, Boris-built disaster that could harm so many sectors from chemicals to cars, food to pharmaceuticals, and steel to services—virtually every area of economic activity in this country would be hit, and that includes the sheep industry. The idea that the rearing of lambs could be so comprehensively, cruelly and deliberately threatened by our own Government’s decision is beyond belief.
Keeping sheep is already a vulnerable business and a no-deal Brexit will just add to the problems. The unprecedented loss of markets and the imposition of tariffs and barriers will severely harm this industry.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of privileged, idle old Etonians who could not care less about the lives and livelihoods of our working hill farmers in Wales and across the UK?
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I represent an urban constituency, but even in urban Darlington there are agricultural workers whose jobs would be affected by the effect of a no-deal Brexit on the sheep industry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House for consideration. I spoke to her earlier today and perhaps her opinion on Brexit is very different from mine, but the Conservative Government have indicated that as long as they have the power to do so, they will maintain the grants that are available for farmers, and for sheep farmers in particular. Does she agree that the problems and the deficits there might be in lamb prices could be offset by the Government’s commitment to give what the EU gives now?
Jenny Chapman
If it was that simple, we would not need to have this debate. This is not just about farm payments; it is about loss of markets. That is something that has not been properly understood, and the Government have not given a decent account of what they intend to do to address it.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The hon. Lady will know that Scotland is home to one fifth of the entire UK sheep flock and that much of that work is being done by farmers and crofters in less favoured areas such as my own constituency. Leaving the European Union with no deal would have a devastating effect on farmers and crofters, so will she join me in urging the Government to listen to the words of Andrew McCornick of the Scottish National Farmers Union, who has said unequivocally that a no deal must be avoided because our farmers need security and fair access to European markets?
Jenny Chapman
I agree with that. One of the specific problems faced by the farmers the hon. Gentleman describes is the fact that those flocks possess unique characteristics and that once they are gone they may never be able to be bred back into our national flock.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Is not the heart of the problem the fact that lamb would not be competitive if it had a 48% tariff placed on it? That would be an absolutely ridiculous situation. The Government might talk about short-term subsidies to help the immediate situation, but that is no way to save the industry as a whole.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)
This will certainly devastate the hill farmers in my constituency, but we must also consider the impact that it would have on the landscape. Many people do not realise that our landscapes are the way they are because of grazing.
Jenny Chapman
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and that is why even my constituents in urban Darlington care about what happens to our national flock and to the livelihoods of the tens of thousands of people who work so hard to keep our landscape the way that it is.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I wonder whether the hon. Lady was as disturbed as I was to hear the Leader of the House speak so casually earlier this evening of trading purely under WTO rules, given that analysis from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board suggests that WTO tariffs could add anything from 38% to 91% to the price of sheepmeat for EU buyers, which would be catastrophic for the sector.
Jenny Chapman
I agree with the hon. Lady, and I will refer later in my speech to the report that she has mentioned.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Last week, I went to the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Service. Its concern is that because the Government have failed to bring forward the Agriculture Bill, it is not clear whether the Government have the legal powers to make payments in the event of no-deal Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must answer that point this evening?
Jenny Chapman
That is the first time I have heard that point made in the House; it is one that my hon. Friend and I discussed earlier today. She is absolutely right: farmers need to hear from the Minister what he intends to do about their payments, and we need to ensure that he has the power to make those payments. The principal problem for the sheep sector is that, according to the report the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) mentioned, under no deal the export of sheepmeat to the EU27 would be almost entirely wiped out, with the only exports being those via a tariff rate quota of less than 400 tonnes. Of course non-EU exports could increase over time, although the possible rise of around 5% would not be anywhere near enough to offset the loss of EU trade. Reduced trade with the EU would leave around one third of UK meat without a market.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend. She is absolutely correct to raise concerns about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the sheep industry in Britain, and nowhere will that impact be felt more than in Wales. In acknowledging the work that the NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales do on behalf of Welsh farmers, may I point out that 96% of all the Welsh lamb sent out of the UK goes to the 27 other nations in the EU? If we do not get this right, sheep farmers in Wales will be pushed to breaking point, and we cannot allow that.
Jenny Chapman
This affects every region of the country, from the Lakeland fells, to Exmoor, to Teesdale, where I live. People are saying, “Why does this matter? Surely this just means that there will be more lamb for the UK market, the price will be cut, and we can all enjoy more lamb this Christmas,” but the problem is that we just do not have the facilities to safely slaughter, store and freeze that volume of lamb in the UK. If the Minister plans to introduce such facilities, he needs to say so tonight, because knowing that this year’s yield of around 15 million lambs can be safely stored and enjoyed by consumers, and therefore paid for, would be of huge benefit to the 34,000 people currently employed in the industry. If that meat cannot be stored and sold—even at a knock-down price—the sector will be decimated.
The Government have said that they are aware of the special circumstances that would lead to a substantial negative effect on the income of UK sheep farmers and that they would compensate farmers. To their credit, the Government have pledged to continue to commit the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament—although obviously that might be coming sooner than was anticipated. Financial support is already included in farmers’ business plans, but it does not compensate farmers for a sudden loss of market or for feed costs for animals that they cannot now slaughter. It does not ensure that sufficient feed is available to keep lambs bred for slaughter alive. It does not create abattoir or cold-storage capacity. It certainly does not create new export markets or offset tariffs, because that would be against WTO rules.
In answer to one of my written parliamentary questions on 18 July, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), said:
“We are doing all we can to mitigate the challenges our farmers will face and we have contingency plans in place to minimise disruption.”
But Ministers have not explained, and continue to refuse to explain, what those contingency plans are. The Minister’s predecessor offered from the Dispatch Box to meet me, but the current Minister then declined that invitation and has refused to discuss the issue. If a wasteful cull of millions of lambs and breeding ewes is to be avoided, measures need to be put in place now. If the slaughter and storage facilities are not in place and no deal happens, farmers will have little option but to cull their flocks. The meat will not be eaten, and the waste will be shameful.
The lack of new trading arrangements and an implementation period would mean that farmers will set about drastically reducing the size of their flocks. Chillingly, the AHDB says:
“Culling rates would record significant uplift driving the increase in adult sheep slaughterings. Quarter one of year two”—
of a no-deal Brexit—
“records a year-on-year uplift in slaughterings as the remainder of the year-one lamb crop are slaughtered.”
The estimate of 3 million lambs is at the lower end of the estimates.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Perhaps she can enlighten us or confirm this, but my understanding is that the breeding season is probably just about to start, because sheep gestation is typically around 150 days, if I well recall, so farmers must be planning now exactly what their programmes will be.
Jenny Chapman
That is exactly right. I think the phrase is “In with a bang and out like fools,” because sheep breed at the end of October or the beginning of November, and the lambs arrive in the spring. As the Minister well knows, farmers make their arrangements and plan such things a long way in advance, which is why, according to farming bodies, we need at least a two to three-year transitional period. The AHDB report I was referring to goes on to say that
“under a rapid response scenario, the national flock would be culled to reduce size”.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Welsh Secretary said over the summer that we could start exporting to Japan and that that market has opened up? They do not eat lamb in Japan at the moment, and they are certainly not going to start eating it on 1 November just to oblige us.
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, in theory and given enough time, it may be possible to find new markets, but it will be too late by then, because our flock will have been decimated and will take decades to rebuild. Should the situation improve in future years, with new markets, it might just be possible to re-establish the flock, but it really is not likely. Once the breeding ewes have gone and their special characteristics have been lost, it will take years to recreate the unique features of our national flock. Tens of thousands of jobs and our treasured landscape would be lost, and this is all so preventable.
A minimum of a two to three-year transitional deal is needed, and we need agreements that recognise the safety and quality of our produce. Critically, we must increase the capacity of essential cold storage facilities now. When Ministers reassure me and try to reassure farmers, they need to explain what precisely they intend to do.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
This is an important debate, particularly for my Gower constituency, where the lamb industry is very vibrant. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the amount of cold storage that will be needed and about the Government’s plans to meet that need? Does this country have enough cold storage for medicines post Brexit?
Jenny Chapman
If any of us were in the business of cold storage or large-scale fridges, we would be doing quite well at the moment. My understanding from the trade body that represents such businesses is that there is no additional capacity, so should we suddenly need to store this volume of meat, those facilities will not be there and the safe consumption of that meat will not be a possible solution to this issue.
I did not believe it when I first heard about the mass culling of millions of lambs that would be rendered inedible, but then I read the reports, listened to the National Farmers Union and spoke to agricultural workers and farmers across the country. It is very clear that this is not “Project Fear”.
I ask the Minister to get out from behind his ministerial desk and deal with this now, before it is too late.
George Eustice
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. He will be aware that the Government are seeking a free trade agreement with the European Union in the medium to long term and, if we can get it, in the short term. In the short term, the Prime Minister has already made it clear that in the event of a no-deal exit we will show solidarity with the sheep industry and make interventions, where necessary, to support farmers’ incomes.
George Eustice
I am going to conclude because we are running out of time.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised the important issue of whether we have the legal vires to make those interventions, and I can confirm that we do. The Government have a number of legislative vehicles with which to do so, including elements of retained EU law, and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 also includes general grant-making powers that give us the ability to do so. We are considering two possible options. One is a headage payment on breeding ewes, should that be necessary. That would be important in the event that farmers producing lambs are the ones who have the shock to their income. The second option would be something called a slaughterhouse premium, which would in effect involve a supplementary top-up payment for lambs at the point of slaughter. We could use a combination of those options but, broadly speaking, a headage payment and income-support approach would be the right approach to adopt.
Points of Order
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Yes, indeed. I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to save him up; I do not want to squander him at too early a stage in our proceedings, so we will keep him on ice and come first to the point of order from Jenny Chapman.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. If we exit the EU without a deal, we can no longer export millions of lambs slaughtered in the UK for consumption in the EU. This represents a third of the industry, and in this event if a wasteful cull of millions of lambs and breeding flock is to be avoided, arrangements need to be made now to store the meat safely. We do not have anything like the cold storage capacity needed to do this at the moment. Knowing this, on 17 July, I tabled a number of written parliamentary questions to the Government to establish what the plan is. Although distinct and tabled with advice from the Table Office, they were inexplicably grouped by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and its answers tell me nothing other than that there are contingencies, but it will not answer my questions, which is what those contingencies might be. I would be grateful for your assistance, Mr Speaker, on how I can get the truth from the Government.
Mr Speaker
I am advised, although I do not know whether the hon. Lady is yet aware—a simple nod of the head would suffice—that she has secured an Adjournment debate on Tuesday 3 September on this matter.
Mr Speaker
The nod suggests that she has seen her emails and is aware of that, although it does not satisfy her now. Well, that debate will take place and she will have the opportunity to explore these matters. In the meantime, what can she do? First, she can before the rise of the House table further questions, and it may be possible for there to be named day questions; I cannot say for certain off the top of my head, but that is possible. Secondly, although it may be suboptimal so far as the hon. Lady is concerned in the absence of an appropriate departmental Minister, she can either raise these matters herself among the matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment—that is to say, for the benefit of those observing our proceedings, this afternoon in the debate almost immediately to start—or she can cajole, exhort or entice a right hon. or hon. Friend of hers to do so. That may be unsatisfactory, but it is better than nothing. She can also, of course, correspond with Ministers.
Agriculture Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Baroness Chapman of Darlington ExcerptsTuesday 20th November 2018
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Bill 2017-19 View all Agriculture Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 November 2018 - (20 Nov 2018)
Dr Drew
We are still in the United Kingdom. The new clause does not deal with movements within the United Kingdom; it deals with live exports outside the United Kingdom. I took my holiday in Orkney and Shetland this year to add to the Scottish economy, and very enjoyable it was. I did not see many animals being moved about, but no doubt that happens.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I had concerns about this issue in relation to the Irish border. Just in case colleagues are worried about that, I should say that the new clause would not ban the movement of livestock across the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which is vital for agriculture there.
Dr Drew
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. It is important because, as I have said, animals move backwards and forwards over that border for fattening purposes or other reasons. We do not intend to ban that.
We are debating this issue here because this is an agriculture Bill. If we do not, whatever one’s opinion on the issues are, people will cast aspersions that we have not done our job as Opposition Members and that the Government have not put on the record their current thinking. Until recently, the Government were using banning live exports as one argument for leaving the EU. Is that still the Government’s case or not?
Dr Drew
I am not sure that I actually said that, but I re-emphasise that we would not stop any live exports within the United Kingdom, for so long as the United Kingdom exists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington says, we would even allow live exports within the island of Ireland.
Jenny Chapman
I am going to help the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire by reading proposed subsection (2)(a):
“The live export of livestock for slaughter or fattening is permitted after exit day if—(a) the livestock is exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland”.
There are farms that cross that border, so trying to prevent any livestock from crossing it would be pretty difficult to enforce.
Jenny Chapman
When we were discussing foie gras, the Minister said that the ability to ban its import depended on the type of agreement we get with the EU. That is fascinating to me, because the type of agreement that would not allow us to ban foie gras, if my understanding is correct, would be one that kept us in the customs union and probably with a very close relationship to the single market. That sounds familiar.
Jenny Chapman
That test is very carefully worded and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was based on comments made by David Davis, the then Secretary of State, at the Dispatch Box. In case he thinks it a little bit rash to take the remarks of David Davis—sorry, the hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden—as the basis of the test, the Prime Minister did go on to say that she was determined to meet that test herself. That test did not just come out of thin air; it came from the mouth of the then Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and it carefully refers to the “benefits” of, not to being a “member” of.
Dr Drew
I am not going to engage with that argument; I am not sure whether there are any angels dancing on pinheads yet. This is a matter of principle. I am in two minds as to whether to press the new clause. I understand what the Minister says, and this is not straightforward. Having sat through at least a couple of Adjournment debates, I realise that people come at this from different angles. There is not an easy humanitarian moral case for live exports, certainly in a practical way.
I am probably minded not to press the new clause to a vote at this stage, but my worry is: if not now, when? There will be very few opportunities to see such a ban come forward, as I said in my initial remarks. It may be that what we have drafted here is not good or right, and those who have helped us in drafting it have to think a bit more clearly about the different exemptions brought forward. I stress again that this is not about moving for a ban within the United Kingdom, because that would be wrong and lacking in any sense whatsoever. I will not press the clause to a vote at this stage, but I hope that on Report we get some clarity. The issue probably will come back, because somebody somewhere will see that this is an opportunity to move for a ban.
If the clause is wrong, what will the Government be prepared to do? I know they are waiting for the Farm Animal Welfare Council to come back, but that clearly has to be within a timeframe of what is permissible in terms of future legislative opportunities. The worry is that there will be some ongoing demand to put such a ban in place, in whatever form, and yet there will be no opportunity to do so. On that basis, while I hear what the Minister says now, I hope that on Report the Government will clarify whether such a ban needs to be put to bed completely because it is not enforceable, or whether it can be moved forward and there is an opportunity to move it forward in future legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Monitoring pesticide use and alternatives
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, publish proposals—
(a) to monitor the use and effects of pesticides in the management of livestock or land, to conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and to promote their take-up, and
(b) to conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and to promote their take-up, and
(c) to consult on a target to reduce the use of pesticides.
(2) The proposals shall include steps to measure—
(a) the effect of pesticides on environmental health,
(b) the effect of pesticides on human health,
(c) the frequency with which individual pesticides are applied,
(d) the areas to which individual pesticides are applied, and
(e) the take-up of alternative methods of pest control by land use and sector.
(3) “Environmental health” in subsection (2)(a) includes the health of flora, fauna, land, air or any inland water body.
(4) “Human health” in subsection (2)(b) means the health of farmers, farmworkers and their families, operators, bystanders, rural residents and the general public.—(Dr Drew.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals to monitor the impact of pesticides, to conduct research into alternative methods of pest control, to promote their take-up, and to consult on proposals to set a target to reduce the use of pesticides.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause will simply allow Ministers to measure their progress in implementing a promise made during the Brexit campaign that moneys available to support Scottish farmers will not decline in real terms as a result of our no longer being in the EU. The leave campaign made some real promises, which should be honoured. There will be plenty of hot air and confusion over the coming days, weeks, months and eternities, but can we at least get some clarity on how progress on this pledge will be measured?
Jenny Chapman
I have a few questions on this. It makes an awful lot of sense to me, and it matches what the First Minister of Wales has said repeatedly, which is that he wants all support to be matched penny for penny in the future, as was committed to by various voices during the referendum campaign. I do not think that there is anything unreasonable about that. If we agree to the new clause, it would open the door to similar amendments being made for the other devolved Administrations.
All the new clause seeks is transparent reporting that we would all benefit from being able to monitor, including in England. Agricultural payments will be something that we make decisions about, and doing so in the most up-front and clear way possible will help all of us. It is clear that the agriculture sector requires certainty going forward, and this is one way that we can assist in that. One key concern raised by stakeholders, particularly the farmers unions, is the continuation of funding that will be made available, particularly to the devolved Administrations.
Another key concern raised by the farmers unions is the ability of the devolved Administrations to make payments to farmers in 2020, due to the way that the Bill is structured. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on what will happen, particularly for Scotland. As Members will know, the Scottish Government’s continuity Bill is currently being considered by the Supreme Court. If it is deemed unlawful, what will happen to the payments to Scottish farmers? The Scottish Government intend that Bill to provide the vehicle by which payments could continue. What does the Minister consider the implications will be if that is not the case? It would be helpful to us all if we could use the consideration of this new clause to try to understand that issue.
I would like to ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith about the progress the Scottish Government are making with their own agriculture Bill, which the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy, Fergus Ewing, has said that they will implement. Scottish farmers need to know what the future holds for them.
The Chair
That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has already made it. There are a few formalities to complete. We had better get through those or we might be congratulating ourselves a little too early. Let us put new clause 31 and the Government amendment to the long title to bed and see where we go from there.
Jenny Chapman
Inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I want to put on the record my thanks to you, Sir Roger. We would very much appreciate it if you passed on our thanks to Mr Wilson, too.
I thank my hon. Friends, who all made substantial contributions to our proceedings. I have led on Bill Committees in the lead-up to Christmas where there has been lots of online shopping going on around the room, but that was not the case this time. Of the Government Members, I particularly thank the hon. Member for North Dorset for his good natured and at times very amusing contributions, and the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for his repeated challenge on the withdrawal agreement. All I say to him is that if he and his colleagues are banking on Labour Members coming to the rescue in the first week of December, they should not count their chickens.
I thank the Minister, who has conducted himself impeccably throughout all this. It cannot be an easy task. All the pressure has been on him, and he has dealt with everything with good grace. I do not think that he has declined a single intervention the whole time. He has our respect for that. I must also put on the record my thanks, respect and admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. His knowledge of the sector is far greater than mine. As a townie who does not represent a rural or semi-rural constituency but who likes her food, I have learned an awful lot. I also need to thank James Metcalfe, from my office.
We do not like the Bill at all. We think it is far too vague and does not provide the clarity that we want. Having said all that, this has been a hopeful process, and I think we have left the Minister with a better knowledge of our position than when we started. We look forward to some changes at future stages, as has been hinted at a couple of times throughout our proceedings. Overall, I thank colleagues for the way that we have conducted the Committee. I obviously say that I support new clause 31, otherwise I suspect that my speech would be completely out of order.
Agriculture Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Lake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I acknowledge and accept what he is saying: there is always a danger that we may not agree with what the Welsh Government want to do, particularly with regard to agriculture. I share that concern. However, I assure him that he need not worry and wait for too long—before long, my own party will be in government.
I fear that I have rambled on for long enough. This is a probing amendment, so I will not be pushing it to a Division—
Ben Lake
I might be tempted later.
