Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
David Drew
Main Page: David Drew (Labour (Co-op) - Stroud)Department Debates - View all David Drew's debates with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting)
David Drew Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock
Like previous amendments, amendment 67 is about tidying up the Bill to respect the devolution settlements. It is about allowing Scottish Ministers to exercise powers that are already within their purview. Amendment 68 would remove what I describe as the overseer powers of the Secretary of State in respect of devolved powers by taking away the role of final arbiter and encouraging instead an environment in which consensus and agreement become the norm, rather than a veto.
Similarly, amendment 69 would remove a provision in the Bill that gives the Secretary of State power over the devolved Administrations that is not necessary. Although I can predict that the Minister will argue that there is a need for information to be provided to demonstrate compliance with World Trade Organisation rules, I contend that his assumption is not correct. Again, we return to the issue of respect for the devolved Administrations and the desirability of finding consensus and moving forward together. Removing subsection (6) would facilitate that and remove the impression that the Secretary of State wants to gather power to himself, rather than seeking agreement.
I have sympathy with the amendments suggested by other Opposition Members and the way in which they are trying to secure the future of the devolved settlements. I urge the Minister to consider how he can best do the same.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
We are all glad to be back in our places in Committee. This has been a fairly momentous day so far.
I wish to speak to amendment 119, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower wishes to speak to amendment 96. I do not want to delay the Committee too much; I just want to make some observations. I concur with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has just said, and she might want to look at our proposal, because it incorporates everything, including Wales and Northern Ireland.
The point about this line of amendments is one that we have discussed before. We are trying to make the point that, when carrying through the WTO arrangements, we have to ensure that we fully consult the different territorial Administrations—in this case, Scotland, but also Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let me explain why we have tabled amendment 119. As I have said before, I visited Northern Ireland and Ireland last week, and the situation is clear. I will not say that completely different agricultural systems are evolving, but there is some difference between them. We have to recognise that. It will be something that we need to be aware of whenever we talk to the WTO if and when we leave the European Union—it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has something to say on that, because clearly it is not a given.
We will have to apply to the WTO. Currently, we are part of the EU, so we will have to apply to the WTO in our own right. That will involve making sure that all four territorial Administrations are included in whatever appeal we make to the WTO, so in amendment 119 we are paying due regard to the devolution settlements. The situation is made more difficult, as I have said before, because there is no Administration in Belfast. We have to rely on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to take the appropriate measures on the say-so of the UK Government, but not necessarily to be completely dictated to by the UK Government.
I hope that the Minister can allay our fears that this will be a bit of a dictatorial measure if it is not amended. That is why we have tabled amendment 119. If the devolution settlements mean what they should—of course, agriculture, in this case, is a devolved matter—we have to be clear, however we subsequently work towards our own independent application to the WTO, that agriculture, which is a crucial part of any WTO arrangement, is included.
The WTO agreement is quite interesting. I hope that if I say a few things about it now, we will not have to do so again when debating clause stand part. Agriculture and horticulture are crucial parts of the WTO agreement. That means that we need to take cognisance of this, as clause 26 does, but in a way that gives due regard to the different territorial Administrations, as these amendments do.
The whole point of the WTO is to shut down agricultural loopholes,
“by binding and reducing tariffs, removing import bans or restrictions, and cutting subsidies that distort trade, both in domestic markets and on exports. As such, ‘Country Schedules’ of market access and national treatment commitments for products form an important legally binding component of WTO Membership.”
That is the specificity of the WTO agreement regarding agriculture. I could say more about how it affects agricultural trade, how it shapes agriculture policy, what the future direction of travel is and what it means for the United Kingdom, but I want to concentrate on the post-Brexit situation when we will be making this application. That is why these amendments are important. We have to ensure that all four countries are on the same page when we make that application. One of the underlying principles of the WTO is that members must not discriminate against one another. One would think that that immediately comes between the United Kingdom and other parties, but it would not be very helpful if we had discrimination within the United Kingdom, so it is quite important that we understand this in terms of the whole arrangement.
I raise that because the Minister rightly brought forward—at quite a late stage—the English votes for English laws arrangements, which lay down where the Bill affects England specifically. It is a pretty arcane document, which the Minister may wish to speak about. I will not spend hours trying to explain what the different bits mean, because I am not sure that I understand what the different bits mean. As we have tried to argue, however, this Bill has a major impact on England, much more than on the other Administrations. Wales is following England in due course. Scotland does not have a schedule. From my intimation, Northern Ireland is doing its own thing at the moment and will do so until it gets an Administration. That matters because we have to be sure that on the one hand England is not adversely affected by what is happening elsewhere, because that would look strange when we make the application to the WTO, and on the other hand that the other Administrations know that they must not discriminate against England, and they must be included in any negotiations, consultations and discussions on how we move this particular clause forward.
This clause is important. It is a part of the Bill that looks forward. It is not something we have done before, because the WTO did not exist when we entered the then European Community—the Common Market. This is a very different set of circumstances. I ask the Minister to allay some of our fears. First, will there be proper consultation, including with all the different Administrations, or with the appropriate actors if there is not an Administration, as in the case of Belfast? Secondly, to do a wee bit of pleading on behalf of England, will he make sure that England does not make all the ground running, or all the sacrifices, because we have not sorted out our own arrangements within the four countries?
The worst possible thing would be if the WTO sits on the application, leaving us in limbo land. None of us can pre-empt what will happen when we make that application. It may go through like night follows day, or it may be quite a difficult operation. Today is particularly apposite in regard to that, because we have a Bill, a discussion or a deal—whatever Members want to call it; I am not sure what form it will take when we get to the meaningful vote—that has really brought home to some Opposition Members, if not Government Members, how we have to nail this down carefully.
I hope that the Minister listens and understands why we feel so strongly about this, and why we need to get this right. I hope that he looks at these amendments—particularly amendment 119, in my name and that of other hon. Friends—because otherwise we could open up a very difficult scenario when we make that application.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 96, which seeks to ensure that nothing in clause 26 affects the devolution agreements in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is our responsibility to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards for agriculture in Wales and the other devolved nations. That is important, as the farming unions in Wales do not support the centralising approach that has been proposed. We cannot support any situation in which artificial and arbitrary limits can be placed on what devolved Governments can do.
I recently met my local farmers and our Assembly Member, Rebecca Evans. These farmers were young, dynamic and successful, working hard and planning how their farming businesses can be more profitable and resilient when they do not know what is around the corner. Not knowing what is happening in the light of Brexit makes that planning practically impossible. That is why they need the security and protection of such the amendment.
Those farmers have a great fear of the limbo that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud spoke about. We need to ensure that this is not a power grab. No express agriculture reservations should be carved out for DEFRA Ministers without their engaging first with Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. Any agreement must be made by common consent, not imposition.
