Agriculture Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Theresa Villiers)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill will introduce the first major reform of agriculture policy in this country for half a century. Now that we have left the European Union, we are determined to do things differently and to pursue the priorities of the people of this great nation. That means strengthening the Union of our United Kingdom by levelling up opportunity, to unlock our country’s potential. As we commence consideration of this landmark Bill, I want to highlight the huge contribution that farmers make to our society by putting food on our plates and conserving the natural landscapes that we all value so much. This Bill will provide our farmers and land managers with a chance to play a fundamental role in tackling the greatest environmental challenges of our time: protecting nature and tackling catastrophic climate change.

Brexit means that we can finally leave the common agricultural policy, to build a brighter, better, greener future for British farming. With its exasperating rigidities, complexities and perversities, the CAP is a bad deal for farmers, a bad deal for landscapes and wildlife, and a poor return on public investment for the taxpayer. We can do so much better.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I hope very much that we will be able to do better. The Secretary of State talks about looking after our farmers and higher standards, but will she guarantee that those higher standards will not be undercut by cheaper imports that do not meet those standards? If they are, we will not be doing our farmers any favours at all and will simply be outsourcing lower standards. Can she guarantee a legal commitment that no imports will undermine those standards that we will have in our country?

[Theresa Villiers]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that our manifesto is very clear on this. We will maintain our high standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection. It is there in our manifesto, and we will defend that line in our trade negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). One thing on which we can certainly agree is the wisdom of George Monbiot. I hope we will have many other opportunities to quote from his copious writings and agree with one another in the forthcoming months and years.

I welcome some improvements made in this Bill compared with the earlier version, but I want to set out where it still is not going far enough if the Government are serious about climate and nature. First, it is good to see stronger protections for farmers from unfair trading practices. Having previously tabled an amendment to bring the whole of the supply chain within the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and, indeed, any new regulator, I can say that is a step in the right direction. It would be better still if the Bill placed a proper duty on the Secretary of State to act rather than simply conferring powers to do so, and I personally cannot see the case against turning many “mays” into “musts” throughout this clause and indeed throughout this Bill. I am sure that others will applaud the excellent work of the Sustain alliance, but all eyes will be on the detail, delivery and, crucially, enforcement.

Secondly, the inclusion of soil in the public goods in part 1 is another welcome move. However, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee that conducted a whole inquiry into soil health, it is disappointing to see so many of these recommendations still not acted on given the overwhelming importance of soil carbon storage. For example, the Committee called for rules with greater scope, force and ambition to deliver restoration and improvement of soil, so why have the Government still not banned practices that do unforgivable harm to soils, such as burning on blanket bogs or the use of peat in compost. With organic farms supporting healthier soils with 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon and 50% more wildlife, why does this Bill not seek a major expansion of organic farming? Furthermore, if the objective is to have healthy living soils for carbon storage, biodiversity and fertility then surely we prioritise policies that minimise inputs that exterminate that precious biological life, yet there is nothing in this Bill to phase out pesticides either.

That illustrates a wider point—the gaping hole in the Bill is on the crucial role of regulation, not just on pesticides but to drive innovation and to deliver environmental, public health and animal welfare goals.

The third positive is the new mention of agroecology in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has championed that as chair of the all-party group on agroecology, but I suspect that she would share my mixed feelings. Although agroecology is recognised in the Bill, it is in a bizarrely minor way. In clause 1(5), the Bill states that

“‘better understanding of the environment’”—

one of the purposes for which the Secretary of State may give assistance—

“includes better understanding of agroecology”.

That seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what agroecology is and what a wholesale shift to agroecological farming should deliver for nature, climate, public health and farmers. It should not be consigned to a legislative footnote—it should be at the very heart of the Bill and the Government’s wider farming policy.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give the House guidance on what she thinks about meat eating and what sort of scale of meat eating is reasonable, given her environmental objectives?