We need to look at how the four industries and Administrations will work following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, because the EU provided a sort of overarching framework within which we all knew the parameters and rules. Any new framework would have to be agreed by the four Administrations if they were to work effectively and smoothly. I am probing the Government to see what their thinking is on this matter. I may then bring it back for a vote on Report.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
We think there is considerable merit in this new clause, and we hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will think hard before he gives away too much to the Government. The reality is that there is a need for a framework; if we are not careful, we will effectively have four different systems of agriculture developing, and I do not think we are very careful. I have waxed lyrical already about the problems in Northern Ireland, which have become more acute after yesterday. The Democratic Unionist party has already told me that it is not necessarily going to follow this particular bit of legislation—at the moment, it is not even going to follow this Government, so watch this space.
We must be very careful that there is some degree of co-ordination—dare I say it, a single market—within the United Kingdom, let alone a relationship with the Republic of Ireland, which is crucial for them but also important for us. We think the hon. Gentleman’s new clause deserves debate, and maybe more than debate. We must secure this agreement. It is interesting that the Fisheries Bill provides powers for Welsh Ministers, Northern Ireland Departments and Scottish Ministers in a more formal sense, yet this Agriculture Bill does not. Why not? I ask the Minister that—he can intervene, or sum up accordingly.
This is not just about farming. The new clause is strongly supported by Greener UK, which feels strongly that there is a real need for cross-border co-operation and collaboration to deliver on the environmental protection improvements that the Bill is all about. The Opposition advocated that during debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, because we feel strongly that there is a need to at least keep the four countries together in terms of the different provision. Unless that is done by consensus, it will have to be done by imposition; consensus is by far the better way.
The specific requirements set out in new clause 11 would provide those legislative safeguards. Otherwise, there is nothing in the Bill to make the issue something substantive—rather, it is just on a wing and a prayer: one of the criticisms we have advanced throughout this Committee. I hear what the Minister says about how the different conventions apply with regard to meetings with the other three countries. This is very much an England-only Bill, so of course the Government can say warm words and make gestures, but those will not necessarily be tied in by the Bill.
On the need for environmental collaboration, Greener UK’s view is that the new clause is important, because those environmental considerations do not respect national borders. Unless we do similar things—we will not do the same thing, but we might do similar things—agriculture will be not just devolved but different in each of the four countries, as I have said.
Jenny Chapman
What my hon. Friend is saying is important, especially when we think about the proposed backstop arrangements for Northern Ireland, which could lead to significant divergence in standards and regulations between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK over time.
Dr Drew
That is true. Northern Ireland is the most acute case, because it has a land border with another country. The two countries have to have some sort of similar agricultural system because farmers farm on both sides and environmentalists want to see what is happening. While I was in Belfast, I talked to Friends of the Earth, which identified a serious and growing methane problem because of what has happened to farming in the north. I also talked to various parties in the south, which identified a similar problem. That indicates how much we need a common framework.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the appropriate time there needs to be a significant and radical overhaul of the red tractor. There needs to be much clearer labelling and information. However, information itself can be a bit of a blunt instrument. People need to know how to interpret and understand the information put in front of them. I can read a manual on how to wire a plug 17 times but I will still not understand how to do it. However, the information is there. I do not actually know how to rewire a plug. That is why candle consumption in the Hoare household is very high.
Jenny Chapman
I remember, during the ’70s, when I was a child, my dad having to put a plug on the end of every electric device we had. However, that is no longer needed, thanks to European Union regulations on the issue.
Simon Hoare
I hope I do not insult the hon. Lady by saying this, but I am rather guessing from those remarks that she and I are therefore of a similar vintage. Were those not simpler and happier days? That is where we are.
I do not wish to detain the Committee for any longer than I need to, but this is a pivotal thing that could dramatically affect our agricultural sector. It is not about protection or insulation. It is not about preserving our farming sector in some sort of legislative aspic, to create some sort of bucolic scene of smock-wearing, corn-chewing loveliness where sheep are clean and all the rest of it.
Sandy Martin
I shall be brief, because most of what I would have said has been said by hon. Friends, and indeed by the hon. Member for North Dorset, with whom I absolutely concur. There has been a lot of discussion about whether we should be rule takers or rule makers, but there is no point in adhering to rules or in making them for ourselves if they are all then undercut by other people.
Other countries do not always adhere even to international agreements that they have signed up to. If we are going to adhere to them ourselves, as we should because they are good rules, we need to ensure that we have a legislative justification for refusing to take their goods. I am worried that without any legislative justification it will be extremely difficult for us, under either international trade agreements or World Trade Organisation rules, to prevent imports of goods that are produced without following those rules, undercutting what farmers can and should be doing in this country.
If we are to achieve any of the public goods set out in clause 1—healthy, sustainable food; a reduction in pollution and climate change emissions; protection of our countryside; and decent working conditions for people in agriculture—we need to have farming in this country that is not only ecologically, but financially sustainable, and it must not be undercut by other countries. A television programme I recently saw by chance included an appalling part about vegetables being produced in southern Spain. It showed just how bad some of the trashing of the environment and the treatment of people was. That was within the European Union, so we do not always get it right within the European Union, but at least while we are in the European Union there is a mechanism for trying to enforce rules in other countries. We will not have that once we leave the European Union, and we need to ensure that there is something in the Bill that will do that.
Pollution and climate change do not respect borders. There is no point in our trying to reduce the level of pollution and climate change emissions in agriculture in this country if we do not have some mechanism for ensuring that we can impose those high standards on producers in other parts of the world. If we do not have explicit rules in the Bill about what we will import, we are leaving ourselves open to undercutting and not only will farmers in this country suffer, but the environment will suffer in this country and in the rest of the world.
Jenny Chapman
I do know how to wire a plug; that is the first thing I want to say. I add my voice to this because we need to hammer home to the Minister the level and extent of the concern across the parties on this issue. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East wishes to press the clause to a vote today or whether there might be opportunities to express the view of parliamentarians in future stages of the Bill, but the Government need to take the hint provided by the excellent speech by the hon. Member for North Dorset, which put the point across incredibly well. It might be a good idea for the Government to come back with their own proposition at a later stage, perhaps in the other place, and propose something that we can all support.
This matter is of such great concern and importance because it is all happening in the context of the withdrawal agreement that we had sight of last week, which is unclear about the future of these kinds of standards, either in the backstop arrangement or in the political declaration about the future relationship. There is a huge row going on about that outside this Committee, so we do not need to go into it all here, but suffice it to say that the agreement is incredibly vague and non-specific about how the UK’s future standards and regulations on these issues would look. That is something that we are unhappy about anyway, but it is particularly important when we look at the issues that we are considering. The hon. Member for North Dorset put it well when he said that the impact may not be felt straightaway but that the erosion of the industry could be seen over time. We have spent so much time in Committee discussing how to protect, enhance, sustain and grow that industry so it will continue to be the best in the world, and it would be a tragedy to see it diminish because we did not have the foresight to put these safeguards in place.
In a way, I am reminded of what has happened to the high street. In not that long a time, we have seen the withdrawal of the vibrancy of our high streets, and it will be very difficult to get that back. Exactly the same thing could happen to our agricultural industries. As a generation of politicians, we would never be forgiven for that.
Obviously, we import food from the US now, but we do it carefully within a set of rules and we are mindful of the standards of what we import, so everybody knows that they can buy food that has been imported from the US with confidence and that it complies with the standards that we expect in this country. That needs to be the case in the future too. I think there would be widespread public support for that to happen in the Bill, and if it does not, I am not sure where in law that provision would be placed, particularly if we were to leave without a deal. I am pretty confident that we are not going to do that, actually, because I do not think the Government would take us down that catastrophic path, but we are here to deal with things that might happen as well as things that we expect to happen.
Mr Goodwill
Surely if the hon. Lady is keen for us to leave with a deal, her party should vote for the deal before us.
Jenny Chapman
I do not believe that the Government have any intention of leading us out without a deal, and if they tried, the vast majority of MPs would get in the way. According to the Government’s technical notices, leaving without a deal would require 51 pieces of legislation, and on day one of that legislation being introduced, an amendment would be tabled that said, “This Government may not lead us out without a deal.” Parliament would use the many opportunities that it would have to prevent it happening, but I do not believe that the Prime Minister has the slightest intention of going down that path. I think she wants a deal, but the argument we are having is whether it is this deal.
Simon Hoare
Following the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I hear what the hon. Lady says—she and I have discussed it—but my right hon. Friend is right that at some point, the hon. Lady’s party will have to vote for a deal produced by the Government and not just hide behind process and everything else. To leave with a deal, we have to get a deal.
The Chair
Order. May I suggest that we stop the discussion there before we go down a rabbit hole from which we will never recover?
Jenny Chapman
I have been advised by the Chair not to respond, so I will resist, but there is nothing processy about our objection to the deal. The deal does not include that which we have told the Prime Minister we need in order to support it.
Our fourth test about preventing a race to the bottom is absolutely relevant to the new clause. Unless we have the new clause, or something like it that the Government have the opportunity to introduce—I have never seen a Minister stand up and say, “I accept your clause” to anybody across the way; I understand that they always want to bring back their own—we will see a race to the bottom. For about 18 months, we have set out the criteria by which we would assess a deal. Avoiding a race to the bottom is very important to us for the reasons we are discussing.
The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration mention non-regression measures. I have not got the agreement with me—this is the only time this week that I have not carried the damn thing around with me. Will non-regression measures apply to food standards, environmental protections and animal welfare? The agreement contains something about workers’ rights, but it would be helpful to know from the Minister whether non-regression measures will apply to the issues we are discussing.
Things look uncertain. We are not even sure whether the agreement published last week will be agreed by Parliament, or what steps the Government will take even if it is agreed. Which measures will apply to this industry, and what opportunities will there be to make this type of clause binding if we do not take the opportunity now? I am not certain that we will have the opportunity before the end of March next year. We have a duty to put this in place in some way, shape or form between now and then. If the Minister assures us that there will be an opportunity to do so, we will need to think about that, but for now, I think this is it. If the Government do not adopt these measures today, when will they do so? They are incredibly important, and there is clearly cross-party support for this kind of instrument. I think the Minister gets that. It would be useful to hear how he intends to proceed, how far he intends to go, and what form he thinks the protections need to be in.
George Eustice
The amendments all seek to achieve the same thing: to set out in statute a requirement that no trade deal can be done or put before Parliament unless its terms mean that no good can be imported that does not meet our standards.
Before talking about the approach that we intend to take on future trade deals, I want to say first and foremost that this is an incredibly important issue. As a number of hon. Members highlighted, the Secretary of State and I could not have been clearer that we will not water down our trade and animal welfare standards in pursuit of a trade deal. The Department for International Trade has now adopted that position unambiguously, despite what the hon. Member for Bristol East said. It is clear that we will not water down our food standards in pursuit of a trade deal.
I want to make a number of points. First, the EU regulations on chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-treated beef and other standards are coming across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will sit as retained EU law. It will be unlawful to do a trade deal allowing hormone-treated beef or chlorine-washed chicken into the UK unless Parliament decides to repeal the legislation that bans its sale in the UK.
Secondly, we are obviously working on our future trade agreement with the European Union. The approach outlined in the Chequers proposal, which remains the basis for the UK’s approach in the development of a future economic partnership, is that we will have a common rulebook on issues pertinent to the border, which will include sanitary and phytosanitary issues. It is likely that a Bill giving effect to the future economic partnership will give additional protections in this space.
This is an important matter for another reason. The United Kingdom has been on a rather different journey from the United States—in particular, over the past 30 years. In the UK, there has been a growth of consumer interest in food provenance. Consumers want more labelling so they can understand how their food was produced. They want higher standards, and they have sought to purchase locally where possible. We have seen a growth in farmers’ markets and a much stronger consumer interest in the quality of food.
George Eustice
That is a very important point. We are working at the moment to try to get access for British beef to the United States because it is a premium product and their beef tends to be lower grade. There is also a good market for British dairy products, particularly our famous cheeses, in the United States where they largely have a standard cheddar that is not particularly good. There is a market for those. There are offensive opportunities in some of these trade deals, which we should always bear in mind.
Jenny Chapman
I would observe that not all American food is as dire as it might seem from our deliberations. There is a thriving organic, local food market in the United States.
I want to ask the Minister about process. Will there be an opportunity for Parliament at the mandate-setting stage to constrain the trade negotiations, so that it can be made clear to negotiators that Parliament will not accept anything that breaches the standards that we are trying to embed? The Minister seeks to do that agreement by agreement, but we are trying to put those constraints in the Bill.
George Eustice
The hard power, for want of a better term, that Parliament will have is the power to block ratification at the end of the process. As I outlined earlier, there will be a 14-week consultation process where anybody—consumer groups and whoever—can feed in.
As the negotiations progress, there will be regular scrutiny from the International Trade Committee, which will be a parliamentary Committee providing that scrutiny. Therefore, it will not be a mandate as such—in that sense, it is perhaps more akin to the Australian system—but it will have some of the features of the US system, in terms of parliamentary overview as the negotiations progress, but also the ability to block ratification at the end.
Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)
Baroness Chapman of Darlington ExcerptsTuesday 13th November 2018
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Bill 2017-19 View all Agriculture Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 November 2018 - (13 Nov 2018)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 97, in clause 17, page 12, leave out lines 39 to 44 and insert—
“(2) In this Part ‘exceptional market conditions’ exist—
(a) where—
(i) there is a severe disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of a severe disturbance in agricultural markets, and
(ii) the disturbance or threatened disturbance has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on agricultural producers in England in terms of the prices achievable for one or more agricultural products, or
(b) if, on the day after exit day, the United Kingdom has not entered, or secured an agreement to enter, into a customs union with the EU.”
Amendment 117, in clause 17, page 12, line 40, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) there is or has been a significant disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of a significant disturbance in agricultural markets, or”.
This amendment and Amendments 122 and 123 would allow a declaration of exceptional market conditions where there is, or there is a serious threat of, a significant disturbance in agricultural markets; and would allow a declaration to be made in respect of events in the past.
Amendment 122, in clause 17, page 12, line 44, after “achievable for” insert
“or costs incurred in the production of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 117.
Amendment 123, in clause 17, page 13, line 2, after “are” insert “or have been”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 117.
Government amendment 6.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be back in Committee this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for North Dorset’s account of his lunch; he is not here—he is probably finishing his cheese and biscuits.
When you adjourned the Committee this morning at 25 minutes past 11, Sir Roger, I was about to speak to amendment 122. To give colleagues their bearings, we are on page 12 of the Bill and dealing with clause 17. The amendment would insert just a few words about exceptional market conditions. What we are asking for is difficult to explain without reading out a whole subsection of the clause, so please bear with me. Clause 17(2) states:
“In this Part ‘exceptional market conditions’ exist where—
there is a severe disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of a severe disturbance in agricultural markets, and
the disturbance or threatened disturbance has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on agricultural producers in England in terms of the prices achievable for one or more agricultural products.”
All we want to do is to include, in addition to the reference to an impact on the prices achievable, a reference to the costs incurred in the production of such products, because the issue is obviously not just the prices that can be obtained for them, but how much the costs of producing them may be affected.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
When the hon. Lady talks about events that may have a severe impact on British agriculture, could she by any chance be referring to the points made by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, when he talked about the collective ownership of land? Surely that is a policy that, when enacted by Stalin, killed millions of people in the Soviet Union.
Jenny Chapman
I think that if that were the policy, it would indeed count as an exceptional market condition, and I expect that the Government might want to intervene in some way.
Let me move on. As drafted, the power to act applies only if there is an impact on prices, but obviously there could be a situation in the sector that resulted in excessive additional costs for farmers but did not necessarily have an impact on the price of the product. Examples would be the costs of taking emergency action, such as cleansing and disinfecting, or input costs such as those for fodder. If the clause included our wording, that would enable the Secretary of State to act, or would just make it clearer that he could act when there was an effect on not only the prices achievable but the costs incurred.
Widening the scope, subtly but importantly, beyond just the impact on agricultural product prices would make the measure more flexible and reflective of the nature of exceptional conditions. In an enabling Bill, it is better to have powers with the full scope to deal with the unexpected. For now, that concludes my remarks on this group of amendments.
The Chair
Amendment proposed, 97, in clause 17, page 12, leave out lines 39 to 44 and insert the words on the amendment paper. The question is that the amendment be made.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Apologies, Sir Roger: there is quite a large number of amendments in this group, and I am just finding my way to amendment 46. This is another attempt to replace the word “may” with “must”. Again, the argument is that the use of the word “may” is wrong. The Agriculture Act 1947 has not been referred to at all today, and I know that the hon. Member for Stroud likes it a great deal, so let me try this quotation:
“Where…it appears to the appropriate Minister expedient so to do, or if it appears to him otherwise expedient so to do in the public interest, he may by order fix or vary any such price”.
Even provisions in the 1947 Act, in this case relating to deficiency payments or a price support mechanism, use “may”.
The important thing to note about all these sorts of powers is that, by definition, there is a wide element of discretion. We are talking about dealing with crisis scenarios. The aim is not to intervene routinely all the time but to intervene expeditiously and in a fleet-of-foot way when a crisis needs to be addressed. The wording we have used in the clause and in many other areas in this part of the Bill is largely borrowed from what currently sits in EU legislation. The European Union also has discretionary crisis powers for exceptional circumstances, and its wording and approach are similar to what we have here, and, indeed, what we have here is similar to what we had in the 1947 Act.
Amendment 97 would add an additional definition of “exceptional market conditions”: if, on the day the United Kingdom leaves the EU, it is not in a customs union, that, of itself, should be an exceptional market condition. The hon. Member for Darlington comprehensively set out her views on these matters. I do not want to drift too far into the debate about customs unions, because we will have hours and hours of fun in the months ahead debating the agreement that comes back before Parliament.
However, we do not have to be in a customs union with the EU to avert a so-called exceptional market circumstance. We have been clear that we want a comprehensive free trade agreement and, crucially, a customs agreement—although not a customs union. We also seek a transition period. We are clear, as a Government, about what we seek in this negotiation, which is in its closing stages.
George Eustice
Yes, I can. If the hon. Lady reads the proposal that came out of Chequers, she will see that a customs agreement is one that allows us to strike trade deals with the rest of the world and in which we would collect and process, on behalf of the European Union, the duty due on goods destined for the EU.
George Eustice
I will not, because, as I said, I want to deal with the substance of the clause.
The Government are clear about our approach to getting in place a new free trade agreement and a partnership. However, there are several other flaws with the amendment. First, we have to bear in mind that the impacts of a no-deal Brexit will vary from sector to sector; it is not possible to determine exactly what they will be. For instance, we know that the sheep and barley sectors export quite a lot of their goods to the European Union. However, we are net importers in virtually every other sector, so although there may be an impact on sheep, there would almost certainly not be on beef, because there will be less import competition.
I do not think it is wise to put this proviso into the Bill. The reality is that, if the terms on which we left the European Union—be that with no deal or any other circumstance that led to restrictions on trade—led to a severe disturbance in the agricultural market, and if that disturbance threatened to have a significant impact on agricultural producers, the power is already there to act. We do not need to artificially bring a current debate around the customs union into a Bill that is built to last for the long term.
George Eustice
That is the case with a number of other things that we import from other countries, including Iceland, which we import a lot of fish products from. We have ways of dealing with these issues.
As I said, the approach that we have adopted with the common rule book and the customs agreement will address those issues.
George Eustice
I will not give way. With these interventions, a number of Members are giving the impression that they would rather be in the main Chamber taking part in the EU debate than in a debate about future farming policy.
The purpose of this amendment is to define not being in a customs union as being a crisis in and of itself. That is absolutely wrong, because we can have a highly successful partnership and trade agreement that does not require us to be in a customs union with the European Union. Many nations in this world are not in a customs union with the European Union.
