Agriculture Bill (Second sitting)

Colin Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Q This a very straightforward question, but I am not sure you are the person to comment on it. Do you think in this primary legislation an opportunity could be taken to resolve the red meat levy discrepancy between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England?

Andrew Clark: For fear of breaking into devolved discussions, I suspect that the Agriculture Bill is not the right place. I suspect that the reform of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 that set up the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board in the first place, might be the appropriate place. Whether legislation is the way to sort that out or having the parties sit round the table and come to agreement, it is part of a wider issue, which again is perhaps not covered in the Agriculture Bill as much as it should be.

Scotland is absent, as we know, from the schedules, which from a UK farming perspective is concerning. We would like to see a common framework in agreed areas across the whole country, because that benefits every farm business and allows the free flow of goods and services and agricultural activity across the whole UK economic area.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

Q World Trade Organisation rules have come up as a potential concern—that could constrain payments such as less favoured areas or coupled support. It has been said that the Secretary of State could potentially limit devolved Administrations or even England. In earlier evidence, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that WTO concerns were a red herring. Is it a concern you share, considering that we have an aggregate measure of support in the amber box? Are you concerned about the WTO being an issue?

Andrew Clark: There is clearly an obligation on the UK to be a responsible party to the WTO. However, the measures that have taken place that can influence that compliance and participation are devolved to individual parts of the UK and the Governments there. I think that devolution should be respected, but the Governments in each part of the UK need to come together, compare and agree an approach that works for every part of the UK.

We are concerned that, although there might be no intention at the present moment for some of these powers that are granted under the Agriculture Bill to be used by Ministers, this Bill could last 40 years. It could be another decades-long power. Those powers could be used very differently by different Administrations in future. In terms of the WTO obligations and powers, we are not sure how those powers might be used in future.

It is clear that we need to get some more clarity about the powers. That applies not just to the WTO provisions but to many other powers. I think the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee counted 26 new powers granted to Ministers across the Agriculture Bill. We need to have clarification about how those powers are going to be used, in order to have the full sight of Parliament and stakeholders such as the NFU on those detailed concerns.

[Colin Clark]

Q To follow up, as the amber box is as much as £3 billion, it would be highly unlikely unless an entire payment were to go into the amber part of the WTO, where that could be a concern. It is hypothetical as opposed to realistically going to arise, isn’t it?

Andrew Clark: At present, it is hypothetical, but the point I am trying to make is that there is delegated ability to take action in each part of the UK. There needs to be agreement about how that is played out in a mature and professional way. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it is impossible. Clearly, £3 billion spent on an amber box in one country is impossible. We do not know what the total budget would be either. There are a number of factors around there that are still uncertain. What we would like to see is agreement between the devolved parts of the UK and Westminster about how that is taken forward and how those powers are deployed.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Q I note your contention that there is not enough focus on food production in the Bill. Would you agree with me that there is also not enough focus on the delivery of safe and healthy food? Would you support a duty on the Secretary of State to support the development of local supply chains and other measures in order to ensure delivery of safe and healthy food?

Andrew Clark: I am not sure I would go as far as a duty, but that is the sort of thing the NFU would like to include in the policy measures that are available and follow from that. Certainly, one of the objectives of food security could be strengthening and building local supply chains, both to private citizens and to the public sector as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q The number of cases has risen significantly, which is why it has been reported. Do you have a feeling as to why that is?

Dr Fenwick: No, but the detection, containment and restrictions on most farms are testament to the fact that we have a very good system of detecting problems and clamping down on them when they do occur. Going back to your initial question, the concern would be if we opened the floodgates to places where their standards fall well below those that are a legal requirement here, then we open the floodgates to far worse problems than we would ever see in the UK.

[Colin Clark]

Q I am a little bit concerned. We share similar issues in Scotland, where we have a lot of upland farms. If tree planting was too generous, we could lose a lot of upland farms. Also, the measurement of carbon sequestration for grassland and the sheep eating it is a very different thing to measure compared with trees. Are you worried that if the policy is too generous, we could lose land to trees and never get it back? What would you like to see in the Bill? Is there some sort of balancing priority that gives equal status in your mind to food and farming?

Dr Fenwick: I referred earlier to the biggest changes since the Agriculture Act 1947. Those changes are the fact that we are moving away from what we currently have, which is an active farmer rule. Notwithstanding all the different changes that have happened since we went into the EU and moved away from the Agriculture Act and had various different CAP reforms, we have still ended up with an active farmer rule that is underpinned by the principles that were originally in the 1947 Act, were later incorporated into the treaty of Rome and are now in the Lisbon treaty. Those principles are about ensuring that active farmers receive the bulk of payments, which can then be distributed through rural supply chains and more widely.

We are moving from that system to what the Welsh consultation calls an “open to all” approach, under which someone who lives in London and fancies buying a bit of land in Wales to plant trees can claim money for doing so, while making no contribution to the local economy, the local schools or the local community. We saw the same thing happen in a different way, which we hope will not be repeated, when vast areas of Wales were bought up by private forestry back in the ’70s. We also saw it when entire communities, including schools, chapels and hundreds of farms, had their land planted up by the Forestry Commission. That is an acute concern.

Europe is tightening up its active farmer criteria to prevent people outside the industry from accessing money, because it recognises the key part that farms play in distributing money in rural economies. I am afraid to say that it looks as if we are moving in exactly the opposite direction.

John Davies: It is a very fair question. A simple, one-dimensional answer is that, yes, planting trees can mitigate the carbon challenges, but I think we need to be seen as part of the solution. There are many things we can do to improve our carbon footprint, and we are up for engaging with that challenge. In the past year or so, at home we have planted 10,000 trees in corridors for protecting hedges and the like, and it has worked really well.

I farm in partnership with the environment. It is an indivisible part of my business, so it is not a binary choice. My wish, my desire and my raison d’être is to hand on my business in a healthier state than I received it. That is no criticism of past generations; it is just the challenge that we face. We have the opportunity to be carbon free by 2050. We need to ensure that all of those mitigation choices are utilised, rather than taking simple, one-dimensional options.

[Colin Clark]

Q Do you feel that food and farming have the right balance in the Bill? Is that what you are concerned about?

John Davies: We need more balance. We need more recognition of the challenges we face, and we need carbon mitigation to be given more of an opportunity.

[The Chair]

Have you anything to add, Mr Thomas?

Huw Thomas: No.