[Caroline Lucas]

I support the better eating campaign that suggests that overall in this country we should seek to reduce meat eating by about 50%, but in that shift to plant-based diets we want to eat less but better meat. In other words, we still want to support our farmers. Crucially, they need to be supported during that transition. It is no good simply setting up new goalposts and not supporting farmers with finance, help and advice to enable them to make that transition.

Over the past 18 months, an incredibly strong case has been made for a 10-year transition to agroecology. I would like that vision to take shape as a green new deal for the food and farming sector. One example of the growing mountain of evidence that makes that case is the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, a major, two-year, independent inquiry that includes leading experts from industry and civil society, as well as inputs from farmers and growers across the UK. It includes abundant detail on how to make that transition, including a proposal that every farmer should have access to trusted, independent advice, including through farmer support networks and establishing a national agroecology development bank to accelerate a fair and sustainable transition. Crucially, the inquiry found that

“most farmers agreed that they could make big changes to the way that they farm in five to ten years—with the right backing.”

It is that right backing that we have to make sure that the Bill provides.

Time is of the essence if we are to reverse the loss of biodiversity and meet climate goals. A goal of net zero by 2050 is in line with neither science nor equity, and climate delay is almost as bad as climate denial. The Bill needs more than one line on that topic, especially as that one line simply says that the Secretary of State “may”—not even must—give financial assistance for climate mitigation or adaptation.

The Bill desperately needs a link to carbon budgets, unambiguous duties to deliver, and the incorporation of Committee on Climate Change advice, in particular, strengthening the regulatory baseline. I hope that the Minister will explain precisely how the Government will deliver major emissions cuts during the seven-year transition period, not just afterwards.

On biodiversity, it is truly shocking that the Bill contains nothing really on pesticides. As a minimum, it should set bold, national targets to cut pesticide use and introduce regulations to protect the public from the hazardous health impacts of pesticide use near buildings and in public spaces. There was broad, cross-party support for my amendment on pesticides last time round, yet it is rumoured that DEFRA’s inadequate pesticide plans are being diluted even more as the Department caves in to agrochemical industry lobbying. Why do Ministers not listen instead to the 70 scientists who recently called for the phasing out of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers as an urgent, no-regrets action as part of a road map to insect recovery, designed to reverse the insect apocalypse?

What is DEFRA’s response to the letter from over 2,500 scientists across the EU that warns of the unequivocal scientific consensus on the intensification of agriculture and the ever-increasing loss of biodiversity that could soon become irreversible?

Another glaring omission is on trade. Many of us have raised it tonight, but the Bill needs a watertight requirement for all food imported into the UK to be produced to at least equivalent standards on animal welfare, pesticides, environmental protection and public health. It is simply unacceptable to ask our farmers to meet higher standards, then allow them to be undermined by cheap competition from countries that do not meet those standards. I refer the Minister to the amendment to the Trade Bill in the other place that sets out that argument clearly.

Finally, the Bill should be used to introduce new measures of success for our agriculture sector so that the payments for productivity in clause 2 do not undermine progress on biodiversity, climate and animal welfare. Just as there is growing consensus on the need to measure economic progress with indicators that incorporate ecological health and human wellbeing, which GDP fails to do spectacularly, so we must adopt new indicators for agriculture. The Bill should require the Secretary of State to begin that work to develop those new metrics, to steer us towards a truly sustainable future for food and farming, and they must include overseas as well as local impacts. Greenpeace research shows that UK chicken, for example, is contributing to deforestation due to the imported soya in its animal feed. We need to design new farm policy to deliver value, not volume; diversity, not monocultures; and people nourished per hectare, not tonnes of yield.

Agriculture Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

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

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to my amendments this afternoon, and to support several others.

My new clause 5 would help to rectify the absence of anything in the Bill to cut pesticide use. This is a really serious omission, given the harm that pesticides cause to insect life, including bees and pollinators, and to other wildlife, as well as the risks to human health. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to protect members of the public from the hazardous health impacts of pesticide use—for example, by specifying a minimum distance between where a pesticide is being applied and public or residential buildings. We do not need to look hard to find evidence of the so-called insect apocalypse, and the serious risks of pesticides to humans and nature. Recently, a call from more than 70 scientists urged the phase-out of pesticides as a “no regrets” immediate step, stating:

“There is now a strong scientific consensus that the decline of insects, other arthropods and biodiversity as a whole, is a very real and serious threat that society must urgently address.”