Jenny Chapman
Some of the contributions have been helpful in giving the lie to the idea that you cannot trade successfully and extensively with countries in other parts of the world while in a customs union, but that is not the point I wanted to make. The Minister says that not being in a customs union is not a crisis, but can he name any border anywhere on the planet where the kind of frictionless trade on which our industry depends is achieved without being in a customs union?
George Eustice
There are many successful economies in the world that are not in a customs union with the European Union.
I come back to my point: if as a consequence of the agreement—or indeed of there being no agreement—with the European Union, there are market disturbances that have an impact on agricultural producers, the power is there to act. There is no need to try to define additional powers in the way that this amendment does.
Amendments 117 and 123 seek to downgrade the test from a severe market disturbance to a significant market disturbance. It is wrong to lower the threshold in that way, for reasons I want to explain. We had evidence from one of the academics that suggested we needed something akin to the old deficiency payments system in that famous 1947 Act. The world has moved considerably since that point, and in many sectors we are seeing the development of viable futures markets to help farmers manage risk. In some countries—notably the US, in places such as Chicago—they put in place legislation to deliver the transparency needed to get a functioning futures market that enables farmers to defend themselves against price fluctuations.
We also have some interesting projects being developed in the UK. We are world leaders in issues such as agricultural insurance. There are some interesting projects on forming mutual funds—effectively, mutualised risk insurance models—that help farmers to insure their margin and protect a given quantity of milk, for instance, at a given price. Moving these powers away from just intervening where there is catastrophic risk, and away from a “severe” to some sort of “significant” disturbance, is the quickest way to snuff out the development of those private futures markets and risk management models.
Dr Drew
I shall be very quick, because this is the same argument as I used earlier—we make no apology for bringing it back. Clause 20 may not seem to be the most important in the Bill, but the success of any farming operation nowadays depends on marketing. The measure will take effect in a number of different ways. Far too much discretion is allowed to the Secretary of State. These important responsibilities should be encompassed within duties not powers, which is why we make no apology for trying to make it a duty.
Amendment 47 is simple. We do not understand why the Minister has been reticent throughout the Bill to include duties so that successive Governments will know their responsibilities. This is a monumental clause that entails all manner of different requirements on the Minister: classifying different types of animal and plant variety, and how they are presented in terms of the way in which they are sold. Traceability is the issue that consumers feel most strongly about following the difficulties we went through with BSE and the cockle pickers. They want to know that what they are buying is produced in the manner best for animal welfare and that it is safe. They want to know where it comes from, and that the people who produced it have been paid fairly and are looked after.
This clause is important because it has all sorts of ramifications. We ask the Minister to consider when he will include duties if not in clause 20. This is about consumer protection as much as it is about the protection given to producers. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is going to follow up with other issues that are specified, relating to where we would be with our withdrawal from the EU, but this amendment is plain and simple. We are asking the Minister to put at least one duty in the Bill. That is crucial and would enable consumers to know the Minister is doing something because he has to do it for their benefit, and not doing something just because he wants to. I hope he considers clause 20 important and that he listens to us.
Jenny Chapman
I will speak to amendments 82 and 83. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, this argument is to some extent a rehash of the arguments we made earlier when we insisted that the Government should deprive themselves of the ability to amend regulations on the protection of the environment or consumer rights, which are so exceptionally important and valuable to the country that ideally they should not be watered down, dispensed with or altered by Ministers without the use of primary legislation—it should not be done by regulation.
In amendment 82, we seek to safeguard any part of retained EU law relating to the protection of the environment or consumer rights. Clause 20 allows the Secretary of State to amend regulations relating to marketing standards, including the power to amend or revoke standards set out in retained EU legislation. That is quite some power. Current EU legislation pertaining to marketing standards will become retained EU legislation in section 6 of the withdrawal Act. The Secretary of State obviously understands that this is a significant power because even the Government have said that they recognise that they will need to use the affirmative procedure. However, he wants to be able to change the legislation whenever he sees fit.
The Government ought to be aware of just how extensive that power is, and that Parliament will want to be involved and concerned about how the power will be exercised in future. It is welcome that the Government accept the need for the affirmative procedure, but we ask that they accept safeguards in the Bill so that we can be confident that, as a consequence, environmental protections and consumer rights cannot be watered down—or at least that it will be difficult to do so.
We have not debated those important issues as much as others such as support for farmers. We do not want these important measures to be diminished in any way through lack of insufficient debate during the progress of the Bill. The measures were the subject of considerable concern on the Floor of the House during debates on the withdrawal Act. Committee members may remember that many amendments were tabled along the lines of the ones we are discussing. There was great frustration and suspicion that future Governments would be able, through regulation, to make changes to these important safeguards, which have been copper-bottomed up until now because they have been part of EU law, much to the irritation of some Members.
I can see the argument that Members will be pleased when such safeguards can be changed by this Parliament, but that needs to be done in the right way. It is no good saying that things are protected just because power resides in Westminster with the UK Government or in a devolved Administration.
Sandy Martin
Is not the nub of the issue that the changes and decisions will not be made in this place but in Whitehall?
Jenny Chapman
A procedure would take place in Parliament but we have all sat on those Committees and seen just how thorough the examination of regulations can be.
The protection of the environment and consumers is very important. We would argue that, if anyone wants to change those important rules and the law of this country, they should introduce a Bill. We can then scrutinise it properly, with votes on the Floor of the House and the involvement of both Houses. Let us have the warranted scrutiny because these incredibly important issues affect how our country perceives itself and is perceived overseas, and the protection of the environment. The protections warrant the hard work that would need to be undertaken by Ministers, which is what people put their hands up for when they voted to leave—they wanted the ability to make their laws properly, as they saw it. To do that by regulation, through whatever procedure, is not what the public had in mind when they voted in 2016.
I am afraid that warm words from the Minister will not do this time, nor will assurances that Parliament can be involved when future regulations are proposed. We are very concerned. Subject to what the Minister says, we might want to test the opinion of the Committee on these amendments.
George Eustice
It is important to note that amendments 47 and 82 are to some extent antagonistic. On amendment 47, as the shadow Minister said, we have debated the issue of “may” or “must” on many clauses. I simply reiterate that having that power conveyed through the term “may” is how comparable legislation is drafted and is the approach we take. In addition, in this instance, there is another reason why “may” is absolutely the appropriate word to use rather than “must”.
The hon. Member for Stroud should read the clause in the context of the fact that all existing EU marketing standards will be brought across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and placed on a UK statutory footing. It is therefore not the case that, in the absence of immediate action by the Secretary of State, there will be no marketing standards. In the absence of any action under clause 20, the position would be that retained EU law on marketing standards endures and remains after we leave the EU as it was when we were in it. Paradoxically, if there were a requirement that he “must” introduce regulations in all areas, the Government might be forced to change retained EU law that they were perfectly content with and not in a hurry to change.
Jenny Chapman
Let me reassure the Minister. I am not saying that we should keep things as they are and never, ever change anything. I just think that, if he intends to change these things, he ought to introduce an environment Bill or a consumer protection Bill so that we can decide where the country is going, and not just leave it to the Secretary of State.
George Eustice
Of course, at the moment it is just left to the European Union, and we have no input at all. The hon. Lady will note that the set of regulations set out in clause 20 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We recognise that these are important issues and that retained EU law may be replaced—there is the option to do that—so we have made them subject to the affirmative procedure. Parliament will have a role.
Amendment 83 is about the duty to consult, which we have covered on many occasions. I say again that DEFRA loves consultations. We have consultations on all sorts of matters. I can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that, before making any changes under clause 20, there will indeed be a consultation—not only because we always consult on matters of this sort anyway, but for another reason: as I explained, on issues of food standards, and food safety in particular, there is already a statutory requirement to consult. It is currently contained in article 9 of EU regulation 178/2002, which requires consultations on changes to food law. That EU regulation will come across in the retained EU law. In addition to my normal argument, there is an even stronger argument, which is that there is already a statutory requirement for changes in many of these areas, because they relate to food standards.
Having addressed hon. Members’ concerns and explained that retained EU law will be the starting point, and that we need not be in a hurry to change these things if we do not want to, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
The Chair
Order. I am looking at you, Ms Chapman, in case you want to speak before Mr Drew winds up. I was not able to allow you to speak last time because he had wound up the debate.
Jenny Chapman
I am grateful, Sir Roger. We are all learning as we go. The teamwork that you see on the Opposition Front Bench is seamless, but it requires us to get up in the right order.
I accept what the Minister said. His undertaking on having a consultation is welcome, and I look forward to holding him to it. I remain concerned about the subject of amendment 82. I hear what he says, but we are at a turning point, and we must to start as we mean to go on. The point we are making to the Government is that we want these things to be done properly and as transparently as possible, with as much involvement of MPs as we can manage, because that is how we involve wider society in our deliberations. These are matters of intense importance and I would like to test the Committee’s opinion on amendment 82.
Deidre Brock
No, I do not in this instance. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who tried to table an amendment to schedule 3 last week. That demonstrates the vulnerability of inserting a schedule into the Bill. It would potentially allow a Member who is not even a member of the Government to alter something and control the Welsh Government’s ability to make payments to whoever they wish under that schedule. It is quite amusing, therefore, that he makes that contribution.
Jenny Chapman
I am trying to understand this. As I understand it, the Welsh Government put forward a schedule that one could call a power grab—they have helped themselves to some quite nice powers here—and the Government accepted it. I cannot see any attempt to amend the schedule getting anywhere, so I am not sure what lies behind the hon. Lady’s reluctance to submit a schedule.
Deidre Brock
We do not need a schedule inserted into the Bill. We do not need anyone to legislate for us on devolved matters. We have been producing our own legislation in such areas since 1999, when there was devolution to the Scottish Parliament. In terms of rushing into making legislation, I would have thought the hon. Lady would share my concerns about the views expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords on the Bill. It clearly demonstrates what happens when we rush into making legislation. The Scottish Government knows that it does not legally have to do it. They would much rather take their time, consult all the necessary organisations within the sector and arrive at stability and simplicity, which is of course the name of our document.
Jenny Chapman
I will not say very much; I just want to echo some of my hon. Friend’s points. I was involved with the withdrawal Act, and today I have been reading the latest common frameworks document, which was released earlier today. A lot of it is about agriculture and the progress that has been made on agreeing frameworks for the UK after we leave the EU. It says:
“Further detail on the specific arrangements that are subject to ongoing discussion in relation to agricultural support is available online.”
Unfortunately, the detail is not in that document, so I have not had a chance to look at it. It is important for the Minister to indicate where the Government are at with this to inform how we proceed on these issues.
I have a few more questions about that. Our deliberations about devolution issues took place on the Floor of the House, so many hon. Members here might have taken part in them. Devolution is very contentious and important, and every now and again it is used to make points not directly related to the issues under consideration. I have a few questions about how the amendments might work and what the Minister thinks of them, because I have some concerns about them.
The Labour party is fairly relaxed about the approach set out in amendment 59. We can see the logic behind it, but we would like to ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith how they see it fitting with the ongoing negotiations about the establishment of common UK frameworks. That is the document that I have just referred to. Where are we? This is a moving thing, and the Minister is asking us to make decisions about a process that is still incomplete.
Amendment 60 works in conjunction with amendment 59, and seeks to remove the role of the Secretary of State and replace him with
“the appropriate authority to which an application is made under this section.”
I assume that it is consequential, given that amendment 59 seeks to redesign the process by which an application is made. Again, we are reasonably relaxed about that.
Amendments 60 and 61 seek to ensure that Scottish Ministers have the ability to grant consent to applications made to become a recognised producer organisation. What effect do the Minister and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith see that having in practice? How would it actually work? The Labour party is not stuck on this; we do not mind it. In truth, and I hope the hon. Lady does not take this the wrong way—I say this as a neutral observer representing a town in the north-east—these amendments look a little like politicking, rather than serving a true purpose. Can she assure me about what impact the amendments would have on the capacity of Scottish Ministers to process applications?
Amendment 64 is unfortunately a bit problematic, as it goes further than the devolution settlement currently allows. I am not trying to be provocative. I do not want to get into somebody else’s fight. The sticking point, if I have understood the amendment correctly, is that it seeks to ensure that the consent of Scottish Ministers is required for all regulations under sections 22 and 23, which extend to Scotland. As I understand it currently, the devolution settlement from the Scotland Act 2016 says that Westminster will not normally legislate in areas where the Scottish Parliament has competence. Admittedly, the Government have not shown great respect for that principle with the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and, as noted previously, this is not an area where the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Ministers currently exercise competence. If that is correct, the amendment would go further than the devolution settlement does at the moment.
The word “veto” has been overused in these debates in the past, but given the contentious relationship—if I can put it that way—between the UK Government and the Scottish Government at the moment, I am raising a concern and would be interested to hear what others feel about this. Were amendment 64 to be agreed, the Scottish Government could refuse to grant consent for provisions that relate to Scotland, which would be in the vast majority, given that the amendment covers the UK as a whole. Then we could be in a constitutional deadlock, which is not something that anybody wants to see. This process is all about avoiding that.
Officials in the Scottish Parliament are quite clear that they are committed to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks and they agree that this is a necessary approach to take. I do not want to see anything that we might agree here interfering with other processes. The important people in all this are the Scottish farmers and producers, and I cannot help thinking that they would be looking at this and wondering where they stand.
I would like the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to clarify whether this amendment is seen as consequential to the others that she has tabled, as this is not an area where the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government have jurisdiction, and therefore consent would not currently be required when regulations are made. I am not trying to be provocative or to insert myself in the middle of an argument between the Government and the Scottish Government, but we need to be mindful of the potential impact that any row might have on the lack of support for producers in Scotland, because they need to come first.
Agriculture Bill (Ninth sitting)
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. May I remind you of the housekeeping arrangements? Please switch electronic devices to silent. Although we do not recognise the Public Gallery, it would be helpful if that could be done there as well. Tea and coffee are not allowed—but I cannot see any, so that is all right.
On line-by-line consideration of the Bill, the ground rules apply as usual. I decide whether there is a stand part debate. You can have a stand part debate, if it is convenient to you, during the debate on the clause or at the end, but not both. You have to exercise your judgment.
Clause 11
Support for rural development
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 11, page 7, line 35, leave out “simplifying or improving” and insert
“making a change or changes which the Secretary of State believes to be necessary to”.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 80, in clause 11, page 8, line 19, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Amendment 81, in clause 11, page 8, line 19, at end insert—
“(5) Before making regulations modifying legislation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult persons who, in his or her opinion, are representative of the sector to which the regulations will apply, or who may otherwise be affected.”
This amendment would ensure that there are checks and balances on the use of Ministerial powers in relation to rural development that would be granted under Clause 11.
Jenny Chapman
It is good to be back after our week’s rest last week. Clause 11 concerns support for rural development and I am afraid, looking back at our previous deliberations, I must rerun some of the arguments we applied to previous clauses. The issue that runs through the Bill is what the Secretary of State may want to do with the powers, and the inadequate definition of that. In the present case, the Minister wants the powers to be subject to the negative resolution procedure, which we went over in some detail the week before last.
Clause 11 states that the Secretary of State “may by regulations modify”
“retained direct EU legislation relating to support for rural development”
and
“subordinate legislation relating to that legislation.”
That is quite a broad power. Subsection (3) sets out some of the measures that the Secretary of State would be able to modify. It begins:
“In this section ‘retained direct EU legislation relating to support for rural development’ includes in particular—”
but it is not clear to me, and I should like the Minister’s view, whether the list of measures that follows is intended to be exhaustive, or whether the Secretary of State would be able to add to it. If he could add to it, and could use the powers in other ways, too, would the use of the negative procedure be appropriate in all circumstances, and not just the instances specified in the list? I should like the Minister to enable the Committee to understand the aim of the clause properly.
Amendment 79 relates to the Secretary of State’s power, under the clause, to simplify or improve the measures. The amendment would make the quite modest but important change of replacing the words “simplifying and improving” with
“making a change or changes which the Secretary of State believes to be necessary to”.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady rather give powers to the Secretary of State to complicate legislation or make it worse? It seems she is opening a door for that to happen.
Jenny Chapman
No—clearly, that is not the intention. If the Minister needs to table something to make that clear, we will gladly discuss that.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although additional, more specific regulations might be more complicated, they would be clearer?
Jenny Chapman
I agree, yes. The change we are seeking in the amendment is to include “necessary”, because the Secretary of State has powers under the clause to make changes that he or she thinks would simplify or improve, but that is so subjective. The power that the Government seek would be through the negative procedure, so any change ought to be needed and not just used for things that the Secretary of State desires to do, for motives that we could not discern.
If the Secretary of State wishes to change the scheme in ways that today we can only guess at, we want to know more about how that power can be used. It could be said that it is very generous to allow the Secretary of State to make changes that, in his or her opinion, simplify or improve—he or she could say that just about any change was an improvement if he or she wanted to.
All amendment 79 seeks to do is to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that any future changes are really needed: these measures will potentially have a significant impact on rural communities. The Secretary of State may decide to do nothing in this policy area, despite having the powers. People watching our deliberations will want to know an awful lot more about what will happen as a consequence of the clause.
I move on to amendment 80, which subjects regulations under the clause to the affirmative procedure—not the negative procedure, as the Secretary of State desires. We went over this point at length last time when we discussed the difference between the two processes. I do not see any benefit in going over all that again. It would be helpful if the Minister justified why he thinks the affirmative procedure is not appropriate in this instance.
As we discussed at some length previously, amendment 81 requires the Secretary of State to consult persons who,
“in his or her opinion, are representative of the sector to which the regulations will apply, or who may otherwise be affected.”
The Opposition believe that that is a necessary safeguard. We want the amendment on the face of the Bill because the clause affords such great power and discretion to the Secretary of State.
We know, because he said it last time, that the Minister has good intentions to consult, but the majority of consultations conducted by his Department take place because they are required in legislation. We talked about there being several hundred consultations—could he tell us how many of those come about because they are required in legislation? How many happen because the Department feels that it is the right thing to do?
There is no requirement at all in the clause to consult, but perhaps there ought to be. The Minister is asking us to rely just on his good will and the custom and practice that he says exists in the Department, but I question whether that is the case and whether the consultations that take place in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are by and large required by legislation. They are often required for very good reasons and are an important safeguard that ought to apply when we are talking about support for rural development.
As we discussed last time and as is worth repeating, done correctly, consultation improves decision making and avoids costly mistakes and unintended consequences. Why does the Secretary of State believe it is not appropriate to require consultation in this case?
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to be back, Sir Roger. I spent much of last week in Northern Ireland and Ireland, and will no doubt be referring to that in Committee.
A couple of points are important to the clause. We need to understand that the Bill should encompass pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy. I am not sure whether it does, although this is the closest that we get to it. I am aware that in due course we will be debating my amendment 115, so I am not going to talk about timetables.
I want to talk about the substance of rural development: it is very important that we understand that although agriculture is crucial to rural development, it is not the totality of it. I would argue that the Government have not got a rural policy, and they need one. Things are going on in rural England, to which the Bill largely refers, that are not good at the moment. Anyone who has read the material that has come out about the relative decline of market towns should be very clear that we need to invest in those communities and the villages around them.
The worry is that the Government not only do not have a rural policy, but they have no one to speak on a rural policy. They dismissed all rural advocacy. I am not saying that new Labour was wonderful in this area, although we did have a good rural policy between 1999 and 2004—principally around the countryside White Paper of 2000 and what the £1 billion earmarked for rural areas implied. It made a significant difference. Sadly, that has all gone: we have lost the rural tsar and the Commission for Rural Communities. That worries me when it comes to this Bill; I do not know how pillar 2, which largely invested in rural communities through the common agricultural policy, transfers into the Bill.
I will be interested to hear what the Minister says. We are back again to the usual game of powers and duties. The Minister and Secretary of State do not need to do anything. They can make lots of warm noises about rural areas, but the reality is that unless we have vibrant rural areas, we will not have a vibrant farming sector because those are inextricably linked.
