Agriculture Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
David Drew Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
There is a lot of work to do. There are 92 different statutory instruments that we have had to put down in preparation for Brexit. Each of the devolved Administrations have had to do a large number of SIs themselves, and there has been an enormous amount of joint working at official level to share clauses and the legal drafting that our own parliamentary counsel has done, with the assistance of other devolved officials. We also now have 54 different Brexit projects, all of them about areas where we effectively have to either agree joint approaches or concordats, or agree that we will leave things fully devolved.
There is a large number of those projects. We discussed them yesterday. About one third of them are rated as being in the green box—everything has to be red, amber or green these days—recognising that there is already an agreement about how to proceed. On a number of others, more discussions are still needed, but that was highlighted yesterday. In the month ahead, there will be a lot of detailed working between officials.
I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Ceredigion that, through both the review of the JMC and putting the group that the Welsh Government proposed yesterday on a more formal footing, together with our plan for concordats and memorandums of understanding, we will address his concern, and that on that basis he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
We think there is considerable merit in this new clause, and we hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will think hard before he gives away too much to the Government. The reality is that there is a need for a framework; if we are not careful, we will effectively have four different systems of agriculture developing, and I do not think we are very careful. I have waxed lyrical already about the problems in Northern Ireland, which have become more acute after yesterday. The Democratic Unionist party has already told me that it is not necessarily going to follow this particular bit of legislation—at the moment, it is not even going to follow this Government, so watch this space.
We must be very careful that there is some degree of co-ordination—dare I say it, a single market—within the United Kingdom, let alone a relationship with the Republic of Ireland, which is crucial for them but also important for us. We think the hon. Gentleman’s new clause deserves debate, and maybe more than debate. We must secure this agreement. It is interesting that the Fisheries Bill provides powers for Welsh Ministers, Northern Ireland Departments and Scottish Ministers in a more formal sense, yet this Agriculture Bill does not. Why not? I ask the Minister that—he can intervene, or sum up accordingly.
This is not just about farming. The new clause is strongly supported by Greener UK, which feels strongly that there is a real need for cross-border co-operation and collaboration to deliver on the environmental protection improvements that the Bill is all about. The Opposition advocated that during debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, because we feel strongly that there is a need to at least keep the four countries together in terms of the different provision. Unless that is done by consensus, it will have to be done by imposition; consensus is by far the better way.
The specific requirements set out in new clause 11 would provide those legislative safeguards. Otherwise, there is nothing in the Bill to make the issue something substantive—rather, it is just on a wing and a prayer: one of the criticisms we have advanced throughout this Committee. I hear what the Minister says about how the different conventions apply with regard to meetings with the other three countries. This is very much an England-only Bill, so of course the Government can say warm words and make gestures, but those will not necessarily be tied in by the Bill.
On the need for environmental collaboration, Greener UK’s view is that the new clause is important, because those environmental considerations do not respect national borders. Unless we do similar things—we will not do the same thing, but we might do similar things—agriculture will be not just devolved but different in each of the four countries, as I have said.
Jenny Chapman
What my hon. Friend is saying is important, especially when we think about the proposed backstop arrangements for Northern Ireland, which could lead to significant divergence in standards and regulations between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK over time.
Dr Drew
That is true. Northern Ireland is the most acute case, because it has a land border with another country. The two countries have to have some sort of similar agricultural system because farmers farm on both sides and environmentalists want to see what is happening. While I was in Belfast, I talked to Friends of the Earth, which identified a serious and growing methane problem because of what has happened to farming in the north. I also talked to various parties in the south, which identified a similar problem. That indicates how much we need a common framework.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that different schemes already operate in the four different parts of the UK? There is already plenty of co-operation on agriculture and the environment, so I do not think that that sort of UK-wide framework is required at this point.
Deidre Brock
That is the point of devolution—that the different parts of the UK can do things differently according to their conditions and needs.
Dr Drew
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but for a farmer farming on the Scottish or the Welsh borders, of which we have some constituency examples here, that is not good news. They need to know that there is some certainty in the systems—not to put a straitjacket on what happens in those devolved parts of the UK, but because unless we are careful, we will end up with a hotch-potch of different systems.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Is there not another danger? If there is no framework for dealing with differences or for helping the Scottish and Welsh Administrations to create systems that work for their farmers, large supermarket chains, which often determine the conditions under which farmers can produce, might use those differences to undercut farmers trying to do the right thing.
Dr Drew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—of course they will. There is a real danger that something akin to turf wars will develop. This is not just hypothetical; it is about the need for common frameworks because of issues such as soil erosion and water management. We have to have cognisance of the fact that border areas need to take account of one another and of what is happening. Otherwise, we will end up with a race to the bottom, which we all want to avoid.
Another issue that has not been raised yet is the way that we will meet our international obligations post Brexit. As much as we have devolved Administrations, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith rightly says, we have signed up to many international conventions as the United Kingdom. We need some method. I hear what the Minister says about how regularly Ministers meet from the four Administrations—well, three; I do not know whether officials from Northern Ireland were there—
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman is right to say we have international commitments, not the least of which, relevant to agriculture, is to the World Trade Organisation. I was somewhat surprised, therefore, that he decided not to vote with us on establishing the clauses that would enable us to deliver those commitments.
George Eustice
And we did, but I suppose the point I am making is that there are elements of the Bill that enable us to deliver the UK’s international commitments.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I wanted to intervene on fisheries, and he is right that there are two areas in the Fisheries Bill where provision is made for joint working, but the difference with that Bill, which we will have time to debate in the future, is that it is very much to do with international negotiations. That is why we have committed to having a joint fisheries statement. It is all about international environmental commitments that are UK-wide. Secondly, there is provision for joined-up thinking when it comes to joint licensing, which, again, relates to an international agreement. We see agriculture policy as slightly different. There needs to be more scope for the devolved Administrations to do what works for their own landscape.
Dr Drew
I thank the Minister for that, and it is a perfectly valid case to make. That would be fine if we did not have a common border with another country that is going to remain in the EU. I do not quite understand. Although the seas are different in the sense that, yes, of course, there is a question of international access across all our waters, we have the same issue, whether we call it the backstop or just the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We have to face up to it and look at some commonality, which is best achieved by common frameworks.
Deidre Brock
Does the hon. Gentleman accept the Scottish Government’s point that the implementation of international obligations in devolved policy areas such as agriculture is in fact a devolved matter?
Dr Drew
That is the whole point. It is a devolved matter, but it is a question of whether, as I have said, there is some degree of agreement on how to take things forward. What we are considering is just a framework, not something that will demand that different parts of the UK follow exactly what other parts will do. The reality is that they will not. We know that. In farming policy, the word “policy” is important, because legislation is one thing, but the underlying policy equally needs to be scrutinised, which we have not really been able to do. We had a rushed series of evidence sittings, and the Government’s policy paper is, at best, fairly sketchy. We shall be looking at that.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion said he wanted to probe the question, and I hope that he will consider going further, having heard what has been said, to try to be clear about the future of British agriculture—if such a thing exists, given that the issue is devolved. The people in border areas really need to know that.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he think, particularly with regard to frameworks, that it is important that we protect the internal market, or unitary market, of the UK? It is important that potato farmers in Scotland, growing seed, can sell potatoes into England, and equally that livestock can move back and forth across the border. The east and west of the country have more in common with one another than, necessarily, north and south, and it is important that we recognise the unitary market.
Dr Drew
That is a point. We were talking about relationships with the EU post Brexit and about whether we have some form of common market, if not a single market. It would be helpful if we knew that that would happen within the four nations of the United Kingdom, let alone in the relationship with the Republic.
The issues are pretty important, and even more so in environmental terms, so I want not just to concentrate on farming but to talk about environmental requirements. On issues such as air quality, climate change and sustainable development obligations, unless we move forward with some degree of unity, we are pulled apart individually. I hear what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith says about agriculture being a devolved matter, but air pollution is not, because it comes from one country to another. That is the whole point about methane: the problems in Northern Ireland do not stay in Northern Ireland but affect the Republic, and that is why the Republic is worried about what is happening in the north, as well as dealing with its own problems in the south. These problems have to be identified through some degree of co-operation. Why not have a way to lay that down? This is not a straitjacket. This is not about shoehorning four nations’ agriculture into the same box. We cannot do that, as the Bill says. Instead, we are saying that there needs to be a proper framework.
Deidre Brock
There has been considerable concern from consumers about the quality of foodstuffs that will be available after Brexit, and particular concern about the possible reduction in quality that might come as a result of trade deals, with chlorinated chicken, hormone-pumped beef, genetically modified vegetables and so on. The concerns are wide ranging and cover many areas.
Chlorinated chicken, for example, has implications for food hygiene and nutrition. We prefer poultry with higher welfare and hygiene standards throughout the journey from hatching to plate, rather than its carcass being bleached to remove evidence of poor welfare and hygiene. Those consumer concerns are matched by producer concerns about high-quality products being undermined and undercut by poor-quality, cheap imports, whose adulterations are masked by later cosmetic measures, which is truly the modern-day purchase of a pig in a poke.
Consumers and producers have been protected thus far by the European Union and its rules and red tape, which we will shortly shed. It seems sensible to me to replace those EU protections with what protections can be offered from this place. Such protection will be a pale imitation—that is sure—but we should do what we can. New clause 12 would ensure that food standards and the protections offered do not plummet off the Brexit cliff to be dashed on the rocks of profiteering below. It is incumbent on us to offer what protections we can, and the new clause would do that. Likewise, new clauses 14 and 23 would offer some peace of mind and some protections, and I am minded to support them.
I have seen no movement from the Government in this direction so far. However, I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of accepting the need for such protections to be written into the Bill.
Dr Drew
I am minded to support the hon. Lady on this, although we have tabled our own new clause 23. This is at the core of the Bill. Although we are talking about agriculture, we cannot exclude trade from that. We—I mean the great “we”, because no organisation that has commented on the Bill is not of a similar mind—need to know what guarantees there are that the animal welfare, environmental and food-quality standards that British agriculture prides itself on will not be undermined by a race to the bottom, and that we will not take on some mad trade deals to try to dig the UK out of its current dilemma of what it does if it shuts the door on the EU. This is very important.
We have reached a turning point in our debate on the Bill. We hope the Government will get the message, from not just the Opposition but the organisations that have commented on the Bill, many of which will have spoken to the Minister. They want security and the knowledge that there will be no attempt to undermine the standards that have been put in place over generations for British agriculture and the environment. Greener UK, which has been largely supportive of the Government’s approach, sees this as one of the major dividing lines. It wants new clause 23 or new clause 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith.
We can argue about the definitions—we think that our new clause is slightly more foolproof, but we will listen to the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who will hopefully get the opportunity to speak to new clause 14. This issue is absolutely crucial to the way the Bill will be received in not just this country but the wider world. We have to send the wider world the message that this Bill rules out importing cheaper, poor-quality food.
I know there is a degree of disunity in the Government. The Secretary of State for International Trade has been going to all sorts of places, but I challenge him to name one place outside the EU—where he has not been—whose food standards are equal to the UK’s and the EU’s. The reality is that there are not any. Other countries are able to produce cheaper food because they undermine labour standards, sadly mistreat the animals and use all sorts of other methods.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some very valid points, but is it not the case that currently, in the EU, we are unable to ban the import of foie gras or veal produced under systems that are illegal in this country? We could improve animal welfare standards by disentangling ourselves from the single market with Europe.
Dr Drew
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. If we had been more effective, we might have got rid of those things. We have to pay due regard to our international obligations, and such issues should be tackled internationally. The problem is that we are going backwards to go forwards. I know that we get hung up on chlorinated chicken, but a whole range of things could be coming our way from the US, because the Americans have a fundamentally different attitude towards food. Their view of food is that it is more about price and availability, which is why they are able to do the things they do. Of course, much of the food produced in the US is good quality, but the problem is that the methods by which they produce much of their food are alien to the British way of producing food. We have to accept that.
I have already made the point that if Australia is able to break its sheep meat quota, it will completely undermine the lamb market in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. This really does matter. We know where the dilemma comes from. In much of the Bill, we have had arguments about powers and duties, the Henry VIII clauses and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington knows that the Trade Bill would give so much power to the Secretary of State to chip away our regulation, if they so choose, that it is deeply worrying if we do not hold the line in this area at least.
Martin Whitfield
Is it not the case that new clause 23 would give protection to the timber industry and, more importantly, address illegal logging? We would extend our protections even wider. One of the great environmental tragedies is the loss of rain forests and the continuous forests that are needed. This proposal would give protection there as well.
Dr Drew
My hon. Friend rightly chides me that we never bring timber into this discussion. That is, of course, as important as food and other areas, so we should be looking at an integrated approach. He is absolutely right. This is important because, unless we state in the Bill how we will approach trade, we will lose the opportunity for agriculture’s voice to be heard properly. More importantly, there are no safeguards or failsafes in place, because the Government did not listen to us on the Trade Bill.
I hope the Minister recognises that across the terrain of the farming and environmental organisations and the food lobby, security is what is wanted, in the form of a new clause that gives the certainty that we will keep to our word—that the standards of British food will be maintained and will not be subject to cheaper, poorer imports. That is why we make no apology for saying that this is a really important part of the Bill, and that we hope the Government will listen and accept what we are trying to do.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I would like to speak to my new clause 14 and to support new clauses 12 and 23.
As has been said, there is a great deal of consensus regarding support for the principle behind the motions. I was with the National Farmers Union in Gloucestershire during the mini-recess in early November, and members were adamant that all the benefits that would come from the new subsidies regime would count for nothing if they were undercut by cheaper imports that were produced to lower standards. That would mean their either somehow having to lower their own standards, which they are adamant they do not want to do—they are proud of the standards they work to—or simply going out of business. As has been said, the green groups are supportive of the measures for obvious reasons, as is anyone who is interested in food sustainability and anyone who thinks it important that we stick to the standards we have kept to for many years through our membership of the European Union.
We know there is a threat; for all the reassurances the Minister can give us about not lowering standards post Brexit, we know that many in his party are keen to see that happen. To start with, the response I was getting from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was that there would be no lowering of British standards post Brexit, which obviously leads to the suspicion that we would allow lower-standard imports. The response has now moved, very late in the day: when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the farming Minister gave evidence to the EFRA Committee last week, they were keen to say that the measure would not apply to imports. The EFRA Secretary also gave me assurances that the Secretary of State for International Trade believed that as well. Given the record of the Secretary of State for International Trade on the matter—I was in Washington last year when he hit the headlines talking about chlorinated chicken and so on—I think that he is, to coin a phrase, “intensely relaxed” about the import of lower-standard foods.
There are certainly many in the Conservative party—the global Britain Brexiteers—who are keen to see us go to a no-deal scenario and, I believe, a race to the bottom. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), has argued that as socialists we ought to welcome cheaper food imports because they would solve food poverty. He is also the person who said that food banks were a great thing because they show big society coming together and people helping each other. I have urged him, on a number of occasions, to cross the border into Bristol to see what food poverty actually looks like. From what I know of his constituents, I do not think they would welcome the bringing of chlorinated chicken into the country.
Simon Hoare
I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to polish his own sandals. I have never been a sandal wearer, apart from at school, I suppose.
However, we need to make sure that the sector is vital. It is not an old-fashioned sector; it is at the cutting edge of production and of using agritech and new sciences to farm and produce in more environmentally sensitive ways and to increase animal welfare and so on. It would be a tragedy if that all came to naught, and the work of the Committee came to naught, and we suddenly found that there was no agricultural sector, or such a small agricultural sector that, in actual fact, all this work was unnecessary.
I think that the hon. Member for Bristol East is right; there is a broad consensus and a growing coalition on these issues in the House. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to convince colleagues across Government of the clear and compelling virtue that motivates both him and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Dr Drew
Will the Minister tell me what the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), was doing in Oklahoma, if not trying to talk about some trade deal? If he cannot pull it off in this country, let alone the US, what was he doing in Oklahoma?
George Eustice
I did not know that my right hon. Friend was in Oklahoma, but he is no longer the Secretary of State, and I have not had time to go to Oklahoma personally.
Smaller countries such as New Zealand and Australia have less parliamentary scrutiny—it is predominantly a prerogative for the Cabinet—but even Australia has a process whereby the final trade deal must be laid before Parliament for a period of 15 days. For us, this is an area led by the Department for International Trade. The hon. Member for Stroud said there were a number of amendments to the Trade Bill, which I know were debated. DIT has taken a position somewhere between the two. It envisages a 14-week consultation to run ahead of any new negotiation. There would then be a strategic trade advisory group, created to advise Ministers. As negotiations progressed there would be regular updates and statements with the International Trade Committee, so there would be a committee of MPs scrutinising the progress of negotiations. Finally, at the end of the negotiation, the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 would kick in. That would require the Government to lay the trade deal and the treaty that established it before Parliament. There would then be a period of 21 days during which Parliament could pray against that trade Bill and vote to refuse its ratification.
If that happened, the Government would have to go away and think again about what to do. If that process continued a number of times, it would obviously be possible to bring a motion before Parliament that would effectively veto the treaty. There would be lots of scrutiny during the development of the trade deals and then a parliamentary right to veto at the end.
Kerry McCarthy
New clause 16 aims to get specific targets into the Bill, to ensure that it meets its objectives in relation to the public goods for which financial assistance is provided in clause 1. Those objectives are all laudable, but verge on the vague. The new clause would include targets and objectives to ensure that air quality is safe; that our fresh waters and seas are in good ecological and environmental status; that our soils are healthy and used sustainably; that the extent, quality and connectivity of habitats is increased, and natural processes are restored; and that the richness of species is maintained, and their abundance is restored to at least favourable conservation standards on land, in fresh water, and at sea.
We know from the Climate Change Act 2008 that legal targets with identified milestones have a proven track record in delivering environmental outcomes. We could have a separate debate about whether we are doing enough to meet the targets in that Act when it comes to future carbon budgets, but that is a matter for another day. We at least have targets that set out the future programme, and also provide farmers with policy certainty and a framework for future investment. I accept that setting out such targets on the face of the Bill would be rather complicated, particularly as we are still looking at quite a lot of the detail about how to measure some of the public goods, reward farmers for meeting them, and so on. Rather, new clause 16 would impose a duty on the Government to bring forward targets and objectives as soon as possible.
During this Committee’s fifth sitting, the Minister said that the Government would do that, and again, I believe he is genuine in wanting to take this forward. He said:
“we have a 25-year environment plan. An environment Bill will come from that, which will set out targets, objectives and commitments to get trends moving in a particular direction. It will give a longer term commitment and buy-in, which successive Governments will work towards.”––[Official Report, Agriculture Public Bill Committee, 30 October 2018; c. 149.]
However, we know—it has been on the front page of the papers—that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has some differences with his colleagues in this area. In this case, those differences are not with the Secretary of State for International Trade, but with the Treasury. The Sun said that the Treasury was trying to block green targets from being enshrined in law. Perhaps when he responds the Minister can tell me whether there is any truth in that suggestion.
The Treasury certainly got its way in the Budget, with little more than tokenistic gestures on the environment. The biggest announcement, £10 million for tackling abandoned waste, seemed to be there only so that the Chancellor could set up a joke about the shadow Chancellor, who had fallen over some fly-tipping and bruised his face. In particular, despite great fanfare when the Chancellor referred in the 2017 Budget to the Government’s intention to deal with plastic pollution, and then re-announced it in the spring, that was a damp squib in this year’s Budget. The purpose of the new clause is to protect the Minister and his boss, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, from their colleagues in the Treasury. We are on the Minister’s side: we want to make sure he can deliver a green Brexit, as we believe he wants to do. We want to help him with that.
The Chancellor’s view that any new laws should be kept to a minimum does not, I believe, represent the views of many businesses. In a letter published in The Sunday Telegraph—yes, I am a Sunday Telegraph and Sun reader; I hope Conservative Back Benchers are listening—members of the Aldersgate Group, including Siemens, Marks & Spencer and IKEA, called for the Bill to set
“measurable targets to cover improvements to air and water quality, soil health, peatland restoration, net biodiversity gain and resource efficiency.”
The group said that those targets
“provide a level playing field”,
which is what everyone wants,
“incentivise investment in innovation, support job creation and help businesses develop commercial strengths in fast-growing areas of the world economy.”