This is a probing amendment. However, I look to the Minister to protect the devolution settlements, even more so in the current climate.
George Eustice
Agriculture is devolved; we do not dispute that. That is why there are schedules for some parts of the UK that have asked us to do that, and it is open to other devolved Administrations, including Scotland, to bring forward their own domestic legislation on agriculture. However, demonstrating compliance with an international obligation through the WTO is a reserved matter. We do not dispute at all that agriculture is devolved—that premise runs right through the core of this Bill—but this is about demonstrating compliance with an international obligation.
Turning to the point that the hon. Member for East Lothian made about whether we could have a better way, as I said, we do not have a federal model. This system is one that we use a lot, through things such as the joint ministerial committees. Next month, hopefully, I will go the December council to discuss fisheries. When I do that, Ministers from all the devolved Administrations will join me in the trilateral with the EU presidency and the Commission. We work through our differences and work together on particular issues, but in the final analysis if there is a dispute about a priority or we have to make a judgment call about whether to support a final agreement, it is for the UK to make that final decision. That is right because it is an international negotiation.
Amendment 119 would make a similar provision on defending the devolved settlement. As I said, we are clear that the powers we outline in clause 26(1) are fully reserved—they do not encroach on any of the devolution settlement at all. Therefore, there is no need to restate some of these matters.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked what will happen when we lay our WTO schedule. We have already laid our proposals for that. We have been in a long discussion with the European Union. The plan is to split the WTO schedule both on tariff rate quotas and on the aggregate measurement of support—the so-called amber box. It has already been decided that it will be split using a method based on historical use or an appropriate allocation of the size of our agriculture. That schedule has already been logged with the WTO in draft form. We are currently going through what are called article 28 discussions with some countries about certain issues they have raised. The process is clear: the amber box—the AMS schedule—is split and, as I said, we get around £3.5 billion of that. We are already going through the process of laying that, with the agreement of the EU.
Dr Drew
I must dredge my memory to recall what the different coloured boxes are. What the Minister has said is fine, as long as there is agreement in the four territorial Administrations on what the Westminster Government intend to offer them. What happens if there is no agreement? Will they make representations, perhaps directly to the WTO, to say that the allocation is unfair?
George Eustice
It would not be their position to make a representation to the WTO, because it is a UK schedule. As I said, in clause 26(2) we set out a process for agreeing an allocation of the amber box—the aggregate measurement of support—and we set out a disputes process. On classification, there is also some confusion, and we will come on to bits of that later. A lot of the support, such as the coupled support that takes place in Scotland, is not even amber box; it currently comes under what is called blue box, which is a departure from the traffic light analogy.
In WTO rules there is a red box, which means that something is banned and cannot be used at all; a green box, which is for the agri-environment-type schemes; an amber box, which is for anything that might be trade-distorting; and, finally, blue box, for anything that may have some trade impact, but that is not the primary objective, and that does not distort in a large way. Scotland’s coupled support on beef and sheep currently fits within blue box, so it does not even use up any of the amber box allocation. The types of support that use up amber box allocations might be some of the intervention powers, particularly market intervention, which involve buying up surplus products and placing them in storage. That type of intervention is what we mean by amber box.
Some of the concerns that NFU Scotland has expressed are partly founded on a misconception about where its current coupled support schemes sit in the WTO schedules.
Deidre Brock
I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but I will press the amendment to a vote. We feel strongly that the matter requires the Scottish Parliament’s consent. It concerns the implementation of international obligations that are devolved. Ultimately, the Minister has described a situation where there is not agreement, but an imposition of the Secretary of State’s views whenever there is a dispute—and with the best will in the world, such things happen. I would like to see a mature approach, which is how the Scottish Trade Minister described the Canadian solution for its trade dealings with its territories and provinces yesterday in the Scottish Affairs Committee. That is what we should strive for, rather than looking to change a system.
Clause 26 contains provisions that affect the Executive confidence of Scottish Ministers as regards the exercise of functions concerning agricultural support in Scotland. We acknowledge that for some elements of the WTO obligations, decisions need to be taken for the whole UK, but that does not suddenly convert this into a reserved policy area, which is what I think the clause does. Establishing the UK-wide arrangements for allocating the financial ceilings under the WTO agreement concerns devolved matters and certainly requires the Scottish Parliament’s consent. I repeat that, although such decisions could be taken on a UK-wide basis, that should be done only on the basis of consent, as per the allocation of competences implicit in the Scotland Act 1998. I will press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 121, in clause 26, page 21, line 25, after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) In setting limits for domestic support, the Secretary of State must not set limits for different classes of domestic support in relation to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.”
In order to preserve the principle that agriculture is a devolved matter, these amendments would ensure that the Secretary of State may not make regulations setting limits for different classes of domestic support in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Dr Drew
Amendment 120, in which we seek a more definite requirement of the Minister, follows on directly from the previous amendment. It effectively recognises, given that agriculture is a devolved matter—not a reserved one—in the devolution settlement, that the Secretary of State should not have the power to set different limits for different classes of domestic support.
Amendment 121 seeks to preserve the devolution settlement and respect the fact that agriculture is a devolved matter. It would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that set different levels for different classes of domestic support for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—that is important. We are disappointed to have lost the previous vote, but we will continue to make the point that in order for the Bill not to be England only, it must take account of the other three territorial Administrations.
The Scottish Government have already suggested that a future Secretary of State could put a constraint on their funding, in particular for issues such as the less favoured area support scheme, which, it might be decided, the Scottish Government are using in an uncompetitive way. That has been picked up by the National Farmers Union Scotland, which sought legal opinion on the issue. It suggested that the wording in the Bill creates the theoretical possibility that a UK Secretary of State could, in the future, put regulations in place over and above its obligations as per article 6 of the WTO agreement on agriculture, which is causing consternation north of the border. Without asking the Minister for a legal opinion, I would be interested—and it is important—at least to get the Minister’s understanding, given the consternation already being caused north of the border, of how, if we do not accept the amendments, the possible imposition could occur.
If the provision goes through as currently drafted, Scottish Ministers will not have the freedom to apply domestic support as they see fit, particularly given that, as the Minister has said, the United Kingdom is the competent authority to apply to the WTO. Presumably, once the matter has been placed before the WTO, the amounts that each Administration could spend on its agriculture would be laid down—not just identified but laid down as tablets of stone. It would be difficult to change.
It would be interesting to know how things stand under the devolution settlement in that regard. If and when we get to Brexit, and when the WTO application with its agricultural implications is put in, the debate about the effect on the devolution settlement will be interesting. We have grave fears about the UK Secretary of State being given the power to decide what moneys will be spent and how. It could be decided that certain measures were unfair to England or to another territorial area.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland believes that a dangerous precedent would be set, and that it would be different from what was understood under the devolution settlement; it would compromise it, and put financial ceilings on the money that could be allocated to agriculture. That is why we have tabled the amendment, and why we consider the issue to be an important one, which the Minister must address on behalf of the Government.