It is important that we get clarity from the Government on how pillar 2 is embedded in the Act, to make sure that rural areas are not forgotten. The Agriculture Bill is the nearest we will get to being able to talk about rural areas and their need for investment and support through the nature of farming—obviously, a lot of the people who get the benefit of rural development are farmers or farm businesses along the food chain.
Will the Minister clarify what guarantees there are in respect of pillar 2? It was never perfect, but a lot of the academic and support work that goes into rural areas came through that channel. We all know that that sort of funding is highly questionable at the moment. I hope the Government will make some real statements today about how they intend to fund rural development.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I want to begin by addressing the shadow Minister’s over-arching point about rural development and the pillar 2 scheme. I will respond to that specific question, which is not directly relevant to this clause but is picked up in other parts of the Bill.
Pillar 2 and pillar 1 are an EU construct: that distinction will no longer exist, but the policy objectives, currently delivered under pillar 2, will be delivered in the following ways. Clause 1(1) is all about the farmed environment and supporting farmers to farm in a more sustainable way and enhance the environment. The objectives delivered by the current countryside stewardship schemes and the previous entry level stewardship and higher level stewardship schemes, which account for the lion’s share of the funding in pillar 2, will be picked up in clause 1(1).
Jenny Chapman
This gets to the nub of the problem. As we have said, the Secretary of State may give financial assistance for those things, but the Bill does not say that the Secretary of State is going to do any of those things.
George Eustice
We had a long debate about the drafting protocols that we have always had in this country, and “may” is the wording that has been used in a number of Acts, including the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and a number of other Acts that Opposition Members are passionate about, such as the Agriculture Act 1947. We covered that in detail last week when we debated this issue.
I want to return to the point that clause 1(2) enables us to make grant aid and loans for farm productivity, and that picks up a number of the other components of the pillar 2 schemes—notably what we currently call countryside productivity schemes, which are all about supporting farmers to invest in new equipment.
Finally, as I also made clear in earlier debates, there will also be a shared prosperity fund with a rural dimension, which will pick up some of the other objectives currently delivered in pillar 2, such as the LEADER scheme. We have a clear plan, both in the Bill and the development of a shared prosperity fund, to deliver rural development and support.
This clause, in common with clauses 9 and 10, is all about the power to modify retained EU law. That is very important because our frustration at the moment with the bureaucracy around the current schemes is horrendous. The amendment seeks to change “simplifying” or “improving” the operation of the scheme to saying simply to make
“changes which the Secretary of State believes to be necessary”.
I am not sure that the hon. Lady’s amendment narrows the scope—it might, in fact, give more discretion to the Secretary of State. We are clear we want that power to be used to simplify and improve. A number of people have asked what “simplify” and “improve” mean. I think that is understood: it is to simplify and improve. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made clear, we would not want to make the situation worse and more complex.
Jenny Chapman
It is not sufficient to say that people have asked what “simplify” and “improve” mean and then to say that they mean to simplify and improve. It might help if the Minister gave a couple of examples so that we have a clearer idea of what he intends.
George Eustice
Yes, I was coming on to do just that. One frustration at the moment is having LEADER groups up and down the country regularly complaining to me about the process that they have to go through in the application. The current regime has been made more onerous with the number of checks and the amount of paperwork required.
We have had problems in the past when people with relatively small grants have been told that they have to get three or four quotes for the job to be done. There is nothing wrong with that in principle but, if there is a slight modification to their plan and they have to make an adjustment to their investment, they have to go out to the market again and get a whole new set of quotes. They find that kind of bureaucracy deeply frustrating. This provision would enable us to improve that.
Another example comes from the countryside stewardship schemes. People get deeply frustrated about the amount of photographic evidence they have to send in; we have even had complaints that people have had to send in photographs of invisible boundaries because that is a requirement of the scheme rules. Again, that has all been done because of pressure from the IACS regime, as it is called: the integrated administration and control system, enforced by the EU. The provision would give us the ability to take off some of those rough edges.
At the moment, we get about £100 million of disallowance fines a year from the European Union, and a large amount of that is for trivial points around the way something is recorded. One example that I remember particularly well is that we ended up with fines from the European Union because it did not like how we had recorded how we checked whether companies were VAT registered; they were large companies with grants under the fruit and veg regime in that instance. We had checked that they were VAT registered. The check took place and was recorded through an email exchange, but the EU said we should have recorded it on a particular type of form.
That is the monstrous complexity and bureaucracy that bedevils all these schemes, and that is why it is right that we strike down that unnecessary bureaucracy and administration, as we seek to do in clause 9.
George Eustice
I will answer that important point first. The regulations are drafted in a way that assumes guilt—often, it is worse than that. For example, farmers might have made a number of innocent and minor record-keeping errors and we might have chosen to write warning letters instead of imposing fines. Under the penalty matrix, the EU auditors take the view that there almost has to be a quota for guilt: if we were to be more lenient on some farmers because they had made innocent errors, we would have to apply higher penalties to other farmers, deeming them to be guilty. It is an EU process that is completely inconsistent with British notions of justice and the rule of law, but it is a system that we have had to endure for many years.
Jenny Chapman
People watching this will be astonished that we are being asked to assume that one group within society is somehow to be treated differently when they are in receipt of public funds, because they have a tradition of honour and not being misleading and should be viewed differently from other people who are getting support. There will have to be rigorous procedures around all this. The Government are in for a huge shock if they think that the scrutiny and pressure from the EU will not be replaced by pressure from constituents and taxpayers.
George Eustice
That was not my point at all, and it was not my right hon. Friend’s point. The point was that we should allow farmers and other landowners to be treated the same as everybody else; apply the principles of justice and rule of law that we have in this country; and not have an arbitrary system of penalties coming from the EU.
To come back to my point about the areas in which we can improve, clause 9 will be an important area for some of our evidence requirements and rules on deadlines and dates; we would be able to show more flexibility. The powers in clause 11 will probably be more modest, but they enable us to sort out some of that unnecessary administration—on the LEADER scheme, in particular. They would enable us, for instance, to vary the length of agreements when we thought that was appropriate, particularly if we wanted to extend and roll forward some of the legacy agreements for a few years.
George Eustice
Yes. The devolved nations have that retained EU law through the EU withdrawal Act. We have discussed previously that Scotland requires some kind of clause to be able to continue to make payments after we leave the European Union, but that is relatively easy to remedy. A combination of this Bill and the EU withdrawal Act gives us the power right across the UK to honour all those commitments that have been entered into.
Returning to clause 11, the hon. Member for Darlington asked whether subsection (3) is an exhaustive list or whether we can add to it. It is not exhaustive but it covers the bulk of the regulations. I will explain why we drafted it in that way. The regulations listed under subsection (3) are effectively all the current in-force rural development regulations. However, we have kept open the option to broaden the list slightly because we have some legacy schemes—older agreements under previous countryside stewardship or productivity EU schemes that are no longer technically in force—and we might still want the ability to modify and tweak them. The best way to describe it is to say that the list is not exhaustive, but is close to being exhaustive. It covers all the regulations currently in force, but we need just a slight amount of room to capture the previous legacy schemes that are no longer in force.
Jenny Chapman
If there are not many of those additional measures, why did the Minister not include them, just to ensure more clarity in the Bill?
George Eustice
The problem with EU regulations is that they are often chopped and changed all the time. We can capture the snapshot of what is there at the moment, but some of these regulations will have repealed and replaced elements of previous ones, but often not all elements. This is a complex area. Often there will be a grant agreement in place where there are binding requirements between the two, but where the initial regulation under which it was made has lapsed and, sometimes, been partially—but not fully—replaced by new ones. There is a constant churn of EU regulations, so we have tried to capture the vast majority of those in force now, but we need that movement to cover areas that might have been missed.
Amendment 80 proposes that regulations under this clause should be made under the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. We discussed this issue in debates on earlier clauses where we are seeking to modify retained EU law. We are talking about technical changes and improvements to legacy schemes that are going to be wound down anyway, and it is not appropriate to have lots of affirmative resolutions for that type of change. We envisage making a single sweep of changes to improve and simplify these schemes in one point, and that would be the end of it.
However, I can give the hon. Lady some reassurance on her amendment 81. As I explained earlier in relation to a similar amendment, DEFRA needs no encouragement to hold consultations. We love consultations. My constant refrain to officials is: “Are we sure we really need a consultation on this?” We often hold consultations where we have just a couple of dozen people who can bear to respond to them. While we do not need to put this requirement in legislation—the only legislative requirement for consultation in the DEFRA sphere, for obviously good reason, is for food safety, which is in the Food Safety Act 1990—I can give her an undertaking that, before making changes to the scheme under the powers of clause 11, we would hold a consultation to ensure that all relevant parties could be engaged.
Jenny Chapman
I have such concerns about this, because it could become a free-for-all, where the Government can do what on earth they like. We cannot sit back and allow that to happen. Minette Batters said in evidence that she did not wish this kind of support to become politicised. I do not blame her for that, and I would not wish that in her position either, but the fact is that it is going to be politicised, and the Government have no idea what they want to do. I am not accusing the Government of having some sort of sneaky plan up their sleeve that they wish to inflict on rural communities, but I do not think they know what they want to do. They have therefore decided to come up with this clause, to give themselves as much flexibility as possible. I accept the Minister’s undertaking on consultation. I take him at his word and will be holding him to that, but the Government have not been clear. I do not think they know what they want to do. The list is not exhaustive, as we would have hoped.
I will not push each amendment to a vote—aspects of this issue will undoubtedly be dealt with in the House of Lords—but we have genuine concerns. We are not just trying to make a point; it is a real problem for Parliament and, potentially, rural communities that the Secretary of State is being allowed these kinds of sweeping powers under an inadequate procedure, which cuts out parliamentary scrutiny and Members’ ability to voice their concerns. I will therefore put amendment 80 to a vote.
The Chair
The hon. Lady needs to say that she first wishes to withdraw the lead amendment, if that is what she intends.
Jenny Chapman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jenny Chapman
I shall speak principally to amendment 97 and what it seeks to do. To an extent it is probing, but we are incredibly concerned about this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud just pointed out, clause 17 talks about “exceptional market conditions”. We are trying to understand more precisely what the Government want us to understand by that. As paragraph (b) of amendment 97 states—this may be imminent—we would consider it an exceptional market condition
“if, on the day after exit day, the United Kingdom has not entered, or secured an agreement to enter, into a customs union with the EU.”
We are concerned about that. Exit day is at the end of March next year, about 150 days from now. That would be a significant threat to the livelihoods of farmers and others in the food and drink industry up and down the country.
We want to understand whether the Government agree that that is a significant threat and what, if anything, they intend to do to support producers through it, should it come about. The Minister may be able to say, “Actually the circumstances that would emerge in that case are covered by elements of the clause in the Bill,” but it would be good to hear him say that, so that we can at least be assured to that extent as we continue to follow the Government’s progress through these negotiations—I hesitate to use the word “progress”.
I am particularly concerned, when we are talking about a customs union, that we have no Members from Northern Ireland on this Committee, so that voice is missing. I understand that the Assembly is suspended at the moment, and I wish the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland well in her endeavours to re-establish the Assembly. It is a great pity that there is currently no access to the Assembly, particularly for the citizens of Northern Ireland, and the voices of that part of our country are limited as a consequence. That is a real problem, particularly when we consider farmers in Ulster. There are farmers along the border whose farms cross the border. It is a border of 300-odd miles, intersected by far too many roads to be able to have any meaningful customs checks.
We have all heard many times in the Brexit debates the concerns about border infrastructure and what it would mean for security and identity in Northern Ireland. That insecurity and concern is felt particularly by strong Unionist farmers I have met in Northern Ireland who tell me very clearly—as I am sure that they will have told the Minister, if he has been there, which I expect he has—that they want to be in a customs union. They have a very plain way of telling you this. I was shocked to hear how one Ulster farmer, a strong Unionist all his life, talked about it. He said that he would rather have a united Ireland than a border on the island of Ireland. That stuck with me, and we all need to keep it in mind, because it shows the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland.
I regret that we have no member of the Committee who can speak with first-hand knowledge of Northern Ireland, and that we have to rely on people like me. Although I have visited many times in recent years to talk about Brexit and its implications, it is a real missed opportunity that we do not have someone on the Committee. I am sure that the opportunity will be taken to hear those voices in later stages of the Bill.
There is growing concern that the Government’s understanding of the way that food gets in and out of our country is lacking. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union recently remarked that he did not realise how dependent we were on the Dover-Calais crossing, which was shocking to many people, including me. It was extraordinary to hear that at this late stage in the negotiations. If that lack of appreciation finds its way into the agreement, it could have catastrophic consequences for food producers in this country.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to identify some of the concerns, but is that not why, when we get a deal, which I am confident we will, we should all vote for it, rather than have more uncertainty?
Jenny Chapman
Nice try, but whatever the deal is, let us see it and judge it according to its merits. One of the tests that we will apply is the effect that it will have on manufacturers, food producers, communities and the devolved Administrations, and whether it respects the nations of our country and keeps our Union together. Those are the things that we will be thinking about, and we think that having a customs union is essential. We could have referred to a single market deal or any number of things, but we have chosen to be specific in the amendment. We want to understand what the Government expect to happen should we leave without a deal and without being part of a customs union with our nearest neighbours at the end of March next year. We are deeply worried about that.
Martin Whitfield
Is it not the case that, because of the circumstances surrounding the Bill on the question of no deal or deal, and because the Bill represents scaffolding, a lot of people are seeing what they want to see in it, when there is actually very little to see? The sort of certainty that is proposed in these amendments would go a long way towards giving our farmers and rural communities confidence about what is expected and intended.
Jenny Chapman
That is a really important point. If I was a farmer, I would be incredibly worried by the Bill in general, but my anxiety would be heightened by this clause and by what I might anticipate happening, given the reports we are reading in the press. I do not think that any hon. Members present have any certainty about whether a deal will be reached, what a deal will look like if it is reached, whether it will be approved by Parliament, or whether it will be approved by the Cabinet, so to blithely assert that there will be a deal and that everything will be fine is not good enough.
We have one opportunity to get the Bill right. This clause could be the lifeboat for many people in the industry. It is important that we understand what the Government intend and what they would do, under the powers given to them through the clause, should we leave without a deal and without being in a customs union.
The National Audit Office report states that the Government are generally underprepared for a no-deal outcome. To be fair, DEFRA has done more than many Departments, but that is because it has had to, because so much of its activity is affected by Brexit. Because the Government are underprepared, there is now panic. A year ago, we anticipated having a deal in October, then it was last week, this week and probably next week. Where is the deal? The anxiety in Parliament is palpable, and it is starting to be felt in the country too. There is an emerging sense of panic, whether about transferring staff from valuable wildlife protection work in Natural England or about the need to stockpile food. We know that the industry has already rented out virtually all the available food storage in the country, and people are incredibly worried about that. Given the lack of clarity and information, their concern is understandable and valid.
The Government have a duty to ensure that there will be food in the shops in April. I know I will be accused of “Project Fear” mark II, mark III or whatever—I understand that, and I am being careful not to enter into that kind of thing—but we must be honest. I do not know whether hon. Members had a chance to read the Government’s technical notices, which were published this summer, but they make pretty grim reading. The Government now acknowledge and anticipate many of the concerns that were deemed to be part of “Project Fear”.
Sandy Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the points made in amendment 122 is that Brexit is likely to have a serious impact on the cost of production? It is not just about markets for produce; it is also about the cost of production. We already see some of those costs changing as a result of the decision to leave the European Union.
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that this is about not just trade but many other things, including access to labour, certification, standards and future trade deals. People in this industry are worried about many unknowns. It would go some way to reassure them to know that the Government were mindful of these risks and have used the Bill to make some commitments about the measures they would put in place should those exceptional market conditions come about.
The Opposition have what we think is a helpful answer: to remain in a customs union with the European Union. I do not intend to enter into a long debate about that today—we could spend the rest of the day discussing the benefits or otherwise of a customs union, and I am sure we will do so in the Chamber when we talk about the legal advice later this afternoon. The Opposition have been incredibly clear about wanting to be in a customs union for many reasons. It would deal with many of the risks surrounding trade certification, access to markets and our ability to export as we do now—“friction-free” has become the standard phrase to describe it. That really matters to this sector. It would be good to hear the Minister acknowledge that, because many voices in the sector have been increasingly clear about that as understanding has grown and the debate has progressed. I anticipate that, as we approach exit day without clarity or anything concrete from the Government, the calls for remaining in a customs union will be amplified. The sector needs certainty. It needs to know what it is doing.
The NFU reported that its modelling shows that the removal of the beef tariff and the opening of the UK beef market to imports from around the world would result in a 45% fall in farmgate prices and a 30% fall in the price of sheep. That obviously has a huge impact on producers. Would it qualify as one of the exceptional market conditions in the Bill? What if there is some kind of barrier to trade with the EU of animals and animal products, if we fall out without a deal at the end of March?
Agriculture Bill (Seventh sitting)
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is a pleasure to begin the day by responding to this particular amendment. At its heart is an attempt to put into the Bill a requirement to have something akin to the existing cross-compliance regime. I will come back to that later.
There are two key points I would make about the amendment. Clause 2 and clause 3, which we will come to later, as already drafted, make allowance and provision for a Government to create such conditions through an affirmative statutory instrument should they feel that that is the right thing to do. Under clause 2(2) it is open to the Government to say that there are conditions attached to entry into these schemes and that there may be, under clause 3(2)(g), penalties for breaches of the regulatory baseline.
There is already an option, given how the Bill is drafted, for a Government to bring forward proposals of that sort through an SI. My argument is that the detail spelled out in amendment 84 would be the appropriate level of detail that might be in a particular SI brought in under, for instance, clause 2, and probably addressed through anything brought in under clause 3 as well. We could do that, if we wanted, through the SI and that would be the appropriate place to do it.
However, my general view is that we should separate out as far as we can the regulatory baseline, which should apply to everyone equally whether they are in or out of a scheme, and conditions that we attach to financial schemes to support farmers to go above and beyond that regulatory baseline. The danger of the amendment here, as I see it, is that the very first thing it says, in 3A, is:
“It shall be a condition for receipt of financial assistance…that the person in receipt can demonstrate”,
that they abide by all those things.
We want people to feel good about entering these schemes. When a farmer phones up the Government, Natural England or whichever agency is administering the scheme to say, “I am really keen to enter your new agri-environment scheme,” if the first thing that happens is that they say, “Well, we’ll send out an inspector from the Rural Payments Agency with a clipboard to try to find fault and see whether your ear tags are wrong, or there is a trivial problem of that sort that will disqualify you,” it will put people off entering the scheme.
We already have this problem with the cross-compliance regime. I explained on Tuesday that, having wrestled with the cross-compliance regime as a Minister for five years, I can confirm that it is completely dysfunctional. The regulations set out in EU law and the penalty matrix mean that incredibly disproportionate penalties are sometimes applied to farmers that have no bearing whatever to the scale of the breach in question.
We already have problems with, for instance, large arable farms that might have a small pedigree herd of cattle that they keep going as a labour of love. If they have some trivial ear tag problem—an ear tag goes missing and they have not managed to replace it yet—and are unlucky enough to be inspected, they can end up with penalties of £40,000 or £50,000 for such small things. I remember many cases in this area. I remember a farmer who once had a dispute with his neighbour. The neighbour padlocked the gate on the footpath, and the farmer ended up with a £45,000 penalty, such is the nonsense of the existing scheme.