As the group’s executive director says:
“Where environmental protections are ambitious, well designed and properly implemented, they can actually deliver economic as well as environmental benefits”.
We hear a lot about red tape, regulation and targets being a burden on business. I included that to show that business likes targets and certainty. Businesses like to be able to plan, and to know that the Government are on their side.
Reassurances by the Minister will not be enough; we need the promises to be enshrined in law. We know that the Environment Secretary was offered another job just a couple of days ago. I never thought I would say that I was glad that he turned it down, but for the time being I am glad that he is still in post. However, given the current chaos on the Government Benches we do not know who will be in post perhaps even in hours, let alone days, weeks and months. It is important that we enshrine it in law, so that we can protect the noble ambitions of the farming Minister and his boss.
Kerry McCarthy
I should have said at the beginning that I will not press new clause 17 to a vote. I have had a change on that for the time being.
Dr Drew
Okay—left hand and right hand. I will speak to new clause 16, which was excellent, and which we fully support because it is about targets, which is largely what the group of new clauses is about.
Although we are losing new clause 17, new clause 16 is important. It tries to tie together the Bill with the environment plan, which is crucial to the Government’s way of thinking. It is about setting targets and putting meaningful arrangements in place so that we can look at where the Government’s joined-up thinking is taking us. We hope that the Government will look carefully at new clause 16. They might agree with what we are doing, but we will look at that on Report.
Again, there is universal support from farming organisations and, in particular, from the various green contributors to the Bill. They want ambitious and legally binding targets set “for nature’s recovery”. Those are not my words, but those of The Wildlife Trusts, which looks at the UN sustainable development goals. Goal two—“End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”—is highly relevant to the Bill. It is about setting ambitious targets by 2030, and indeed some by 2020, regarding the way in which we want to change agriculture across the world. If we do not do that in the UK, we will miss a real opportunity, and the Bill is the opportunity to do that.
I want to speak principally to the two new clauses in my name and in those of other hon. Friends. New clause 19 is about offering advice to those seeking to make dramatic changes to the way in which they farm or operate the land, which is important. We feel strongly about that because it is missing from the Bill. The Government have talked about land management contracts.
Agriculture Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
David Drew ExcerptsTuesday 20th November 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Bill 2017-19 View all Agriculture Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 November 2018 - (20 Nov 2018)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
New clause 17—Primacy of public purposes—
“The Secretary of State must ensure the payment of public money delivers primarily the purposes in section 1(1) so that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations.”
This new clause is intended to ensure that the list of public purposes set out in Clause 1 are the primary objective for payments under the Bill.
New clause 19—Financial assistance: duty to provide advice—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to secure the provision of training, guidance and advice to persons receiving financial assistance under this Act, for the purpose of enabling those persons to deliver the purpose or purposes for which the financial assistance is given.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision for advice on matters which include but are not limited to—
(a) the impact of any practice upon the environment,
(b) business management, including the development of business plans,
(c) the health and welfare of livestock,
(d) the safety and health of workers in any agricultural sector,
(e) innovation, including alternative methods of pest, disease and weed control,
(f) food safety, insofar as it relates to the production of food or any activity in, or in close connection with, an agri-food supply chain,
(g) the operation of any mechanism for applying for, or receiving, financial assistance under this Act,
(h) marketing of any product falling within an agricultural sector under Part 2 of Schedule 1.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons receiving financial assistance.
New clause 27—Smallholdings estates: land management—
“(1) A smallholdings authority which immediately before the commencement of Part 1 of this Act holds any land for the purposes of smallholdings shall review the authority’s smallholdings estate and shall, before the end of the period of eighteen months beginning with the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, submit to the Secretary of State proposals with respect to the future management of that estate for the purposes of providing—
(a) opportunities for persons to be farmers on their own account;
(b) education or experience in environmental land management practices;
(c) opportunities for increasing public access to the natural environment and understanding of sustainable farming; and
(d) opportunities for innovation in sustainable land management practices.
(2) No land held by a smallholdings authority as a smallholding immediately before commencement of Part 1 of this Act is to be conveyed, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of otherwise than—
(a) in connection with the purposes listed in subsection (1); and
(b) in accordance with proposals submitted under subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘smallholdings authority’ has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Agriculture Act 1970.”
This new clause would limit the disposal of smallholdings (‘county farms’) by local authorities and would require local authorities to review their holding and submit proposals for future management to provide opportunities to extend access to farming, education, and innovation.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Welcome back to the Chair, Sir Roger. I hope that this will be the final session of our deliberations, but anything is possible with this Government. We have already lost one Committee sitting, so let me plough on with new clauses 19 and 27.
The whole point of new clause 19 is that farmers and landowners are being asked to make a dramatic shift in how they perform their duties. I hope that all farmers are to some extent environmentalists—that is why they are on the land and why they care for it—but unless they are among the small minority in stewardship, they have principally been paid for being what they are: farmers or landowners. We are now going to pay them to do environmental things.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the many environmental schemes that are in place? Farmers are already doing quite a lot of this stuff.
Dr Drew
I agree that there have been schemes such as Blue Flag, but the point is that that was not what farmers were principally paid for. Under the Bill, they will principally be paid to look after the environment in whatever way is deemed fit, and they will need an enormous amount of advice. New clause 19 would implement a mechanism for that.
The Committee has already discussed the areas in which farmers might need support. We have certainly discussed the idea of people advising on land management contracts, whether they come in from local government or whether farmers and landowners bring them in and pay for their advice. The difficulty is that this is all rather fluid and open-ended, so the new clause would give it some substance.
As the Minister says, the advice will be given on a one-to-one basis, but who is going to give it? At the moment there are not many people who can give such advice, and they are very expensive. One might have thought that land agents would be interested, but at a recent event I spoke to land agents who made it very clear that rural is not really where the money or—dare I say it?—the interest is, because they have moved much more into the urban sphere. That will no doubt cause some difficulties.
The new clause covers a range of areas in which there is a need for advice. We do not want to talk in an alarmist way, but this is really important. We are asking people to completely change their business organisation over a very short period. How they operate and, in a sense, their whole reason for being on the land will have to change. I am not implying that it will change completely for everyone, but for some people the change will be dramatic.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is no duty to provide advice, there is a danger that smaller farms will be least likely to get the advice they need, since they cannot afford to pay for it? The ones that most need support are the most likely to lose out.
Dr Drew
Exactly. There may be less form filling than under the current arrangement, but it will involve some. It will also certainly involve inspection; otherwise, how can we guarantee that the public moneys are being used appropriately for those public goods?
That is the backcloth. As I say, I do not want to be alarmist but, sadly, as all those who have been involved with the land will know, the suicide rate among farmers and farm workers is very high. The rate is high because it is a very lonely occupation. It is also a very stressful occupation when people are losing money, which they often are. The arrangement will not necessarily solve that, because although it is transitionary they will lose money that in the past they have banked, guaranteeing that they can go forward.
On the suicide rate, we have all lost friends. I have particular regard for Gloucestershire Farming Friends, which my old friend Malcolm Whittaker set up many years ago. There are times when the organisation is inundated with phone calls, particularly when forms have to be filled in and people feel under incredible stress. We must be aware of that. I hope that the Minister will at least say something about what will be put in place, in a much more finite way than perhaps he has been able to so far. What people really want to know is, if they are going to make the changes, how they will be helped to do so.
On new clause 27, the Minister will not be surprised that I am going to say a little about smallholdings. He, like me, thinks that they are a wonderful part of British agriculture. The “Land for Heroes” scheme was put in place after the first world war, and people who had no other occupation were encouraged to take up smallholdings, organised largely, but not entirely, through county councils. Certainly over the past 20 years, we have sadly seen a decline in the smallholdings. They have been sold off, not necessarily in their entirety but in ever greater amounts of land. That matters because it is one of the few ways that younger people—certainly those without the means to buy land, or to rent it at the astronomical rents they are sometimes asked to pay—can get in.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman on many of those points. In fact, my local authority, Powys County Council, is investing in the county farm structure, which is really positive. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that county councils—national Government, in fact—invest in smallholdings? Does he agree with the shadow Chancellor that we should do away with all private farms and have community farms?
Dr Drew
That would be a very good thing in the sense that we would have much more access to the land. I do talk to the shadow Chancellor from time to time, and he is very keen on the idea that land is available, not by sequestration, but by taking it into public ownership to give people the chance to farm. That is what we are about here. This is very important.
Chris Davies
Following on from the shadow Chancellor’s background, the hon. Gentleman says, “taking farms into public ownership”. I am very interested in that definition.
Dr Drew
I will be very careful. I will reword what I said. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt read what I said when the Official Report is published. I am very clear that there has always been a role for some public ownership of land through local authorities, because that is an avenue by which people can come into farming. It is simply much more difficult—I talk from some experience here. A long time ago, I chaired the county farms estate in Gloucestershire when I was a county councillor. I saw people coming through, desperate to get on the land, and it was always really sad that we had to turn down very good people because never enough holdings became available for the numbers chasing them. Too often, it was not necessarily the farmers themselves but who their partners were that was a vital factor in who got the holdings, which I always thought was grossly unfair. That was the reality of trying to make good what is a difficult operation.
I am merely making the point that we ought to do more to protect county farms and smallholdings. I want to grow them but, at the moment, there should be an embargo on the future sale. The old acre for acre policy was always sensible; somebody sold a bit of land and invested in a new bit of land. The problem is a wholesale reduction of the county farms estate, which precludes many people from coming into farming.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Government legislation must be clear about land ownership? The tenancy market is important; many young farmers get in through a tenancy. The experience in Scotland is that, if there is any doubt cast upon the ownership of land or the right to buy, the tenancy market dries up. Would he agree that the best entry is through tenancies?
Dr Drew
I do not know enough about Scotland, so I will take the hon. Gentleman’s judgment on that. One of the arguments about the Bill and the changes it implies, is that rents will possibly fall. I do not necessarily agree with that, but it has been put to me by more than one person. That is due to the removal of the area payment, which has pushed up rents because people have more value in the land that they possess. We will have to see; it might become apparent only some years down the line.
At the moment, I am clear that we should go back to the Agriculture Act 1970, which put an obligation on local authorities that had land to protect that land and make it available for those who wished to farm or do other things appropriate to the land that would be within the environmental catch-all we are pushing for in the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Will the hon. Gentleman give an indication of the size of unit he believes would be viable? Currently, some of the very small smallholdings are not viable businesses.
Dr Drew
That is a problem. Traditionally, the Gloucestershire smallholdings were about 100 acres. I accept that would be very difficult because a great many of them were dairy farms, although we also had some horticulture. That is probably too small. To counterweight that, the Landworkers Alliance argue that they can make a living out of much smaller pieces of land, farmed in a slightly different way, through agroecology and so on, and maybe they would not do that full time. No one is implying that being a farmer has to be a full-time occupation. It is something that people want to do as part of their portfolio of operating.
We need to protect these bits of land initially. I would love to grow them and see local authorities encourage them. That is important, not just for opportunities for people on the land. It is about strategic ownership and the fact that we should always think ahead. If the state is not prepared to put in some effort, where is the direction coming from?
The good thing about county farms estates, as most of them are known, is that they provided education and opportunities for people to look at the front end of farming and see ways in which to do things differently, by collaboration among the tenants and so on. We will come later to tenancy reform but this is all bound up in it. A third of our farmers are tenant farmers and many of them are on land not just owned by local authorities but by charities. In my area there is the Henry Smith charity, which owns considerable areas of land and has been very good. The Church is an important landowner in the way it encourages agriculture.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important juncture in our consideration of the Bill, and it is probably going to be the most popular part, as we are giving the opportunity to those who wish to be consulted to get rid of the Rural Payments Agency.
It does not have to be that way. We could have a revitalised and reinvigorated payments agency, but a new agency this will have to be, because it will be doing fundamentally different things, and sadly the legacy that the RPA leaves is not necessarily a satisfactory one. That is nothing to do with this Government; previous Governments are responsible too. In my previous incarnation, we spent a lot of time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee trying to sort out how the hell we got into such a mess over the area payments scheme involving Accenture and the computer system that was brought in. It was an unmitigated disaster, because it cost millions more and never did what it was supposed to do. We had to drag the chief executive, Johnston McNeill, back from Belfast, where he had managed to hide for a period of time, to get some clarity on why the agency got itself into such a mess. That is history. My dear late lamented friend David Taylor did an enormous amount of work on the computer system, and we were indebted to him for that work on the Select Committee. I just make the point that we are asking the new agency to do fundamentally different work.
Mr Goodwill
When it comes to who was to blame, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) might have had something to do with it, given that she chose such a complex way of enacting it under the previous Labour Government.
Dr Drew
I do not disagree that we were foolhardy. There should always be a de minimis and a de maximus in terms of how the payment system operated. As always, when the delightful EU Ministers came together they looked around the room for who was going to pilot this scheme, and somebody maybe put their hand up at the wrong time and said, “We’ll have a go at it.” It was not even a UK-driven scheme; it was England-driven. The other territorial Administrations went at their own pace, adding to the complexity and confusion.
I am merely making the point that we are asking for a consultation on the most appropriate agency to take forward this brand new scheme. It does not have to be rushed; it could be done over a period of time. It does not have to be just with farmers; it can be with the green groups, obviously, but also landowners, to get some clarity on what all those different parties expect from a payments agency. The Minister says that the way public moneys will be paid out will be more straightforward. We will only be able to tell that in due course.
Chris Davies
I have had concerns about the Rural Payments Agency. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that opening up a consultation is just going to confuse and delay matters? Surely the Minister should just decide which organisation is going to administer it and then get on with it.
Dr Drew
If the Minister wants to say today that he has some brand spanking new agency in his back pocket that is going to take over and run this, we are more than happy to listen and give our support. I am merely the messenger saying that I still receive countless complaints about late payments, wrong payments and reasons unknown for people not receiving the moneys they thought they should have received. The field margins and the way in which the scheme was set up was unduly complicated, but this will potentially be as complicated, and some would say more complicated.
Why can we not just listen and learn from past mistakes and at least give people an opportunity to help frame what could replace the Rural Payments Agency? It has already taken on many Natural England employees, so it is ready for its new incarnation, but I am worried about skill levels, about the computer system and about how this will be perceived if we start on the back foot with an agency that has not been fit for purpose.
I will not cast aspersions on the people who work for the RPA—no doubt they work long hours to try to get things right—but there has been something integrally wrong with the way it has operated for a long time. I am giving the Minister an open goal to shoot at—a way for us to move forward across the party divide to try to get an agency that is fit for purpose for a very different type of agricultural scheme.
George Eustice
I will describe in a moment what we are doing on future regulation, including the enforcement of this scheme. However, the hon. Gentleman gave me an opportunity—an “open goal”, as he said—to, for want of a better term, shoot at the RPA. I am not going to do that. As I have said many times, the RPA and agencies such as Natural England are currently grappling with a truly hideous body of European regulations and an unbearable administration process. That causes huge problems for farmers, who are required to fill out and submit endless forms and do lots of mapping, and for our administrators, including the RPA.
The problems we had last year, for instance, were caused because EU law required us to re-map 2 million fields in one go. We would not have chosen to do that—there was not really a need to re-map the fields—but we were forced to, just to ensure that there were no ineligible trees littered around the landscape. The sheer scale of that task caused administrative problems. The problems we have had with our countryside stewardship schemes were caused primarily because the European Union passed a rule that said every scheme must start on the same day of the year, which caused a massive spike in workload, required us to employ 500 temps and created all the contingent problems that come with that. In the design of the new scheme, we can learn lessons from the past and jettison some of the muddled thinking that is imposed on us by the European Union and EU auditors.
I should also point out that the RPA has taken on some of the payment functions related to the pillar two countryside stewardship schemes, precisely because not only the RPA has had challenges. Natural England has had horrendous problems trying to implement the countryside stewardship scheme. Indeed, one of the reasons we moved the RPA in to take over that space was that it has a stronger track record of managing complex EU processes.
Let me turn to what we intend to do in the future. The substance of new clause 18 is very much being addressed by the work currently being undertaken by Dame Glenys Stacey, who has given early indications of her direction of travel. She argues that we should move away from the clunky clipboard-and-rulebook approach inherent in the EU system and towards a much more modern way of regulating farms so there is more of what she calls social regulation, more incentives, fewer arbitrary rules and more whole-farm assessment. The work she has started is very interesting. She is also looking at the issue of our having multiple agencies and whether there could be consolidation, and at the establishment of a new type of body to perform some of these functions.
I do not believe there is a need to consult now, as the new clause would require us to. The first step is for us to see the final report from Dame Glenys Stacey. If the Government decided at a future date to implement some of the recommendations in that report, perhaps including the consideration of a new body, that would be the time to consult.
Dr Drew
I hear what the Minister says. Again, I make the point that that is why we would have liked to hear from Dame Glenys about the direction of travel in the evidence sessions. Perhaps we can pick that up subsequently. I am not aware whether she has yet given evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope members of that Committee who are present heard that point, because it is important that we get an early idea of what the Government’s approach is likely to be.
I will not labour the point, because there are other new clauses that we want to get to before the bewitching hour, which you reminded us of, Sir Roger. However, it is crucial that whatever agency takes it on needs to be capable—I will not say “ of starting with a blank sheet of paper”, because the past cannot be washed away—of recognising the problems that there have been and still are with the way the current payment systems operate.
As much as new systems come with a certain élan and opportunity, the same people will operate the new system, so we have to ensure that training, empowerment and particularly a decent IT system that does what we want it to do are in place right at the start. That was what really damned the RPA when it took over the area payment scheme. It was trying to negotiate the system as it went along, and as we know that that was sadly an unmitigated failure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
Agricultural co-operatives
“(1) The Secretary of State must promote agricultural co-operatives by—
(a) offering financial assistance for the creation or development of agricultural co-operatives, and
(b) establishing bodies to provide practical support and guidance for the development of new co-operatives.
(2) The Secretary of State shall examine any proposal for primary or secondary legislation to assess—
(a) its impact upon agricultural co-operatives, and
(b) whether that impact is disproportionate in relation to its impact upon other producer organisations or interbranch organisations.
(3) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may be given by way of grant, loan or guarantee, or in any other form.
(4) An organisation shall be recognised as an agricultural co-operative if it meets the conditions in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) Condition 1 is that the organisation—
(a) is registered with the Financial Conduct Authority as a co-operative, or
(b) is constituted under the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.
(6) Condition 2 is that the organisation—
(a) operates in a sector which is listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act, and
(b) includes at least one member which is an agricultural or horticultural producer.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision specifying the criteria under which financial assistance under subsection (1)(a) may be offered.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”—(Dr Drew.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote agricultural co-operatives.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am speeding up—but might slow down again. We have already mentioned agricultural co-operatives. Again, this is more of a probing amendment—I will say that from the outset—so I will not press it to a vote. However, we would like to insert in the Bill something that runs alongside the competition that is clearly central to aspects of how the new legislation will operate.
Why agricultural co-operatives? First, so many parties within the farming and landowning industry already belong to co-operatives. They may not necessarily always see it that way, but NFU Mutual is, of course, a form of co-operative. Many of the buy-in rings for equipment, and much of the sharing of pesticides and other inputs in to how agriculture operates, are done by a form of co-operative, formal or otherwise. The difficulty with the Bill is that it does not explicitly mention co-operatives. We have had some interchange, and I welcome what the Minister did in relation to Co-operatives UK, because its members were much happier once he gave them some assurances.
New clause 21 gives the Secretary of State a new duty to promote agriculture co-operatives and the ability to provide grant and loan funding to new and existing co-operatives. It also requires all future legislation and regulations to be checked to ensure no disproportionate negative effect on co-operatives. We see co-operatives as a way in which the new environmental world can operate. Many environmental organisations are, of course, charities or social enterprise bodies, so in a sense they are co-operating if not co-operatives.
The new clause flies in the Bill’s apparent direction of travel. It is about fairness and resilience, and recognising that as new people come into the industry the best way to bind them in is to give them the opportunity to be part of a co-operative so that they do not have the lonely existence that we mentioned when discussing a previous clause that causes so much heartache and pressure on those individuals.