Clearly, there could be further investigation on Report, in relation to the amendment. Perhaps the issue is one of those where we might—I shall say it quietly—look for a statutory instrument to clarify what happens. However, something has to be done to give the other territorial Administrations security, and certainty that they will not face the imposition I have set out. The Minister talked about the different boxes and gave a good history lesson on what they all mean, but what I am talking about matters, because the flexibility of each Administration will be constrained by the application to the WTO and the way the Government interpret that.
We happen to agree with the National Farmers Union of Scotland that what is proposed would undermine the devolution settlement, which is why I am happy to be speaking to amendments 120 and 121. We would have dealt with the matter more comprehensively in the form of new clause 13 but sadly, for reasons known to the powers that be, it was not selected and we have had to table the amendments. I accept that the change under the amendments would be quite minor.
We should like a wider debate, perhaps, on more of a wholesale improvement to the Bill, to go through how we would approach the question. That matters because we are not many months away from the Brexit settlement; if it is at the end of March—and who knows the day?—we will have to be quick. The Minister said we have already made an application, but we shall have to substantiate the allocation quickly.
I hope that the Minister will consider the issue and agree that we have a point. I know that he cannot give a legal response, but perhaps he will at least give us some assurance that he has listened and can act on the matter in view of the effect that there might otherwise be on the three other territorial Administrations and, indeed, England, which could be suitably constrained if we had some form of devolution in England—perhaps one day we shall. We can but dream. The reality is that we need to know such things before the Bill passes into statute.
George Eustice
These are interesting amendments. It is more around the interpretation of the clause, and I want to reassure hon. Members that there is not some secret plan to start setting limits where they are not appropriate. The real purpose of subsection (4)(b) is to enable us to set limits in future: it is really a future-proofing clause. If at some point in the future the WTO placed limits on blue box or green box, on which there are no limits now, it would enable us to set limits for those other classes in that future scenario.
To be clear about the definitions here, when we talk about classes of support, we do not mean a particular type of coupled payment or a severely disadvantaged payment. We actually mean blue box, amber box or green box. We mean classes of support in the context of the WTO definitions of classes of support. We are not in the business of saying people cannot have that headage payment or this headage payment. We are simply saying that we could set limits on those other classes should, at a future date, the WTO rules evolve to the point that they have those.
I hope I have reassured the Committee that there is nothing beyond that. To be clear, if we were to set a limit on the use of blue box at the moment, using the power in subsection (4)(b), that would be illegal, because it would breach subsection (1), which is absolutely clear on the purpose. The purpose is for
“securing compliance…with the Agreement on Agriculture.”
If there is no limit on blue box spending in the agreement on agriculture—and there is not at the moment—then there would be no limit on the amount of blue box that a devolved Administration could spend and there would be no way, even using that clause, for the UK Government to place such an arbitrary limit that went above and beyond the agreement on agriculture. I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Stroud of our intention. This is largely a technical, future-proofing clause to take account of the fact that there may be an evolution in WTO rules.
As the hon. Gentleman was talking, I looked at subsection (9) to see whether there was clarity about the definition. Before Report, I will look at whether it might be appropriate in that subsection, which is around definitions, to be clearer about what we mean by “class of support”. We define what “domestic support” means, but “class of support” could be misinterpreted. I will talk to our lawyers and parliamentary counsel on that technical matter to see whether there is a need for that clarity to be given and come back to the House on that matter on Report. I hope, having made that offer, the hon. Gentleman might not press these two amendments.
Dr Drew
I suppose half a loaf is better than none, given that we are talking about food. I welcome that latter compromise. It is good to know that the Government are willing to compromise where we think an improvement could be made.
I am a wee bit worried about the way that the devolution settlements are going to be somewhat altered, in terms of the way in which the WTO application will need to be visited quite carefully. Who can tell what the future will bring in terms of the box arrangements, whether it is the blue, amber, green or red box? The problem with it is that, in a sense, we can only pass legislation today but the Minister is trying to pre-empt what might happen in the future. I am worried about this and I urge him, having offered us half a loaf, at least to look at whether we can define this in terms of what the devolution settlements say. I think there is the possibility, as the NFUS says, of some future dispute if the territorial Administrations decide on different levels of spending on their agriculture. Clearly, they cannot be outwith any WTO arrangement, because they will be subject to the penalty clauses that the WTO brings forward in due course. However, we know that takes years, so a difficult situation may arise whereby we have tension between the different Administrations with responsibility for agriculture yet we are trying to devise a settlement that fixes amounts for them all.
I will not press amendments 120 or 121 to a vote. We think we have got somewhere on amendment 121—the Minister will look at subsection (9) to see whether classes of support can be better defined, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of that. However, I urge him to look at how the arrangement will work and at least take cognisance of the legal judgment that the NFUS received, because this is an area of possible conflict. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 69, in clause 26, page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (6).—(Deidre Brock.)
This amendment would remove the requirement to provide information to the Secretary of State.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
George Eustice
We have discussed this issue in detail, so I do not intend to say much. Clause 26 is all about the UK Government’s being able to fulfil our obligations under international law—to demonstrate compliance with WTO rules and demonstrate that we abide by the limits set out in our WTO schedule. I shall not repeat our detailed debate on the amendments.
Dr Drew
I do not intend to delay the Committee for long, either, but the clause is important and detailed. I accept that the Minister is prepared to make improvements to subsection (9), which we welcome.
Again, the clause in a sense pre-empts what may happen after March. It is important that we know what elephant traps there may be if we do not get this right. We have concentrated on the impact on the territorial Administrations, but there is a wider impact. The Minister may choose to intervene to give us some idea of the timescale of the WTO application. Understandably, the Government have already put in a draft schedule, but it would be interesting to know for what period we will be without any protection. We will be outside the EU, although we will be in a transitionary period—presumably that transitionary arrangement will cover us. It would be interesting to know whether we have got to have the WTO application accepted when the transitional arrangement with the EU comes to an end. The Minister might care to intervene on me to tell me that, because I personally do not know—[Interruption.] Or not, as the case may be. I will leave that as a question for some future date.
It is important that we know what that arrangement is, because we could be outwith any protection. Food is a pretty important area, and all sorts of substandard food could come in—dare I say it?—legally, so we want protection. The Minister has heard that and perhaps needs to think about it a bit. We need to know the timescales; otherwise we will return to this issue on Report with an amendment to ask the Government to explain what the timescales could be, and what happens if we do not get them right.