We do not want to replicate that. The danger of accepting the amendment is that a trivial error or mistake on something like an ear tag could lead to somebody’s complete disqualification from entering a scheme, or to an onerous financial penalty that would not fit the breach incurred. Something of this type could be introduced through an SI under the Bill’s provisions, should someone wish to. We should abide by the principle that regulations apply to everyone, that we should not have more inspection on people who enter schemes than those who do not, and that inspection regimes should be consistent and apply to people across the board, whether or not they are in a scheme. For those reasons, the amendment is not appropriate.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked about the Dame Glenys Stacey review. That is now well under way. She is keen to move to what she terms a better, more modern approach to regulation, in which things are better joined up and there is less reliance on an arbitrary rulebook, with people coming around with clipboards and ticking boxes. She wants a more holistic approach to the way we manage compliance on farms and a better understanding of, as I explained on Tuesday, the grey area between incentivising better husbandry and good practice, which can go a long way to achieving environmental and animal welfare outcomes, and accepting that a clear regulatory baseline must be enforced.
We are keen to start moving towards a different culture around regulation that is less about a complex rulebook, which often has lots of unintended consequences and disproportionate penalties, as characterised in our current scheme. We want it to be more about discretion for officers on the ground, whether they be from Natural England, the Rural Payments Agency or the Animal and Plant Health Agency, to exercise judgment in respect of a given farm, and about having a better understanding of the linkage between things that we can incentivise to get better outcomes and the need to adhere to the regulatory baseline.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I am interested in what the Minister says, and he makes a fair point. However, my concern is that this scheme needs to be transparent, fair and rigorous in the eyes of taxpayers. As we said on Tuesday, the closeness of these decisions will change, and taxpayers will want to know that their money that goes to this scheme, and so not on policing, health or other important issues, is carefully spent, and that the scheme is robustly inspected and monitored. We need to be careful about where that balance lies.
George Eustice
I understand that. As I said on Tuesday, we accept the “polluter pays” principle. It is important that we have a clear regulatory baseline. At the moment, in areas such as livestock ID, we have a hotch-potch of different regulations that have come from the EU, and there is lots of inconsistency. We have an opportunity as we leave the EU to tidy up the rulebook and to have a clear and consistent regulatory baseline, and to then build on that with financial incentives.
Jenny Chapman
That is a completely wrong analogy. The right analogy is perhaps with the financial support given to parents. If parents do not comply with the rules and the terms of that agreement with the Government, then the finances are removed and they might even find themselves going to prison. It is a completely different situation and it appears to me that the Minister—with the best will in the world—is making this up as he goes along. It is like, “We could do this, we could do that, we might do something else”. I do not get the impression that the Government have properly thought this through.
George Eustice
I disagree; I have thought it through. If the hon. Lady and a future Labour Government want to do precisely what they set out in amendment 84, the right place to do it would be under an affirmative resolution under sections 2 or 3.
George Eustice
That is not our intention at all. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a big fan of management consultants. I often come across very talented local agronomists who really understand the landscape and the soil type. If we set them free and gave them the opportunity to work in partnership with farmers, the schemes would work far more smoothly than in the central, bureaucratised system that we have now.
Jenny Chapman
The Minister is asking us to believe that a scheme will administer substantial amounts of public money and will be run by some very impressive and worthy organisations—LEPs, national park authorities and the RSPB. Can he point to any other area of public policy or significant Government spending where that kind of approach is permitted?
George Eustice
It is permitted now. The Soil Association can authorise organic farmers, and there are a number of other accreditation bodies.
George Eustice
If someone is accredited as a member of the Soil Association, they are able to claim a top-up to their basic payments scheme. So, yes, there are areas. In terms of clause 2(5), there is already precedent for that in the way that the EU schemes operate—EU regulations create the power for that to happen. We think it is a good model. Engaging people such as the Soil Association in some schemes could be really powerful.
Likewise, if we are to move to a system where we may want to pay farmers who sign up to something like an RSPCA-assured scheme or another scheme, it is important that we have a legal basis to be able to recognise those schemes. They will have to be UKAS accredited—we must have confidence in those schemes. UKAS has existed for many years. The last Labour Government introduced UKAS-accredited schemes in many areas. It is a successful model.
On that basis, I hope I have been able to reassure hon. Members that our intention in clause 2 is to address a concern that the shadow Minister raised earlier in the debate about how we will administer these schemes. I hope, therefore, that having put down this probing amendment, he will withdraw it.
George Eustice
Scotland has no plan for its future agricultural policy. It will be for Scotland to ask us to add a schedule on its behalf or to bring forward its own legislation. A point was raised on Tuesday in a discussion on clause 1 whether we will make available details of how much money had been spent on delivering certain purposes. The answer is that, as well as publishing the recipients of support, this power would also enable us to publish the purposes and the broad intention of what we are delivering with that power.
Jenny Chapman
Representing a constituency in the north-east, I am mindful of the situation of businesses and farms that cross the Scottish border. Will the Minister help the Committee to understand what would happen if Scotland failed to ask for a schedule or do anything between now and exit day? What would be the situation of support for farmers in Scotland in those circumstances?
George Eustice
Scotland has one of three options: it can bring forward its own primary legislation or it could add a schedule. Its content could range from something similar to what Wales has done, which is a full suite of powers, or it could take the approach of Northern Ireland, which is broadly the powers to roll-over the existing scheme and make modifications but not to make changes beyond that. Finally, it could pass legislation or ask us to add a schedule that gave it the power to continue to make payments but nothing else—not even to modify. There is a range of options, but Scotland needs to do something and have primary legislation or its power to make payments will fall down at the end of 2020.
Dr Drew
We have made good progress on an important clause, but we now come to one of the central points of the Bill: where is the money? When will the money be paid and over what period?
The Government are clear that the commitment to fund agriculture in its existing form will remain in place until 2022, or whenever the general election comes, when things may change. The scheme starts only in 2021, so there is a dislocation, which will be important. No Government can fetter their successor, but they can—this is what our new clause seeks to do—put in place a mechanism so that any successor Government know what is implied on how the money should be forthcoming. That is an important part of the Bill. Alongside our argument about powers requiring duties —we lost that one, but we might revisit it—the financial arrangements are crucial. I make no apology for saying that we shall spend a little time on this.
Interestingly, there is unanimity among all the organisations, whether farming ones or green groups, that they want new clause 10. They want a clear mechanism in the Bill so that, whatever happens after 2022, or before that, when the new arrangement comes into place, there is an understanding that future Governments know exactly what is required of them. That is important.
The Minister probably has his 1947 Act in front of him on his table—look how long that lasted, and it was cross-party. There was no attempt to interfere with the 1947 Act. The Conservatives agreed when they came back in 1950 or 1951 that they would continue on the basis of that farm system payment. We are asking the same and we expect this piece of legislation to last 60 years. That might be ambitious, but if we get it right, that is the period we are talking about.
We know and support the direction of travel, but we want to know how it will be funded in due course in terms of a mechanism. That is crucial to the industry. It needs to know the longer-term requirements for food production, forestry, heritage and landscape. They will change dramatically over the next 60 years as they have done over the past 60 years. We hope they will change for the better because we would argue that we have done enormous damage. The problem is that the Bill is silent and has no mechanism.
Those of us who went to the lobby last Tuesday saw many organisations—there are too many logos on my bit of paper to fit any more on there—but they are as one in support of new clause 10. I hope the Government treat it with enormous seriousness. If they are not willing to accept it, there will be a lot of disappointed organisations and I would argue that the Bill will lack its central tenet, which is, as always, where and how the finance will be locked into place.
The new clause is about certainty and the predictability of the Bill. There is a degree of understanding that no Government can say how much money there will be and where it will come from, but we can have a mechanism to be reviewed every year. The Government could then say: “There will be money available to do all the wonderful things we have all signed up to.” That is why it is so important. Although the new clause is being debated early, it has to be debated at considerable length.
We ask the Government to consider the new clause very seriously. They have obviously been lobbied by all those different organisations, which effectively are the countryside—no organisation would not sign up to it. NC10 sets a duty on future Governments to report annually on how much money has been spent to meet the policy objectives set out in the purposes of clause 1(1), and whether this was sufficient to meet these objectives. Again, we support this important direction of travel, but it must say how it will work, which is entirely dependent on where the money comes from. There must be a mechanism in place to say how it will operate in future. No, we cannot say what money, but we can say how any future Government goes about trying to report on what the money should be available for and where it should go.
Greener UK, an interesting amalgam that spent a lot of time talking to the Government, is largely very pleased with the Bill, but pointed to an independent assessment commissioned in 2017 that estimated the minimum costs of the environmental land management commitments at £2.3 billion. That is down on the current £3.2 billion, but it is the minimum—the baseline. Some of us would argue that it must be higher than that, at least at the current level, certainly in the early days because we do not know how it will work.
If the Minister does not accept the approach set out in new clause 10, what approach will the Government take given that they have won over a lot of the green organisations on the basis that this is what could and should be happening? It is about making a commitment. As I say, a Government cannot commit to money future Governments will spend, but they can commit to the mechanism. We ask the Government to look very closely at the new clause and hope they listen to us and all those organisations.
I could tell the Committee of countless organisations—I will not because we are short of time and I would rather finish before the 1 o’clock break. The Minister has received the same words. I hope they meant something and that he is willing to respond. Otherwise, there will be an awful lot of very disappointed organisations.
Jenny Chapman
The organisations to which my hon. Friend refers are probably the same organisations the Minister mentioned. If they are willing to be held to account to ensure that this is done well, it makes sense to us that the Government ought similarly to be willing to have that security and accountability as we implement the scheme.
Dr Drew
My hon. Friend is right. Again, that is the basis on which this Bill has been brought forward. There has been a degree of consensus—we have tabled probing amendments that have not necessarily gone with that consensus, but at this stage there is unanimity. The organisations want to know what the mechanism will be and want it in the Bill. Otherwise, it is all just promises. I am afraid the Government will have to listen and either accept the new clause or come up with a better alternative. We will be listening very carefully, presumably this afternoon, to what they say. Otherwise, it will be impossible to believe that the Government can deliver on their commitments.
Ordered,
That the debate be now adjourned.—(Iain Stewart)
Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 6, page 5, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 12, 13 and 14.
Jenny Chapman
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We have heard so much from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud this morning and afternoon: I will now give him a break. Part of the reason for that is that my hon. Friend deals with the pure farming and agriculture issues, while I seem to be doing the really boring “techy” and legalistic stuff. [Interruption.] I will try not to make it boring.
However, when it comes to the text of amendment 76—leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”—I would forgive Committee members for returning to their online shopping or whatever it is they are doing. Nevertheless, this is quite an important issue. It occurs in several places throughout the Bill. We were concerned about it during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and we have not stopped being worried about it now.
I notice that the Minister has a series of amendments in the same grouping. I hope that he will confirm that they deal with the concerns that I have raised by tabling amendment 76 and various other amendments to later parts of the Bill; it seems to me that the Government may have taken our point. However, I need to hear the Minister confirm that.
Amendment 76 is to clause 6. As my hon. Friend explained, under clause 6 the Secretary of State would have the power to modify the legislation governing the basic payment scheme. The problem for us is twofold. First, the Secretary of State has that power by regulation. I will expand on these arguments now, because they relate to other parts of the Bill; if I explain them fully this time, that might avert the need to do so on absolutely every occasion when this issue arises. I see that the hon. Member for Gordon is nodding furiously.
The problem is that the Secretary of State is attempting to give himself the power to change the legislation by regulation, but he seeks to do that—as the Bill is currently drafted—through the negative procedure. I will forgive Members for not being entirely au fait with the difference between the negative and the affirmative procedure, although Sir Roger and I served together on the Select Committee on Procedure for about five years. [Interruption.] And the hon. Member for North Dorset serves on it now, so I expect he will know exactly what I am talking about. The Procedure Committee spent a great deal of time bending its head around that matter, but Members can be here for a large number of years and still have no clue what the difference is. In the interest of teaching grannies to suck eggs, I will attempt to explain what the difference is and why it matters.
Members will have heard the power that the Secretary of State wishes to have referred to as “Henry VIII clauses”. That phrase came up a lot during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: the Opposition were concerned about the extent of the use of Henry VIII powers. Those powers are not unheard of, but it is very concerning when Bills have so many. We are equally concerned that this Bill contains a large number of those powers. A Henry VIII clause enables Ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation that is subject to varying degrees of parliamentary scrutiny. We need to pay particular attention to those clauses, because they enable a law to be changed without what most of us would understand as a normal level of scrutiny in this House. A helpful guide about the use of statutory instruments has been produced by the House of Commons Library, if Members are sufficiently interested: it is factsheet L7—“Statutory Instruments”.
The most important thing to understand is the difference between the negative and the affirmative procedure. The negative procedure is what, in this Bill, the Government say they wish the Secretary of State to be able to use when modifying the law. What happens is this:
“The instrument is laid in draft and cannot be made if the draft is disapproved within 40 days (draft instruments subject to the negative resolution are few and far between)…The instrument is laid after making, subject to annulment if a motion to annul (known as a ‘prayer’) is passed within 40 days.”
Unless something happens—it is usually the Opposition who make that prayer, which nowadays often takes the form of an early-day motion—that change to legislation will happen. That is the negative procedure.
Under the affirmative procedure, however, an instrument cannot become law unless it is approved by both Houses. Should the Secretary of State feel that he needs all these powers—although it is regrettable that he feels he needs them, in the absence of being able to put into the Bill the schemes and schedules that we would like to see—it is far better for them to be exercised according to the affirmative procedure. Under that procedure, the instrument is laid after making, but cannot come into force unless and until it is approved, so there is a far stronger role for Parliament.
When a Bill seeks to confer so much power on the Executive, we as parliamentarians have to be very careful about giving that power away. We would be enabling the Secretary of State to make substantial changes to the measures that we are being asked to agree—and this comes up throughout the Bill, not just in this clause. That is not something we can do lightly. Parliament needs to consider the issue carefully, because we are talking about an awful lot of power in the hands of one individual, subject to precious little scrutiny. That is not something that we can be relaxed about.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is making a point that is incredibly important for us all, as parliamentarians. Does she agree that the nub is not whether it is by the positive or negative procedure that these changes could be made, but to have the discretion of Ministers —I appreciate for some that might be a leap of faith—to opine on the scale of the change? Thus, for big changes the affirmative procedure could be used, and for small, housekeeping, tidying-up exercises, the negative could be used. One would not want to go through the whole of the positive SI procedure to change a word or a letter here or there. Might that be a way of addressing the perfectly legitimate concern that she raises?
Jenny Chapman
The hon. Gentleman makes perfect sense. Our concern, though, is that the changes that Ministers seek the power to make are not small or technical—they are quite significant, and go to the heart of what the Bill is about. For that reason, we are not inclined to allow the issue just to go through unchallenged.
At the time of the withdrawal Act, we were assured that the negative procedure would be used only in such circumstances as the hon. Member for North Dorset describes, but many would agree that with all the SIs, and there will be a lot, there is a danger that Ministers—through a desire to get things done, perhaps, or just to get to the next stage of the process—will overuse that negative procedure. I am sure there is no ill intent here and that they are not trying to do things behind Parliament’s back, but we need to be incredibly cautious about the extent of the power being held by the Secretary of State.
Simon Hoare
I ask this sincerely, to try to get to the answer: what I do not know, but the hon. Lady might, is whether we are aware of a trigger, either in the committee chaired by, I think, the Leader of the House or in inter-ministerial discussions, where somebody turns around and says, “No, that is an affirmative; no, that is a negative.” Is it the usual channels who say that? Or is it purely at the discretion of the individual Minister of the Crown charged with the powers in a statute? Is there some offline discussion of, or weighing of the balance of, the argument? I do not know the answer.
Jenny Chapman
Unfortunately not. In the case we are looking at now, it is laid down in the Bill—well, it is at the moment, but I am optimistic that the Minister will reassure me—that it will be the negative procedure. Most often, when a Minister has these powers, it is specified, alongside where that power lies in the Act, how it should be exercised. I do not know whether that is challengeable later, although I am happy to take advice on that; I am not sure that it is, and I cannot think off the top of my head of any occasions when that has happened.
Mr Goodwill
The sorts of policies we are talking about have previously been EU policies, and the decision on whether to scrutinise them has been down to the European Scrutiny Committee. However, I cannot think of a single case where the Committee has called one in for debate and it was not all done and dusted and agreed before it even got to this place.
Jenny Chapman
That is an argument we often hear. The challenge to me is, “Why are you so worried about this now? This was all done in Brussels before.” To an extent, I take that point, but the point of this exercise is that we now, for the first time in a very long time, have the opportunity to develop our own agricultural policy. If we are going to do that, let us do it right. Let us do it really well. Let us ensure that, just because Ministers cannot quite decide exactly what they want to do at this stage—I think that is what underlies a lot of the vagaries of the Bill—we do not give them too many powers or give them those powers in a way that does not enable the fullest scrutiny by Parliament.
These are important issues that are subject to amendment by Ministers, and it would be much better if today we were debating exactly what they intended to do with the powers, rather than which mechanism should apply and whether they should have the powers at all, because what people are really interested in is what will happen. What support will be available? How will it be administered? What is their right to challenge? It would be better for us to be debating that, but insufficient work of that nature seems to have been done as yet. That is a theme that we keep coming back to.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I defer to the hon. Lady’s knowledge of parliamentary process, which is far superior to mine. I have heard many such debates before and I have a lot of sympathy with them, because as Back Benchers, it is really important that we ensure we respect parliamentary scrutiny. However, I am also the kind of person who likes to see speed, and I have also seen a lot of parliamentary scrutiny become parliamentary process that has bogged things down and meant that we have taken much longer to come to a decision that we could have made very quickly. That worries me as well, so does she not think that we have to strike the right balance?
Jenny Chapman
Absolutely; I completely agree. I have sat through some of these so-called line-by-line considerations, and that can be a very underwhelming experience. The feeling is that the scrutiny of the legislation is—well, where is it? It is just a to-and-fro across the room. But if I may say so, I think that this Committee is doing a reasonable job. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Jenny Chapman
We are excellent, aren’t we? We seem to have a Minister who is willing to accept that there are problems with his Bill, and we do not always get that. I hope that this will be a rather better experience than the one that the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire and I had previously.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s point about balancing speed with being thorough, I would say that the Government have had quite a long time to come up with something fuller than this. The Bill is rather empty, and there is lots of detail that could have been included. The Government have had sufficient time to do that, so to turn up and say, “Actually, we just want some powers and we’ll decide what to do with them at a later date,” is not good enough. We will continue to make that point.
Some people get very anxious about the overuse of delegated legislation. I have never been a Minister, and probably never will be, but I understand the attraction of it.
Jenny Chapman
I didn’t catch what the hon. Gentleman said. [Laughter.]
I understand that Ministers will want, as the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire said, the ease to get on with things and not have to bother with troublesome MPs, and subject themselves to hours and hours of process. However, sometimes Parliament needs to say to Ministers, “Sorry, but in the kind of democracy that we have we can’t allow you to proceed in a way that does not allow parliamentary scrutiny.” Some people get very anxious about the overuse of delegated legislation. I used to feel that they were sometimes over-fixating on it, but having looked at the Bill more closely and gone through the withdrawal Act process, I am becoming one of those people who is inclined to worry about the extent to which Ministers are gathering up powers, and how they could be used in future.
This is not just about the current Secretary of State and Minister; it is about the future. I do not think that whether people are urban or not is the point. Governments will have competing priorities in the future, and they will not be the same ones that we have now, but I want to ensure that farming and agriculture are properly supported in a stable way that allows for certainty, long-term planning, greater food security and all the good things that we have discussed.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying about the affirmative procedure. I wonder whether she thinks that in at least some cases the super-affirmative procedure would be appropriate.
Jenny Chapman
We need to have a procedure that is appropriate for what we are trying to do. I think the best procedure on this issue would be to put something in the Bill—I do not know how much more super-affirmative we can get than that. We want to see what Ministers will do with the powers. That is all we are asking for. At the moment, the Government are asking us to take a leap of faith, and we are not prepared to do that.