In many areas of agriculture, the supply chain already operates on a co-operative basis, but it needs to be enshrined within the legislation. Such a provision is sadly not in the Bill, so we want to insert one. The new clause would not mean that the private sector would not be the main operating vehicle for agriculture; the provision would just sit alongside it, and farmers and landowners would have that opportunity. Environmental organisations will certainly want to look at that way of operating. As the Minister rightly said, they could be the advice givers and supporters of the new direction of agriculture, and it is important to have that debate now. Opposition Members are always worried that we will be promised that things will come about through secondary legislation. That may be the case with future Administrations, if not with this one, but that is leaving things to chance.
George Eustice
I am more than happy to take up the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion to say nice things about co-operatives. As I said in an earlier sitting, I am a supporter of collaborative working, joint working, joint ventures and co-operative approaches to help farmers deal with the fact that often they are fragmented and end up as price takers in the supply chain.
We have done a number of things already. Earlier this year, I announced a £10 million collaboration fund out of the rural development programme to support joint working and to support the formation of co-operatives. The hon. Member for Stroud will also remember from an earlier discussion on clause 22 and the recognition of producer organisations that we had meetings with the co-operatives’ representatives and have taken on board some of the suggestions that they made. We tabled a Government amendment to clause 22 to ensure that models other than that of a limited company, which is the requirement under current EU law, are recognised as producer organisations.
On the substance of new clause 21, which would ensure that there is financial assistance for co-operatives, I am happy to take the opportunity to confirm that, just like the existing rural development programme, clause 1(2) —the subsection on productivity—enables us to make available grant support, Government-backed loans or other guarantees to the co-operatives, should we want to support their endeavours. It is not only clauses 22 and 23, on exemption from competition law, that help certain co-operatives and recognised UK producer organisations; the very first clause of the Bill has provisions for our giving financial assistance to co-operatives. By establishing the £10 million collaboration fund earlier this year, I hope that I have demonstrated through my deeds rather than my words that I see this as important. Should the hon. Member for Stroud ever be in Government, I hope that he would do the same and continue to support these important organisations.
Dr Drew
Of course—I am a Co-operative MP. We would not see a conflict of interests; we would see a commonality of purpose, which we encourage. I find what the Minister said very encouraging, and I hope that he will continue his discussions with Co-operatives UK and other farming organisations to see how this can be developed. The UK farming and environmental sector will need to co-operate if we face Brexit, because it will be subject to many of the winds of change, some of which could be very turbulent. I hope that co-operation is one good thing that comes out of this. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Import of foie gras
“(1) Foie gras may not be imported into the UK.
(2) “Foie gras”, for the purposes of this section, shall mean a product derived from the liver of any goose or duck which has been force-fed for the purpose of enlarging its liver.”—(Dr Drew.)
This new clause would prevent the import of foie gras into the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This simple clause is designed to do what various Members have sought: to stop foie gras being sold in this country. I attended the recent debate initiated by, I think, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) , who referred to foie gras as
“cruel to produce, unhealthy to eat and expensive to purchase”. —[Official Report, 13 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 1050.]
It is about time that we banned this outdated practice. I am not going to go into how it is produced—the innards, and so on, particularly as the hon. Member for North Dorset has probably had a good lunch and I do not want to spoil that in any way—[Interruption.] I shouldn’t have said that, should I?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It was a small slice of corned beef, some grated carrot and an apple today, if the hon. Gentleman is interested.
Dr Drew
It is always a mistake to lead with your chin, as they say. We will pass on from that very quickly.
The new clause covers something that, as far as I know, most MPs want to do. Hon. Members may say that it is somewhat incongruous to bring this forward with this Bill, but given that Agriculture Bills come round about every 50 years, we will not necessarily be around to see this carried through.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman intend it to be an offence for individuals to purchase the product while on holiday or does he merely mean the commercial importation of this product?
Dr Drew
Again, there are going to be commercial obligations, because the fact is that we are looking for a ban. As far as I know, both parties have talked about this quite openly. Certainly representatives of the parties have talked about it. We looked at it as regards the withdrawal agreement. From memory, and we will come on to live exports later, it is one of the things that certain people prayed in aid of the advantage of leaving the EU—that is, that we could bring about some of these animal welfare changes. It was a crucial argument. It was not quite as big an argument as the £350 million a week for the NHS, but it was nevertheless an argument.
Chris Davies
The hon. Gentleman mentions animal welfare. Is this an opportunity for Members on his side of the House to put animal rights views forward? Is this the place to be bringing this up?
Dr Drew
Again, I make the point that we have limited opportunity to consider legislative change. As far as I know, the hon. Member for Crawley is hardly some animal rights activist who has been out on demonstrations to demand that this practice ends. He is a Conservative MP whose constituents have no doubt written to him saying that it is not something that they wish to condone.
Kerry McCarthy
I know where the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is trying to come from. The fact is that we have already banned production in this country. All we are talking about is banning imports. We are not moving on to new radical territory. We are just trying to achieve a degree of consistency.
Sandy Martin
If any one of the amendments proposed earlier today that were so fulsomely supported by the hon. Member for North Dorset had been carried, we would not have needed this amendment.
Dr Drew
Of course, and that is something that we will no doubt have to revisit on Report. We are not doing anything other than what we have done in this place. We banned foie gras in the Houses of Parliament. That is a decision, and one might say that it is freedom of choice, but we banned the production of foie gras in this country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said, because we see it as inherently cruel.
All we are saying is: “Let’s have a level playing field”. If we ban production here, why are we still allowing imports to a very small number of establishments that still condone something that we would put at the extremes of animal cruelty? It is not about animal rights; it is purely about animal cruelty. It is a terrible process and I am not going to upset the hon. Member for North Dorset by going through what is involved. I do not think anybody would say that is an acceptable way to treat livestock. If it is, why is it banned in this country?
I hope we will get support from the Government. This is one thing they could do, through legislation on animal sentencing or even animal sentience, whichever comes first. We do not have many opportunities to pass this type of legislation. It could be done by a private Member’s Bill but we know how uncertain that can be. That is why the proposal has been brought forward at this stage, and why we hope there is support. If not, the Government could at least say what their intentions are. This will not affect farmers in this country, because we have banned this practice. We just want a level playing field and we can now ensure that because we will not necessarily be part of the EEA.
George Eustice
This again highlights an important ethical issue, about which people in this country have strong views. However, in common with others, I do not think it fits in the Bill. This is not a trade Bill; it is an agriculture Bill about how we support agriculture and replace the common agricultural policy.
I do not think we have ever produced foie gras in this country. It has been illegal at least since the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 put it beyond doubt. There is no explicit ban on foie gras, in the way that there is on fur farming, which was introduced as a specific ban in Parliament, but it has always been understood that the production process involved in it, requiring as it does the force-feeding of ducks and geese, creates serious animal welfare concerns. If ever practised here, that would be in breach of our long-standing animal welfare legislation.
There is a small amount of production in some parts of the world, including France, of what is called “ethical foie gras”, where they use a particular breed of goose and do not force-feed them. They manage to get a product that is very similar to foie gras in a way that causes far less concern for the welfare of the animal.
Turning to the proposed new clause, the issue is important. If we leave the EU, depending on the nature of any agreement we have with the EU, a future Government would certainly be able to ban the import of foie gras. Some countries, notably India, do have ethical bans of this sort. India has one on fur and might already have one on foie gras.
We know that WTO case law means it is entirely in order to have bans on certain products of this sort, where there are ethical reasons to do so. There has been case law in the past regarding seal furs that has upheld that long-standing principle. It would be an option for a Government, depending on the nature of the agreement we finally have with the EU, to ban the import of foie gras, in much the same way as India does, but I do not believe the Bill is the right place for it.
It is the kind of thing that we would consider once we are clear about the type of trading relationship we will have with the EU and what concessions we might have to make as part of that settlement—until then we are not in a position to advance any policies of this sort.
Dr Drew
I hear what the Minister says but, given that the Bill looks to the future, it is entirely appropriate that we decide which animal welfare standards we believe should be in place to accommodate the type of agriculture and food chain we want. Although subject to whatever happens to our relationship with the EU, this is the sort of legislation, along with live exports, where we should draw a line in the sand. We do not accept this practice; we have banned it. It is inappropriate for agencies, shops and other retail establishments to be able to sell that product here. It is an entirely inappropriate method of force-feeding geese and ducks. This is a key animal welfare issue. It needs to be outlawed.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We come now to the work clause. We make no apology for saying that this is our opportunity to pray in aid one of the things that the Government got completely wrong—the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. That happened under the coalition Government, and we hold the Liberal Democrats especially guilty.
I will not go into great detail. We know the issues, we know why we have tabled the new clause and I know why the Government are likely to oppose it, but we hope that they will at least think on this: there is a serious problem with the lack of labour in the agricultural sector.
A lot of agricultural labour is termed seasonal, although some aspects of what was the seasonal agricultural workers scheme was never seasonal—those who work in dairying or in aspects of the packing trade are not seasonal workers—and the reason why we rely so much on foreign migrant labour is because terms and conditions are not good. That is one of the reasons why we had the Agricultural Wages Board—to introduce a standard of terms and conditions that would encourage people to take that work—but it was not just about terms and conditions. The board also looked at future provision and training and investment in younger people to encourage them to come into the industry. Until one day when we are in power, we will carry on arguing that this is an important part of the way in which the agricultural sector could and should operate.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
As this Bill is looking holistically at the countryside, across the environment and workers, is it not exactly the right place for agricultural workers’ rights to be included?
Dr Drew
I agree entirely. In this brave new world, we are talking about supporting not just farmers and landowners, but the environmentalists who are going to come in and do some of the work. Again, this area is rife with exploitation. It is right that lots of people work as volunteers or are seconded from their companies, but there is the danger that that will become the norm. Unless we are careful, we have no regularity of employment structure.
The Government’s argument has always been, “Why is agriculture different? It is the same as any other sector.” Well, it is different. The nature of the work is different: it is hard and the hours are long. There is also the issue of loneliness, because most workers are by themselves. There will perhaps be only one or two of them if they work for a small holding. Larger holdings have more, of course, and are able to get protection through their numbers.
I understand the NFU’s position, but farmers tell me that one of the things they most regret is the loss of the negotiating apparatus. They say that quietly; they will not say it to a wider audience. There are those who believe strongly that losing the negotiating apparatus has taken agriculture backwards. When we lost it, we saw that agriculture was not valued enough for such a structure to be in place. If the Minister does not agree with this new clause, I hope he at least recognises that there is merit in putting in place a structure and systems to ensure stability in farm workers’ terms and conditions. Too often, they are not paid the going rate, which means that people are not attracted to the countryside, which we all accept is a tragedy.
George Eustice
We had a similar discussion about an amendment earlier. I do not intend to speak for too long, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I disagree with him for reasons that I have set out. As he knows, the Agricultural Wages Board was established way back in 1948. There were lots of other boards around at that time, covering different sectors. Most of them were phased out during the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s; the Agricultural Wages Board was the last one standing.
Things changed fundamentally. There was a review of the Agricultural Wages Board in the mid-1990s, and in the end a decision was made not to take action. After the national minimum wage was introduced by the previous Labour Government and adopted by the Conservative Government, and, more importantly, after this Conservative Government introduced the new national living wage, the Agricultural Wages Board’s raison d’être was no longer there. It has been superseded by other pieces of legislation and minimum wage requirements. We currently have a national minimum wage of £7.83, and the national living wage is soon to go to £8.75. We therefore already have protections through the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. There is lots of legislation to protect agricultural wages.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view that the negotiating apparatus that operated alongside the Agricultural Wages Board is necessary. There were problems with the way that it worked. It did not, for instance, allow the payment of annual salaries to some management staff so hours and payments could be averaged across the year. That would help people get mortgages to buy homes. There were reports that, because people received a weekly wage based only on the hourly rate, it was difficult for them to demonstrate to mortgage lenders that they satisfied their criteria.
More importantly, the very formulaic tiers of wages did not enable people who were doing particularly well and were on their way to progression or to a management role to be rewarded, unless they had the right craftsman qualification. It took away employers’ flexibility to reward their staff, because everything was set in a very formulaic way. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s romantic view of the Agricultural Wages Board; it was restrictive and stopped more progressive approaches to payments, including salary development. Insofar as it gave protection for minimum wages, its role has been superseded.
Dr Drew
My wife would say I was never romantic, although I do not want to disillusion the Minister too much. This is not about going back. There would have to be a new body, but it would perhaps take account of sectoral organisations—that was what was probably wrong with the old Agricultural Wages Board. The NFU always saw it as a one-size-fits-all.
A modern Agricultural Wages Board must take account of the different sectors and regions. Its whole point is that it underpins wages and conditions. We feel very strongly about that. We talked to Unite, the main representative body that came out of the old National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. Historically, Unite has always been linked to the Labour party, although it has not always agreed with it. Although we look back in this sense, we also recognise the modern world.
Mr Goodwill
On the more highly paid work in appointment grades one and two, would that not in some way create a cartel for the farmers? They would not be able to outbid each other for the more skilled staff because they would say they were paying the going rate. That would not mean that the more skilled people could do better.
Dr Drew
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. There is always a danger with some form of proportionality—how different groups would be paid. Those groups would not necessarily be encompassed by the Agricultural Wages Board anyway, because it is looking at a minimum structure. That is something that a modern, forward-looking wage board will have to take account of.
We have no magic answer: the NFU asks us what form things would take and hopefully we can have sensible and serious discussion with it. We are making the point that the industry is completely short of labour—yet again this year, sadly, the fruit and veg was ploughed back into the ground. There is something wrong when what has been produced cannot be brought to market because there is no one to pick it. From talking to my dairy farmers, I know that there is always a problem in getting milkers. That transcends any dairy-producing region; it is a real issue. All we continue to argue for is one way in which that can be recognised.
I will press this amendment to a vote; we hope the Government will gradually recognise that they must put a structure in place that transcends the normal minimum wage standards or the living wage. This industry is different, and that must be recognised.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Thank you for that advice, Sir Roger. My Whip is busily looking at her information source to see whether anything is coming our way. We will carry on regardless for the time being.
This is the second part of the foie gras debate. Some people fundamentally believed that our leaving the EU would free us to do some of the things that many people across the country believe we should have done a long time ago—in this case, ban live exports. The noble Lord Rooker always used to say we should export on the hook, not on the hoof—I remember him saying that 20-odd years ago—but we have not yet done it. Admittedly, this is a marginal trade that affects certain parts of the country, where there have long been demonstrations because of what is deemed to be cruelty and what is seen to be the British industry losing control of what happens to animals subsequently. I know there are downsides to banning live exports—what do we do with young male calves if we do not have an export market? However, this is where animal welfare comes to the fore.
Colin Clark
As the hon. Gentleman is probably very aware, moving livestock from Orkney, Shetland and the other islands in Scotland involves long journeys of eight to 12 hours. He is not proposing to ban those movements, is he?
Dr Drew
This is where I would always take advice; I know there are views in Scotland that are not necessarily held in England about whether that is good or bad. I sat in on a recent debate where there was a difference of opinion within the political parties, and certainly between them, about whether a ban would ever be achievable, whether it was enforceable and, indeed, whether it was a good thing. We must have that debate, because this is an agriculture Bill. If we did not have it, if nothing else, those who feel strongly about this issue would say, “You had an agriculture Bill but you didn’t discuss live exports, which is one of the dominant arguments that we have.”
I remember talking to a lady on the doorstep—a lifelong Labour supporter. She had voted to leave on the basis that live exports would be banned. When she heard that the Conservative party was very keen on banning live exports, I could not persuade her to vote Labour. She felt that was something a Conservative Government would deliver. Sadly, I can now go back to her and say she was slightly misinformed. I accept that this is a minority issue, but for people who feel strongly about it, it is a very important moral point.
Colin Clark
I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we understand that cattle moved from Orkney and Shetland are moving from one part of the United Kingdom to another that has the same approach to animal welfare. I invite him to come to the north-east of Scotland any time he likes—we will show him how we do it. What I think the general public are against is the idea that we no longer control animals when we export them outwith this country. Will he clarify that?
Dr Drew
We are still in the United Kingdom. The new clause does not deal with movements within the United Kingdom; it deals with live exports outside the United Kingdom. I took my holiday in Orkney and Shetland this year to add to the Scottish economy, and very enjoyable it was. I did not see many animals being moved about, but no doubt that happens.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I had concerns about this issue in relation to the Irish border. Just in case colleagues are worried about that, I should say that the new clause would not ban the movement of livestock across the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which is vital for agriculture there.
Dr Drew
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. It is important because, as I have said, animals move backwards and forwards over that border for fattening purposes or other reasons. We do not intend to ban that.
We are debating this issue here because this is an agriculture Bill. If we do not, whatever one’s opinion on the issues are, people will cast aspersions that we have not done our job as Opposition Members and that the Government have not put on the record their current thinking. Until recently, the Government were using banning live exports as one argument for leaving the EU. Is that still the Government’s case or not?
Chris Davies
People voted to leave the EU for many different reasons; I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s putting his hat on that one necessarily makes it the reason for Brexit.
I ask for clarity, because proposed subsection (2)(a) suggests that the Opposition are quite happy for livestock to be exported from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. From what I remember of geography, it is about 50 miles across the Irish sea, whereas it is about 23 miles across the Bristol channel. It is interesting that the Opposition would allow animals to travel, say, 200 miles within the island of Ireland and to the Irish border, 50 miles across that sea and then to go on perhaps another 200 or 300 miles on the UK mainland, while seeming averse to allowing cattle or sheep from within the UK to go any further. The export of sheep is very important to Welsh farmers.
Dr Drew
I am not sure that I actually said that, but I re-emphasise that we would not stop any live exports within the United Kingdom, for so long as the United Kingdom exists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington says, we would even allow live exports within the island of Ireland.
Jenny Chapman
I am going to help the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire by reading proposed subsection (2)(a):
“The live export of livestock for slaughter or fattening is permitted after exit day if—(a) the livestock is exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland”.
There are farms that cross that border, so trying to prevent any livestock from crossing it would be pretty difficult to enforce.
The Chair
Order. I am getting closer to the Front Bench so I can rap you over the knuckles. “You” means me, and I do not have an opinion on this. Allow me to rephrase that: when I am in the Chair, I do not have an opinion—I am strictly impartial.
Dr Drew
I will pass on that, because I have lost the plot at the moment. We can have this argument outside the room. However, the fact is that I am not talking about banning live exports to anywhere within the United Kingdom. We are looking purely at the trade. An argument during the referendum debate was whether live exports would end because we would leave the EU. All I am saying is that this is the opportunity for people to make their minds up on whether they want that put into legislation. It has been the subject of numerous Adjournment debates. As I said, I was quite interested in the degree to which there have been splits within political parties, as well as between political parties.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a remark he made before getting into this debate about the Bristol channel? If I heard him correctly, he said, “For as long as the United Kingdom continues to exist”. Is it now official Labour party policy to support the break-up of the United Kingdom?
Dr Drew
We really are getting away from the issue. I am making the point that the United Kingdom has a clear policy on allowing live exports. So long as that stays the case, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. We are talking about trade between the United Kingdom and other parts—principally Europe, of course, although livestock could be exported to various different parts of the world. We choose not to, because it would be very cruel and also probably economically illiterate to do so.
We are moving the new clause to allow the debate to take place for those who believe that the ban is going to happen as a matter of course when and if we leave the European Union, when we have the opportunity to do it under WTO rules. There is some debate about whether it is going to be that easy, but we will have to face up to that in due course.
The reality is that unless we have some legislation to enable us to implement the ban, we will never do it anyway. This is our opportunity to have a debate and to see whether this legislation can stand the test of time. Without the new clause or something like it, the ban will never happen. We can have as many Adjournment debates as we could possibly want: it will never take place until and unless we are able to put it into legislation.
Mr Goodwill
The fact is that this will not happen if we do not get the agreement voted through in the meaningful vote in Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that anyone who votes against the agreement is voting against our opportunity to ban live exports—and foie gras, for that matter?
Jenny Chapman
When we were discussing foie gras, the Minister said that the ability to ban its import depended on the type of agreement we get with the EU. That is fascinating to me, because the type of agreement that would not allow us to ban foie gras, if my understanding is correct, would be one that kept us in the customs union and probably with a very close relationship to the single market. That sounds familiar.