George Eustice
As I said earlier, we have already got an agreement with the EU—we have been working with it for well over 12 months—on splitting the EU schedule. There will be a UK schedule setting out all our agricultural tariff rate quotas—TRQs—and our share of the amber box. That has already been laid with the WTO and is now going through what is called an article 28 process, in which there are technical-level discussions with other members of the WTO who might have questions. Once it is laid, it is laid, and it does not have to be certified to take effect. Whether or not it is certified and agreed by every member of the WTO is largely inconsequential. It is the schedule that we will work to from the end of March 2019 in the event of a no-deal Brexit. If there is an agreement and an implementation period, we would continue to work within the EU framework.
George Eustice
Yes, of course. The WTO is not a supranational institution like the EU, in which there are infraction proceedings; it is a dispute-resolution process, and is often used by certain countries to try to secure advantages. Typically, when the EU has an accession country coming in—when we have had EU enlargements—the amended schedule that it tables can sit unagreed and uncertified for about a decade, but it is still worked to. The WTO works at an even slower pace than the European Union, but because it is a looser framework—effectively, a dispute-resolution process—there is plenty of latitude for us to lay our schedule and work towards it for as many years as it takes before people finally sign it off and agree it.
Dr Drew
I thank the Minister for that; that is very useful. It is just a strange world if we have already had a complaint before we have joined. They are getting their retaliation in first. These issues matter. Sheep will be an important variable if we leave the EU the way we could do, because we would be subject to the end of New Zealand’s quota arrangement. Australia, in particular, will want to send a lot more sheep into this country, because it thinks it can do it cheaper and better. That has a huge implication for Wales and Northern Ireland, although perhaps less so for Scotland. These issues matter, and we need to know what the full implications are.
I do not have anything more to add, other than—dare I say it?—caveat emptor. We need to be aware that what is potentially coming is quite complicated, and that we have got to keep lots of balls in the air, particularly for the devolved Administrations, which could lose out if we are not careful in how we draft the completed application to the WTO.
Deidre Brock
We are not happy with the clause. It gives the Secretary of State powers over the devolved Administrations that are not necessary or appropriate. It allows him to be the final arbiter in future disputes about the nature of domestic support. As I have said before, this is about respect for the devolved Administrations, which I find sadly lacking in this clause. I urge the Minister to revisit it, and we will be re-examining it on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
This set of amendments, like previous ones, is largely about correcting drafting errors or making technical changes to reflect issues that we identified throughout the passage of the main part of the Bill.
Amendments 29 and 30 provide DAERA with powers to modify voluntary redistributive payments and areas of natural constraint payments, neither of which are currently made in Northern Ireland. Amendments 31, 32 and 38 define retained direct EU legislation related to the coupled support scheme and provide the option to continue and simplify or improve that scheme. That scheme is also not currently used in Northern Ireland, but the amendments ensure that a future Minister is not restricted on their choice of policy scheme.
Amendment 35 makes it clear that changes to basic payments—to improve or simplify—can include the continuation of taking steps towards reaching a flat rate of payment. Amendment 37 ensures that DAERA can continue direct payments after 2020 by enabling it to set ceilings after that scheme year. Amendment 36 allows DAERA to reduce the direct payments ceiling by up to 15% for Northern Ireland in 2020. Northern Ireland at the moment does not modulate at all between pillars 1 and 2.
All those amendments have been requested by DAERA because many of the policies are not ones that are used now—they are options in the CAP that have not been taken up under the Northern Ireland schemes. DAERA believes the powers to be permissive and that it is important for it to retain the option should a new Northern Ireland Administration be formed and decide that they want to take up those options. This is a sensible set of amendments to ensure that a future Administration in Northern Ireland will have the powers to pursue their policy choices.
Dr Drew
I will speak to the amendments, although my comments will relate more directly to schedule 4 generally. I might as well put the two together.
I do not have any particular problems with the Government amendments as such. They are just tidying-up amendments. However, as I have on previous occasions, I will raise at least an amber flag—we are still on boxes—about the situation in Northern Ireland. There are two aspects. First, Northern Ireland has no Administration, so the schedule has been agreed not with elected politicians but with DAERA itself—the officials. That might be because we have to face up to the fact that there is no Administration, but that poses the question of what will happen if and when there is an Administration. They will inevitably want to revisit the schedule, because they will want some political input.
Secondly, Northern Ireland is clearly different. This morning, people have spent rather a long time trying to prove the point that Northern Ireland is different—it has our one land border with an EU country, the Republic. Therefore, whatever we do in the Agriculture Bill is contingent on what that relationship entails. I have talked before about Baileys liqueur. The milk used in it crosses the border seven times. Joe Healy, the president of the Irish Farmers’ Association, kindly told me that interesting fact—it is good for pub quizzes. There are all manner of other movements, such as southern pigs being slaughtered in northern abattoirs, or northern lambs being slaughtered and sold in the south. Such movements of animals and goods are integral to the way in which trade across the whole of that island has evolved since the Good Friday peace agreement, and given that we are both members of the EU and so have not had any borders.
I know—as the Minister will no doubt confirm—that there are absolutely no plans at all to put in a physical border. That is the reality of the situation. If there are to be such plans, they will have to made very quickly, because DAERA has confirmed that it has no plans to put in a physical border. The best that it could come up with at this short notice is more inspections, wherever they might take place.
I am asking the Minister what clarity there is about passing a schedule that has no political input because, sadly, there is no Administration in Belfast. What are the safeguards regarding whatever comes out of today’s EU agreement? Many of us would actually describe it as a non-agreement, because it is highly unlikely that this House will agree to the Prime Minister’s proposals—but that is speculation and for the future. More particularly, we must look at how to address the possibility of no agreement or an agreement that threatens the current freedom of movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
George Eustice
We already have an organisation called the UK co-ordinating body, which is hosted by the Rural Payments Agency and works in collaboration with all the devolved Administrations on auditing and accounting issues under those EU schemes. We envisage that a body such as that would continue anyway, but there are already established principles in place within the UK civil service. It is important to recognise that, while we have different devolved Administrations, we have one civil service for the entire UK; civil servants working in the Scottish Government are as likely to get a transfer to work in a Whitehall Department as anywhere else. We have a single civil service, which is important to give some cohesion to our system.
I conclude by saying that this is an important schedule to include. In my view, DAERA has taken the correct approach of ensuring that it can continue to make payments to its farmers, while putting some powers in place for a future Administration. The answer to the shadow Minister’s question is that, when there is another Administration, if they have bolder ambitions to change and transform their policy in the way we have outlined in clause 1 and that Wales has chosen to adopt on an interim basis, it will be open to them to introduce legislation through the Northern Ireland Assembly to give effect to their specific proposals.