On human health, pesticide cocktails are of particular concern, as they can be far more harmful than individual pesticides, yet our own regulatory system only assesses the safety of one chemical at a time. There is also the exposure of rural residents to pesticides applied to nearby farmland. The lack of anything on pesticides in the Bill is even more disturbing given the Government’s dubious stance on the precautionary principle: refusing to transfer it fully into UK law and refusing to legislate against the risks of a US trade deal undermining it.

My amendment 42 is on the sustainability and resilience of agriculture more widely. It complements amendments 18 and 19 on agroecology tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which I strongly support. Amendment 42 would enable the Secretary of State to set and monitor progress towards targets for the uptake of integrated pest management based on agroecological practices, including organic farming. This would help to ensure that the catch-all clause on productivity payments does not undermine environmental objectives.

This week, a leaked copy of the EU 2030 biodiversity strategy revealed proposals for at least 25% of farmland to be organic, alongside a wider uptake of agroecological practices, a 50% reduction in pesticide use and cuts to mineral fertiliser use. On Second Reading, the then Secretary of State claimed that leaving the EU meant a greener future for British farming, where the UK would apparently do so much better for wildlife and the landscape. If that is to be reality and not just rhetoric, we need an Agriculture Bill that matches or goes further than the EU proposals on pesticides, agroecology and organic farming.

In response to covid-19, some argue that we should downplay nature and sustainability, and dial up food production. But that would risk doubling down on a food system that is contributing to what scientists last month called a

“perfect storm for the spillover of diseases from wildlife to people”.

One example is forest loss driven by rocketing demand for vast quantities of soya that is then fed to pigs and chickens, including in the UK. Agroecology is our route out of a dangerous dead-end debate that pitches food security, environmental protection and public health against each other. We can and must do much better than that.

Finally, my new clause 14 would go some way to fixing the Bill’s worrying lack of attention to the climate emergency. Having highlighted regulation as a gaping hole in the Bill on Second Reading, I strongly support new clause 8 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and am pleased that it includes specific provisions on climate. New clause 14 would complement that by setting a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture and land use in the UK by 2050 at the latest. That is much too late in my view, but I hope that the Government will pick this up. It would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish interim emission-reduction targets, as well as policies to ensure that those targets are met.

The Committee on Climate Change has said that “strengthening the regulatory baseline” is an essential step that the Government must urgently deploy to meet climate goals, so I hope the Government will support not just specific climate targets for agriculture, as new clause 14 proposes, but rigorous policies to meet them that place equal emphasis on biodiversity and public health. The climate emergency is just one reason why Ministers must say no to business as usual and yes to a resilient, re-localised and regenerative food and farming system. My amendments would go some way towards putting those things at the heart of the Bill.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I wish to speak against new clause 1. A real issue needs to be dealt with: the high levels of regulation imposed on UK farming can and do add to increased costs for UK farmers. High standards can be an advantage in two ways: first, in what they say about the United Kingdom and our attitudes to animal welfare; and secondly, when it comes to exporting, when we can show to those who want to buy British agricultural produce that it is produced to very high standards—that was a huge advantage to me on a number of occasions when I was Secretary of State for International Trade.

The best way to help our farmers is to have a proper cross-governmental strategy to improve UK farming exports. The proposed changes do not deal with that particular problem, but they do create a number of others. There are three main unintended consequences: the first is the damage to our reputation for observing international treaty law; the second is that the proposals would damage our ability to conclude our current free trade agreements, and potentially future ones; and the third is that they make a mockery of our current negotiating position with the European Union.