Dr Drew
I will let the Minister respond to that in due course. We started with a fairly narrow subject and we have probably been round every other subject possible. I am not going to take any more interventions.
We have a policy on this issue. We argued 20 years ago that we wanted to bring it forward. It has not happened because of our relationship with the EU. If that relationship remained or got to the issue of the customs union, it might still be precluded. However, if we were to leave the EU, we would have the opportunity to do this. That is why the Opposition have upheld the policy and will press the matter to a vote: so that there is some clarity, which has not been forthcoming from the Government because Government MPs have been arguing for the ban on live exports for some time. No doubt, we will continue this discourse outside. I make no apology for saying that this is the opportunity for us to do this. We will be taking that opportunity and pressing for a formal vote on live exports.
George Eustice
The Government have a policy on the issue as well. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in our manifesto we committed to control the export of live animals for slaughter. I will describe in a moment what we intend to do and what work we have already done.
Dr Drew
I hear what the Minister says. The problem with this is the issue of how many bits of legislation will come around that can be includable in terms of this ban, or can be amended to allow this to carry through. I know this is complicated, and it is sad when newborn male calves are shot. Genetic modification might provide ways of dealing with the number of male calves at source. We would want to see improvements in many aspects of the dairy industry. This new clause is not a magical answer but live exports is a very political issue, and the general public felt—rightly or wrongly—that on our exit from the European Union, the UK would have much greater discretion on what it wanted to do with regard to live exports.
Mr Goodwill
I hear exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but what he is saying in the amendment does not stack up with the second of the six Labour tests for the agreement, which asks:
“Does it deliver the ‘exact same benefits’ as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?”
The hon. Gentleman is saying one thing here, but unfortunately the policy of the Labour party is to stay in the customs union and the single market, which would mean that we could not ban live exports.
Jenny Chapman
That test is very carefully worded and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was based on comments made by David Davis, the then Secretary of State, at the Dispatch Box. In case he thinks it a little bit rash to take the remarks of David Davis—sorry, the hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden—as the basis of the test, the Prime Minister did go on to say that she was determined to meet that test herself. That test did not just come out of thin air; it came from the mouth of the then Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and it carefully refers to the “benefits” of, not to being a “member” of.
Dr Drew
I am not going to engage with that argument; I am not sure whether there are any angels dancing on pinheads yet. This is a matter of principle. I am in two minds as to whether to press the new clause. I understand what the Minister says, and this is not straightforward. Having sat through at least a couple of Adjournment debates, I realise that people come at this from different angles. There is not an easy humanitarian moral case for live exports, certainly in a practical way.
I am probably minded not to press the new clause to a vote at this stage, but my worry is: if not now, when? There will be very few opportunities to see such a ban come forward, as I said in my initial remarks. It may be that what we have drafted here is not good or right, and those who have helped us in drafting it have to think a bit more clearly about the different exemptions brought forward. I stress again that this is not about moving for a ban within the United Kingdom, because that would be wrong and lacking in any sense whatsoever. I will not press the clause to a vote at this stage, but I hope that on Report we get some clarity. The issue probably will come back, because somebody somewhere will see that this is an opportunity to move for a ban.
If the clause is wrong, what will the Government be prepared to do? I know they are waiting for the Farm Animal Welfare Council to come back, but that clearly has to be within a timeframe of what is permissible in terms of future legislative opportunities. The worry is that there will be some ongoing demand to put such a ban in place, in whatever form, and yet there will be no opportunity to do so. On that basis, while I hear what the Minister says now, I hope that on Report the Government will clarify whether such a ban needs to be put to bed completely because it is not enforceable, or whether it can be moved forward and there is an opportunity to move it forward in future legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Monitoring pesticide use and alternatives
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, publish proposals—
(a) to monitor the use and effects of pesticides in the management of livestock or land, to conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and to promote their take-up, and
(b) to conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and to promote their take-up, and
(c) to consult on a target to reduce the use of pesticides.
(2) The proposals shall include steps to measure—
(a) the effect of pesticides on environmental health,
(b) the effect of pesticides on human health,
(c) the frequency with which individual pesticides are applied,
(d) the areas to which individual pesticides are applied, and
(e) the take-up of alternative methods of pest control by land use and sector.
(3) “Environmental health” in subsection (2)(a) includes the health of flora, fauna, land, air or any inland water body.
(4) “Human health” in subsection (2)(b) means the health of farmers, farmworkers and their families, operators, bystanders, rural residents and the general public.—(Dr Drew.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals to monitor the impact of pesticides, to conduct research into alternative methods of pest control, to promote their take-up, and to consult on proposals to set a target to reduce the use of pesticides.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Now we are moving on to pesticides. Now that we have dealt with animals, we can go on to crops. Again, in its own way this new clause would not radically change the Bill, but the pesticides argument is important. We are all obliged to move toward higher environmental standards—dare I say it, that is the whole point of the Bill. One way in which we will measure those higher environmental standards is in terms of less pesticide use.
I accept that this is a very divisive issue. On the one hand we have the Pesticide Action Network UK and on the other we have the Crop Protection Association, each with radically different views on whether we are doing the right thing already or we should move in a different direction so that we see much less reliance on pesticides. Certainly, the agro-ecological approach would be to look at how we can substantially reduce, if not remove, the reliance on pesticides.
That matters because the British public seem overwhelmingly to want us to have less reliance on pesticides. We have had the big debate on neonicotinoids; we also have the debate on other pesticides. At the moment, that has been abdicated to Europe, and Members of the European Parliament voted on whether glyphosate should be banned. In the end I think both Conservative and Labour MEPs chose not to ban it, but if we leave the EU the decision will be fairly and squarely back with the United Kingdom Parliament. We cannot pretend that this is not something that we will have to make our opinion known on, and that will be subject to future legislative requirements.
We are not asking for the end of pesticides or necessarily for a dramatic change in policy. We are looking for an indication from the Government that they intend to look, through the environmental payments, at how pesticide use will be measured and monitored with a view to reduced dependence. That is important because the Bill is all about soil quality and water management, and if we do not control pesticides, we might as well give up on both those things, because they will not happen.
Again, it is not just about our environment per se, but about the impact on ourselves—human beings. Those of us who were involved historically with organophosphates know that they are sadly still an issue; I still have people coming to me to say that they feel that was never properly investigated. I know that there are research findings.
Sandy Martin
Is it not part of the point? If we do the research and carry out deep investigations now, it is entirely possible that we will be able to be at the forefront of the new range of pesticides that are more environmentally friendly, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Dr Drew
Exactly. As I have made abundantly clear, we will get one chance to debate this in 50 years, because that is the likely length of time that this piece of legislation will last, if the Agriculture Act 1947 is anything to go by. These pieces of legislation do not come around very often, so we make no apology for bringing forward the debate on pesticides now. We are subject to correspondence on it and people want to know where we stand. I hope the Government are listening.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
This is a very important point and I welcome the new clause. Local testing is going on in Gower and we have shocking levels of weedkiller in local rivers. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the new clause to a vote.
Dr Drew
I think that is a hint. Given we did not divide on live exports, we might divide on pesticides instead. It is important to have this debate and look at this opportunity. The new clause is not doing anything dramatic. It asks us to use this piece of legislation to review current pesticide use, to consult on it, and to monitor it better. It says that that is something that should be in land management contracts. If it is not included, how can we find a way to secure a measurable improvement in our environment? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower says, we only have to look at our watercourses to know that pesticides get into them. Most of us see that as unacceptable and we have to do something about it.
George Eustice
I hope I will be able to persuade the shadow Minister that he does not need to press the new clause to a Division. We rehearsed in an earlier discussion on clause 1 the fact that the Government are actively looking at holistic schemes to support and incentivise what could be called integrated pest management. We are considering whether we can reduce our reliance on synthetic chemistry by using more natural predators and different agronomic approaches and being willing for the first time to incentivise farmers financially to do that.
One of the things we are looking at is an incentivised integrated pest management scheme to advance this policy agenda. We also set out in our 25-year environment plan the idea of moving forward and embracing integrated pest management more than we have done previously. The new clause deals with publishing reports and measuring impacts—I have said previously that DEFRA needs no encouragement to produce reports through statutory requirements; we love reports. As I explained, I regularly have to read and sign off reports and I sometimes question whether anyone else is reading them. For some reason, many reports seems to congregate around June, so during that month my box is weighed down with annual reports of one sort or another.
I will share with the hon. Gentleman some of the reports that we have received. I have a lot of reading here that he can take away as a memento of this Committee. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides—the ECP—which gives us advice on emergency authorisations and on some of the tricky chemical issues. It is a standing advisory committee to the Chemicals Regulation Directorate. I have with me its annual report for 2017, all 22 pages of it. The Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food produces a separate annual report, on top of the one by the Expert Committee on Pesticides, so we have two expert committees in the pesticides space, one on residues and one on broader environmental impacts, both of which produce a report. The report on pesticide residues lists all the findings and surveillance on residues on a wide range of imported products and products produced domestically. It runs to 48 pages and is an annual report.
If that is not enough for the hon. Gentleman, the pesticide usage survey report, is produced by the National Statistics Office and focuses on all sorts of different icrops. I have with me the 2016 report for arable crops, all 92 pages of it, with lots of tables demonstrating exactly what is produced. That key survey already monitors the use of pesticide-active substances on each crop.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend is correct: schemes such as the red tractor assurance scheme have additional checks and enforcement to ensure that there is nothing out of order, and on top of that they generally require MOTs, for instance, for sprayer equipment.
The pesticide usage survey covers the frequency of application, which picks up the measures in subsection (1)(c) of the new clause, and the area treated, which covers subsection (2)(d), as well as the weight of active substance. It also includes figures on some of the alternatives to chemicals, such as the use of viruses that can target insect pests. In addition, the National Poisons Information Service collects and considers reports of possible harm to people, which covers subsection (2)(b). Results are not published, but they are reported to DEFRA and other interested Departments, as well as to the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides.
Finally, the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme looks at reported incidents of possible harm to wildlife, which I think is what subsection (2)(a) of the new clause is trying to get at. Results of the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme are published on the Health and Safety Executive website, and the Environment Agency also monitors levels of pesticides in water.
I understand that there are very good intentions behind the new clause, but I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Stroud that we have a plethora of reports that cover pesticide use and pesticide issues in great detail. I hope he will withdraw his new clause at this stage, take some time to read the reports, which I would be happy to leave with him, and consider whether he still feels the measure is necessary on Report.
Dr Drew
It was always a good teaching ploy, when someone was really stuck, to give the kids lots of reading on the basis that that person could try to escape from the fact that they did not really know what they were talking about, hoping that the kids might be able to tell them in due course. That is just me as an old-fashioned teacher. I look forward to receiving the documents the Minister will give me to read, but I will press this to a vote, because the Government need to understand that the direction of travel is about environmental moneys being paid for environmental goods, whatever an environmental good is—it will be interesting to define that in due course.
Like previous versions of the Department, DEFRA has undertaken huge amounts of consultation, but when it comes down to it, it is about the action on the ground. It is important that we know that pesticide use will be one of the features that will be measured. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower says, one would assume that over a period of time, when pesticides get into watercourses, that will be picked up and dealt with under land management contracts, so that someone will lose their money if they are seen to be polluting the local brooks. Otherwise, what is the point of this particular bit of legislation? We have both to lay down the law and to see how it will be enforced in practice.
Pesticides are a pretty important aspect of what happens to our landscape. I have always bought the argument that farmers, for all sorts of reasons, would want to spend less money on them, because it is an imputed cost and they feel very strongly that they want to minimise their costs, but sadly we have seen that many aspects of the environmental degradation of our countryside were down to misuse of pesticides, which have been seen as a shortcut to getting more output from farms. That is why we will put this motion to a vote. We let the Government get away on live exports, although that will no doubt come back.
On this motion, what is the point of environmental moneys if they are not properly scrutinised on the ground? Whoever may be advising is one thing, but this is something that presumably the payments agency will have to measure. Unless we have something that sets that out in the Bill, it will come down to vague promises. That is not acceptable in legislation. We either do it properly or we do not do it at all. Let us do it properly.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We come to the end—almost. We shall say a few pleasantries in a minute or two, but this is an important new clause. That is because—I make no apology for putting some pressure on the Government here—the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, or TRIG, negotiations that took place almost two years ago now happened against a background of the Government making some rather nice noises about the importance of tenant farming and tenant farmers in particular. The Government have since gone quiet. There have been some noises off of late, with the Government saying that they intend to revisit the issue, but the Minister could make those noises more overt in his response, so that we know exactly where we are going.
The new clause provides a mechanism to ensure that tenant farmers are not disenfranchised from access to the new financial support mechanisms contained in the Bill. The tenancy sector of agriculture is responsible for farming about a third of agricultural land in England, and is a substantial part of farming business. There are about 13,000 wholly tenanted farm holdings, 41,000 predominantly tenanted farm holdings and 35,000 partly tenanted farm holdings. They are therefore an important part of the agricultural sector.
The tenancy sector has a greater preponderance of livestock—dairy in particular—upland and small-scale farming than in the wider agricultural sector. Furthermore, for those individuals who start in farming, most will start as tenant farmers, unless they are fortunate enough to inherit their father or mother’s holding. Often, however, it is not passed on to them so they become tenants of their family’s estate. Most farmers, when they start, are tenant farmers.
There are two principal types of tenancy agreement: those under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, which confers security of tenure, a regulated rent and in some cases a right of succession; and those known as farm business tenancies under the more recent Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which provides for a significant degree of freedom of contract so that there is no fixed term and no significant regulatory provisions on rent. I alert the Committee principally to that second one at this stage.
Although farm business tenancies have largely been welcomed, and overall have worked reasonably well, of late there has been a tendency for shorter FBTs, which are completely outwith the ability of new businesses to cope or to function effectively. Some FBTs have been for as short two years, and anyone who knows anything about farming knows that people cannot do anything in two years.
That is why we make no apology for raising the subject at this late stage. It is important for us to look at agriculture where it is not functioning as well as it could and should be. Those of us who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies know that that has been highlighted by the Tenant Farmers Association and the NFU, which want to make us recognise that basis of the TRIG reforms—which is what some of us thought that the Government would bring forward but have not yet happened. The Minister can do his best to allay our fears that the opportunity to look at that important sector will be dismissed, or at least missed. It is not just what is in the Bill that matters, but what could be in the Bill.
Dr Drew
In a second—just let me finish my peroration.
I thank Rob Wakely, who did a sterling job to keep us on the straight and narrow, and Jessica Cobbett from my office, who helped me on more than one occasion. I thank the civil servants, who have done a really good job, and the Minister. I feel sorry for him, because he will have to start all over again tomorrow with the Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill. As much as we think we have done our bit, he still has to do his.
I give way to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.
Chris Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have nothing to add—I am just enjoying intervening on him.
Dr Drew
If nothing else, that gave me a chance to rest my voice.
This is an important Bill. We got it through in time—it is a good job we left enough. Although I am using this opportunity to thank everyone from both the Opposition and the Government, I hope that, to finish with, we will hear some good noises about tenancy reform. People will be watching, listening or reading even at this stage because their livelihoods depend on that, so the Minister should listen and, if nothing else, accept this final new clause.
Mr Dunne
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Will you advise me how I can add my thanks from the Government Back Benches to Opposition Members for the good natured way in which the Committee has functioned? On virtually every clause and amendment thus far, there has been a sense of consensus across the Committee that this is an important Bill and we need to get it right. I would also like to add my thanks to the 27 individuals who came to give evidence in our opening sessions last month and the countless more organisations outside this place with a committed interest, whatever their standpoint, to ensuring that the Bill sets out a new agricultural support framework that lasts for generations to come. I look forward to the Minister’s echoing those remarks.
George Eustice
A possession order would require a bank to justify its action to a court before being able to take anyone’s land. There have been a number of issues with secondary lenders, and mainstream banks, moving aggressively to seize and auction land, and selling it in a reckless way that is against the interests of the landowner and their creditors because they have that charge over the land. That area needs to be looked at.
With the confirmation that we have not forgotten those areas, and that we are looking at a consultation, I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud will not feel the need to press the new clause to a vote.
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and that of Mr Wilson. We have had a good-natured debate on new clause 31 and all the other amendments and clauses in the Bill. We have done a thorough job of examining every clause and amendment in great detail. I thank every member of the Committee for giving up their time and diligently intervening and contributing to the discussion.
I also thank my officials in DEFRA, who have worked incredibly hard. The Bill is the first substantive piece of legislation on agriculture that we have had since 1947. It has been a huge piece of work. Finally, and by no means least, I thank the Clerks. We particularly tested their patience when changing the plan for evidence sessions at the beginning, but I hope that we have been less difficult since then. We are grateful for the time and effort that they have put in.
Dr Drew
On that note, I particularly thank Mr Fox, who has been so helpful to Rob, who has done the Opposition work in detail. It is important that we put that on the record. Without the Clerks, Bill proceedings would not go very far, or if they did, they would go in completely the wrong direction. I also pay due regard to the many contributors to the evidence sessions, which were illuminating, and those who have given us ideas and interesting amendments. Some of them caused us a few sleepless nights in deciding whether to table them. They were all suggested in the right spirit, to try to improve the legislation.
Clearly the Government have a different view to the Opposition about how the legislation will progress, but we will see whether we can further improve it on Report, on Third Reading and in the House of Lords. It is good that the arguments have been had. Others will read them and see whether the proposals can be introduced in a different way, if not necessarily one with which the Government will wholeheartedly agree. However, given what happened today with the Finance Bill, we live in hope, and in the expectation that a degree of consensus is breaking out across the House. That is the way that good Government can operate.
On tenancy reform, I was pleased by what the Minister said. New clause 31 was a probing amendment, and the Minister knows where it was coming from. Changes are needed in this area. I hear what he said about repossession, which has always been a bone of contention in wider agricultural areas, because people do not necessarily just think in terms of those directly affected. It can unhinge a wider part of the countryside when people think that what has happened has not been done in the right way. It is important that we heard what the Minister said, and that we see some progress on that.
Without more ado, we have managed to complete consideration within the timeframe thanks to the good chairmanship of our two Chairs. I will not press the new clause to a vote, but I hope that, now it is on the record, we will hear early in the new year what form the necessary legal changes, which will presumably be made through secondary legislation, can take. We will of course scrutinise them in the right way and hope that they improve what is happening out there. We need good tenants with good tenancy legislation. British farming will be stronger because of that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 43, in title, line 14, after “Agriculture;” insert
“to make provision about red meat levy in Great Britain;”.—(George Eustice.)
An amendment to the long title is required to cover the content of NC4 which is not covered by any of the other specific limbs of the current text.
The Chair
As everybody else has been mostly out of order for the last half an hour, I too will say a few words. Mr Wilson and I would like to express our thanks to the Clerks, the Hansard writers, who work extremely hard, and of course to the Officers of the House who look after us. Without all those people, our work would be much harder, if not impossible.
Finally, I thank the Committee for the courtesy and good humour with which proceedings have been conducted. At a time when courtesy and good humour are at something of a premium in other parts of the House, it has been a pleasure to come into an oasis of tranquillity in Committee Room 12 and see people behaving properly, as colleagues ought to behave.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
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.)
Agriculture Bill (Ninth sitting)
David Drew Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Chapman
I agree, yes. The change we are seeking in the amendment is to include “necessary”, because the Secretary of State has powers under the clause to make changes that he or she thinks would simplify or improve, but that is so subjective. The power that the Government seek would be through the negative procedure, so any change ought to be needed and not just used for things that the Secretary of State desires to do, for motives that we could not discern.
If the Secretary of State wishes to change the scheme in ways that today we can only guess at, we want to know more about how that power can be used. It could be said that it is very generous to allow the Secretary of State to make changes that, in his or her opinion, simplify or improve—he or she could say that just about any change was an improvement if he or she wanted to.
All amendment 79 seeks to do is to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that any future changes are really needed: these measures will potentially have a significant impact on rural communities. The Secretary of State may decide to do nothing in this policy area, despite having the powers. People watching our deliberations will want to know an awful lot more about what will happen as a consequence of the clause.