Dr Drew
The Minister has been very candid there in saying that, effectively, Northern Ireland stays as it is at the moment. That would be fine if we knew an Administration were coming in before the transition arrangements for our own relationship with the EU come to an end, but potentially—in the worst-case scenario—there will be no Administration in Belfast for a considerable period. That would mean the agricultural system staying in place for as long as there was no Administration. We have, as I have always feared, an increasing focus on England as the basis of this Bill. Scotland does not have a schedule and will do its own thing; Wales will follow England, but may choose to do so in quite a slow manner; and Northern Ireland will stay the same until politicians decide to pick up the mantle again.
While the direction of travel toward environmental support is quite right, it is a bit worrying as we have a single market within the United Kingdom: if we are subsidising sheep farmers in Northern Ireland by direct payments, sheep farmers in Cumbria, who will not be receiving that support, will begin to worry. I know the argument is that they can pick up support.
George Eustice
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but he has to understand a number of points here. First, the basic payment scheme single farm payment is already de-linked from production. Nobody has to produce anything on the land to qualify for that payment. It is a de-linked payment—a subsidy for owning or controlling land.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that in our provisions for England we have set out a transition period that will run for seven years and it is our intention gradually to phase down the direct payments. That will not be an overnight change, but a gradual divergence. I hope that at some point within that seven-year transition period we will at least see a new Administration in Northern Ireland, because in the absence of such an Administration we will have many more problems besides the fact that they have not been able to update their agricultural policy.
Finally, in the context of Northern Ireland specifically, it might well be the case that a future Administration choose to keep a closer eye than will other parts of the UK on future policy in the Republic of Ireland through the common agricultural policy, for the very reasons the hon. Gentleman pointed out: Northern Ireland shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland and there is a lot of transfer of goods across that border. Therefore, ensuring that there is some recognition of the type of farm support in the Irish Republic is more important for farmers in Northern Ireland than for those in other parts of the UK.
Dr Drew
Again, I find that very instructive, and I do not disagree with anything the Minister says, but this is more and more a curate’s egg. The problem is that we are dependent upon an Administration being in place—at some time—who will follow where we are going in England; otherwise, there will be issues of conflict.
The Minister is right that payment is de-linked, but not to the extent that farmers in Northern Ireland will receive basic payments for whatever we choose, or whatever they choose, or whatever DAERA chooses, or whether that is—in a sense—a form of direct rule. We could impose them, but that would go back to the fact that, effectively, there was an imposition on a part of the United Kingdom by the UK Government into a territorial Administration. It opens up a whole can of worms in that respect.
Dr Drew
I am tired, Mr Wilson, but I will not make a habit of it. I want to make a brief point that will no doubt be picked up in the other place. The clause contains a Henry VIII power, of which there are a number in the Bill, as the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee clearly pointed out.
We will not oppose the clause, but it puts the onus on and gives enormous opportunities to whichever Government choose to use it to make subsequent changes to the legislation. Given that we are coming to the end of the part of the Bill that lays down that legislation, we have concerns about the number of Henry VIII clauses that the Government could bring into play. That will not necessarily be this Government; it could be a subsequent Government.
The Lords, which I am sure will look at this in great detail, might cast some aspersions about the degree to which the Government have tried to get away with giving future Administrations a real opportunity to make dramatic changes using secondary legislation. Those changes should really require primary legislation, which is what we are here to administer, encourage and scrutinise. It should be clear that primary legislation in areas as important as agriculture should be the dominant driver for whatever changes we make. The Minister may care to defend the number of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill.
Mr Dunne
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not just about farm improvements, of course; it is about the rotational nature of farming. Arable farming relies on an assumption of continued occupation for a period of years, in order to adopt an appropriate rotational pattern for the use of the land over a number of years. For all those reasons, it is entirely appropriate that the Government should consider a multi-annual scheme.
Perhaps I may refer to some of the external support that I have received for the amendment, which I am sure other members of the Committee have seen as well. I am sure that it is no coincidence that during the passage of the Bill we have had the benefit of presentations elsewhere on the parliamentary estate from a large number of groups interested in agriculture, and in what happens in the environment on and around our farms. I am sure that many hon. Members will have gone to yesterday’s presentation by the wildlife trusts. There have been presentations in the past couple of weeks from Greener UK, an umbrella group of 14 organisations, all of which are supportive, including the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and the Woodland Trust, which has also organised presentations in Parliament recently.
Also in Greener UK is the National Trust, which I visited on Friday in my constituency, and which is particularly concerned about some of the conservation measures it is introducing across its estate. I think it is the largest private sector landowner in the country, with something like 1,800 tenant farmers operating around the UK. While on the subject of the National Trust, I commend to the Minister the Stepping Stones project, in which it seeks to link together landscapes across the Shropshire Hills area of outstanding natural beauty. As he has not visited my constituency to see that work in action, I am keen to invite him to do so, because the trust wants to bring forward an environmental land management scheme, and I was impressed by what I saw last Friday. It wants multi-annual arrangements, as do the other organisations, and I strongly encourage the Minister to recognise that that is how farming in this country functions, so it is appropriate at least to consider a scheme of that nature.
The amendment would also insert a provision about having a scheme in place at the outset, not as an afterthought during transition. Whenever we move from one scheme to another, things should be set out clearly in advance, to give farmers the confidence they need to undertake projects that, as I have explained, take several years, as well as confidence that they will be able to farm appropriately in the future.
Dr Drew
The amendment is similar to new clause 10, which we debated previously. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on tabling it. Finance is at the centre of the Bill. Unless we get some clarification, the Bill will not, despite all the powers in it and all the good intentions, really provide certainty and security—whether to farmers or environmental organisations, which all signed up to it.
We are dealing with pretty important stuff. Although there has been some variance between the farmers’ organisations and environmental organisations, they speak with one voice on the amendment, as they did on new clause 10. We pay attention or lose their valuable support, which is a shame, because the Bill has a degree of cross-organisational support and we have made it clear that there are good things in it, which we support. We are just carrying out our Opposition role of trying to improve it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow on the amendment. It is important that we have a further debate about it, and that we recognise that the money is crucial. Otherwise, the warm words will not satisfy those who feel strongly about what they will be expected to do when and if the Bill comes into force. It involves a huge cultural change in the way we support those who work on the land.
As the hon. Member for Ludlow rightly said, the proposal has received a wide range of support. I hope that that matters to the Government, and that the Minister will respond to it. It includes other things that we might want to do on the land, which is not necessarily what we have done in the past. For example, we could look at transport infrastructure or social housing, which may be a sequitur to the things we want to do to improve the environment. If people cannot live in the countryside, they cannot work in it and carry out the environmental improvements that we want. The Government have a whole raft of environmental schemes in mind, including planting woodland and alleviating flooding, but those who want to do it need to have some knowledge of the funding arrangements that will be in place. Unless that is done annually, we will not know how serious it is. We are saying that it could be done over a number of years. The Government need to report to Parliament, which means that there will be a public document showing exactly what money is being made available and what the restrictions are. We talked earlier about the devolution settlement. It is important that the Administrations outside England know exactly what moneys they will have and the purposes to which they can be put.