We were told during the passage of the withdrawal Act that statutory instruments will not be used to make policy, but I would argue that that is exactly what they are being used to do in the Bill. Joelle Grogan from the London School of Economics puts it quite well. She said that delegated powers should not be used for policy-making, and that the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), during the withdrawal Act process, explicitly mentioned in the foreword to his White Paper that they will not be used as
“a vehicle for policy changes—but…will give the Government the necessary power to correct or remove the laws that would otherwise not function properly once we have left the EU.”
The measures in the Bill clearly exceed that commitment, which was made by the former Secretary of State as we considered the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. This is serious. We did not really believe that assurance—I think we have been proved right—and I am not inclined to believe the assurances being given now either. Parliament needs to hold the Government to account much better.
Sandy Martin
Is not one of the issues that the negative procedure gives very little opportunity for people outside the House to raise concerns with us? A lot of issues we have been able to raise during this process have actually been fed to us by people who know about them and have faced them on the ground.
Jenny Chapman
That is a good point. If there is any purpose to our being in Committee two days a week for however many weeks is necessary, it is that we want to improve the Bill.
The process we have followed, including our taking evidence, has enabled us to make suggestions, many of which—although not all—came from third-sector organisations, interest groups or the National Farmers Union, for example. We have really gained from their expertise. The Bill will clearly be amended—it will not be the same as it is now by the end of the process—and I genuinely think that we have benefited from that input. Input is welcome, and it ought to be available to the Government if they intend to make substantive changes to any other measures as well.
The only other thing I say to that is that we will come later to amendments that address consultation and how we might better involve other organisations in shaping our future policy. It is important to note that, by using these affirmative or negative procedures, we cut out from the process not only expertise from organisations but most MPs as well. Let us not forget that Members do not just stick their hand up and get on one of those Committees. There are filters that sometimes enable and sometimes prevent Members from exercising the privilege of taking part in the consideration of measures.
There are many reasons to be concerned about the extensive use of regulations to amend the very legislation in which those regulations are contained. I have deep reservations about the overuse of the negative procedure. I hope that the Minister will confirm that his amendments, which are grouped with my amendment 76, have been tabled to address some of those concerns. Although they will not address my concerns about the use of regulations, he might at least assure me that he intends to use the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative.
George Eustice
I will also speak to a large clutch of Government amendment—amendments 2 to 5, 7, 8 and 12 to 14—in this group. To reassure Committee members, most of them are identical, so I can deal with them quite quickly.
I begin by addressing the points raised by the hon. Member for Darlington regarding her amendment 76. The amendments we have tabled will not achieve exactly what she is trying to achieve with her amendment. However, they will achieve something important, which is to establish that the affirmative procedure will be used if consequential amendments need to be made to primary legislation. I will explain that in more detail later. It is a technical point, but having been on certain Committees, she is clearly familiar with it.
Jenny Chapman
I am not as reassured as I was hoping to be, I am afraid. I was ready to withdraw amendment 76, but I have to disagree with the Minister about the appropriateness of the use of the negative procedure in clause 6. Although he says that it is not really that important and that this is a legacy scheme, we could end up with this legacy scheme for quite a while, and it is very important to the livelihoods of many people. We cannot accept that procedure, and I would like to test the view of the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Drew
This did come up quite a lot on Second Reading. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East had something to say on it, or somebody else referred to succession planning. Farmers could take the money and then another member of the family could decide to carry on with the holding.
Jenny Chapman
It is an irritant for me that every time farmers have been referred to in this Committee so far—I have not mentioned this so far—they have been referred to as “he”. But the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby went an extra stage and said, “The farmer and his wife”—[Laughter.] There is a line. I just think we can do a little bit better than that.
Dr Drew
I will not go down that line. The Chairman will be relieved to hear that I am not going to get involved in devolved politics. I think this has been a very useful debate that has been far and wide in scope. It has not really been about the amendments, but the stand part has allowed us to look at some of the possibilities of what will happen—2021 is not very far in the future. People will be doing their planning now, particularly if they have it in mind to leave their holding, and they will need security, certainty and some very good advice on whether that is the right thing to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am grateful for the discretion of the Chair, which has allowed us to get through this issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
General provision connected with payments to farmers and other beneficiaries
Jenny Chapman
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 9, page 7, line 10, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 78, in clause 9, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
“(6) Before making regulations modifying legislation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult persons who, in his or her opinion, are representative of the sector to which the regulations will apply, or who may otherwise be affected.”
This amendment would ensure there are checks and balances on the use of Ministerial powers.
Jenny Chapman
Amendment 77 again raises the issue of the negative and affirmative procedures. I will not test the Committee’s patience by going through all of that again.
Jenny Chapman
I will resist the temptation of the Whip. If Members look at page 7 of the Bill and see where that is included, they can probably get the gist of what I am trying to achieve with amendment 77. It is worth asking the Government to consider this because clause 9(2)(b) says that the Secretary of State can by regulations make modifications.
To be fair to the Minister, he does attempt to put parameters on what the Secretary of State would be able to do, but he talks about simplifying or modifying the operation of any provision. “Simplifying” and “modifying” are quite subjective terms: what he considers a simplification of a measure, I might consider a drastic change or something that would do harm to those subject to it.
Again, the power in the clause is slightly wider than it ought to be to justify the negative procedure. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point and whether he might consider, at later stages, amending the “simplifying or improving” terminology to justify his desire for the negative procedure and, if not, whether he might consider making an alteration to allow use of the affirmative procedure.
Jenny Chapman
I hope that the Minister can name at least 70 of them, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched 70 consultations in 2018 so far. They are all on really important things, of course, but I would say that this measure, in clause 9, is as important as some of the things.
Sandy Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that although a general consultation might be done on an area of Government policy, specific consultations about specific regulations can very often achieve far more and elicit very specific objections and reasons for modifying or, indeed, dropping those regulations?
Jenny Chapman
I think they can. There is no doubt that there are some very poor examples of consultation—consultations undertaken not just by the Government, but by councils and other public bodies—but consultation can also be an incredibly positive thing to do.
I think that I recall Jacqui Smith, a former Member for Redditch, saying, when she was a junior Health Minister, that she feared that consultation was regarded as just a period of time between having an idea and putting it into practice. That is certainly not what we advocate in any way, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich says, if consultation is done correctly—if it is on the right issues and involves the right stakeholders—it can have a very beneficial impact.
Simon Hoare
One of the purposes of consultation that is often overlooked, particularly when dealing with industries or sectors, is to allow input into the process of public policy. Failure to allow that input will often lead to judicial review, particularly if businesses or organisations face a significant loss or disadvantage in the marketplace. The power of the courts is often a stimulus for consultation, which is needed so that any Government can have something to rely on and rest their case on.
Jenny Chapman
I am not sure that I completely understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, but where there is a statutory duty to consult, the basis for challenge often rests on how well that consultation took place. To assist public bodies in carrying out consultations, the Cabinet Office has issued guidance on when they are appropriate, who ought to be consulted and how it all ought to be done, which is helpful in addressing that challenge.
My amendment is probing, and I do not necessarily seek to get it into the Bill, but we need to understand the Government’s intended approach to involving sector bodies. The Minister clearly intends to rely on the expertise of various sectors as he goes about implementing the measures in the Bill or—perhaps more accurately—deciding which measures he wishes to implement. He has signalled that there will be a role for third sector organisations in particular. I see that as a very good thing, but we need to better understand how, and on what basis, the Government intend to achieve it. These are not passive bystanders, but people who want to be actively engaged and make a difference to the areas that many of them have spent their whole lives championing.
It is important that we get this right. So far this year, the Government have seen fit to consult on some really important things. To read out a few at random, there has been a very broad consultation on the future of food, farming and the environment, as well as consultations on bovine tuberculosis, on banning third-party sales of pets in England, on air quality and on using cleaner fuels for domestic burning. The measures in clause 9, and indeed elsewhere in the Bill, are equally worthy of engagement with a wider range of voices than seems likely at the moment.
I have therefore tabled a consultation amendment to clause 9 and, I think, to one other clause in the Bill. I chose clause 9 in particular because, as the explanatory notes state, it
“empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations which modify the ‘horizontal basic act’”—
which the Minister has helpfully explained to us—
“as incorporated into domestic law carried forward and modified according to the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018…in relation to England…The horizontal regulations…include rules on application procedures, calculation of aid and penalties, payment windows and payment recovery. They include rules on checks to be carried out, including databases used to check compliance, audits and farm checks and administrative checks. They also include rules for the implementation of the farm advisory system, calculating the funds for public intervention purchase and the establishment of a single beneficiary website”.
Those are all things on which the sector would like a say, because it will have opinions about them.
Sandy Martin
We have already heard from the Minister on numerous occasions about how the Secretary of State will be speaking to various people in various sectors about what is going to happen, but does she agree that we need something statutory? People need to be certain that they will be consulted, when that will be and that they will be consulted on the precise details of the regulations coming in that will affect them, because they are the ones who know most about these sectors.
Jenny Chapman
I am persuaded by what my hon. Friend says, and he tempts me to insist further upon a duty to consult. I had not intended to do that at this stage, but it might be something that we return to. We need to listen to what the Minister has to say in response.
A lot of the problems rest with “improving”, “simplifying” and “modifying”, because who is to say what those things really mean? It is highly contestable, and challenge could come from a number of quarters. The Minister needs to be far clearer at this stage exactly what he means when he says, “We’ll be talking to—” or, “We’ll be involving—”. It seems very casual and quite loose. It is great that the Minister has good relationships with the sector—that is healthy, and I am in no way critical of it. However, I would like a way of ensuring that that good, healthy relationship can be enjoyed by his successors too. The Bill leaves things far too loose, with the potential for voices outside Government to be ignored entirely. Nowhere does it say that the Secretary of State must do many of the things in the Bill, as we have said at length.
I do not want to insist on that as a way of being burdensome to the Government. I understand that it means an extra process, that there is a cost attached and that it requires time; and, as we have discussed, there is a real desire to get on with this, which I share. However, the Cabinet Office guidance on consultations, which was revised only this year and which is therefore something that the Government have a commitment to more broadly—which is a good thing—says that consultations should
“Give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses”,
and should
“Include validated impact assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered when possible; this might be required where proposals have an impact on business.”
The measures we are discussing absolutely have an impact on business—a very direct and immediate one—so I see no justification for not having a way of ensuring that the needs of those who represent the various sectors can be heard.
The Cabinet Office guidance also says that
“Consultations should last for a proportionate amount of time”—
they do not have to take forever—and that
“Consulting for too long will unnecessarily delay policy development.”
Responses should be published quickly,
“within 12 weeks of the consultation or provide an explanation why this is not possible.”
The consultation continues:
“Where consultation concerns a statutory instrument”
the Government should
“publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid, except in very exceptional circumstances.”
I would like to know what is so exceptional about what the Minister is doing that means it needs to be done so quickly that it leaves no time to undertake some form of consultation. The evidence sessions were great, but that is not the same thing, and the lobbying that is happening is not really adequate and is no replacement for a decent process.
George Eustice
I will try to be as brief as possible. Amendment 77 repeats the earlier debate on clause 6, which also proposes a negative resolution. For the same reasons, we believe that a negative resolution is appropriate in this case, because it deals with technical issues and the switching off of certain requirements that currently sit in the scheme to try to improve it, simplify it and remove some of the frustrations that we have at the moment. That should be seen in the context that this is a time-limited scheme anyway, which will expire at the end of the transition.
I note what the hon. Member for Darlington says about the term “simplifying” or “improving”; I know the Lords Committee that looked at this also raised that point. We have not quoted the Agricultural Act 1947 today, but I know many hon. Members like it, so let us look at section 1, which talks about the importance of
“a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation’s food and other agricultural produce”,
as it is deemed “desirable to produce”. Now, if I had drafted a clause along those lines and put it in, everyone would have said, “What does ‘desirable’ mean? What does ‘stable’ mean? What does ‘efficient’ mean?” The truth is that we can have false precision on these things. It is clear what we mean by “simplifying” and “improving”.
We should also view this in the context of subsection (2)(a), which is simply the power to switch off certain provisions altogether. It is very clear in the context of subsection (2) that our preference will be to switch off things altogether where they serve no purpose or we think we can do without them, but where we think they serve some purpose we can simplify and improve them. That is understood.
I should also say that we have to understand that at the moment, the best that Parliament will get on things such as this is an explanatory memorandum, explaining the latest thing that the EU has done to us. Most of these sorts of decisions are made by EU delegated acts. There is literally no democratic input at all on some of those requirements, and often things get made up on the hoof by EU auditors working for the Commission, who create all sorts of new processes that have not been discussed or agreed at any level within the European Union.
This is an approach that I believe is right. To explain the types of things that we want to deal with here, I have to deal as Farming Minister with something called RPA appeals. Every month I get a bundle of cases in my box that are farmers who maybe missed a deadline because something got lost in the post or there was a problem with their application form. The system is hideous; I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours wrestling with lawyers in our Department to try to find a way of doing what is just and fair and finding in favour of farmers, only to find, all too often, with deep frustration, that EU law does indeed require me to find against them. The system we have in the so-called horizontal regulation is manifestly unjust and unfair, and we must resolve to improve it.
I turn now to the hon. Lady’s amendment 78. She explained her approach in great detail, but let me just say that she rather undermined her own argument by pointing out that DEFRA, without any statutory requirement necessarily to do so, is quite capable of churning out a great many consultations. I can tell her that, more often than not, the conversation I have with our officials is, “Do we really need a consultation on something as small as this?” and the answer is invariably, “Yes, because that is what Cabinet Office guidelines require.”
I do not believe that we need a statutory requirement to have a consultation on this. The only area where we have a statutory requirement for a consultation in the DEFRA field is on issues of food safety, where there is a written statutory requirement always to consult, but that does not stop us consulting. We consult on everything, and if it would give the hon. Lady some reassurance, I can give her an assurance, here on the Floor of the Committee, that we would consult on the changes that we intended to make under clause 9.
I would envisage our having a single strike at improving the system and probably not changing it much beyond that. It is inevitable that we would issue a consultation on all the changes that we would seek to make, and we would try as far as possible to do everything in that one go. It might be the case that there was something we missed and at a later date we might want to do a less formal type of consultation, but I take the opportunity here in this Committee to give the hon. Lady an assurance that we would consult on that first major batch of changes that we would seek to make, but we do not need to be forced to do so by a statutory requirement—as I said, we are quite capable of doing that anyway. I hope on that basis that the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment 77 and we can prepare to adjourn.
Jenny Chapman
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said on amendment 78 and I accept, I think, what he is trying to say. I think he has tried to assure the Committee that there will be some kind of process put in place, so I will ponder that. I might return to that, but what he said was very helpful. In the interest of consistency, I feel I need to press amendment 77.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I was going to share with the shadow Minister what I have just consumed for lunch, which I think will make my point. In the Members’ Tea Room, I had a bowl of delicious vegetable and pearl barley broth, which I am sure would be categorised as a good thing to have. I had two Ryvita, which I believe are also quite good for one; they certainly look like they do the trick, whatever the trick might be. I had a plum, which I was assured by Gladys was a Worcestershire plum, which will please my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire. It is all going well so far. I had a cube of delicious west country cheddar. Despite what the wretched “Eatwell Guide” says, we know that dairy products are very good for our diet and that we need dairy, so that was quite healthy.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I am just checking that the hon. Gentleman knows that his contribution will be on the record. I, too, had a lovely, delicious lunch in the Tea Room, but I am mindful that at our workplace we have high quality, nutritious food that is—people forget this—subsidised.
Jenny Chapman
In the Minister’s desire to resist our amendment, he keeps referring to the clause, saying that he could do this and it is possible to do that already, and therefore our amendment is not necessary. He does not seem to want to have his boss’s hands tied—his boss to be told that he ought to do something or that he needs to do something. I just want to know why that is.
George Eustice
As a Government, we have set out our approach and what we intend to do with these powers. We have already published some policy papers alongside this Bill, which address many of those issues. The Secretary of State has talked about public access to the countryside and the role of farms in educating children, so we have set out clearly in the policy documents that accompany the Bill what we intend to do with these powers. Come the next election, I am sure that the Opposition will have manifesto commitments that will set out their approach and what they intend to do with the powers.
Another issue was raised by a number of hon. Members: that, fundamentally, the decisions about public health and healthy eating are very much around consumer understanding, consumer knowledge and consumer choice. That is why Public Health England has the “Eatwell” plate that it promotes. We have obviously already implemented the first chapter of the childhood obesity plan. We have introduced a levy on sugary soft drinks. We are currently working on the sort of second chapter of the childhood obesity plan.
We take the issue very seriously. Work on it is led by the Department of Health; it is very high up on that Department’s agenda. It is for the Department of Health to lead on and for us to support, and it goes outside the scope of this particular Bill, which is very much about schemes to support farming, the farmed landscape and our environment.
I will give a final example about sugar, which was raised by some Members. When quotas on sugar beet production were removed, some people said, “Shouldn’t we keep sugar beet quotas? That would be a way of restricting the growing of things that we think are bad for public health.” However, the reality is that the most powerful thing was the introduction of a levy on soft drinks; the value of the sugar that goes into a soft drink is actually tiny, and messing around with the price of sugar is not what delivers the outcome. What delivers the outcome is a levy on sugary drinks that drives policies of reformulation, and that is why the levy has been a success.
We know that some of these measures to try to mess with the supply side of the chain are actually blunt instruments when it comes to delivering public health outcomes.
Dr Drew
To start with, I declare an interest: my wife has a stall on Stroud farmers market every fortnight. Please come along to see the wonderful wares that she sells. I had to get that on the record.
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Clearly, we are not going to come to a meeting of minds, but the issue will come back. I keep reiterating the fact that the White Paper, “Health and Harmony”, and the issue of public health which it identified as a crucial element in the way in which the food chain functions in an Agriculture Bill, are not going to go away. It may be that this is not the time to force a Division. I make that clear, but we make no apology for saying that we will come back on this because it is important that we understand that people out there may not understand the legislative process but they understand what they think should be the elements of what we do for the future of the policy.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East says on the food strategy. It would be helpful if the Government were clear on when it comes forward, as it should be with the environment Bill, because these are interrelated. This is the problem with legislation. We only have one side of the coin, when we need both sides to make sense of the totality of the Government’s approach.
It is important that somehow health is in the Bill and I hope the Minister will reflect on this. Public health matters because what people eat depends entirely on their access to food and its availability and what they can afford. It is also to do with the fact that to some extent we have an influence, through production and distribution.
I hope the Minister has listened to the debate. We will not push the matter to a Division at this time, but it will come back because people feel very strongly about it, whether it concerns food poverty, or purely obesity and diabetes, or the reality of how food is increasingly the reason people’s life expectancy is determined. I understand what the Minister has said and I know there are lots of contingent points in his argument. However, I hope we can extract that and at a future time clarify where public health is in relation to the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jenny Chapman
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) No financial assistance may be given by the Secretary of State in relation to the purpose under subsection (1)(f) unless the practice for which financial assistance is to be given pays full regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.”
This amendment would ensure that any financial assistance provided in relation to ‘the health and welfare of livestock’ purpose in Clause 1 recognises the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) No financial assistance may be given by the Secretary of State in relation to the purpose under subsection (1)(e) unless the practice for which financial assistance is to be given complies with—
(a) any part of retained EU law (within the meaning of section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) relating to the protection of the environment which has not ceased to have effect as a result of any agreement between the UK and the European Union setting the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) any standards which were enforceable by an EU entity or a public authority anywhere in the UK before exit day, including principles contained in Article 191 of TFEU, and which will be enforceable by an entity or public authority in England after exit day.