I move on to amendment 80, which subjects regulations under the clause to the affirmative procedure—not the negative procedure, as the Secretary of State desires. We went over this point at length last time when we discussed the difference between the two processes. I do not see any benefit in going over all that again. It would be helpful if the Minister justified why he thinks the affirmative procedure is not appropriate in this instance.
As we discussed at some length previously, amendment 81 requires the Secretary of State to consult persons who,
“in his or her opinion, are representative of the sector to which the regulations will apply, or who may otherwise be affected.”
The Opposition believe that that is a necessary safeguard. We want the amendment on the face of the Bill because the clause affords such great power and discretion to the Secretary of State.
We know, because he said it last time, that the Minister has good intentions to consult, but the majority of consultations conducted by his Department take place because they are required in legislation. We talked about there being several hundred consultations—could he tell us how many of those come about because they are required in legislation? How many happen because the Department feels that it is the right thing to do?
There is no requirement at all in the clause to consult, but perhaps there ought to be. The Minister is asking us to rely just on his good will and the custom and practice that he says exists in the Department, but I question whether that is the case and whether the consultations that take place in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are by and large required by legislation. They are often required for very good reasons and are an important safeguard that ought to apply when we are talking about support for rural development.
As we discussed last time and as is worth repeating, done correctly, consultation improves decision making and avoids costly mistakes and unintended consequences. Why does the Secretary of State believe it is not appropriate to require consultation in this case?
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to be back, Sir Roger. I spent much of last week in Northern Ireland and Ireland, and will no doubt be referring to that in Committee.
A couple of points are important to the clause. We need to understand that the Bill should encompass pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy. I am not sure whether it does, although this is the closest that we get to it. I am aware that in due course we will be debating my amendment 115, so I am not going to talk about timetables.
I want to talk about the substance of rural development: it is very important that we understand that although agriculture is crucial to rural development, it is not the totality of it. I would argue that the Government have not got a rural policy, and they need one. Things are going on in rural England, to which the Bill largely refers, that are not good at the moment. Anyone who has read the material that has come out about the relative decline of market towns should be very clear that we need to invest in those communities and the villages around them.
The worry is that the Government not only do not have a rural policy, but they have no one to speak on a rural policy. They dismissed all rural advocacy. I am not saying that new Labour was wonderful in this area, although we did have a good rural policy between 1999 and 2004—principally around the countryside White Paper of 2000 and what the £1 billion earmarked for rural areas implied. It made a significant difference. Sadly, that has all gone: we have lost the rural tsar and the Commission for Rural Communities. That worries me when it comes to this Bill; I do not know how pillar 2, which largely invested in rural communities through the common agricultural policy, transfers into the Bill.
I will be interested to hear what the Minister says. We are back again to the usual game of powers and duties. The Minister and Secretary of State do not need to do anything. They can make lots of warm noises about rural areas, but the reality is that unless we have vibrant rural areas, we will not have a vibrant farming sector because those are inextricably linked.
It is important that we get clarity from the Government on how pillar 2 is embedded in the Act, to make sure that rural areas are not forgotten. The Agriculture Bill is the nearest we will get to being able to talk about rural areas and their need for investment and support through the nature of farming—obviously, a lot of the people who get the benefit of rural development are farmers or farm businesses along the food chain.
Will the Minister clarify what guarantees there are in respect of pillar 2? It was never perfect, but a lot of the academic and support work that goes into rural areas came through that channel. We all know that that sort of funding is highly questionable at the moment. I hope the Government will make some real statements today about how they intend to fund rural development.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I want to begin by addressing the shadow Minister’s over-arching point about rural development and the pillar 2 scheme. I will respond to that specific question, which is not directly relevant to this clause but is picked up in other parts of the Bill.
Pillar 2 and pillar 1 are an EU construct: that distinction will no longer exist, but the policy objectives, currently delivered under pillar 2, will be delivered in the following ways. Clause 1(1) is all about the farmed environment and supporting farmers to farm in a more sustainable way and enhance the environment. The objectives delivered by the current countryside stewardship schemes and the previous entry level stewardship and higher level stewardship schemes, which account for the lion’s share of the funding in pillar 2, will be picked up in clause 1(1).
George Eustice
That was not my point at all, and it was not my right hon. Friend’s point. The point was that we should allow farmers and other landowners to be treated the same as everybody else; apply the principles of justice and rule of law that we have in this country; and not have an arbitrary system of penalties coming from the EU.
To come back to my point about the areas in which we can improve, clause 9 will be an important area for some of our evidence requirements and rules on deadlines and dates; we would be able to show more flexibility. The powers in clause 11 will probably be more modest, but they enable us to sort out some of that unnecessary administration—on the LEADER scheme, in particular. They would enable us, for instance, to vary the length of agreements when we thought that was appropriate, particularly if we wanted to extend and roll forward some of the legacy agreements for a few years.
Dr Drew
The problem with the LEADER scheme is that it is pan-European. With exit from the EU, will there be the opportunity to allow institutions in this place, and communities, to indulge themselves in a pan-European sense because of the nature of that rural development? We have always learned from other parts of Europe and they have learned from us. Will that be possible or will this expenditure be very constrained?
George Eustice
The LEADER scheme is probably the most devolved of all the EU schemes, in that we literally have local action groups—LAGs, as they are called—which are local committees that appraise individual local projects for small grants. The scheme does not require a pan-European architecture; it has just ended up that way. In fact, those types of local grants, which are often administered or certainly appraised locally, lend themselves to a more national scheme.
Dr Drew
I hear what the Minister says, and that will be all right from the UK’s perspective, but we will be dealing with countries that are subject to the CAP and continuing LEADER obligations. Do the Government intend to negotiate with the EU post-March to ensure that those cross-country arrangements can continue? Otherwise we will be precluded. Whatever money we choose to put into a new LEADER, we will not be part of LEADER, so what is the Government’s plan?
George Eustice
Our plan is to leave the European Union, which means leaving the common agricultural policy and LEADER, but also putting in place superior schemes that we will design nationally. That is what we intend to do.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 11, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section must make provision for any schemes entered into under the retained direct EU legislation relating to support for rural development prior to the date of enactment of this Act to continue until those schemes come to an end in accordance with their specific terms.”
This amendment would ensure that existing agri-environment and rural development schemes, and those entered into prior to the Agriculture Act coming into force, remain in place and continue to operate.
The Minister will be pleased to know that I will be a bit quicker on this amendment, which is about timing. Although we have debated the substantive meaning of the changes to rural development, the amendment deals with how they will work in practice, which we are still a little confused about. Let us see if we can tease out from the Minister at least whether existing schemes will continue.
The amendment is clear: it asks what happens to the retained direct EU legislation on rural development from before the Act and how schemes can continue when people have signed up. Farmers are affected, but so are communities, because they may be part of the LEADER scheme, which the Minister has intimated will be no more. There may be a new scheme, but it certainly will not be LEADER unless we can have some relationship with other European countries. The amendment is about the functionality of these schemes. Many of us know them and feel strongly that they have considerable merit. The question is how we take them forward post-Brexit—if that happens.
Many of the schemes have gone on for a long time; they should have a proper run down, or perhaps they can be reinvented in a different guise. Farmers have made heavy investment in time and money in the existing arrangements, but it is important that rural communities also have certainty and security in the knowledge of where those schemes will go. It would be unfair if Ministers were to force the end of the schemes before they would have ended anyway—they are all time limited—and, more particularly, the existing agreements must be met with the full benefit of money and support from DEFRA and other agencies that have been crucial to the schemes coming about. The amendment is designed to maintain continuity, so we have genuine knowledge. People have invested a great deal of their time, and they are very good schemes.
We have done the work on how to develop a revitalised rural community. I hope the Minister looks favourably on the amendment. It may be that today is not the time, but we will be happy to consider a Government amendment, either on Report or in the other place. If the Minister is not prepared to give us that assurance, what assurance will he give to farmers and communities that want the schemes to continue? The worst thing possible would be if people were to start dropping out of them now. That would be a total waste of money. It is important, because we need to know where these types of scheme will fit in the transition scheme. Will there be an understanding that money will be available to keep the schemes going for a period of time, as intended?
George Eustice
I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify our intentions regarding the current schemes—the higher level and the entry level stewardship schemes—and, more importantly, some of the countryside stewardship schemes that are being entered into now. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow also spoke about the importance of continuity for existing schemes. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that the UK Government have already guaranteed that all pillar 2 agreements signed before 31 December 2020 will be fully funded for their lifetime. Even as we leave the European Union in March, until the end of December 2020 we will honour any agreements entered into before that date.
The amendment is unnecessary, because the current regulations do not in fact set an end date in EU law. Had the EU regulations stipulated a cut-off point for agreements, of course we would have needed to address that in the clause, but they do not. We have agreements that are binding under the public sector grant agreements protocols that we have in government. Effectively, that is akin to contract law: we have entered into public sector grant agreements with agreement holders, and that is legally binding for the duration of those agreements.
The underpinning EU regulations set out only limited circumstances in which we could terminate an agreement. First, and quite reasonably, the agreement can be terminated if there is a massive breach of the agreement—for instance, if the agreement holder is not doing any of the things that they said they would. Secondly, if there is a transfer of land and the agreement does not go with the new owner of the land or they do not agree to abide by the agreement, for similar reasons it is right to discontinue the agreement. Thirdly, an agreement can be terminated early by mutual agreement—that is, if the parties choose to do so. That is important in terms of transition to the new order and the new types of schemes.
To answer the shadow Minister’s question about how we envisage moving from these legacy schemes to the new schemes, it may be that in the later years of some of these schemes, agreement holders opt voluntarily to convert their agreement into one of the new environmental land management agreements. They will not have to do so if they choose not to: the agreement that they have will be legally binding. However, if they were to choose to convert their agreement into an environmental land management scheme and both parties thought that was the right thing to do, we would be able to have that option.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. Although he highlights an important point, our intentions are clearly set out, and we are already bound by the public sector grant agreements. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I hope that he will withdraw it.
Dr Drew
I will not press the amendment to a vote—obviously, that would be nonsensical—but I am worried about the tenor of what the Minister is saying. It is easy to find fault with the existing arrangements, but we have to give people confidence that what they have been doing is right. The biggest hurdle arises when the schemes are coming to an end. No one is going to invest time and money then, so ending the schemes early is quite possible, not because farmers and communities necessarily want them to end early, but because they see no future in them.
We need to give a great deal of encouragement to those who have entered into these schemes. They are more than farming schemes: they are to do with the development of our rural communities. It is vital that the Government get the message that the sooner they say what will replace LEADER in particular—all of us with rural constituencies could hold up LEADER as wonderful practice—the better. The sooner we can get some clarity about what will replace it and the degree to which it will allow flexibility to work with other communities and countries, the better for all concerned. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 80, in clause 11, page 8, line 19, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”—(Jenny Chapman.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kerry McCarthy
Supply chains can be so opaque and so long. I am very much in favour of shorter supply chains so that we know where the produce comes from. Again, as I mentioned in the debate in the Chamber, when the horsemeat scandal broke and we were discussing lasagne that might contain horsemeat, it was astonishing to discover that it had been on an around-Europe trip to at least a dozen different countries—perhaps more—before it ended up as a finished 99p lasagne in the frozen food section of a supermarket. It is amazing how something so cheap can be produced by going on that journey. Some products have dozens and dozens of ingredients, and it becomes almost impossible to trace the origin of those ingredients. I am all in favour of shorter supply chains and less-processed food.
The key point with both amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, is that it is all well and good for the Government to put transparency provisions in the Bill, but we would like to know a bit more about how they intend to use them to ensure that we root out not only food waste but labour exploitation in supply chains. The information I was given—in a new briefing from the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and the University of Nottingham—is that only 19% of companies in the agriculture sector abide by the terms of the Modern Slavery Act 2016. It is not enough to say that we already have the legislation when fewer than only one in five adheres to it. We need a wider definition of supply chain liabilities, so that participants in that supply chain cannot feign ignorance or rely on real ignorance. The companies are huge, and they need to know what is going on in their supply chain.
I also want to ask the Minister about the EU’s unfair trading practices directive and how we will seek to replicate that in the UK supply chain. We have been told that the UK supports the broad aim of the directive but that we want to do our own thing. I am interested to know how that will relate to the supply chain provisions in the Bill.
Dr Drew
I thank my hon. Friend for this group of amendments, which are important in terms of both food waste and how our food chain operates. This is the Agriculture Bill, rather than a waste Bill, but it is appropriate for us to look to amend and improve it. I strongly concur with what amendment 114 is trying to do. We clearly welcome the reintroduction of an Agricultural Wages Board. We always thought it was a real loss when the coalition Government got rid of it. There are reasons why it is difficult to attract people into the agriculture sector, including the employment limitations caused by that change, so we would always concentrate on reintroducing that body.
George Eustice
It is a point that we have often heard here, about the powers or the duties. We have set out our commitments and our targets, such as through the quartal 2025 and our waste and resources strategy, and we have the power here to do what is necessary to collect data, so that we can minimise risk in the supply chain. It is there, listed with all the other purposes, so I believe that the hon. Lady’s amendment is unnecessary. It is an inappropriate place to introduce a target. We can have a debate about targets and whether there should be targets of this nature in a future environment Bill, for example, or whether we should continue to work with the quartal commitments. As I said, they have already made solid progress. This particular clause is about the collection of information and I do not think it is the appropriate place to set a target in the way that the hon. Lady has outlined.
I turn to amendment 114, also in the hon. Lady’s name. Again, it links to an earlier discussion we had about the Agricultural Wages Board, which was removed. Fairness of employment contracts is an important issue, but it is dealt with in other ways. We have the national living wage, introduced by this Government. It is currently £7.83 per hour for over-25s and in April next year it is due to rise to £8.21 per hour. The regulations are already set out and are enforced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which enforces all the national minimum wage legislation. In addition, we have the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which deals with some of the practices that I know the hon. Lady is concerned about, such as modern slavery and abuse in the labour market. We have the GLAA already, which has powers to tackle and investigate that issue.
Dr Drew
I understand all that. We can have all sorts of regulations quoted back to us. The simple fact is that we are ploughing fruit and vegetables back into the ground again this year, because of the lack of a suitable seasonal agricultural workers scheme. I know this is slightly different from domestic wage rates, but the reality is that we cannot attract people to work on the land because both the wages and the conditions are not seen to be suitable. That is why the Agricultural Wages Board was so crucial. It was not just about wage setting, but setting the environment. Although I accept that the National Farmers Union always campaigned to get rid of it, many farmers welcomed it, because now they have to set those rates and conditions themselves, subject to the national minimum wage and the national living wage, which is always a difficult process. I hope that the Government will, at some future date, think again about this whole area.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman has strong views on this. We debated this at an earlier stage of the Committee. Our view is that the Agricultural Wages Board became redundant, first with the introduction of the national minimum wage and then, more importantly, the introduction by this Government of the national living wage, which provides new protections, so the Agricultural Wages Board was no longer required.
George Eustice
In the context of any financial grant or incentive awarded to a farmer under the powers in clause 1, the regulations provided for in clause 3 could stipulate a legal requirement to provide certain information. If farmers enter such incentive schemes, there are already powers in clause 3 to require that information. As for animal welfare in the wider context, that is a regulatory issue that should apply equally to all.
I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Stroud about the importance I place on animal welfare, but we pick up those policy objectives elsewhere.
Dr Drew
I hear exactly what the Minister says, but in a sense he is arguing against himself. Why are we restating health and traceability in the clause? All I am saying is that it would be very neat to put, “health, traceability and welfare of creatures”. Animal welfare is important to both health and traceability; it is the third leg of the stool. I do not understand why that cannot happen.
Welfare may be mentioned elsewhere, but so is animal health. This would reinforce in the legislation that this is a key element within the data collection process, which is what this bit of the Bill is about. More particularly, it is about the way we intend the new farming regime to make animal welfare an important part of how farmers should operate, in terms of animal health and traceability.
George Eustice
I can clarify precisely why there is a difference. It comes back to the purposes we envisage with these data transparency clauses. We are trying to tackle two issues. The first is fairness in the supply chain, with transparency of market data and terms and conditions. Secondly, we seek to support the roll-out of a new, much more innovative approach to livestock identification and traceability in the food chain.
The joint livestock information programme involves the farming industry, meat processors and DEFRA, to bring together what we currently have, which is a hotch-potch of different ID schemes for different species, coming from EU laws, and put that into a new single traceability database for animal welfare. That would give us the power to support that particular objective. Animal health and traceability are explicitly provided for because they support that.
Dr Drew
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said, animal welfare is a vital element in the reason why consumers should be made aware of lower standards when they buy foreign products. If we do not put that in legislation, we are effectively saying that we worry about health and traceability but the welfare of the individual animal is less important. So, we will continue to import animals that have been raised in the most inhumane ways.
Because this is a matter of data and information sharing, surely we should share that information with the consumer. I would like to ban such products outright, but that may be difficult with free trade agreements. At the very least, that information should be shared with consumers and I do not understand why the Minister is so reluctant.
George Eustice
It is because we have taken quite a large power to require the disclosure of information and we think it is important that we give people clarity and certainty about the purposes for which that will be used. Animal welfare is an incredibly important issue, which is why it is addressed in many other parts of the Bill—not least in clause 1, where it belongs.
To come to the hon. Gentleman’s point, if we were to have, for instance, a scheme requiring labelling on method of production, that could be done under other legislation. We already have the Food Safety Act 1990, for instance, which provides powers regarding labelling of food. There are other powers in other pieces of legislation that would enable labelling to be addressed. We do not believe that it is required in this clause of the Bill.
We have a joint passion about the importance of animal welfare, so I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is addressed elsewhere in the Bill, and that it would not be appropriate to include it in this clause, for the reasons I have explained. I hope that, on that basis, he and the hon. Member for Bristol East will withdraw the amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
My amendment was a probing one, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Declaration relating to exceptional market conditions
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 17, page 12, line 35, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make and publish a declaration if the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional market conditions in accordance with Clause 17.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 97, in clause 17, page 12, leave out lines 39 to 44 and insert—
‘(2) In this Part “exceptional market conditions” exist—
(a) where—
(i) there is a severe disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of a severe disturbance in agricultural markets, and
(ii) the disturbance or threatened disturbance has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on agricultural producers in England in terms of the prices achievable for one or more agricultural products, or
(b) if, on the day after exit day, the United Kingdom has not entered, or secured an agreement to enter, into a customs union with the EU.’
Amendment 117, in clause 17, page 12, line 40, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) there is or has been a significant disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of a significant disturbance in agricultural markets, or”.
This amendment and Amendments 122 and 123 would allow a declaration of exceptional market conditions where there is, or there is a serious threat of, a significant disturbance in agricultural markets; and would allow a declaration to be made in respect of events in the past.
Amendment 122, in clause 17, page 12, line 44, after “achievable for” insert
“or costs incurred in the production of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 117.
Amendment 123, in clause 17, page 13, line 2, after “are” insert “or have been”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 117.
Government amendment 6.
Dr Drew
I shall be quick, because although I am moving the amendment, I think it is more important that I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington to spend some time on it. It is important in relation to the ways in which the Bill could be improved. I ask the Minister to consider amendment 46, and then I am sure that my hon. Friend will have some other things to say.
The issue I am concerned about is the usual one about powers and duties. I make no apology for asking the Government once again to look at where they would consider toughening up the legislation. Unless we have some certainty about what the Minister must do, the Bill will just be a recipe for any subsequent Government—it will not be the Minister; it will be, understandably, his successor—to choose to cherry-pick what to do. We are again considering what duties the Government are prepared to put in place.
It is essential to define exceptional market conditions—that is what the clause is about. I am not sure that the Bill does so, and perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that point. More specifically, it is a question of an obligation on a Minister to take action at the relevant time. We have already discussed this year’s unusual climate change. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has obtained a debate on the impact of exceptional weather conditions this morning, and we should all be attending it, if we were not here enjoying ourselves on the Bill Committee. The Government must do a bit more joined-up thinking about it, and consider whether they are serious about it.
We can see the impact of climate change, and the Government have carefully inserted a clause in the Bill about a declaration relating to exceptional market conditions. However, everyone wants to know when they would intervene to take those exceptional market conditions seriously. There is a power for them to do that, but it is a power that means the Government would sit back, rather as President Trump did until he got the message that things in California are rather more serious than he originally thought. He sits back and says, “Well, it’s nothing to do with me; it is up to the state to sort it out.” Now, of course, he is looking for emergency powers.