Greener UK pointed to the need for an independent assessor. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow does not do that, but Greener UK argues that it would be helpful to know the minimum and maximum amounts that might be forthcoming from the Government to do the sort of things that are necessary. The idea of multi-annual funding is that it allows the money to be vired from one year to another if it cannot be spent in the year originally intended.
I hope the Government see the benefit of the amendment. We will support it wholeheartedly. We see it not as a probing amendment, but as a very important part of the way in which the Government should be doing their business. It would mean that our countryside is healthier and funded more appropriately and transparently than would otherwise be the case.
In evidence to us, Andrew Clark made it very clear why the NFU supports the amendment. It sees it as part of the long-term commitment to allow farming to continue contracting around the environmental and land-management arrangements that the Government have in mind. He was clear about why we need the power to vire money between annual budgets. Knowing what those budgets are is absolutely crucial. The hon. Member for North Dorset, in cross-examining him, seemed quite sympathetic to that idea—as, indeed, is the hon. Member for Ludlow and, I hope, other Conservative Members.
Chris Davies
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, who is a joint signatory to the amendment. We both thank the Minister for supporting the amendment, discussing it with us and agreeing a way forward. This has been called for—not just by the farming unions, but by farmers themselves—for a very long time in Wales and, as we have just heard, in Scotland. I am sure that it is the same in England.
As somebody whose constituency is right on the border, I feel that what the Minister said is very appropriate. Sadly, so many slaughterhouses have closed that people cross borders with their stock. In Wales, we have lost a lot of revenue across Offa’s Dyke. Money has perhaps been spent not on Welsh land promotion, but on other things.
Opposition Members will certainly know how the meat levy is worked out: it is a jointly funded levy that is paid by both the producer and the slaughterer or exporter. Under Hybu Cig Cymru, the current price paid per head of cattle in Wales is £5.67. It is 83p per sheep, and £1.30 per pig. That may not sound like a great deal per item, but when one considers how many animals are slaughtered each year for consumption, both in this country and across the world, it adds up to a considerable amount of money that is sometimes not correctly spent on the area that the animals come from. This has been called for for a very long time, and I am delighted that the Government are supporting it under new clause 30.
Dr Drew
It is good to see how cross-party collaboration can have an impact. I congratulate Conservative Members on getting the Minister to move—it is important. I am not an expert on this part of the Bill; we do not have that much beef farming in my part of the world, but some dairy cows get slaughtered and it is important that we know the impact of the levy boards. I am interested in what happens in Northern Ireland, which is not part of the scheme. Can they be brought in?
I am interested to know to what extent the separate boards—the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Hybu Cig Cymru operating in Wales and Quality Meat Scotland—will maintain their independence, given that the Bill, which is primary legislation, is making a change to how the moneys will be devolved. It would be useful to know to what extent the different organisations will maintain complete independence or whether the administration of the funding will become more complex. I suppose the AHDB would take over all responsibility and devolve the moneys down to the different organisations.
It is good. This is what primary legislation is for: to improve what we have at the moment and do it differently and better. It is pleasing that it seems that all the farming organisations are in favour of the proposal, so I cannot see any reason why the Opposition would not be in favour of it. Again, I would like some clarity about exactly how the scheme operates at the moment and the changes that are, hopefully, going to make it better. We support what is proposed and hope that this good bit of the Bill will receive unanimous support at every level of debate, both in this place and the other place.
George Eustice
It is great to have an outbreak of consensus on this issue. I will address some of the points raised, first by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. New clause 30(2) addresses all her concerns because it makes provision in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) for:
“when a payment is to be made”,
so it is clear the scheme can design that;
“how a payment is to be made,”
and
“the duration of the scheme”.
We envisage that an assessment may be made of the type of animal movements, based on the cattle movement records, and then a scheme could be set that might run for a year, two years—a number of years—to reflect those cattle movements; and a scheme could be put in place that enabled the transfers. It is very clear that the scheme that would be designed would provide for those particular issues.
On the points that the shadow Minister made, the boards would retain their independence. This is where I take some issue with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. It has not taken 13 years to sort out. We must recognise what happened. The previous Labour Government, with very good intentions and at the request of the devolved Administrations, gave the devolved Administrations the power to collect their own levy, because that is what they said they wanted at the time. Two or three years after that, when a number of abattoirs in Wales and Scotland had closed, the industry there started to say, “This change now disadvantages us because we are not getting a fair share of the levy that is collected.”
To be fair to the previous Labour Administration and my predecessors from some years ago, they were reacting and responding to requests from the devolved Administrations at the time. For reasons of closures of abattoirs, that did not work out and this slight problem was left and has run for a number of years. We have consulted on a possible long-term solution through a different collection methodology, potentially to do with ear tags, but we concede that a fix of this sort, which would enable us legislatively to move money around with the agreement of all the relevant devolved Administrations, is the right power to put in place.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We will get active again now, having had a thorough but rapid run through some parts of the Bill. New clauses often deal not with what is going to be in the Bill but with what should be in it. We make no apology for saying that this should be a comprehensive Bill that looks at some of the big issues of our day.
There is nothing more important than the relationship between agriculture and our international obligations, so I make no apology for tabling new clause 8. Of course we want the Government to say that everything in the new clause will be in the forthcoming environment Bill—provided there is a Government and an environment Bill—but we thought we would test the water to see whether there were ways in which this Bill could at least take cognisance of those vital international obligations.
Let us look at our proposed changes, which are all vital in their own way. We are asking that the Bill take notice of what the different vital international obligations require us to do. In so doing, as subsection (3) says, there should be a duty to consult the relevant authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is important because it is putting some building around the scaffold, to use the analogy that has been applied to the Bill several times. The Bill is quite limited in what it seeks to do, so we are asking the Minister to go further.
The new clause requires a report. It does not require huge changes in legislation, but some cohesion in the way in which the Government approach how they intend to use the Bill. I hope that it is not seen to be outwith what the Bill is about but that it is helpful, because it will allow the Secretary of State, or whoever is required to do it, to bring forward a report on how those international obligations are met through the Bill. At the moment, of course, we are part of the EU, so that will take place automatically through some of the ways in which the EU meets its international obligations, but we are presupposing that the UK will not be part of the EU. Brexit means that we need to put into domestic law what was previously implied through our membership of the European Union.