(c) the principles contained in Article 191 of TFEU, for the purposes of this subsection, are—
(i) the precautionary principle as it relates to the environment,
(ii) the principle that preventive action should be taken to avert environmental damage,
(iii) the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and
(iv) the principle that the polluter should pay.”
This amendment would ensure that any financial assistance provided in relation to ‘environmental hazards’ would ensure that environmental principles continue to apply in the UK after exit day.
Amendment 71, in clause 1, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
‘(5) Financial assistance under subsection (1) for protecting or improving the welfare of livestock shall only be given to farmers who have—
(a) demonstrated that their livestock welfare practice meets or exceeds the higher animal welfare standard specified by the Secretary of State for the welfare of livestock, or
(b) given, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, an undertaking to achieve the higher animal welfare standard specified by the Secretary of State for the welfare of livestock.
(6) Any standard specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of subsection (5) must set standards that are higher than those required by legislation governing the welfare of livestock.”
This amendment would ensure that public money is only be used to support genuinely high standards of animal welfare. The Government has confirmed it will define a ‘higher animal welfare standard’ by 2020.
Jenny Chapman
Mr Wilson, it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship as your constituency neighbour. I know that you have many farmers in your constituency so I hope that you are finding our deliberations interesting and stimulating.
I have particularly enjoyed the contributions of the hon. Member for North Dorset. He has made insightful remarks on amendments 44 and 45. However, I take issue with him when he talks about a rural-urban split between our parties; that is not something that I recognise. Part of our reason for tabling many of these amendments, including the ones to which I am about to speak, is that we want to future-proof this legislation. We want to make sure that the outcomes that we probably all desire are more assured, that we can be more confident and, more importantly, that farmers and those involved in agriculture can have more certainty about what the future might mean for them. It is important that we get this right.
It has been said to me several times that the Bill is a huge opportunity for the sector and I agree. This is the first time for many years that the UK has had the opportunity to decide precisely how it wants to support farming, food producers and those involved with caring for our landscape. We need to take this opportunity seriously and grab it with both hands. I know that many interested parties are watching carefully what we say and the tone in which we say it—and also what it is that finds its way into the Bill. It is no good to the sector to hear warm words from Ministers and be given hints at possible future decisions.
Things laid out in consultation papers are very interesting, but they do not provide the certainty that is going to be needed. Until now, support for farming has come from obligations that we have had as a member of the European Union, which have been very clear and long term, though imperfect in very many ways—I would not dare to argue. Those obligations will now become discretionary, to a certain extent, and it is possible that at the next general election, whenever that may be, there will need to be a chapter in every one of our manifestos about what we think we ought to do to support farmers and agriculture. It would be helpful if we had a clearer framework, which could be laid out in the Bill and is currently lacking, within which those policy decisions and priorities could be placed. Unless we do that farmers are going to be left in an uncertain position, subject to the whims and competing priorities of different political parties—and, perhaps, pressures from minority parties. That is not a secure framework within which to proceed.
I am not a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs farming agricultural specialist, as the Committee will know. I am here because I have been involved with our Brexit team. I have been asked not to bang on too much about retained EU law and that side of things in my contribution. I am also mindful of the fact that if we maintain the pace that we have achieved so far in our considerations, we will actually conclude in the first week in April, and given that the purpose of the Bill is to prepare us for our departure from the EU, that would be far from satisfactory; so I will try to get on with things.
As well as speaking to amendments 74 and 75, I wish to speak in support of amendment 71, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East. I must say that since I was elected in 2010 I have been inspired and encouraged by the approach she takes to many of these issues, particularly food, reducing waste and the availability of quality food. She has an incredibly impressive track record on those issues and it is great that she is here. I hope the Government will benefit from her observations as we proceed with the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady is making some very good points. Does she agree that on animal welfare, it was the European Union that was holding us back, and when we legislated on veal crates, dry sow stalls or battery cages it was the Europeans who prevented us from blocking goods coming into the UK that were not produced to the same high standards as here? Indeed, when live sheep exports were going to be blocked it was the EU single market rules that meant we could not do that.
Jenny Chapman
The right hon. Gentleman is right—we are world leaders, and we are very proud of that. What I am trying to achieve with these amendments is that we maintain that position. I will go on to explain why later, but it is not difficult to imagine a future Government, under pressure perhaps to secure trade deals, feeling pressure to diminish our world-leading standards. None of us here today would want that to happen, but an assurance from a Minister in Committee or even at the Dispatch Box has nothing like the same weight as something written into our law. That is the issue; it is about maintaining the position that the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly highlights.
To explain this simply, rather than banging on about retained EU law, once the UK leaves the EU we will no longer be subject to EU law. As many of our laws and, importantly, the principles that underpin them are or have been previously held within EU law, the UK now can decide which EU laws it wants to adopt fully into UK legislation. EU laws on animal sentience, environmental standards and animal welfare standards are among the laws that have not been adequately taken back by the UK; I expect the Minister is thinking that, and it was indicated when we had the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as it went through the House of Commons. I say “adequately” because they have been transferred to some extent and I understand that, but the status of the laws now means that they are too easily amendable and do not provide the same safeguards as primary legislation does, or as they would if they were amendments that had been put into this Bill.
It would be a mistake on the part of the Government and Parliament to allow that situation to continue. We could take this opportunity now. It was hinted that the Government would do this when they could, and they could be doing it now. Why are the Government choosing not to take this opportunity at this stage?
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) made a good speech on environmental standards when we debated the EU (Withdrawal) Bill in Committee of the whole House. Several of my hon. Friends in this Committee contributed to that debate, and Members on both sides were concerned about the issue—I do not know whether the Minister remembers this. We are trying to ensure that the environmental principles set out in article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are enshrined in our law. These are the precautionary principle in relation to the environment, the principle that preventive action should be taken to avert environmental damage, the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and the “polluter pays” principle. We feel—I think most of us here would agree—that these need to continue to be recognised and applied after exit day.
It is not unique to EU law to have these principles enshrined in this way as they are enshrined in law in other policy areas, and there is no good reason why these should not be included in this Bill. The principles are not there to make us feel good so that we can look to them and say, “We put this into law and that shows what a great country we are,” although it does do that. They have three key roles: they are an aid to the interpretation of the law, they guide future decision-making, and they are a basis for legal challenge in court. The EU (Withdrawal) Act did not allow us to replicate the legal certainty that we currently have. At the moment, we have that legal certainty, but when we leave the EU at the end of March that legal certainty—depending on the deal that has been achieved—will no longer be in place. As my hon. Friend said when we debated the Act, we need this
“to be effective custodians of the environment and to be world leaders when it comes to environmental standards.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 495.]
It is very important that we embed the principles in the way our policy operates. I have to say that to his credit the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recognised this, but the Government continue to argue that environmental principles are interpretive principles, and that as such they should not form part of the law itself.
I do not think that they are simply guidance. The environmental protection requirements should be integrated into the definition and implementation of our policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development. They are a vital aid to understanding the role and function of existing legislation, as well as being, as the Secretary of State said, an interpretive tool for decision makers and, if necessary, the courts.
There is also an important aspect to all of this around devolution. The principles provide the beginnings of a framework within which the devolved nations, as well as England, can operate. There is significant anxiety, which we may get on to in later clauses, about how exactly support for farming and agriculture might work in the future when we think about the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Government’s desire to do things—as they have done previously, to be fair—slightly differently. Why would they not want to do that? There needs to be a shared and agreed framework within which that can happen.
Another point is that the UK’s duty to comply with the environmental principles does not end when we leave the EU, because they are contained in other treaties that have nothing to do with our membership of the European Union. The way we comply with those treaties needs to be somewhere in domestic law. I will listen to what the Minister says, but there is a risk that in the future that it will not. That is why we think it is right that these principles be incorporated into this Bill. There are clear examples of other laws where this kind of approach has been taken. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 talks about it being
“the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”
The Countryside Act 1968 confers functions on an agency for it to exercise for the
“conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.”
It is not unusual to have this approach.
The environmental principles set out in article 191 of the treaty form an essential component of environmental law. If the Government’s stated aim of equivalence on day one of Brexit is to be achieved, these principles need to be part of domestic law on day one and the public should be able to rely on them. The courts should be able to apply them and public bodies need to know that they have been following them. I appreciate that we are talking about transitional arrangements, but that only makes it all the more uncertain for people and shows all the more need for clarity. In the absence of any of the other promised legislation so far—we are anticipating several Bills that are yet to materialise—this has been our only opportunity to get the principles in a Bill so that they can be enshrined in UK law.
Amendments 74 and 75 would impose duties on the Secretary of State. We are going to come back to this again and again: we are not satisfied that powers are sufficient to provide us with the confidence we need to give this Bill support. What we want are duties. The principles that safeguard the environment ought to inform the way taxpayers’ money is spent. The way the public view all this in the future is going to change and the Government need to be ready for that. They have had a buffer in the EU until now, and much as members of the public might shake their heads or roll their eyes at some support for farmers, they are one step removed. That is not going to be the case in future. People are going to turn up at Members’ surgeries saying, “I am not happy with the way my taxpayers’ money is being spent” if they feel it is being distributed for things that they do not believe are appropriate. Having a legal framework underpinned by the principles we are proposing would provide some confidence and a safeguard for the public. That argument has not yet surfaced sufficiently, but we are going to see a very different tone to the way these sorts of issues are debated in the future.
Simon Hoare
That is an incredibly important point and I think farmers are right to pay as much, if not more, attention to those issues than even to the Bill. However, does the hon. Lady accept, as I do, the statement made in incredibly good faith the other week by the Secretary of State for International Trade that the fear and anxiety she is talking about will not be part of this—that we will not be lowering our food hygiene or animal welfare standards as a way of trying to get trade deals signed? I thought that was very clear. It has been echoed by the Prime Minister and I think we should take them at their word.
Jenny Chapman
It is welcome, but I think that Members have to understand that that is not sufficient. Welcome though it is, it is not enough to reassure us, because the Secretary of State is not accountable for that. There is no way of holding a Member to a statement like that, unfortunately.
Mr Goodwill
As a former shipping Minister, I reassure the hon. Lady that I have been to Felixstowe and seen those containers coming in, including fridge boxes containing that sort of produce. There is already very detailed scrutiny of what is in those boxes. Tests are carried out particularly on pesticide residues, mycotoxins or any other health hazards that the UK might be exposed to. That is already in place for imports from third countries.
Jenny Chapman
I note that that is because we are in a customs union. That is my point: we have those high standards now, and I want to ensure that we have them in the future, and I do not see any way of doing it other than putting it on the face of a Bill—I accept that it does not need to be this Bill, but we need to know that this will happen.
George Eustice
On a point of clarity, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is right that we have border inspection posts around the UK. They are a port of entry currently for the EU, and when we leave the EU they will still be a port of entry, with all the broader inspection facilities we need, for countries outside the EU.
Jenny Chapman
That very much depends on the terms on which we leave the EU. Whatever those terms are we need to be absolutely clear about our standards on animal welfare, food safety and all the rest of it. If we are not, there is scope for these very high standards of which we are all proud to be watered down in some way. That is the sole motivation behind the amendment. It is not intended to ridicule the Government, or to try to show that we care more about animals than Government Members do or any of that. It is about making sure that, in the future, the UK maintains its position as a world leader on these issues.
Dr Drew
My hon. Friend will remember my interchange with Jason Feeney of the Food Standards Agency when I pressed him on the degree to which the FSA looks at food quality. He argued that it mainly looks at hygiene and safety. However, that clearly shows the organisational changes that will be required, because somebody has to look at quality, and if it is not the FSA, some other agency will have to be invented to do so. At the moment, that responsibility is subsumed within the European Food Safety Authority.
Jenny Chapman
That is another example of how difficult this issue is and of the work that will be involved in making sure that we keep current standards as they are, or raise them higher than they are today. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that enables us to be confident of that, which is why we encourage the Government to accept our amendments, or if they will not, to bring forward measures that they find acceptable.
This is important. It is about the reputation of our country around the world. The people with whom we seek to trade in the future will be mindful of the legal framework in which our food is produced. It will be a lost opportunity should the Government not agree to bring something forward that will provide clarity for our producers.
Martin Whitfield
Is it not also the case that, if such a measure were in the Bill, in any future trade negotiations both sides will understand our bottom line and will not attempt to change it, because of the significant challenges in removing something from an Act? Indeed, it would empower the Secretary of State to build on the assurances that have been given.
Jenny Chapman
That is right. I am not cynical, but I hope that that is not part of the motivation for not including these principles in the Bill. However reassuring the Minister undoubtedly is, we are not only legislating for today. This legislation has to stand the test of time, and it has to provide the protections that we think we need for the future. I hope my hon. Friend is wrong, and that that is not at the back of the Government’s mind, but we are being asked to take an awful lot on trust, which Opposition Members are not generally inclined to do.
Another useful contribution in evidence came from the chief executive of the Tenant Farmers Association, George Dunn. He said that, if we set domestic environmental and animal welfare standards for food production and do not allow farmers to invest in the necessary fixed equipment required to produce those standards, we are not supporting them in the supply chain to ensure that they get adequate returns for those standards. He also asked how sucking in stuff from wherever, produced to whatever standards that we are unable to attribute, creates food security for our nation, and said that we will simply be exporting our environmental and animal welfare problems abroad. I think he speaks for many of the farmers I have spoken to. That is not something that any of us would want. The best way to prevent that from happening is to put these measures into the Bill—or, if not this Bill, a different Bill.
Minette Batters spoke brilliantly about the politicisation of support for agriculture in the future, and how it will be different. She pleaded for spending not to be politicised, but with the best will in the world, it will be, because spending on support for our agriculture will be in direct competition with spending on the health service, policing and pensions. When the Chancellor delivers his Budget in years to come, he will have to say what he will do for farmers and for agriculture that year. There is a real danger of instability and lack of confidence. The logical response from investors would be to hold back and not invest long term in their own farms because they risk making a long-term investment and, with a change of Government, the support they had anticipated might not be in place. That is not something that any of us would wish to see. This is the best Bill for including some legal safeguards to prevent that from happening.
Minette Batters says that this will not work if it gets politicised and that we need a long-term approach, with cross-party support for the ambition. She says that otherwise—I think she is understating this—there will be a lot of challenges ahead. We can bet there will be a lot of challenges ahead. If I were a farmer, I would want far more clarity on what was expected. Having been told there was an Agriculture Bill, I would expect there to be clarity for me as a producer.
I noticed in the “Health and Harmony” document that the Government talk about the regulatory framework within which they will inspect and maintain standards around the Government’s policy. That is another area of concern. We would probably feel a lot better about it if we had that kind of legal certainty in the Bill.
Unless the Bill is substantially more explicit than the current rather loose and discretionary “it would be nice to do this if we want to” powers, we will leave farmers at considerable risk. They absolutely need to know what is needed to comply. How compliance is monitored will also matter. The “Health and Harmony” document rightly says:
“Farmed animals are an integral part of our countryside. We have a responsibility to maintain their health and welfare”.
Yes, that is so. It also says:
“Excellent standards of animal health can reduce reliance on veterinary medicines”.
To be fair to David Cameron, although I am not sure why I would be, he did talk about antibiotic use and prioritised getting to grips with that, which is a good thing. The “Health and Harmony” document says that at the moment there is a strong regulatory framework in place that ensures that health and welfare standards are maintained.
It is troubling to see other points in the same document. I can see why this is the Government’s mood but, when it comes to animal welfare and environmental standards, we ought to be doing much better. That, combined with the lack of legal certainty in the Bill, causes me anxiety. On page 49, “Health and Harmony” mentions
“seeing how inspections can be removed, reduced or improved to lessen the burden on farmers while maintaining and enhancing our animal, environmental and plant health standards”.
We would all love to maintain the same standards, with no legal framework and light-touch regulation. That would be fantastic—I want to live in that world, but I just do not think that we do. The document says:
“We also have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world: after leaving the EU we should not only maintain but strengthen those standards.”
So, where is that ambition in the Bill? Everybody on the Opposition side has it, as I am sure everybody on the Government side does, but where is it in the Bill? It is okay to say that we all want to be nice people, look after our animals and have a lovely countryside—of course we do—but the Government need to say how they are going to do that and exactly what they will do, as opposed to what they could do if they felt like it. We can do much better than that for our food producers.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Lady accept that despite the fact that European treaties contain that recognition, we still see foie gras production in France and bullfighting, so it would be no protection against that sort of thing?
Jenny Chapman
I do, to an extent, but the fact is that we have had that provision up to now and we want to keep it in the future. It is the right thing to do and it provides some protection. How we implement it as part of our UK law is entirely up to us—I think that was the point of the exercise for some Conservative Members, was it not? I look forward to hearing from hon. Members about how they would seek to make the best use of the opportunity.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady will be aware that the RSPCA is the oldest animal welfare charity in the world. Although I take her point that the European Union has been incredibly helpful, does she not share my confidence that we in the UK—the Government, the Opposition and the populace at large—are fully alert to those important issues and will do what is right? As somebody who voted remain, I do not think that we need another group of people to tell us how important the issue is or to set our standards. We can do that ourselves, and we will get it right.
Jenny Chapman
Why the reluctance to have this provision in the Bill, if we are all so clear, certain and confident about it? I do not see the problem. It is important because, in a sense, it would act as an instruction to future Governments when they create legislation. It has previously been, and ought to be, the basis of law-making on animal welfare. I accept that there has been a lot of noise and confusion around the debate, and I hope that we do not get sucked into that kind of confusion as we discuss this topic.
Just as an example, one Tory MP—I hope it was not the hon. Member for North Dorset—said:
“This government, and in fact all governments, are deeply committed to continuing to protect animals as sentient beings. That law is already written into our own law.”
But it is not written into our own law—that is the point—and it would be so much better if it were. The reason we are bothering with this Committee is to make the Bill better. I do not think any Minister who has served on a Committee has ever said, “My Bill is perfect. Don’t bother discussing it; let’s all go home.” The idea is that we improve the Bill as we go forward, and I notice that the Government already have many amendments, so they are obviously open to improving the Bill. This amendment would be one way to make the Bill better.
How people feel about this topic, I suppose, depends on whether they think it is important that animal sentience should be specifically recognised, or that the law as it stands goes far enough. There might be differing views on that, but the Opposition think that animal sentience needs to be recognised in law. If the Government wanted to bring forward their own wording on this—I expect the Minister will tell me why mine is deficient any minute now—we would be interested in working with them on it, because this issue matters to so many people around the country that we need to be constructive about it. Should the Government want to do the right thing, we will work with them. I will leave it there for now, and listen to what the Minister has to say before I speak further.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Member for Darlington has made some well-argued remarks, and I am confident that the Minister will be able to reassure her on a number of the points that she made. We are all on the same page.
I will briefly concentrate on one aspect. Who could argue with the four principles in amendment 75? My slight problem is that, having served on the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for five years—and being partly to blame for much of this legislation, no doubt—the precautionary principle looks, on the face of it, like a good principle. In practice, sadly, it is often misused. My experience was that increasingly, it was being used as a fall-back to ban some activity or substance for which there was not any scientific evidence to justify a ban, or insufficient scientific evidence. For example, if I were to use the precautionary principle when I decide whether to cycle home on my bicycle tonight, I would almost certainly decide not to do so, because I could not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I would not be knocked off or fall off, and end up in St Thomas’s hospital or worse. Sadly, that type of approach is used all too often.
I can give you an example from my time in the European Parliament, to do with the group of chemicals known as phthalates. They are used to soften PVC—the sort of plastic that is used in babies’ dummies, feeding bottle teats, and many medical devices. Phthalates are chemicals that have effects on human health; they are endocrine disrupters that affect how hormones in the body work. Some sought to ban the use of phthalates as a PVC softener in such products, but the problem was that the medical industry said, “If we cannot use those plastics, the devices that we will have to use will not be as good for operations”—those devices include complex catheters that are inserted during more complex operations. That was an area in which we needed to look at the risks and benefits in the round, rather than issuing a ban based on some risk that might have been unquantifiable, and certainly was not scientifically proven.