That is usually the way things happen. The pressure of the public and sometimes politicians means that Governments have to intervene and do what people want them to do. However, it should be a duty, not a power. Can the Minister give me some assurances on exactly when the Government understand they would have to intervene, when market conditions are severely or significantly disruptive? It would be helpful if he could do that.
This is our food industry. If people do not eat because of exceptional market conditions, they do not tend to see that as being acceptable. We must identify what the Government must do—not “may” do, but “must” do—in relation to these conditions. That is why we make no apologies for pushing this, and it is important that we see it at this stage. I hope that the Government will put at least one duty into the Bill, and there is no more important duty than to feed the population of this country. That should have the word “must” rather than “may”.
Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)
David Drew ExcerptsTuesday 13th November 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Bill 2017-19 View all Agriculture Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 November 2018 - (13 Nov 2018)
George Eustice
I will not, because, as I said, I want to deal with the substance of the clause.
The Government are clear about our approach to getting in place a new free trade agreement and a partnership. However, there are several other flaws with the amendment. First, we have to bear in mind that the impacts of a no-deal Brexit will vary from sector to sector; it is not possible to determine exactly what they will be. For instance, we know that the sheep and barley sectors export quite a lot of their goods to the European Union. However, we are net importers in virtually every other sector, so although there may be an impact on sheep, there would almost certainly not be on beef, because there will be less import competition.
I do not think it is wise to put this proviso into the Bill. The reality is that, if the terms on which we left the European Union—be that with no deal or any other circumstance that led to restrictions on trade—led to a severe disturbance in the agricultural market, and if that disturbance threatened to have a significant impact on agricultural producers, the power is already there to act. We do not need to artificially bring a current debate around the customs union into a Bill that is built to last for the long term.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
One little snippet I learned last week is that the milk that makes Baileys Irish Cream goes backwards and forwards seven times across the Irish border. If there is not some sort of union—or agreement, as the Minister calls it—that will be catastrophic. Given that the backstop is the thing stopping us getting any sort of agreement, would he care to speculate on how he would overcome the downside of those movements not taking place?
George Eustice
The issue in all those circumstances is less about the customs union and more about border inspection posts. That is why we have outlined in our approach a commitment to a common rulebook on those areas that require a border inspection, so as to reduce or even eliminate the need for border checks, and then an agreement on equivalence in other areas of legislation. So the border issue is less about customs.
Let me give another example. Scotch whisky is currently our most successful export, and yet it is always sold as a bonded product in an individual national market, because you have different alcohol duties in national markets, even within a single market. We already have examples of some of our most successful exporting sectors having no problem at all dealing with variable tax rates within a market.
Dr Drew
The Minister quoted the US a minute or two ago. I have some experience of the way in which the US operates its agricultural policy. Whenever there is any challenge to US farmers, it brings the Farm Bill out and openly subsidises its farmers—it is a straight subsidy. That is one of the problems I have with a free trade deal with the US: it is not a level playing field if we get rid of direct payments. I ask the Minister again: how do we defend against exceptional market conditions in this country when another country has already decided that it is going to defend its farmers by taking action through subsidising them?
George Eustice
We are adopting an approach to agriculture policy that is all around investing in farmers to help them reduce their costs to improve their profitability and to reward them for the work they do for the farmed environment. Part four, starting with clause 17, which we are debating now, is all about intervention powers in exceptional circumstances. We have deliberately not defined what those are because there should be a strong element of discretion here, and the Government have to be able to move, decide and act in an expeditious way to tackle a crisis.
The hon. Member for Darlington mentioned this morning what sort of circumstances these powers might be used in. Bearing in mind that they have largely been borrowed from existing EU provisions, we know when the EU has used powers of this sort. For instance, it was possible when we had the dairy crisis in 2015 and prices slumped for a long period during the latter part of that crisis, for the EU to fall back on these exceptional intervention powers to make grants and payments available to farmers to reduce their production. That is the kind of example where it would be absolutely appropriate to use these powers. However, there are other times when we have short-term fluctuations in the market, and when it would not be appropriate to use the powers.
Dr Drew
The Minister is being very patient with me, but I want to get this on the record: if another country, which we may have a trading arrangement with, chooses to subsidise its farmers in extremis because of a particular circumstance, which may be—dare I say it—an act of God, or the market may just be in a difficult position, would we use this particular power to support our farmers?
George Eustice
If that crisis in a third country led to a market disturbance here that had an impact on our producers, then yes, the power is there to do so. There is wide discretion in how this power could be used. In practice, the reality here is that when we have a crisis, we know what will happen. The Minister of the day will have representations from Back-Bench MPs who have met their farmers and he will have to make a judgment about whether this warrants declaring that exceptional market circumstance and taking action thereafter to address it.
This is a wide discretionary power, but I am certain Parliament will be plugged in to advocating that we should declare this exceptional market circumstance and act. It is right we enable it to be a flexible power that can be used in emerging crises that we cannot yet predict.
Dr Drew
I am sorry to intervene once again, but this issue is a minefield, because if a group of my farmers come to me, and I then go to the Government and say, “Well, this is an exceptional circumstance”, and the Government say, “No, it’s not”, but the United States has treated it as an exceptional circumstance, that will surely lead to all manner of legal actions against the Government. Clearly, farmers will defend their rights and their incomes when they feel another country that is trading with us is getting an unfair advantage. Is he not opening a can of worms?
George Eustice
No, I do not think we are. We are largely replicating what already exists. It is already the case that if there was a crisis in the US, and the US intervened but the European Union chose not to, there would be some disparity—
George Eustice
We should deal with the situation in our market. The test we should apply before acting is whether there is a severe market disturbance that affects our agricultural producers. We should not be worrying about what other countries happen to be doing.
George Eustice
I do not accept that. We learned from the exchange rate mechanism crisis in this country that floating exchange rates work, and work for our economy. The ERM caused a deep recession in this country, and it was only by leaving it and allowing our currency to float and find its correct value that we saw that boom. We know that the existence of the single currency eurozone is throttling growth in countries such as Italy and Greece and causing massive unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. We know, too, that, since the referendum result, sterling has eased back against the euro, which has led to the biggest boost in farm incomes for more than a decade. In the two years since the referendum decision, farmers have benefited from the pound’s slightly softer rate against the euro.
On the amendments, I believe that the issues have already been addressed or that they seek to constrain or fetter the discretion in the power, so I hope that the Opposition spokespersons will not press them.
Dr Drew
This has been an illuminating discussion. The Minister has done well with a bad set of cases. Farm systems throughout the world are subsidised; they might be subsidised in different ways, but they are subsidised. In the normal course of events, that is not a particular problem—we can deal with it, partly because we are in the EU and so have a bulwark. The difficulty is that the clause puts an enormous responsibility on the Secretary of State—I would not want it if I were Secretary of State—to decide whether something is an exceptional market circumstance. I would want to know with my Cabinet colleagues that I had the power to insist on action.
The clause will make it difficult for a Minister to make the right decision, because farmers, understandably, will say, “You have to support us—the Americans support their farmers,” but here it is at the Minister’s discretion. That has always been our problem, and it is why I will press the amendment to a vote. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will do likewise with her amendment.
This is the crunch point of the Bill that we are asking the Government to consider. We do not want to fetter a future Administration, but we would want that Administration to understand their responsibilities, and that can be more clearly spelt out in terms of a duty—not a power, but a duty—so that if exceptional market circumstances were affecting the operation of agriculture in this country, the Secretary of State, or whoever was making the decision in government, had to respond, because of how the legislation had been framed. That is why I will press the amendment to a vote. I want to make it clear that the Bill is deficient in that regard.
We have heard many other interesting things that we will read back over with the benefit of hindsight. The Minister needs a few more examples to give us certainty that what is going on is coherent. At the moment, this seems a woolly set of arguments. We are protecting British farmers. We are also protecting British landowners, who might also be affected, as we can sadly see in California at the moment. I referred earlier to President Trump. He was hardly on the front foot. In a sense, the amendment would help the Secretary of State because he or she would know they had to act and that it was the Government’s responsibility. We can argue about what exceptional circumstances are, but the action should be clear, and that is why I will press the amendment to a vote. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will be so moved as well.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 82, in clause 20, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under this section may not amend or repeal any part of retained EU law (within the meaning of section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) relating to—
(a) the protection of the environment, or
(b) consumer rights.”
Amendment 83, in clause 20, page 16, line 17, after “section” insert—
“may only be made following a public consultation and”.
This amendment would ensure that there are checks and balances on the use of Ministerial powers and that Ministers may not make regulations that deviate from retained EU law without consultation with industry experts.
Dr Drew
I shall be very quick, because this is the same argument as I used earlier—we make no apology for bringing it back. Clause 20 may not seem to be the most important in the Bill, but the success of any farming operation nowadays depends on marketing. The measure will take effect in a number of different ways. Far too much discretion is allowed to the Secretary of State. These important responsibilities should be encompassed within duties not powers, which is why we make no apology for trying to make it a duty.
Amendment 47 is simple. We do not understand why the Minister has been reticent throughout the Bill to include duties so that successive Governments will know their responsibilities. This is a monumental clause that entails all manner of different requirements on the Minister: classifying different types of animal and plant variety, and how they are presented in terms of the way in which they are sold. Traceability is the issue that consumers feel most strongly about following the difficulties we went through with BSE and the cockle pickers. They want to know that what they are buying is produced in the manner best for animal welfare and that it is safe. They want to know where it comes from, and that the people who produced it have been paid fairly and are looked after.
This clause is important because it has all sorts of ramifications. We ask the Minister to consider when he will include duties if not in clause 20. This is about consumer protection as much as it is about the protection given to producers. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is going to follow up with other issues that are specified, relating to where we would be with our withdrawal from the EU, but this amendment is plain and simple. We are asking the Minister to put at least one duty in the Bill. That is crucial and would enable consumers to know the Minister is doing something because he has to do it for their benefit, and not doing something just because he wants to. I hope he considers clause 20 important and that he listens to us.
Jenny Chapman
I will speak to amendments 82 and 83. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, this argument is to some extent a rehash of the arguments we made earlier when we insisted that the Government should deprive themselves of the ability to amend regulations on the protection of the environment or consumer rights, which are so exceptionally important and valuable to the country that ideally they should not be watered down, dispensed with or altered by Ministers without the use of primary legislation—it should not be done by regulation.
In amendment 82, we seek to safeguard any part of retained EU law relating to the protection of the environment or consumer rights. Clause 20 allows the Secretary of State to amend regulations relating to marketing standards, including the power to amend or revoke standards set out in retained EU legislation. That is quite some power. Current EU legislation pertaining to marketing standards will become retained EU legislation in section 6 of the withdrawal Act. The Secretary of State obviously understands that this is a significant power because even the Government have said that they recognise that they will need to use the affirmative procedure. However, he wants to be able to change the legislation whenever he sees fit.
The Government ought to be aware of just how extensive that power is, and that Parliament will want to be involved and concerned about how the power will be exercised in future. It is welcome that the Government accept the need for the affirmative procedure, but we ask that they accept safeguards in the Bill so that we can be confident that, as a consequence, environmental protections and consumer rights cannot be watered down—or at least that it will be difficult to do so.
We have not debated those important issues as much as others such as support for farmers. We do not want these important measures to be diminished in any way through lack of insufficient debate during the progress of the Bill. The measures were the subject of considerable concern on the Floor of the House during debates on the withdrawal Act. Committee members may remember that many amendments were tabled along the lines of the ones we are discussing. There was great frustration and suspicion that future Governments would be able, through regulation, to make changes to these important safeguards, which have been copper-bottomed up until now because they have been part of EU law, much to the irritation of some Members.
I can see the argument that Members will be pleased when such safeguards can be changed by this Parliament, but that needs to be done in the right way. It is no good saying that things are protected just because power resides in Westminster with the UK Government or in a devolved Administration.
Jenny Chapman
I am grateful, Sir Roger. We are all learning as we go. The teamwork that you see on the Opposition Front Bench is seamless, but it requires us to get up in the right order.
I accept what the Minister said. His undertaking on having a consultation is welcome, and I look forward to holding him to it. I remain concerned about the subject of amendment 82. I hear what he says, but we are at a turning point, and we must to start as we mean to go on. The point we are making to the Government is that we want these things to be done properly and as transparently as possible, with as much involvement of MPs as we can manage, because that is how we involve wider society in our deliberations. These are matters of intense importance and I would like to test the Committee’s opinion on amendment 82.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 20, page 15, line 30, at end insert—
“(da) the indication on any labelling or packaging of a product of any allergen that the product is known to, or might reasonably be expected to, contain.”
This amendment would explicitly provide for labelling regulations to cover the presence of allergens in products.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
New clause 15—Mandatory labelling of animal products as to farming method—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring meat, meat products, milk, dairy products and egg products (including those produced intensively indoors) to be labelled as to the method of farming.
(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) shall be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging and shall be in easily visible and clearly legible type.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall (among other things) specify—
(a) the labelling term to be used for each product, and
(b) the conditions that must be met for the use of each labelling term.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may exclude from the labelling requirement products containing meat, eggs, milk or dairy products where the total proportion by weight of one or more of these items in the product is less than fifteen per cent.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would strengthen Clause 20 to require the Secretary of State to make labelling regulations that require meat, milk and dairy products, and egg products, including those which have been produced intensively, to be labelled as to farming method. Eggs are not included as legislation already requires eggs to be labelled as to farming method.
Dr Drew
This is something different, and again we are here to help the Government. Everyone will be aware of the allergen issues that have sadly affected a number of families, some of whom have lost loved ones. This is an opportunity that the Government should take, because we can insert in the Bill a provision that will at least put into law what many of us feel should already be in law, but has not yet reached the statute book. This amendment would insert a new short phrase
“the indication on any labelling or packaging of a product of any allergen that the product is known to, or might reasonably be expected to, contain.”
We are all aware of two specific cases, and the subject was debated through an urgent question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on 9 October. It is interesting that a Government Member, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), stated in response
“These are tragic cases, and it is clear that the law needs to be updated. Will my hon. Friend tell us how quickly he expects the law to be changed in this regard? Will they also say more about what the Government are doing to provide guidance to retailers, to ensure that this type of tragedy does not happen again?”—[Official Report, 9 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 127W.]
Here is the opportunity. By making this simple amendment, we could make sure that products containing allergens are properly labelled, and that if someone does not label a product properly or takes a risk with it, they will be held responsible according to the law. Sadly, at the moment they are not.
The two recent cases are but the tip of the iceberg. I am allergic to corn—as a vegetarian, that is not much fun, because corn is one of the staple replacements. I get terrible tummy aches, or stomach problems, if that is proper parliamentary language. I am also allergic to penicillin and I know that. Sadly, some labelling not very clear, and although you can go online and find out, these things should be known. It is like anything: the consumer should be aware and learn through mistakes to some extent, but for some people that is a tragic line to take.
Martin Whitfield
Do we not live in a time when the make-up—the ingredients—of products changes so rapidly that relying on previous knowledge of whether a product is safe is not good enough? People need to check virtually every time a product is purchased.
Dr Drew
I agree. Perhaps we just know a lot more about allergens nowadays and people are more willing to be overt in coming forward to say what should happen. This is a simple amendment that gives the Government the opportunity. The Government, through the Minister, may want to say there is a different way of doing it, but here we have an Agriculture Bill that is about food production.
I will be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has to say about her new clause, but clause 20 is a place where we could put a measure that will be immensely important to people who have allergies, so they know that they are being protected. We have various assurances from the Food Standards Agency that it is able to pursue cases; it is just not able to pursue cases because of the gap in the law, which should lead to criminal proceedings when someone been wilfully negligent.
Again, we are having to learn. In a post-Brexit situation—if we get to that situation—the British Government must have fool-proof security in how they deal with food standards and food safety. Given the a huge call on the Government to do this, I hope they will respond positively. If the Government will not remedy the problem at this stage, it would be interesting to know when they will act. Having stated that they intend to address a legislative gap, they are obliged to do so. Clearly, we cannot do this via a specific bit of legislation because we are waiting for Godot. You have to grab the opportunity when it comes around.
I hope the Minister will consider amendment 118 to be helpful. It will save lives, while also telling people who have lesser conditions but who want to know, if they are allergic to nuts or whatever, that a product has been properly labelled. If food is not properly labelled, the law should take its full effect.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I endorse what my hon. Friend says about amendment 118. There are so many calls now for better labelling of food and more information that we run the risk of getting to the point where the information is in such tiny print that it becomes meaningless, particularly for people who, like me, have reached the age where their eyesight is not as good as it used to be. It is important that consumers get as much information as possible.
New clause 15 would strengthen the Bill by requiring the Secretary of State to make labelling regulations that require meat, milk, dairy and egg products, including those that have been produced intensively, to be labelled as to farming methods. Eggs are not included in the legislation because they are already labelled. Surveys show that eight out of 10 consumers in the UK would like to know how farm animals are reared.
The Government have a role to play in ensuring higher animal welfare. We talked about that in the context of public money for public goods and the definition of higher animal welfare that will come out in 2020, and on that basis farmers will be rewarded, but the market also has a role to play. Consumers only shop around for the higher welfare products if they know what higher welfare is and is not. That includes how meat and dairy products are being reared.
George Eustice
As I said a moment ago, we are currently reviewing this. We intend to publish the results and our thoughts on how the law should be changed in this area early in the new year. We can make the amendments we need through secondary legislation. Obviously, because there is now a food safety issue, given the problem with allergies, once we have decided what is necessary we intend to move quite quickly.
New clause 15 relates to another important area. The Government have already signalled that we are keen to look at this issue further. Before addressing method of production labelling, I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Bristol East to subsection (2)(d) and (g) of clause 20. Paragraph (d) refers to
“the presentation, labelling, packaging, rules to be applied in relation to packaging centres, marking, years of harvesting”,
and so on, and paragraph (g) stipulates
“the type of farming and production method”.
Taken together, those two provisions already give us the powers we need to do all the things the hon. Lady is seeking to achieve with her new clause. Although this is an important area, and one that we want to look at, I do not think that this specific new clause is necessary. I hope that it is a probing amendment, given that the Bill already covers this in subsection (2)(d) and (g).
However, I would like to touch on the substance of the issue. The debate that we have had, with its many interventions—as I said, the hon. Lady is here to lighten the mood of the Committee—highlights how important this is, but also how complex. There are lots of descriptors: we have “grass-fed”, which is not necessarily the same as “pasture-fed”; we have “pasture-fed systems”; we have “outdoor-bred” pigs or “outdoor-reared” pigs; there is “organic” and “free-range”—and often those terms mean different things. It is quite an undertaking to try to define all those in one bound. Probably the more likely thing would be to pick something, such as “pasture-fed livestock”, just as we have done for free-range eggs, where we can draw the criteria and roll out these types of descriptors on labels as we are ready to do so effectively, rather than bite off more than we can chew. The regulations would enable us to do that, so we could bring in schemes as we were ready to roll them out.
Another slight complication is the nervousness I have always had about going too far down the line on method of production labelling, because there could be unintended consequences. For example, at the moment there is a substantial market for outdoor-reared bacon, because people look for that on the packet. They are less inclined to do so if they are buying a pork pie, for instance. Some manufacturers of pork pies might buy from high-welfare farms parts of the carcase that are not used for bacon and that are maybe outdoor bred, but they might also buy pigs from other, more commercial producers.
We have to be careful that, by having onerous labelling requirements for some of those sectors where people are less inclined to seek out the descriptor, we do not create an unintended barrier to high-welfare producers accessing the market for parts of the carcase that they would not necessarily market on the high-welfare brand. I am attracted to moving in that direction, but there are complexities and difficulties around the definitions and potential unintended consequences. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol East will agree that the intentions behind her new clause are already reflected in subsection (2)(d) and (g) of clause 20.
Dr Drew
I am partly assuaged by what the Minister has said. I hope he will commit to ensuring that there is an overt process by which the statutory instrument comes forward, so that we can allay the fears of those who clearly now have worries. That is why it is so urgent, and why we have provided an opportunity to make this amendment. People literally do not know what to eat because of their particular allergens. The Minister says that nobody knows quite why this has taken off in the way it has. I suspect that it is because we have become more susceptible to particular foodstuffs. Maybe it is because we know a lot more about why people have difficulties when they eat certain substances. It is right and proper that we give them the protection they deserve.