I will immediately sit down and not go any further if the Minister tells me that this will all be in the environment Bill, so the new clause is premature and the issue does not need to be spoken about at length now. Unless we get that assurance, however, we will press the new clause, because we think it is important to signal how British agriculture and the environmental support systems that we are putting in place will operate through the different international obligations to which we are party. If the Minister cannot confirm that, one wonders what we will do to meet our international obligations and targets in the future.
I will not go into any detail about the individual agreements, but clearly the Paris agreement is vital to our commitment to tackle climate change. We tried to get the Government to accept amendment 50, and if they had, the new clause would probably not have been necessary. Sadly, they did not listen to us and we lost the vote on that amendment. In moving this new clause, we make it clear that the Paris agreement is crucial in terms of how the Bill should meet that commitment.
We do not have a good story to tell. Agricultural emissions have flatlined in recent years—there has been no improvement—and we have a major problem with methane and carbon, so we have to do much more. The new clause implies that agriculture must do more, as the 2018 IPCC report said. It is not just that producers have to do more; we should lay down some clear guidelines for consumers about sustainable diets that include what we should eat rather than what we do eat. There should be guidelines about reducing food waste, soil sequestration, livestock and manure management, reducing deforestation, afforestation, reforestation and responsible sourcing. They are all part of what the IPCC is asking us to do.
In the new clause we are bringing forward an important piece of potential legislation—we would all sign up to sustainable development, but we want to do so in the Bill. We ask the Government to recognise that including those obligations is appropriate. If not, we want assurances from the Minister that the environment Bill will include them. If the Government intend to include those obligations in the environment Bill, let us put on record here that including them at this juncture, in the Agriculture Bill, is less important.
The Government need to recognise how important those different obligations are and explain how we are meeting them. I have only identified a small number, but those are, to my mind, the most relevant to agriculture, and the ones that really matter to ensure that our agriculture meets its international obligations. I hope that the Minister has listened to what I have said, because it is not just in the interests of people on this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East raised this matter in an earlier sitting of the Committee, and it is supported across the board by Greener UK, which feels strongly that we should be setting longer term objectives—that is why the new clause is popular. We hope that, in due course, it will stand part of the Bill, or that its aims will be clearly spelled out in future Government legislation—namely, the environment Bill.
We have read how the 25-year environment plan will contextualise what the Government intend to do and it contextualises the Bill. It would be good to hear what the Government and the Minister intend to do to ensure that those warm words are put into a statutory framework, so that we know exactly what the UK will do when—or if—it leaves the European Union, and know that we are signed up to a better environmental world and one that agriculture plays its part in creating.
George Eustice
The Government take our international obligations very seriously. The list of international conventions and forums to which we are a signatory is long. I will not fob the hon. Gentleman off by saying that the obligations will be included in the environment Bill. I can go one better: we already produce many reports under all of those conventions.
I have often said, in the context of calls for statutory requirements for consultations, that DEFRA loves consultations, so there is no need for a statutory requirement. I can also confirm that in my time as a Minister, I have discovered that DEFRA loves annual reports as well. Indeed, I often say to officials, “Am I the only one who reads this report?”. Given that the hon. Gentleman said that we should be publishing reports, he clearly does not read some of those that already get published, so I will cover some of them now.
There are already reporting requirements under decision 24/CP.19 and decision 2/CP.17 of the UN framework convention on climate change; under article 26 of the convention on biological diversity; under article 33 of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety; and under article 8, paragraphs 6 to 8, of the convention on international trade in endangered species. Under the Paris agreement and the Climate Change Act 2008, an annual statement of emissions is provided to Parliament. Every five years we provide a similar statement to Parliament stating the final performance under a given carbon budget.
George Eustice
The hon. Lady makes a legitimate point. That is one example where there is not a requirement within the convention or commitment to publish, but we pick up those obligations through the departmental plans.
The other area that we do not currently have a specific provision for is the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. I can tell the hon. Member for Stroud that the Fisheries Bill commits us in clause 1—I will not go too far down this point, because it is a separate Bill, which we have to look forward to—to a whole set of sustainability objectives and a joint fisheries statement to outline how we will deliver those objectives. The environmental objectives under UNCLOS will be picked up through the provisions in the forthcoming Fisheries Bill.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take these conventions seriously, that we already have a multitude of requirements to report through articles within the conventions themselves and, therefore, that the new clause is unnecessary.
Dr Drew
I thank the Minister for giving us a long list by way of explanation. This was more of a probing amendment, but we want to put it on the record that one of the difficulties with legislation is the degree to which it needs to be bound into other legislation. I think that this proposal is probably more appropriate for the environment Bill, but again, we need to put it on the record that the Government should be saying how they will meet their international obligations, not only through reports, but through the way in which they meet those obligations, which can then be manifest in the reports.
Sadly, the IPCC stated categorically—and I was there when Lord Deben, who was John Gummer, told me and a very big audience—that agriculture emissions were flatlining. Something somewhere is going wrong. International obligations are not being met; there should be a decrease. As it is, the only sector where there has been a significant decrease in the use of carbon is energy. Manufacturing, agriculture and the service economy are all flatlining. They are not reducing their dependence on carbon.
It is disappointing that we must bring the matter up, but bring it up we do. I shall accept what the Minister says at this stage, but I hope that he will listen to us and that when the environment Bill comes along there will be a clause on agriculture. In the 25-year environment plan there are quite a number of references to agriculture, as is right and proper, given that it is the most important user of the landscape. We want joined-up thinking and joined-up action.
We also want to know that the Government are dealing with areas in which, so far, they do not have a good record—I mean not just the present Government but predecessor Governments. They have simply failed on emissions standards. The Climate Change Act was only passed in 2008, so that is an easy cop-out for the previous Labour Government, but the reality is that we have not met our international obligations on agricultural emissions. I hope that the Government will do something more—they have to.
From talking to various people in Northern Ireland, I gather there is a huge problem with methane there, partly because of the growth of factory farming. That may or may not be acceptable—certainly to me it is not, but to some people it is. The downside is that methane emissions are growing rapidly. The Republic admits that it has a problem, although less than the north. We must recognise that change in agricultural systems is not always good; there can be a downside for the environment.
I shall not press new clause 8 to a vote, Members will be pleased to hear, but I hope that the Government will consider what has been said in this mini-debate, and think about how to make sure there is a strong component in the forthcoming Bill to reflect the role of agriculture. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Reports on impact on consumers
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament reports on the impact of the provisions of this Act on—
(a) the availability in England of agricultural products produced within the United Kingdom,
(b) the cost to the consumer in England of agricultural products produced within the United Kingdom, and
(c) the health and welfare of consumers in England.
(2) The first report under subsection (1) shall be laid no later than 31 March 2020, and subsequent reports shall be laid no later than 31 March in each calendar year.