First, the new clause is not compatible with WTO rules. Food safety and related issues are anchored in WTO law. Only the slaughter of animals is covered as a welfare issue in the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. There is nothing that the Government will do to undermine food safety standards in this country, and to suggest otherwise is a complete red herring in this whole debate. It would be a fine start to Britain’s independent trade policy outside the European Union if we were to begin by finding ourselves in conflict with the very rules-based trading system that we believe to be necessary.

Secondly, the new clause would damage the chances of our completing our current free trade agreements. I can say from personal experience, in my discussions with the United States, that the US would walk were the proposals to become law in the United Kingdom, and it would be swiftly followed by others—the Australians, the New Zealanders and those involved in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership would be unlikely to take kindly to it. They do not want the incorporation of UK rules to become a prerequisite to trading agreements with the United Kingdom.

There is an additional problem: it is about not just our current FTAs but our ability to conclude future FTAs with developing countries, which simply cannot afford to have the same level of animal welfare standards as we enjoy in a country as wealthy as the United Kingdom. It would be a great pity if, after all the work we have done to promote development, we unintentionally undermined it by agreeing to this change.

Thirdly, the new clause makes a mockery of what we are doing in our negotiation with the European Union. We are currently telling the European Union that we cannot accept the introduction of rules made outside our own country as a precondition of trade with the European Union—the so-called level-playing-field approach—but that is exactly what the new clause would do in relation to everybody else. I can imagine nothing that would bring greater joy to the bureaucrats of Brussels than the UK scuppering its free trade agreement with the United States on the basis that we were insisting on a level-playing-field agreement that we have categorically ruled out in our dealings with the European Union.

I wish to go slightly beyond the content of the proposals to the wider consequences. I worry about what some of the proposed changes say about the signals we would send as a country and our approach to free trade in general. It is worth pointing out—because almost no one seems to have noticed—that global trading volumes went negative in the fourth quarter of 2019. Before covid, global trade was on a downturn, with inevitable long-term economic consequences. Since 2010, the world’s wealthiest economies—the G20—have increased and increased the number of non-tariff barriers to trade: in 2010, they were operating around 300; by 2015, they were operating around 1,200.

There is a bit of environmental law here, a bit of consumer protection here and a bit of producer protection elsewhere. It all adds up to a silting up of the global trading system. Why does that matter? It matters because it risks the progress we have made in the past generation of taking a billion people out of abject poverty through global free trade. It is not morally acceptable for those countries that have done very well out of global trade to turn to the others that are still developing and pull the ladder up in front of them. We have benefited from a global open trading system. It is not only economically sensible, but morally the right thing to do to ensure that that free trade continues.

Agriculture Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

If I may, I will make a tiny bit of progress, otherwise we really will be here for another 100 hours.

The purpose behind Lords amendment 1 is to demonstrate the connections between this Bill and the Environment Bill. I am pleased to say that these connections very much exist already. Environmental improvement plans will already definitely be taken into account when determining the strategic priorities that sit within the multi-annual financial assistance plans in clause 4.

It is lovely to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), in her place. She and I work very closely together. Ours is a very united Department, and we view farmers and environmentalists as often very much one and the same. Our future farming policies will be a key mechanism for delivering the goals set out in the 25-year environment plan, but we can take the steps we need to improve biodiversity only if the majority of farmers are firmly on side.

On Lords amendment 9, I would like to reassure the House that work is already taking place in this sphere. We have already commissioned an independent review of the food sector, led by Henry Dimbleby, and his interim report was released in July. We take his recommendations very seriously. We have made a firm commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of his final report, which is expected next spring. This could well lead to a report sooner than is actually proposed in the amendment.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Minister realise why some of us would be a little bit sceptical about her reassurances on timescales, given that the Environment Bill has gone missing for the last 200 days? Why should we believe her when she tells us that this is going to come forward shortly? Why not just accept this amendment? It is going in the same direction as she says she wants to go, so she should just accept it, and it would make it a lot easier.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am currently on amendment 9. I wonder if the hon. Lady was talking about the previous amendment; I am not sure. Nevertheless, I am delighted to say that enjoying at the moment I am what my predecessor referred to as my loaves and fishes week: I have agriculture today and fish tomorrow. I would say that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs legislation is very much front and centre in the business of the House this week. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is looking forward very keenly to bringing forward the Environment Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will have further news on that shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter for some time. He has heard what the Department for Education has to say about that. The scheme that I am discussing is the £63 million scheme, which of course did not go just to families with children, although they were heavily represented among the recipients of that scheme. We will pass on those comments and those of the Trussell Trust and, of course, the EFRA Committee when considering how we tackle food poverty directly over the course of this winter. We all know that this is going to be a difficult time for many.