I will not push my amendment to a vote, but I will hold the Minister to account on this. We seem to have a very busy end of the year, and all manner of things will be coming forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington might wish to take a slightly different course of action; I think the Minister has given certain assurances, but we will not let go of this, because people’s lives are threatened. We feel that, at the very least, it is important for people to know that what they eat is safe and will not affect them adversely. I know from various correspondence that Government Members feel the sam.
I hope that the Minister has heard what I have said and will act on it, and that he will bring the SI forward as a matter of extreme urgency. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 82, in clause 20, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under this section may not amend or repeal any part of retained EU law (within the meaning of section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) relating to—
(a) the protection of the environment, or
(b) consumer rights.”—(Jenny Chapman.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Deidre Brock
That is certainly possible, and my proposal would allow for that possibility. Amendment 10 is odd; it is not clear why there should be no legal form defined for an entity in legislation. I hope the Minister can clarify.
Dr Drew
I will be brief because it is important to hear from the Minister. This is one of the real issues with the Bill. We have no schedule for Scotland; we do have a schedule for Northern Ireland, and I visited there last week to get some clarity on what they think it implies for Northern Ireland’s participation in the Act. Officials were clear that they see the schedule as a political decision-making requirement. As there is no Government in Belfast at the moment, they feel it inappropriate to support the Bill as it stands. They feel strongly that the current direct payment system will remain in place—they want their £300 million, by the way, Minister.
The Bill is very interesting, but, effectively, it is a Bill only for England and Wales. It is not a Bill for Scotland or Northern Ireland, yet these things are under the aegis of a Bill for the United Kingdom. It is a funny Bill, with two parts of the United Kingdom not participating in it.
Now, it might be a case of the officials misunderstanding. Clearly, we could move to direct rule, and the Government would then have to take decisions. I thought I had better check with the Democratic Unionist party spokesperson on agriculture. He reaffirmed that the DUP does not support the movement towards an environmental approach and it will, in due course, vote against it. The DUP believes that direct payment should stay in place as the only way for farmers in Northern Ireland to be secure. Having also visited the Republic, I am not sure that it will move, even though the CAP is up for redesign at the moment. There are indications that it will move towards environmental payments, but it is not there yet.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith’s point is interesting, to put it mildly. I am unclear where the Bill stands as a United Kingdom Bill. To me, it is very unclear. The devolution settlement means that, effectively, Scotland and Northern Ireland can do their own things, because agriculture is a devolved matter. If it were not a devolved matter, we would be discussing the agriculture policy of the United Kingdom. However, we cannot and we will not, and we might get a nasty shock when we come to final votes on the legislation.
There may be some interesting alliances, because I do not think we have understood the degree of the problem. I will make some more points on this when we reach schedule 4. I am laying down what I think is a very big dilemma. We have assumed that when this Bill becomes the Agriculture Act it will carry the four countries. I do not think it will. It will not carry Scotland, and it is increasingly evident that Northern Ireland will not be carried. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that. How does he intend to overcome that huge hurdle?
George Eustice
There are lots of other conditions. Subsection (2)(e) requires that the constitution of the organisation meets certain requirements. There are other such provisions as well, so we do not have to define them as a body corporate in law in order to have express conditions that mean they would all be jointly and severally liable were something to go wrong.
Dr Drew
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian has covered one of the points that I was going to raise. Can the Minister give us some examples of the actual changes that mean that he sees the amendment as necessary? I think I understood the original way in which it was placed in the clause, but what representations has he received, apart from the one he mentions? Are we changing the legislation because of one piece of representation or have others come up with cogent points for a necessary change?
George Eustice
I can tell the hon. Gentleman about that. I have had experience of the EU scheme in the past and there have been instances where, for instance, some growers have said to me that they would like to come together for a purpose other than just marketing, and they would like the freedom to be able to do that. That is quite restricted in the new scheme. On the amendments, the representations came from Co-operatives UK. After we published the Bill the co-ops told us that some of the provisions were unnecessarily restrictive and might stop some of their members from being able to have a recognised body for the purposes of clause 23, so we responded to those representations, which made salient points, and we were happy to acknowledge them and table the amendments.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment made: 10, in clause 22, page 16, line 39, leave out paragraph (d).—(George Eustice.)
This amendment removes the condition for applying to become a recognised producer organisation relating to the legal form of the organisation.
Dr Drew
We are getting there, slowly, Sir Roger. I want to pick up the point made by the Minister on clause 22 about how organisations will be identified. I am a Co-operative MP; I put that on the record. The Co-operative movement has been somewhat wary of this part of the Bill—whether it is clause 22 or, in this case, schedule 2, on which I have the opportunity to make these points.
I welcome the amendments that the Minister has moved, at least recognising that the Co-operative movement has been unhappy to be labelled as purely part of the competition arrangements, given that co-operation is a key part of the agricultural sector. Many farmers and farm organisations are, by their nature, co-operative: whether it is NFU Mutual, equipment changes or buying feed or pesticides, they tend to act in a co-operative organisation. I am raising the issue under schedule 2 to put on the record that there is still some unease. The Minister has recognised that, given the amendments that he tabled to clause 22. He has explained why he changed the wording, and I am very happy with that.
The issue is about the impact assessment on the Co-operative movement, given that the producer organisations, the associations of producer organisations and the inter-branch organisations—all lovingly acronymed —are by nature not just competitive organisations. They are also co-operative organisations. The Co-operative movement has felt that there has been increasing uncertainty and regulatory risk. Having agreed to the amendments that the Minister brought forward to clause 22, I am asking him also to say something in our discussion about schedule 2. That clearly relates to clause 23, given that one follows from the other.
Established co-operatives fear that they might find themselves outside the new settlement. They are likely to manage most of the uncertainty well, but they want to know that the Government have heard what they have been saying. In a sense, they want the Government to mount a robust defence of where co-operation comes within agriculture.
The biggest risk is where established co-operatives feel uncertainty about how the Competition and Markets Authority might interpret the joint selling arrangements. That is an important issue for those who want to protect co-operatives, one of whom is myself. At the very least, the additional challenge they might be faced with will put a cost obligation on them, increasing the transactional costs of collaboration. They want reassurance from the Minister about how they should handle the situation.
Will co-operatives be subject to those types of challenges, if the legislation is passed as it is currently drafted? Will it at least make farmers less inclined to co-operate, given that the nature of the Bill is to look at different ways in which environmentally-inclined changes could lead to new ways of working? This is a very old way of working, but it may be given an enhanced status if and when the Minister can clarify whether co-operation would be a key element of how the Competition and Markets Authority would see the matter. The co-operatives did look at various amendments. The Government have listened, and the co-operatives are happy with what they have done through amendments 9 and 11 to clause 22. However, they want further reassurance, as the same logic applies to schedule 2.
This is a probing amendment, but it is important because the message the Minister gives will reassure or cause further doubt in the minds of those who wish to look at new forms of business organisations in terms of how they do their agricultural trade. Will the Government at least look again at the issue and ensure that what they have done with clause 22 will apply to schedule 2? If the Minister can assure me that the Government will do that, I will certainly not press the amendment, but we may have to revisit it on Report if the Government have not done what they should to ensure that the CMA can incorporate co-operation as well as pure competition.
Again, that is part of the current common agricultural policy arrangements and its interpretation of economic efficiency within the acquis. We want to know that it will be rolled over into British legislation and particularly how it will be rolled over into schedule 2.
George Eustice
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have been in discussion with Co-operatives UK, which raised the issue about eligibility and the fact that the requirements for a corporate body and to have all members from one sector could affect some co-operative working. We listened to that and addressed it.
I do not think that there is a spill-over of that problem—for want of a better term—in schedule 2, because that schedule is essentially all the technical clauses needed to disapply what competition lawyers call “the chapter 1 prohibition”. In essence, schedule 2 determines and sets out in some detail the process by which producer organisations can come together to collaborate and co-operate in a range of areas and co-ordinate their activities in a way that would otherwise be considered a breach of competition law.
In particular, paragraph 9(1A) of schedule 3 to the Competition Act 1998 lists activities such as planning production, optimising production costs, concentrating supply, placing products on the markets and negotiating supply contracts. Schedule 2 gives licence to a recognised producer organisation to do all those things and to disapply those elements of the 1998 Act.
Dr Drew
The Minister makes an interesting point. I thank the hon. Member for North Dorset for getting my little grey cells working. Let us take Arla, for example—a co-operative that operates across a number of countries and that is not likely to fall foul of the CAP by being seen as a monopoly with more than 33%.
I do not have the current figures for the percentage of the milk supply that Arla processes, but if the Competition and Markets Authority took it as a purely national organisation and it fell foul of that 33%, could this new legislation mean that it ended up having to be broken up? I will need some assurance from the Minister before we go any further, because that is a good example of a co-operative that everyone would support, but which could now be in a disadvantageous situation if we take this as a national definition of its market control. Will the Minister clarify?
George Eustice
There is already national competition law set out in the Competition Act 1998, enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority. In the past, for instance, that famously led to the break-up of Milk Marque, which led to the situation we have today. There have been instances of that in the past under existing national provisions on competition law. I know the hon. Gentleman said he might come back to this on Report; I am happy to give an undertaking to look at this issue further and explain in further detail exactly what each of those clauses delivers. The clause that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset mentioned is an anti-avoidance clause—[Interruption.]
George Eustice
Yes. My understanding is that we have addressed the issues he has raised about the schedule, which are linked to the concerns that Co-operatives UK raised, through our earlier amendments.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 24
Regulations under sections 22 and 23
Amendment made: 12, in clause 24, page 19, line 7, after “unless” insert “section 29(4A) applies or”—(George Eustice.)
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 2.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Fair dealing obligations of first purchasers of agricultural products
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 93, in clause 25, page 19, line 22, leave out “the first”.
This amendment would extend the fair contractual dealing provisions of Clause 25 to all purchasers of agricultural products through the supply chain.
Amendment 112, in clause 25, page 19, line 22, after second “of” insert “all”.
This amendment would ensure that powers to introduce sector-specific codes are not confined to certain sectors (i.e. not only those where voluntary codes have been unable to significantly improve contractual relationships) but to all sectors.
Amendment 65, in clause 25, page 19, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would require that regulations containing provisions that extend to Scotland may be made only with the consent of Scottish Ministers
Amendment 94, in clause 25, page 19, line 24, leave out “the first”.
This amendment would extend the fair contractual dealing provisions of Clause 25 to all purchasers of agricultural products through the supply chain.
Amendment 66, in clause 25, page 20, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult persons—
(a) who are representative of—
(i) producers of, or
(ii) first purchasers of,
the agricultural products to which the regulations will apply, or
(b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.”
This amendment would ensure that before making regulations the Secretary of State be required to consult with representatives of the producers and first purchasers.
Amendment 95, in clause 25, page 20, line 28, leave out “first”.
Amendment 111, in clause 25, page 20, leave out line 30 and insert—
“‘producer’ includes—
(a) an individual producer within or outside the United Kingdom,
(b) an entity within or outside the United Kingdom which sells agricultural products after they have been aggregated from more than one producer, and
(c) a business within or outside the United Kingdom operating a packhouse;”.
Dr Drew
We are making some progress. I blame the hon. Member for North Dorset; he has been holding us up, but now that he has gone we are racing through. These are quite important amendments. I will not labour the point on “must” and “may”—I think the Minister will be keen on that—but I do want to talk particularly about amendments 93 to 95, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East also has amendment 111 in this group, so we will take a little bit of time going through this, because it is quite important.
Amendments 93 to 95 would remove the requirement restricting new statutory codes to first purchasers at the farm gate, addressing unfair dealings along the whole supply chain—beyond first purchasers—to ensure that that regulation applies to all stages of the supply chain not currently covered by the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I must say that we feel the Bill has been somewhat hurried here. We have made the point of who we did not hear evidence from, one of whom was the Groceries Code Adjudicator, whose powers we feel very strongly have been somewhat hamstrung by the Bill. We either value the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s work or we see it as fairly irrelevant.
This matters because it has been a bone of contention that producers can only ever take action through the Groceries Code Adjudicator relating to certain parts of the food chain, principally improprieties at the retail stage. I understand that the farming organisations have always wanted to extend those powers—powers, not duties—so that they can take action against intermediaries in the food chain. This is important, and we want clarity on this at the very least.
There is this thing about whether they are able to derive evidence of harm. The Government have noted that smaller suppliers—including the majority of farmers— growing our food, both in the UK and overseas, are vulnerable to abusive treatment by their buyers; that is why we have a Groceries Code Adjudicator in the first place. That behaviour can involve: paying invoices late, which is the classic one; changing orders at the last minute; cancelling orders, because we all have examples in our constituencies of particular producers feeling that they have been hung out to dry by the way in which certain buyers are able to manipulate the market; and charging suppliers unexplained fees to keep their food on the shelves.
We know that food supply chains are complex, with behaviour in one part of the chain obviously having an impact in another. Again, we want clarity here, because we think that this part of the Bill could be improved; we are trying to help the Government, not damn them. Limiting the clause’s focus to the relationship between a farmer and their immediate buyer sadly misses out what happens in the intermediary parts of the food chain. It will be interesting to know whether the Government see this as a role for the Groceries Code Adjudicator, or whether they are unhappy about it.
There was widespread support for putting the Groceries Code Adjudicator in place; it was a cross-party arrangement. It took longer than some of us would have liked, given that we started talking about it when I was last a Member, but eventually it came to fruition. The sad thing is that there is still a belief that the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s powers are too limited and that it is too constrained in where it might want to intervene to right wrongs. On these three amendments, we are asking the Government at least to be clear about what they see as the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in relation to the Bill.
At the crux of this are the circumstances in which the body might need to appropriate precise costs and take a more forensic approach when indirect suppliers request adjudication on a case in which unfair dealing had been perpetrated by other parts of the supply chain. It is about looking at whether we can improve the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and at the very least we want clarity on how the Bill will either do that or not. Again, we may want to revisit this on Report if we do not feel confident that the Government have listened and acted.
Regulations are about how this will be implemented in relation to the supply chain—of course, this is largely about statutory instruments—but the Government need to say something in the Bill about their priorities, and their willingness to listen and act on what many of our producers have identified as a serious issue. In terms of primary legislation, it is important not to leave out what those trading relationships are and could become if there was a more level playing field.
The enforcing body, which presumably is the Groceries Code Adjudicator, needs not only the powers to act but the resources. From talking to producers and from my knowledge of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, I know that cases are often not pursued because there are not the resources to do it. These are terribly complicated issues. Again, it is not something that the law has ever embraced, because it is so complicated. We set up the Groceries Code Adjudicator to get away from that particular legal quagmire.
It is worth noting that the EU, blighted as it might be, is currently passing a law that would set up an enforcement authority. At the very time that we are leaving the EU—supposedly—it now recognises that it has to take additional powers to deal with these unfair trading practices along the whole of the agriculture supply chain, from the farmer to the retailer. That received support from Conservative and Labour MEPs.
This is an important issue, which we make no apology for bringing up at this time in order to look at where we are in terms of the powers invested in the Groceries Code Adjudicator, whether those powers should be increased on the face of the Bill—something we could do here—and whether that would deal with some of the intermediary abuses that, at the moment, are not within the aegis of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Kerry McCarthy
I hope to be fairly brief. I will address amendment 111 first, because it links directly to amendments 93 and 94. In the event that amendments 93 and 94 are unsuccessful, and therefore the fair dealing measures in the Bill cover only the relationship between a farmer and the first buyer, amendment 111 has been tabled to address a potential unintended consequence of imposing these obligations on first purchasers, namely that producers who act as aggregators for their neighbours could potentially be classified as purchasers.
It is common practice here and overseas that if one producer has the infrastructure, skills or time, they may collate the produce on behalf of local farmers. A farmer with a big barn or storage facility may aggregate apples in a packhouse for neighbouring growers in his or her part of Kent or East Anglia. A bean grower in Kenya may do the same for neighbouring farmers. Amendment 111 ensures that those aggregators will still be classed as producers, and that they are then within the scope of protection.
Amendment 112 is about the sector-specific statutory codes. We have been told that they will initially be introduced in sectors where voluntary codes have been unable to significantly improve contractual relationships. I know that in evidence it was suggested that dairy would be the first sector to have the code applied, because it is seen that the current arrangements are not working that well. There is concern that certain sectors will have priority and that the Government will never get around to actually bringing other sectors into the scope of the statutory codes, for example for the fruit and veg sector. There would then be powers to support fair purchasing in the dairy sector, but not other sectors. Amendment 112 is simply about ensuring that the codes are not confined to certain sectors but apply to all sectors. I have lengthy notes on the rest of it, but I think I will leave it at that.
George Eustice
Although it might do so in a different way, it relates to competition law and is not an exemption from the chapter 1 requirements that we discussed earlier. The hon. Lady has not complained about the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which is administered on a UK basis and operates UK-wide; nor has she raised huge concerns about the way that the EU has always approached those matters, which is that they are a UK-wide competency and that switching on elements of the milk package is a UK decision and can be done only on a UK-wide basis. I hope that I have addressed the issues raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith about the role of Scotland in this reserved matter, and reassured the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol East that their amendments are unnecessary since they are provided for in part 2 of schedule 1.
Dr Drew
I hear what the Minister says and he will be pleased to learn that I will not press amendment 48 to a Division, but I am very concerned that the Bill has not been as clearly and cleverly scrutinised as it could have been because we were not able to meet a number of the organisations. I would have liked to ask the Groceries Code Adjudicator how the Bill could have made the authority more effective, but we did not get that chance. I do not know why she did not come; perhaps we were not as enticing as we might have been, or perhaps she did not get the push from Government.
It is important: this part of the Bill is about competition, fairness and accountability, yet we are in the dark, hoping that some of it will be carried through. The Minister has kindly given way on timber and we might see that somewhere in a schedule on Report, when he has talked to his colleagues. We are somewhat less than impressed by the Bill, and we need to nail down the legislation, in that we have producers believing that the Groceries Code Adjudicator is not able to function as effectively as she could, yet when we get the opportunity with some legislation to allow her additional powers those powers are not forthcoming.
The Chair
No. I am sorry. We have taken the vote on the lead amendment. Well, to be more exact, we have taken a vote on another amendment.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 25, page 20, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) for the identity of any person who has made a complaint relating to alleged non-compliance to be held in confidence and not disclosed during any investigation into their complaint;”.
This amendment would provide for the confidentiality of persons who raise complaints under the fair dealing obligations provided by Clause 25.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 87, in clause 25, page 20, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) for an investigation to be launched where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is non-compliance;”.
This amendment would provide for investigations to be undertaken under the fair dealing obligations provided by Clause 25 where there are reasonable suspicions, but no complaint has been made.
Dr Drew
I hope not to delay us that much longer, because I think we are past the bewitching hour and we keep losing members—at this rate, the Whips are going to have to find someone non-existent to pair with—but it is important that we dwell on the issue for a few minutes.
Again, this amendment may not be that crucial to the Bill in the great import of things, but a number of organisations feel quite strongly about where this part of clause 25 is taking us. It is all about fair dealing and the obligations of the first purchaser of agricultural products. We have argued that that should not necessarily reside with the first purchaser, but should be across the food chain.
Amendment 86, which has the support of a number of non-governmental organisations, is about maintaining the confidentiality of complainants. That is vital, because they would not necessarily pursue a complaint without that confidentiality; evidence from the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s review highlighted that as an ongoing issue. The imbalances of power in many grocery supply chains create a climate of fear in which small suppliers are unwilling to speak out for fear of commercial reprisals. This reticence is understandable, because once a supplier is blacklisted regarding their ability to supply a particular food chain, that tends to become total and ongoing. Smaller players often rely on a single buyer for large proportions of their business—sometimes it is 100%. Even when a regulator is in place, suppliers still have concerns about coming forward. There is a need to ensure that there no single supplier is exposed to possible retribution by a more powerful mid-tier supplier and retailer.