(3) “Agricultural product”, for the purposes of this section, means a product that falls within a sector listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1.’ —(Dr Drew.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the impact of the Bill’s provisions on food security, availability and affordability, and the impact on consumer health and welfare.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have done some good work today, Mr Wilson. The new clause deals with what we make no apology for saying is a deficiency in the Bill. It is more to do with the consumption of agricultural products than their production, but it is to do with affordability, accessibility and sustainability—or any more abilities that we might want to include. It came out of the oral evidence sessions, and in particular that in which Erik Millstone and Terry Marsden—if Tim Lang had been available, he would have been there as well—referred to the three pillars: ecological farming, environmental protection and the link to food security and through to public health. That should be the triad underwriting the whole Bill.
We have been critical of the fact that, even though we are considering a Bill on agriculture, food rarely gets a mention. Health has disappeared completely, although, as I have said on a number of occasions, the original consultation paper was called “Health and Harmony”. It is disappointing that health has played such a limited role in the way the Bill has been constructed.
Millstone and Marsden talked about the need for some vision for a post-EU food system. The vision should include a mix of ecosystems and social and public health challenges that we should meet, of which the central one is food security. I know that is an issue that seems to have disappeared from everyone’s radar—in the noughties it was the issue, and we got very worried, on the back of BSE, foot and mouth and some of the horrible avian diseases that came our way, about our lack of food security. We seem to have allowed it to disappear from our mind so we have not paid due account to where it should be in the Bill.
This is not just something for me to wax lyrical about. There is huge support from the public, and they want leadership on food security. The public want to know that they have safe, secure and, dare I say, good food, produced with the highest animal welfare standards while meeting all the environmental protection legislation that we should be meeting as part of the EU. There seems to be a view that it will all be right when we leave at the end of March, but if we could secure some of the issues through legislation—presupposing the Bill gets through the House of Lords—we would not have to worry. The obligations would have to be met if they were in statute.
This is an important new clause and one for which I hope to achieve a degree of support across the Committee. Green and farmers organisations talked a lot, both in the oral evidence sessions and especially in written evidence, about the availability of food, who should have access to it and the need to recognise food poverty. We were disappointed that new clause 1 was not selected, because it would have provided an interesting debate on food poverty and who has access to good-quality, affordable food. If we cannot address that in an agriculture Bill, where can we do it? The Government should have started with a food strategy. It would have been sensible to move from that food strategy to the Agriculture Bill. The legislation would follow what we wanted to do with food, crucial as it is. Sadly, that has not transpired, so we have to do it this way.
The new clause is not particularly onerous. It does not ask the Government to do anything other than to report, but report they should, so that we know that we are moving in the right direction. The Bill is all about environmental standards and about changing the nature of the payment system—public money for public goods. Nothing could be more fundamental than deciding on what food is produced and for whom, on whether they can afford it, and on whether it can be distributed more efficiently.
I do not want to say much more at this stage. It is important for us to have a debate on the issue and to have some clarity on the Government’s thinking. If we had had a food strategy plan, as we have the environment 25-year plan, we would not have had to suggest an amendment to the Bill at this stage of its consideration. I hope the Government will at least recognise why we tabled our new clause. This is widely popular with not just the organisations but the public, who expect us to be doing such things. I hope that the Government will accept the change.
On affordability, dare I say it, even the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has said that food supply and food security have been “taken for granted”, that that “needs to be highlighted” and that it is a lot “about home production”. If he says that, let us put it into the Bill so that we can show that what is widely accepted across the House is something on which we are prepared to legislate.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman highlights some important issues with the new clause but, as with new clause 8, I want to take this opportunity to explain to him the number of reports that we already produce. As I said earlier, DEFRA loves reports, and already collects a significant amount of information that is relevant to the availability of food and agricultural products.
For instance, our “Agriculture in the United Kingdom” report covers details of production volumes, production-to-supply ratios, and the origins of domestic consumption. The “Food Statistics Pocketbook” covers the economic, social and environmental aspects of the food that we eat; the data specifically track the origins of the food consumed in the UK. Regarding the cost of home-produced agricultural products, our family food survey has been running for over 75 years. It produces annual estimates of purchases by people in the UK and tracks food prices in the UK in real terms, including for products such as dairy, fruit, vegetables and meat. In addition, the FSA runs a survey on people’s food experiences, in particular whether they are finding it difficult to afford food.
Separately, we assess consumer attitudes to British food. For example, when surveyed, 60% of shoppers agree that they try to buy British food whenever they can. Next, we have DEFRA’s UK food security assessment, which is a regular assessment that takes place roughly every four to five years. It also analyses all aspects of food security, including production-to-supply ratios, resilience in the supply chain, affordability issues and consumer confidence.
It would be difficult to measure the specific impact of agriculture policy on the health and welfare of consumers, because many different factors drive people’s health outcomes and their relationship with food. However, other Departments already address that area. For instance, we already report on the overall health and welfare of consumers through Public Health England’s national diet and nutrition survey and the reports of its Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. There is a plethora of existing reports, published predominantly by DEFRA but also by Public Health England, addressing all of the issues identified in the proposed new clause.
However, I understand that the sentiment underlying the proposed new clause, and the reports that the hon. Member for Stroud is requesting, is that there is not enough about food in the Bill. We have heard representations of a similar nature from Conservative Members, and as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, similar representations were also made on Second Reading. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are giving a bit of thought to how we might address that concern during later stages of the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members who feel that there is not enough about food in the Bill—even though, as I have stated many times, I disagree—will welcome the fact that we have taken note of some of the points that have been raised.
Dr Drew
Progress! We are being listened to. I welcome what the Minister has said. Again, this is not something that we have just cooked up—excuse the pun. [Interruption.] I have to keep Members awake somehow. Food is pretty important to an agriculture Bill. I do not know whether the Minister wants to tell me how he will address this concern; I hope it is on Report, not in the House of Lords, because it drives me mad when the Lords get all the credit for these wonderful improvements, even though we have worked blooming hard on the Committee. We get turned over regularly, and the Lords get a wonderful improvement in how food is dealt with in the wording of the Bill. It is important that we persuade people that, through the Bill, there has been a change for the better. If food is in the Bill, the Opposition will be much happier—and I will just hint to the Minister that we would like a bit of a mention of health as well. The link between the nature of the production process and food and health is so important.
I was going to press the proposed new clause to a vote, but the Minister has completely dumbfounded me by saying that the Government are going to listen to what the Opposition have been saying for the past couple of weeks. I will not press it to a vote now, but I genuinely hope that the Minister will bring something forward on Report so that we can get some credit, and we will then work with the Government to make sure that the Bill goes through more successfully than it otherwise would have. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Iain Stewart.)