The most recent case that shows us why, when we move forward with our own legislation, we need something better than the precautionary principle—something that is much more scientifically based and that can, if necessary, be taken to judicial review and proved one way or another—is the prevention of the introduction of genetically modified crops across the European Union. Many farmers and enlightened environmentalists would have liked such crops to be introduced, to reduce our reliance on pesticides and fertilisers and to make food more nutritious and safer. That is how those crops are used around the world, but we cannot do so in the UK. The precautionary principle has been used to block such technologies, and that was a bad use of that principle.
Rather than accepting amendment 75, we need—now that we can, as we have heard, make our own legislation—something that does the same thing as the precautionary principle but in a more effective way, based on science and not, as is sadly often the case, on prejudice and misinformation.
George Eustice
I will begin with amendment 75, as the other two amendment both pertain to animal welfare. This amendment effectively says that people have to abide by retained EU law before they can be eligible for any assistance. Retained EU law is coming across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It will apply to everyone, whether or not they are in a scheme. We do not believe the amendment adds anything or is necessary, as retained EU law will become UK law and will be enforceable as such to everyone. The important thing about the new schemes from our point of view are the conditions attached to them. We deal with that very differently, in clause 3, which we will no doubt debate later and which has all sorts of provisions for checking, enforcing and monitoring. It requires provisions for the keeping of records and allows us to impose penalties, establish appeals processes and refer powers of entry, for instance. Clause 3 sets out clear enforcement powers and the ability to set conditions on access to such schemes, which in our view is the right way to approach this.
There is also a technical problem with amendment 75. The hon. Member for Bristol East at least said that everybody should abide by the legislative baseline, whether that be retained EU law or any other domestic legislation. The problem I have with the amendment is that it treats retained EU law as if it were the only law that matters. It is mute on other national law. If we were to require people to abide by the law—which they might believe they would be required to do anyway—why would we require them to abide only by retained EU law, rather than any other class of law? To me, that does not make much sense.
Jenny Chapman
We do not want it to be retained EU law; we want it to be primary UK law. That is our point, because we think that has a different status to retained EU law.
George Eustice
The provisions that I am reading are very much around EU law and retained EU law, but I take the hon. Lady’s point that she may have intended the measure to be broader.
There is a third point, however. We are clear that we accept some of these principles. We will provide for a new environmental body to police them. We have already said that we are committed to those principles coming across. There is a difficulty, however, in the practice of a scheme where financial incentives are being paid. It is not always black and white. For instance, the “polluter pays” principle sounds great in theory, but what if there is a diffuse pollution incident somewhere in a water catchment that might involve small contributions from a number of farms that are difficult to locate? It is not always easy to just say, “We need regulation,” or, “We need enforcement,” on this farm or that farm.
In recent years we have successfully paid farmers to support them in investing to improve slurry infrastructure. We have had a successful scheme in the past two years to pay farmers to put lids on slurry stores, so that they can reduce ammonia emissions, for instance. If we are serious about tackling complex environmental issues such as diffuse pollution, we have to be willing to venture beyond what can be achieved with a blunt regulatory instrument and instead be willing to have financial incentives, rewards and grants to support good practice. A requirement to abide by the “polluter pays” principle will often be used, as in this case, by people who want to sit on their hands and not spend money. If we are serious about doing payment for public goods properly, we must be willing to exercise judgment and to support schemes that may fall into the grey area between what would normally be covered by regulation and what would be covered by an environmental purpose.
Amendment 74 relates to animal sentience, on which we have already published draft legislation. The Government are absolutely committed to making the necessary changes to UK law to ensure that animal sentience is recognised. This country has always been a leader in the field. In 1875, we were the first country in the world to pass legislation to regulate slaughterhouses. The Protection of Animals Act followed in 1911, and in 1933 we updated a lot of our regulation, particularly of slaughterhouses. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 recognises animal sentience. We would never have passed any of that legislation if we did not believe that animals were sentient beings. That is beyond question; both sides of the House and all Governments have believed it for at least 140 years. We are committed to introducing a Bill to recognise animal sentience.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I am conscious that on animal welfare and in the agri-environment schemes, a lot of farmers have already done a huge amount of work, and it is important to recognise that and to continue to reward them for that. The baseline, such as it is, should be anchored somewhere around the regulatory baseline. Even then, I do not think we should have a hard and fast rule, for the reasons I have explained on issues such as investment in slurry management. In this innovative new field of animal welfare, there are grey areas, and it is not always right to have a hard and fast rule.
The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned the issue of cross-compliance. The conditionality on new schemes is provided for in clause 3. If somebody enters a new scheme and is in breach of it in some way, there are provisions for financial penalties and for the powers that we would need to be able to do that.
Having been farming Minister for five years, and having wrestled with cross-compliance, I am not a great fan of how it works in practice. It is a rather dysfunctional system. There is literally nothing—bar one thing—in cross-compliance that is not already in our domestic law. All the requirements on ear tagging, animal health and animal welfare, or the issues around TB testing and good environmental condition for land, are already requirements in our national law. All that cross-compliance really gives us is a sort of easy and rather unjust way to claw penalties out of farmers without really giving them a chance for a fair hearing in court. In my view, it is not a very satisfactory system. We would need some sort of system of fixed penalty notices in future, so that there are ready remedies for minor breaches, but we could design something far better. Cross-compliance will remain in the legacy scheme that we will come on to debate, but we will have the opportunity to modify and improve it and to remove some of the rather unnecessary administrative burdens that can get in the way.
I hope that I have managed to persuade hon. Members that the Government remain absolutely committed to amendment 74 animal sentience, but we believe it should be in another Bill. We have already published draft legislation. On amendment 75, retained EU law will already be binding on anyone, whether or not they are in a scheme. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol East will not press amendment 71, as it would be counterproductive to the cause that I know she believes in very strongly.
Jenny Chapman
I am not surprised by any of the Minister’s comments. His attempt to reassure the Committee on EU retained law and SIs was not particularly effective. As we said at great length during the passage of the withdrawal Act, the ability to amend the Act is of deep concern to us. We think it is far better that the provisions should be in the Bill now, so that everyone can see exactly where we are. We are not happy with the approach that the Government have taken, and not just in these areas but in many others.
The Minister invited me to look to clause 3 for reassurance. Again, we come back to the powers that have been given to the Secretary of State, which are so wide-ranging. Although there are suggestions in the Bill about what those powers may be used for, the lack of precision is astonishing. Clause 3(2) states that “under subsection (1)” the Secretary of State
“may (among other things) include provision”.
It is extraordinary that the Government are attempting to proceed in this manner and expect the Opposition to go along with it. We are just not going to do that.
I might not be minded to press the amendment to a Division today, but I do not want the Committee to interpret that as demonstrating any kind of satisfaction on our part; it absolutely does not. We intend to return to these issues, which is one of the reasons why we will not press the amendment today. That might increase our chances of being able to return to the issues, which are fundamental to why we think the Bill is so flawed. I take the point about linking the issues to financial assistance. There might be something in that, although taxpayers want to know the principles by which their hard-earned cash will be spent in this area. I do not think that the Minister has responded adequately to our concerns. I expect that in the other place, and on Report, we will go over those issues again.
As for amendment 74 and the promised new Bill, we want and need to see the Bill, not just assurances that it is on its way. The Secretary of State said, “I want this to happen because I too am a sentient being.”
Jenny Chapman
Yes, there are degrees of sentience. It is not good enough, and there is no justification for not having introduced the Bill already. I am not going to divide the Committee, because we are pressed for time, but I expect that the issue will be debated again as the Bill proceeds. I want to restate our dissatisfaction with the whole approach to the Bill. It is not good enough, and the Government could have done an awful lot better. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2), and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State may also give financial assistance for or in connection with any of the following purposes—
(a) starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity;
(b) supporting businesses or communities in rural areas; and
(c) supporting persons who are involved in the production, processing, marketing or distribution of products deriving from an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity.”
This amendment would extend to England the powers provided to Welsh Ministers in Schedule 3 paragraph 1(2)(a) and (c).
Dr Drew
I shall try to be a bit briefer on this amendment, partly because the hon. Member for Ludlow has three amendments to our one. I make no apology for the fact that it is more of a probing amendment. There has been some discussion about the relationship between supporting environmental goods and what remains of helping farmers or people who work the land. Paragraph (b) is quite important to me, having done quite a lot of work on rural policy over the years. We have not really spent much time looking at how rural fits alongside agriculture.
One of my worries about the legislation is the way we are changing from the common agricultural policy, of which, as the Minister rightly said, I was a critic. There were many things wrong with it, but one of its strengths was pillar 2, and the way in which pillar 2 was able to enhance and, dare I say it, rebuild rural communities. One of the problems with the Bill is that rural communities hardly seem to feature at all. Yet the strength of agriculture is in the context of the rural communities in which farmers and others live. It is quite important that we tease out from the Government how they see pillar 2 being reframed in a British context.
I would argue from the outset that the previous Labour Government, the coalition Government and this Government have not done enough to support rural communities. Too often money was forthcoming only in a grudging manner. We frequently failed to match-fund the moneys that were available through pillar 2, which meant that very often schemes did not go forward. Part of my reason for tabling the amendment was to raise the issue of rural communities, and to say that hopefully there will be opportunities for us to put something more definite in the Bill to say that we really want to enshrine pillar 2 in the legislation. Otherwise, all will be lost. There is no other opportunity; there is no forthcoming rural Bill. We may have a sentience Bill, we may have a sentencing Bill, and we may have a Bill to ban animals in circuses.
Dr Drew
We may; we might; we must—some time, over the rainbow. Lots of bits of legislation are possible, but they are not necessarily going to be introduced very quickly, so rural affairs must feature.
The amendment is more of a probing amendment. As we move towards environmental support payments, we must consider what that means for farmers. I have always been a doughty champion of smaller farms and tenant farms. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has said, I worry that there are holes in the legislation, with regard to how it will actually work. In the evidence session I referred to the regulatory underpinning, which is important but, as yet, not at all clear. That is why we wanted evidence from the Rural Payments Agency, despite all its failings, and from the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and indeed from Dame Glenys Stacey, to know what the format is. We have had her interim report but no final report yet on how the regulatory regime will operate for farmers. That is important because, although we are debating primary legislation, that is what will underpin it. Rural communities are important and we need to know what the Government will say about that.
In terms of the national interest and social justice, we must be able to feed ourselves. We feel strongly about food security, and I have argued for that. It has not really featured in the past decade, although it did in the previous one—it drove agricultural policy. It was one of the reasons we changed at European level from the previous regime. We strongly felt that it was better to pay farmers—in this case, landowners—and that may be where we dug ourselves into a problem. I always argued that there should be a de minimis and a de maximus payment structure. Colleagues did not necessarily agree with that, but that is why we have ended up with some of the problems we have had in respect of the area payment scheme. We need to look at how we can encourage our farmers to produce more of their own produce, and that is a reason for probing this. It is about good-quality, healthy food—we have had that debate already. We need to look at how that is coming forward.
That all sounds theoretical, and like good things for good people, but that is what we have committed ourselves to in the Welsh schedule, so they are getting this. We may well say, “Lucky old Wales” and feel disappointed that England does not have the same. It would be interesting to know how we will defend the interests of England. That point was made at great length at Second Reading by the hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). Who speaks for England? Wales certainly has greater flexibility in how it can use its money in its schedule. I have said that it is likely that we will end up with four different agricultural systems—nuanced, but different. We must understand where England stands, particular in relation to Wales. Should Scotland and Northern Ireland come forward with the same proposals, they would need to be looked at. We must look at how payments will be allowed as well as for what, and to whom. That is why agriculture, horticulture and forestry are crucial in how we look at who gets the money and for what reason. That is about public interest, and it is about putting what we really want people to do on the face of the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wilson. I am pleased that this is a probing amendment because it is a good example of why the schedules relating to the devolved Administrations do not protect or guarantee respect for the devolved settlements. If accepted, it would surely restrict who the Welsh Government can pay out to. That point was ably made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. It is a proposed imposition on the devolved Administrations that would restrict how they can spend their money. It does not even come from the Government; it comes from a group of—without being rude about it—random MPs.
Jenny Chapman
I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but my impression, having raised this matter with the Welsh Government, is that they agreed to schedule 3.
Jenny Chapman
The hon. Lady is referring to the schedule. It has not come from the Government; it has come from the Welsh Assembly.
Deidre Brock
Forgive me, but I am speaking about amendment 90, which makes it clear that it would impose financial restrictions on the schedule. I am objecting to it because, from the Scottish Government’s point of view, that is not desirable.
I note that paragraph (b) would allow payments to be made to landlords and others who have an interest in the land but do not actually produce anything, rather than farmers. That is certainly a concern. I feel strongly that these kinds of decisions should be made by the Ministers setting up the scheme, rather than by people in this room.
George Eustice
I do not agree. Subsection (2) is very clear. It gives us the power to
“give financial assistance for or in connection with the purpose of starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural...activity.”
It could not be clearer. It gives us the power to invest in the way that I have described.
Jenny Chapman
This is problematic. I do not think the Minister knows how to answer his own questions about how best to support farmers. Clause 2(2) says:
“Financial assistance may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
I do not know how much wider we could get, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is worried about its being too narrow. That is the problem with the Bill.
George Eustice
I do not accept that criticism of the Bill. We have discussed many times the romantic attachment of some hon. Members to the 1947 Act. Let me just read from it again. It describes Ministers being able to do things that they deem “expedient”. We have a concern about giving the Government and Ministers power to get things done, but that is what has been missing in our time in the European Union. We should embrace the fact that we are now able to get things done as a country.
My final point on food security is that, if we look at the evidence, the sectors that contribute the most to our self-sufficiency as a nation are the ones that are unsubsidised, not those that are subsidised. We are 96% self-sufficient in carrots, which is traditionally an unsubsidised sector for which the current single farm payment is irrelevant. We are 92% self-sufficient in cabbages and 95% self-sufficient in peas. We have seen a big increase of 15% in the production of vegetables since 2010 and a 50% increase in top fruit and soft fruit production. The unsubsidised sectors have been the most innovative and have done most to contribute to our self-sufficiency.
I turn to amendment 89, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. It seeks to limit the eligibility for financial assistance across the board to people who are in farming or food production. I understand the intention behind the amendment. The concern, if I could caricature it, is that in future a Government may just give all the money to green non-governmental organisations, which will buy a large fleet of Land Rovers and employ a large army of regional officers to go around chivvying farmers to do things differently. That is not our intention at all.
We have been very clear that we envisage a future where there will be an environmental land management contract principally with the farmer or the landowner. There is a very important reason for that. We cannot deliver any of the public good benefits unless the landowner or the occupier of the land—the tenant—are fully on board and fully signed up to do so. That is why virtually every one of the paragraphs of clause 1(1) refer to the farmland or the farmed environment and managing land in such a way as to promote the environment. To do that, the landowner or the tenant has to be the main recipient of that funding and the person with whom we have the contractual arrangement.
What we do not want to do is rule out the scope for there to be, for instance, some lower level facilitation work to get regional level co-ordination, which a group such as the RSPB or the Wildlife Trusts might engage with. There could be a role to design schemes to have some facilitation funding, as we do now under the EU schemes, for some of those third-sector organisations. In some national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, we might find that there is a collective body that could do that in partnership with farmers.
While we cannot accept this particular amendment, I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. With the policy papers that we have launched, I can reassure him that we absolutely intend that it will be farmers, landowners and tenants who receive the lion’s share of these funds. They might choose to subcontract certain responsibilities and tasks to third-sector organisations, but if we want to ensure that there is delivery, our relationship must be with that landowner or land occupier.
Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Goodwill
I oppose amendment 72, not because I am against enhancing soil health in our country, but because I believe the amendment would act against some of our other objectives. As a farmer I manage soil, and as part of my agriculture degree I spent a year studying soil science. Although it is easy to define animal health—it is the absence of disease, or a state in which production from the animal is maximised—it is much more difficult to define soil health. As an intensive arable farmer, I know that the healthiest soil is the most productive soil. Therefore, levels of nutrients—nitrogen phosphate, potash and sulphur—should be optimised to produce optimal soil health. but we need other elements within the soil as well. The cation-exchange capacity must be optimised through the use of lime and other soil treatments so those nutrients are available. The soil also needs to have the correct flocculation status, so that nutrients and roots can travel through it and drainage is optimised.
It is easy to define what productive, healthy soil is, but for some of the objectives in the Bill we need less than optimal soil health status. For example, all farmers agree that the most optimal way to enhance soil health is to have drainage schemes in place, but we have other agri-environmental schemes to try to prevent flooding, such as flood plains and areas of reed beds. Innovative schemes are happening on the North Yorkshire moors above Pickering, where the soil health is not optimised because that land is flooded deliberately to enable the delivery of those schemes.
Similarly, the North Yorkshire moors are a valuable habitat. The land is moor land because the soil is particularly acid and the soil health is bad—bad for growing most things apart from heather. Measures that could be put in place to enhance soil health there could actually act against enhancing that particular environment. We need to look at how we help farmers to manage their farms across the board. Some of their land may well be managed in a way that optimises soil health and production, but elsewhere soil health should deliberately not be enhanced, to allow certain species and habitats to develop precisely because that soil is flooded, acidified or not optimised for production.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I observe that the amendment asks that health soil be included in a list of things to which the Secretary of State “may” give financial assistance, not “must”. The right hon. Gentleman would not need to worry so much if he accepted the amendment.
Mr Goodwill
Yes, but we have recorded that it is the policy of the hon. Lady’s party to put “must” in the Bill, which will no doubt be introduced in the Lords.
Mr Goodwill
The point I am trying to make is that it is very difficult to define enhanced soil health. Unlike animal health, where it is very easy to see whether an animal is healthy or not, there are a number of objectives, for example, looking at organic matter in the soil and the use of slurries.
Although many would wish to take measures to improve the organic matter in soils, there are downsides, particularly looking at nitrates. The Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, looked at nitrates in water and soils. Many of the problems with high levels of nitrates, which can lead to eutrophication in watercourses and the sea, in some cases, are due to high nutrient and nitrate levels being applied to the soil, which can be associated with organic fertilisers. My view is that this is an unnecessary amendment.
Soil health is best left to farmers. If we can create the situation where farmers manage their farms correctly, they will enhance soil health in those areas where they wish to maximise production but they might deliberately degrade soil health in order to encourage species that thrive in waterlogged, acidic and other soils. Although I can understand the motives behind the amendment, I do not believe it would achieve the intended objectives.
Jenny Chapman
I am not completely convinced by the Minister’s response. Mitigating is about lessening the impact of climate change. It is not about preventing it. We are trying to reduce emissions and the impact on climate change of agriculture and horticulture. They are different things. It is not true that the only difference is the length of the sentence.
George Eustice
On the terminology, we are not talking about mitigating the consequences of climate change. The subsection is very clearly about mitigating climate change itself. Any action that is taken to reduce carbon emissions and the emission of other greenhouse gases—ammonia is a very important one in agriculture—would be mitigating climate change. The subsection also includes the phrase “adapting to climate change” in recognition of the fact that, as Gilles Deprez pointed out in the evidence session, we are already living with the consequences. For instance, we recognise that we tend to have more floods, so we may need schemes to manage the implications of that. “Mitigating climate change” means what it says. It can include any actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Jenny Chapman
That is not right. Mitigating does not mean that. It means to lessen the severity or the impact of something. What the Minister is doing in the clause is very different to what we seek to achieve. The definition of “mitigating” matters.