Returning to the Bill, we already have powers in what was originally clause 17, which commits the Government to

“lay before Parliament a report containing an analysis of statistical data relating to food security”

in the UK. We listened to the concerns raised regarding the frequency of the food security report and, through Lords amendments 5 to 8, reduced the minimum frequency of reporting from five years to three years. Of course, we can still report more often than that, and in times of strain on food supply that might well be appropriate.

Turning to Lords amendment 11, I recognise the positive intentions behind the amendment, but I am afraid I take issue with the drafting. The Government are committed to reducing the risks from pesticide use. We have already tightened the standards for authorisation and withdrawn many pesticides from the organophosphate and carbamate classes. Integrated pest management will be a critical part of future farming policy. Under our existing legislation, the use of pesticides is allowed only where a scientific assessment shows that it will have no effect on human health, including that of vulnerable groups.

The amendment, although undoubtedly well intentioned, is far too broad. It extends to any pesticide and any building, and would include pesticides that are important for productivity but pose no danger whatsoever to health. Even worse, it also extends to any open space used for work, which on my reading would prohibit the use of pesticides in fields entirely. I encourage hon. Members to read the amendment carefully before supporting it.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister will know that Lords amendment 11 is based on one that I tabled, which the Lords supported. I think she misrepresents the amendment. It is perfectly clear that it would be possible for the Government to bring forward regulations to specify exactly the minimum distances. It is no coincidence that Lord Randall himself has said how important it is that this amendment is passed to protect human health. That is what we need to do. The Government could go away and design the regulations, but this is the overarching amendment to achieve that.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am afraid I do disagree with the hon. Lady’s reading of the amendment. My case would be that we already have regulation in place to protect human health from risks, including those in the vulnerable sectors of society, which I mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I have turned, I fear.

Amendment 17 is another well-intentioned amendment, but it would add an unnecessary layer of complication. The Secretary of State is already required to have regard to the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero under the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government have also introduced carbon budgets, which cap emissions over successive five-year periods. If we are to achieve the UK’s net zero target, emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors. Not setting sector-specific targets allows us to meet our climate change commitments in the best and speediest way. Agriculture has an important role to play in reducing emissions, but we must recognise that planting trees and restoring peatland will take a very long time—probably not my lifetime—to deliver the best results.

We will continue to work closely on that issue with the NFU and others, including the greenhouse gas action plan partners.

[Caroline Lucas]

Given that emissions from agriculture have not decreased—they have remained static for years—there is every good reason to focus on the role of agriculture in driving climate change. It is not just a question of planting trees, which, as the Minister says, takes a long time. She could start by not burning the peatlands, which is leading to more and more climate change right now. That is the kind of immediate measure that could be in the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am sorry if I did not explain myself clearly enough. Of course we are committed to reducing emissions from agriculture, which produces about 10% of emissions, as the hon. Lady knows. It is important to work on that. I commend the NFU, which has set an ambitious target for doing just that. Many measures will be set out in the Environment Bill, which will come before the House shortly. Of course, the Agriculture Bill will be a key part of delivering net zero, as our future farming schemes are a powerful vehicle for achieving that goal.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am the son of a Berwickshire farmer, and I am proud to represent one of the most fertile parts of rural Scotland. The food producers in my borders constituency are the best in the business; the quality of our produce is second to none. Others have spoken in this debate on both sides of the question, particularly around food standards, and they are all just as passionate about their own local areas.

What this debate has shown more than anything is the consensus that exists across the House, reflecting the views of people across the country, that our high UK standards of environmental protection and food production are the right ones and that they must be preserved. Where there is disagreement, it is about how we can best do that in the years ahead.

I understand why some hon. Members will support these amendments from the House of Lords, and I understand why a number of my constituents got in touch to ask me to do the same, but I will not, for three main reasons. First, I do not believe that they are in the best interests of farmers and producers in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. We are in this position because we have left the EU, and we will soon be outside the common agricultural policy and the common commercial policy. It is worth taking a moment to remember that these matters were settled when we were members of the EU. The EU did not, does not and will not ask its trade partners to adopt all its environmental and food standards, as the amendments would ask the UK to do in the years ahead. The trade deals we now enjoy, which we hope to roll over, were signed on that basis. Making the proposed changes would put the continuation of those trading relationships at risk.

Secondly, the amendments are not necessary. The law already forbids the things they seek to guard against. Chicken washed in chlorinated water is banned in the United Kingdom. Growth hormones in beef are banned. In the last few decades, it was the EU that signed trade deals, and this House had no role in agreeing them. In the future, the House will be a player in that process. The UK Government will conduct the trade negotiations, and this Parliament will scrutinise the Government and hold them to account. In the end, Parliament can block an international treaty if it so chooses.

Thirdly and finally, I fear that these amendments would be harmful to some of the world’s poorest people. Requiring every country we do a trade deal with to match all our rules would make it virtually impossible to reach agreements with developing countries. Those countries might lack the necessary bureaucratic infrastructure to meet all our reporting requirements, or the rules designed for a rainy island in the north Atlantic might just not be suitable for their climates.

I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone supporting these amendments; I simply disagree that the amendments represent the best way forward. They are not in the interests of food producers, they are not necessary to protect food standards and they would be bad for trade. Free and fair trade is what allows us to enjoy food and drink from around the world that our great-grandparents had never heard of. It allows our producers to sell their exceptional quality products globally. It is what is lifting the most vulnerable people in the world out of poverty. Trade is a force for good, and with the high standards that we set in law and the enhanced scrutiny that this House will provide for years to come, we have nothing to be afraid of.

[Caroline Lucas]

Until the last speech, I was going to say how lovely it was to feel a common view coming from the Government and Opposition Benches. Let me just say why I think the last speaker was wrong. He said that if we adopted Lords amendment 16, for example, we would be imposing standards on developing countries that they could not reach. In fact, the EU has all sorts of arrangements with poorer countries precisely to be able to support them in improving their standards. There is nothing here that would inflict inappropriate standards on some of the poorest countries. The hon. Gentleman also said that our standards are safe, but they are not safe if they are going to be undermined by cheaper imports that do not meet those same standards. That is tantamount to handing a knife to our farmers and asking them to cut their own throats. It is not a sensible strategy.

I want to speak to some of the amendments from the other place and particularly to Lords amendment 9, on the national food strategy. The amendment stipulates what that strategy should contain, including things such as the sustainability of food production and consumption, improving dietary health, reducing obesity, minimising food waste, ensuring that public procurement supports a shift towards sustainable farming, and so on. It is significant that cross-party support for the amendment in the other place was strong.

The letter the Minister sent to MPs last week explained that the Government object to amendment 9 because it would

“impose arbitrary timetable requirements for objectives the Government has already committed to fulfil”.

I hope she will forgive us, but we want to see that commitment in the Bill. We have seen already in the debate that we do not trust vague commitments, and certainly not vague commitments that do not even have a timetable to them, given that, as I said earlier, the Environment Bill is already 200 days late.

Lords amendment 11 is about protecting people from the adverse health impacts of pesticide use. It addresses what crop pesticides are currently permitted in the localities of homes and schools, as well as the exposures, the risks and the acute and chronic adverse health impacts for rural residents. It does not specify the distance required between pesticide use and nearby public space—that is for secondary legislation—but I can tell the Minister that we had a lot of support from the Clerks in both Houses in the drafting of the amendment, and we are convinced that it is an effective amendment to protect human health. It is very significant that Lord Randall, who is a former environment adviser to the former Prime Minister herself, has said how vital the amendment is.

Recent events have revealed that the precautionary principle is one of the most important scientific principles we have, and we should be implementing it here. It does not substitute for the overall shift that we need to see towards agro-ecology, but it would do something to protect rural residents who look out of their windows right now and see farmers in protective equipment in their tractor cabs, protected from the impacts of the crops they are spraying, while those rural residents have no protection whatever. We should be standing up for them and protecting them, and that is what the amendment would do.

The Lords amendment on the climate emergency is vital. It would require the Secretary of State to have regard not just to the UK’s net zero target of 2050, but to the Paris climate agreement and the critical importance of acting now to drive a steep reduction in emissions by 2030. Right now, the Government are showing their world-beating ability to set long-term targets on climate change at the same time as demonstrating a world-beating ability to utterly fail to accompany them with either the policies or the funding required to deliver them. That amendment would put that right.

Finally, as others have said, it was laid down in the Government’s manifesto that they would maintain standards, yet when they are put to the test, they fail again and again. Those standards should not be put on the altar of a trade deal with the US and sacrificed; they should be implemented. That is what the Government promised in their manifesto, and that is what they should deliver.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

After that rant, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I have to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), because I think he gave one of the most outstanding speeches I have heard in this House.

I start by drawing attention to my declaration of interest as a farmer. I have lived with this subject for some 67 years of my life—my father was a farmer. I have a passion for the countryside, I have a passion for British farmers producing high-quality goods, and I have a passion for British farmers managing the British countryside in the way that it is, and that is the way the public want to see it continue to be managed. The Bill gives us an ideal opportunity, through the way we are going to purchase public goods, to continue to raise the standards of British agriculture.

I have been in this House for 29 years. I have not seen a single free trade agreement negotiated by the EU that has damaged British farming standards, and I do not believe that will happen in the future. I have listened to every word that my hon. Friend the Minister has correctly said from the Front Bench. What we do not want to do is jeopardise the 29 or so roll-over free trade agreements from the EU by passing legislation in this House tonight that would do such a thing.

While being passionate about maintaining high standards, I do not think that Lords amendments 12 and 16 are the way to do it. The way to do it, as was so rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, is through variable tariffs that make clear to our trading partners that if they do not adhere to our high standards, we will raise the tariffs on their goods. That is the way to do it.

The second way to do it is to beef up the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government can do that unilaterally without any legislation. They can simply renew the term of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I urge her to have serious talks with the Department for International Trade to see whether that can be done. It does not need to be put in the Bill. We do not need amendments to the Bill. We might need to look at it in the Trade Bill if the Government are not sympathetic to my arguments, but that is a different matter for a different day, and I might well support amendments of that sort if I do not see progress.

There are lots of things I do welcome in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister has been right to mention them, particularly Government amendment 2, which relates to multi-annual assistance plans for farmers. That is absolutely vital for how we will support our farmers in the 21st century. We want them to be producing more of the food that our British consumers eat. While I have been in this House, I have seen more and more goods imported into this country, whereas if our farmers could start to produce more, all those imports—things such as yoghurt and cheese—could be replaced with goods produced in this country. If we keep up our high standards, we will continue to export more and more to other countries. Recently, we have seen our pork and milk powder go to China and my excellent Cotswold lambs go to France. There is a huge opportunity around the world if we keep our standards up. That is the way we need to go: not dumbing everything down, but keeping standards up.

I am delighted that some of my ideas on food security are in amendments 5 and 6 and will be included in the Bill. That is important and gives our farmers the stimulus to produce more of the high-quality food we want to eat. One thing that the coronavirus lockdown taught us was that the supermarkets, such as Waitrose and even Lidl, that went out of their way to promote British food did best and are now prospering in a way that they had not previously.

The Government should not accept amendments 12 and 16, but they should act through tariffs.