Following an investigation, the new body should make relevant recommendations to deter poor practice, including penalising mid-chain suppliers or retailers found guilty of breaching the code. It is important to be clear that the confidentiality provided by this amendment is different from anonymity. We recognise that if the party bringing the complaint wants compensation regarding their specific case, they will of course need to be identified. It is not as though that confidentiality can be kept in place indefinitely, particularly where monetary compensation is required. The principle of the confidentiality of the identity of the complainants being waived only with their express consent is critical in ensuring that producers feel confident coming forward. That is exactly how the Groceries Code Adjudicator works, so we want to extend it along the food chain.
Amendment 87 would allow the enforcement body to undertake investigations without specific complaints, and again this is where we want to boost the power of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. An effective enforcement body must be able to hold the trust of suppliers and keep any evidence confidential until there might be some monetary arrangement, which would require going on the record. To achieve this, an enforcement body should also have the power to investigate potential transgressions under its own initiative, rather than require the submission of compelling evidence before it acts. My understanding is that that is what the Groceries Code Adjudicator has herself asked for. It would be surprised if she has not, because it completes her powers and responsibilities. The spotlight is taken away from suppliers and potential complainants, so it is on the Groceries Code Adjudicator herself to take those complaints forward. Without this clause we may see the enforcement body unable to identify issues that are either specific to one chain or one problematic behaviour activity, but where no single producer has been able to complain, directly for fear of delisting—that is a more appropriate term, I accept.
As I explained about amendment 86, there is a climate of fear. Therefore, we feel that proactive action by the regulator is vital. We want the Government to look seriously at this and use this legislation to enhance the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, something that a number of us across the House have called for. We are seeking to use this legislation to do that because our producers feel that too often the Groceries Code Adjudicator is constrained by her inability to work across the food chain and to guarantee confidentiality and, when there is monetary consideration concerned, that this has been through due process.
I hope the Minister will give us the opportunity to consider how he can ensure that confidentiality is guaranteed, but also guarantee the enhanced powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Again, this may not be the most important part of the Bill, but for producers who feel that they have fallen foul of the process and have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, felt bullied, intimidated or delisted from selling their products in the right and fair manner, we should use the Bill to put that right.
George Eustice
The amendments are linked to a common sentiment that we hear from farmers. There is no doubt that a number of people will say that they fear reprisals, consequences of being delisted or losing business if they were to complain. That has been recognised for some time. That is why we made changes early on to the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, to enable her to receive complaints anonymously and pursue investigations when she had reasonable cause to believe there was a problem with a particular supermarket, and indeed to allow a trade body such as the National Farmers Union to pass on intelligence about the conduct of a particular supermarket that could inform an investigation. Even within the GCA, which is predominantly a complaints body, we have found the scope for anonymous whistleblowing and for third-party organisations to pass on concerns.
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to subsection (5)(a) and (b). The specific issues he raises can be addressed through regulations. Subsection (5)(a) makes provision for regulations
“for complaints relating to alleged non-compliance to be referred to a specified person”.
And, crucially, subsection (5)(b) states
“as to how those complaints are to be investigated and how an allegation of non-compliance is to be determined”.
It is absolutely within the powers set out in subsection (5) for us to introduce regulations that would guarantee anonymity and enable complaints from third-party organisations, when they can hand on intelligence or create the scope for a regulator to investigate, when there is reasonable cause to believe there is a problem. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we think the particular issue that he seeks to address in amendment 86 is already provided for in subsection (5)(a) and (b).
Finally, although we hear a lot about this, Christine Tacon from the Groceries Code Adjudicator says that one of the most powerful things that can be done is for people working for processors and dealing with supermarkets to have assertiveness training, because we can put in place all the right regulations and have all the abilities in the world for people to report things anonymously, but there is a point at which people have to take responsibility and be willing to say to a supermarket buyer, “You know I cannot agree to that, because it is a breach of the code and what you are asking me to do is in breach of the law.” She said that when the GCA has placed people from those organisations’ sales teams on to assertiveness training, they have learnt how to use the code themselves without having to always run to her for an intervention.
Dr Drew
I find this quaintly interesting, because my experience of the milk trade is that they lack anything but assertiveness. There are more four-letter words in their way of trying to do business than could be heard on a football pitch on a Sunday morning. Sadly, it is not just about assertiveness, but fairness and the way in which this can be taken up by the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That is why a number of organisations—as always, at the top there is a whole series of different bodies—feel strongly that this needs additional powers to be vested in the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I hope the Minister has listened to that and will act on it.
George Eustice
The clause provides quite strong powers, including those to impose penalties for non-compliance on the first purchaser of agricultural products. If such a first purchaser happens to be a major retailer— perhaps one not currently covered by the groceries code, because it is below a certain threshold—it will be covered by the Bill. By addressing the problem from both ends of the telescope, we have a workable solution that means we can really deliver for the interests of farmers while not losing the successes of the Groceries Code Adjudicator model.
Having given that reassurance that the issues raised by the hon. Member for Stroud in amendments 86 and 87 can already be addressed through regulations under subsection (5), I hope that he will accept it and withdraw his amendments.
Dr Drew
I thought that the intervention made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was apposite. We are improving the legislative framework, including toughening up the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and specifically—in my amendments—we could ensure that people feel confident that there is a confidential arrangement between them and the Groceries Code Adjudicator so that they may pursue their actions.
As much as I like the Minister and hear what he says, this is how we improve legislation—we want to put something very important in the Bill. We know why so many producers do not choose to pursue a course of action against someone who has treated them unfairly: they are frightened. We will press the amendment to a vote—though we might not win—and the Minister is hearing from his own Back Benchers that this needs to be revisited on Report. We want to ensure that the Groceries Code Adjudicator can exercise all her powers, including along the food chain—because at the moment it seems to be very much a one-way street, which is why she is less effective than she could be. Also, producers feel that they are often let down, because they are not able to carry through regarding the unfair practices that they face.
This little amendment—it is very small—would dramatically change the power relationship. I hope the Minister will accept in good faith that we are pressing it to a vote so that he can reflect on it when it comes back on Report and strengthen this bit of the Bill.
Chris Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his praise—as praise indeed it was—but, unlike him, I am happy with the Minister’s response and I shall be voting with the Government.
Dr Drew
Sadly—I thought we might have enticed the hon. Gentleman over to this side. It could have made all the difference, and the Government would have, in due course, thought that it was great that Back Benchers spoke for themselves and voted accordingly. One always has these hopes that might be dashed at a later stage. We will press the amendment to a vote, but we hope the Government will understand that we are willing and able to see how this can be improved on Report.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Agriculture Bill (Seventh sitting)
David Drew Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I apologise: some colleagues seem to think that the room is rather cold. We have asked to have it warmed up, but the problem is that that takes about four days, by which time we shall be in a heatwave and you will all want it cooled down. Any brave Member who wishes to may remove their jacket, or put on an overcoat.
More importantly, will you please be kind enough to ensure that all your electronic bits and pieces are turned off? The wrath of God will descend upon you if any go off—the wrath of the Chair, anyway. Other than that, we are ready to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 2
Financial assistance: forms, conditions, delegation and publication of information
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 2, page 2, line 27, at end insert—
‘(3A) It shall be a condition for receipt of financial assistance under section 1 that the person in receipt can demonstrate that—
(a) their existing and proposed land or livestock management practices, or
(b) their proposed land or livestock management practices;
meet any regulatory standards specified by the Secretary of State and which are in force at the time that the management practices are carried on.
(3B) The regulatory standards specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (3A) may (among other things) include standards relating to—
(a) health or welfare of humans, livestock or wild creatures,
(b) soil health,
(c) air quality,
(d) quality of water in any inland waterway.’
This amendment would require the recipients of financial assistance for the purposes in clause 1 of the Bill to demonstrate that their existing and proposed land or livestock management practices meet minimum regulatory standards.
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We shall try to make more speedy progress today, but a number of issues are important, and I hope that the Government will be able to respond and at least put our minds at rest. If not, we shall do the obvious and force the Committee to Divisions.
This amendment is in many respects wider than amendment 71, which we have already discussed, so I shall not go through a lot of the same arguments. The amendment looks at an issue that we feel strongly about in the Opposition: the regulatory framework, and how and why people will be paid for what they do. It involves the health and welfare of people and animals, wildlife, and how we look after the land—soil health, and air and water quality.
From the point of view both of proper management of public money and of ensuring the environmental benefits, it is important for us to establish what we mean by bad baseline practice. In our own minds, we might know that it is when we go to farms or to visit others who look after the land and see things that we would not want to see, but we need to say something about it in this legislation.
On Tuesday, the Minister talked about some of the things that will inevitably follow, such as how we move from existing cross-compliance in the common agricultural policy into environmental land management contracts, but we were a little surprised by how open-ended those were. More particularly, we are not sure who these countless individuals going out to advise are, or where they will come from. Furthermore, if farmers or—dare I say it—people in general are left to their own devices and self-regulate, who checks the self-regulation? We want to tease out some of those big issues.
The Minister tried to reassure us about some of the checks and balances, but we are still not sure about how things will work in practice. That will be a continual theme in what we say today. What do the measures mean to the people to whom we are potentially giving money, and what do we expect them to do for that? If they do not do it, what happens? Clearly, some people will use bad practice or fail to meet minimum standards.
The Government said in their policy statement that they intend to be “firm and fair” in their approach to regulation. We await the final report of Dame Glenys Stacey—we have the interim report—but some of us would have liked to have heard from her in the evidence sessions, because it is important to know what she has in mind for recommendations on how regulation will work. Perhaps the Minister will give us some insight about where Dame Glenys is going.
More particularly, on animal welfare, we need to know a bit about safety records: who keeps them? How will those records be accessible and by whom? Otherwise there will be no real clarity. The point also applies to air and water quality and to soil health.
From the Government, as a result of “Health and Harmony”, we have the policy statement—I will not read it all out, but it is quite revealing. It talks about a “changed regulatory culture” and says:
“We will maintain strong regulatory standards and introduce a new approach to monitoring compliance and enforcement. We will adopt a more streamlined and focused regime, with more data sharing, reduced duplication and greater use of ‘earned recognition’,”—
I will ask the Minister to tell me what he thinks “earned recognition” is, because I am not completely sure—
“which received strong support in the consultation. ‘Earned recognition’ may take account of historic compliance and membership of industry assurance schemes, where there is confidence that the scheme enforces regulatory standards.”
It goes on about the idea of “firm but fair” and the fact that it will be reliant on what comes out of the Stacey review.
Our problem is that a lot of these things are in play—the Bill is also being scrutinised by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee—but we are doing the legislation. There is a degree of, “Which comes first?”, and it would be helpful if we had had some of that evidence so that we could make a better job of holding the Government to account. How will it all work, particularly the idea of earned recognition? Who will achieve that? Who will monitor it, and when it is not acceptable, what do we do about it?
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is a pleasure to begin the day by responding to this particular amendment. At its heart is an attempt to put into the Bill a requirement to have something akin to the existing cross-compliance regime. I will come back to that later.
There are two key points I would make about the amendment. Clause 2 and clause 3, which we will come to later, as already drafted, make allowance and provision for a Government to create such conditions through an affirmative statutory instrument should they feel that that is the right thing to do. Under clause 2(2) it is open to the Government to say that there are conditions attached to entry into these schemes and that there may be, under clause 3(2)(g), penalties for breaches of the regulatory baseline.
There is already an option, given how the Bill is drafted, for a Government to bring forward proposals of that sort through an SI. My argument is that the detail spelled out in amendment 84 would be the appropriate level of detail that might be in a particular SI brought in under, for instance, clause 2, and probably addressed through anything brought in under clause 3 as well. We could do that, if we wanted, through the SI and that would be the appropriate place to do it.
However, my general view is that we should separate out as far as we can the regulatory baseline, which should apply to everyone equally whether they are in or out of a scheme, and conditions that we attach to financial schemes to support farmers to go above and beyond that regulatory baseline. The danger of the amendment here, as I see it, is that the very first thing it says, in 3A, is:
“It shall be a condition for receipt of financial assistance…that the person in receipt can demonstrate”,
that they abide by all those things.
We want people to feel good about entering these schemes. When a farmer phones up the Government, Natural England or whichever agency is administering the scheme to say, “I am really keen to enter your new agri-environment scheme,” if the first thing that happens is that they say, “Well, we’ll send out an inspector from the Rural Payments Agency with a clipboard to try to find fault and see whether your ear tags are wrong, or there is a trivial problem of that sort that will disqualify you,” it will put people off entering the scheme.
We already have this problem with the cross-compliance regime. I explained on Tuesday that, having wrestled with the cross-compliance regime as a Minister for five years, I can confirm that it is completely dysfunctional. The regulations set out in EU law and the penalty matrix mean that incredibly disproportionate penalties are sometimes applied to farmers that have no bearing whatever to the scale of the breach in question.
We already have problems with, for instance, large arable farms that might have a small pedigree herd of cattle that they keep going as a labour of love. If they have some trivial ear tag problem—an ear tag goes missing and they have not managed to replace it yet—and are unlucky enough to be inspected, they can end up with penalties of £40,000 or £50,000 for such small things. I remember many cases in this area. I remember a farmer who once had a dispute with his neighbour. The neighbour padlocked the gate on the footpath, and the farmer ended up with a £45,000 penalty, such is the nonsense of the existing scheme.
We do not want to replicate that. The danger of accepting the amendment is that a trivial error or mistake on something like an ear tag could lead to somebody’s complete disqualification from entering a scheme, or to an onerous financial penalty that would not fit the breach incurred. Something of this type could be introduced through an SI under the Bill’s provisions, should someone wish to. We should abide by the principle that regulations apply to everyone, that we should not have more inspection on people who enter schemes than those who do not, and that inspection regimes should be consistent and apply to people across the board, whether or not they are in a scheme. For those reasons, the amendment is not appropriate.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked about the Dame Glenys Stacey review. That is now well under way. She is keen to move to what she terms a better, more modern approach to regulation, in which things are better joined up and there is less reliance on an arbitrary rulebook, with people coming around with clipboards and ticking boxes. She wants a more holistic approach to the way we manage compliance on farms and a better understanding of, as I explained on Tuesday, the grey area between incentivising better husbandry and good practice, which can go a long way to achieving environmental and animal welfare outcomes, and accepting that a clear regulatory baseline must be enforced.
We are keen to start moving towards a different culture around regulation that is less about a complex rulebook, which often has lots of unintended consequences and disproportionate penalties, as characterised in our current scheme. We want it to be more about discretion for officers on the ground, whether they be from Natural England, the Rural Payments Agency or the Animal and Plant Health Agency, to exercise judgment in respect of a given farm, and about having a better understanding of the linkage between things that we can incentivise to get better outcomes and the need to adhere to the regulatory baseline.
George Eustice
I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Ipswich was going to support me. I agree with the first part of his intervention: we want to recognise that there is a limit to what can be achieved by a regulatory base. What we are trying to do through clause 1 is to create schemes that incentivise farmers to go above and beyond that, while clauses 2 and 3 will put in place the enforcement regime to support those areas.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Under the cross-compliance regime, the average inspection level is about 3%, so let us not exaggerate the extent of it. It is something of a lottery whether a farmer gets a visit from the RPA; one visit in 33 years is fairly typical. My disagreement with him is on the basis that if we have a regulatory baseline, we should enforce it consistently on everyone, whether or not they are in a scheme. Under his amendment, the inspection rate would be 100% for anyone in a scheme, while anyone who chose not to be in a scheme would not receive the same level of inspection. In my view, that would be inconsistent.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Stroud that the objectives of his amendment could be achieved under clauses 2 and 3 through an affirmative statutory instrument, or through the terms of any contract entered into under clause 2. Agreeing to his amendment would be unnecessary and counterproductive, so I hope he will withdraw it.
Dr Drew
I will not press the amendment to a vote, but only because I am even more confused now than when I moved it. Notwithstanding the issues that we have raised and that the House of Lords has already waxed lyrical about, the Bill relies far too much on SIs to underpin it. The Bill may be a scaffold rather than a building, but at the moment we do not even have the bits of the Meccano set in the right place.
We need more detail on how the Bill will work in practice. The Minister is saying that we will be doing other things, but all the examples that he falls back on are effectively about cross-compliance. If Dame Glenys Stacey comes up with a better way of doing things, let us hear about it, but the problem is that we are passing legislation on the basis that she will. We do not know that, so we are giving a hostage to fortune.
Notwithstanding our unhappiness with the Rural Payments Agency—as the Minister says, it does not go on to farms very often, and when it does it sometimes goes over the top, which can be very unfair—who is going to do this? Who is going to carry out this affirmative action, to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich?
The Minister did not explain what earned recognition was. I think it needs to be defined in the Bill, because it is a central point.
George Eustice
I apologise for missing that point; I was taking a steer from Sir Roger that he wanted to make some progress.
We already have a concept of earned recognition. It is already provided for in EU regulations, and we already have an approach whereby somebody who has signed up to the Red Tractor scheme is put into a low-risk category when the selections for inspection are run. That follows a principle that we have advanced for many years, which is simply that if somebody goes to the effort of signing up to an accredited scheme, it shows that they are already abiding by higher standards. If they are already subject to inspection by the Red Tractor accreditation scheme, for instance, it is less necessary for the Government to inspect them. It is a good principle and we want it to continue.
Dr Drew
That is very good, but why is it not in the Bill? The Bill needs to spell out very clearly the process by which this will operate. I would be happy to agree to a Government amendment or new clause that spelled out what earned recognition is, because it is fundamental. If it is going to bolster the way in which environmental land payment contracts are made operative, let us put it in the Bill so that everybody knows what they are dealing with. We would have to be careful about the wording and how it operates in practice, but that is what legislation is about. If we are using a term that—dare I say it—is being taken from the EU, why is that not in the Bill?
I shall not press this amendment to a vote, but the Government need to do some real thinking about what needs to be in the Bill to give the people who have to operate under it—farmers and others—knowledge of how they will be able to earn support payments and, if they do not do things as we want them to, what action the state will have to take. At the moment, I am none the wiser. The Government need to go back and define the terms, to say how the different mechanisms will work. We would then be much happier. The Government need to do some thinking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, after “delegate” insert “administrative”.
This amendment would ensure that the actual design and purpose of schemes is not delegated to non-governmental bodies or organisations.
I hope to make quicker progress on this amendment, which is in my name and that of other hon. Friends. It is meant to tease out who will benefit from the new delegated functions. As drafted, Ministers may delegate functions to any other person. In theory, therefore, the design and process could be delegated to anyone. Although this will be a short speech, we feel strongly that the clause could lead to distortions across the country and result in a postcode lottery.
These advisers, who are going to be invented—we hope they become a reality sooner rather than later—will have to interpret the Bill and decide who is, in effect, there to work with the people who want to receive the payments. The idea is that only those administrative functions can be delegated, but will the Minister spell out more clearly what is meant by the delegating process? For example, which Government agencies are involved? I keep going on about this, but we did not have the opportunity to hear evidence from such agencies, and one of the questions that we would have asked was about where they see themselves playing a role. We tried that with the Food Standards Agency, which basically said, “Nothing to do with us, guv.” Other agencies must therefore be more responsible for the operation of the Bill.
Will the Minister simply set out the process for delegation to those agencies? Will he name the agencies? That would be helpful, given that they will inevitably have to overlap. At the moment, Natural England’s functions have been subsumed into the Rural Payments Agency, but there are other agencies—trading standards still go to farms and look at various animal health issues. It would be useful to know from the Minister how he sees all that working.
George Eustice
I am grateful for the opportunity to explain what we intend to do under clause 2(5) and also under clause 2(4), which is of relevance as a linked power. The issue is connected with something the hon. Gentleman highlighted earlier in our debates on clause 1: how we intend to administer a scheme in which we might have individual-level farm contracts. He has often expressed scepticism about the Rural Payments Agency and its suitability for the task. As the Committee knows, I have always defended that agency, because I know what a hideously dysfunctional EU system it has to operate in.
That said, what we seek to achieve with subsections (4) and (5) is as follows. We want to move to a new system with these contracts, so that a human being—an individual expert agronomist or an expert in ecology and environment—can visit a farm, walk it with the farmer and help him put together an environmental plan for his own individual holding, taking account of soil type, farming practices, the water catchment area he is in and so on. Once they have helped the farmer put together the scheme—perhaps sat around the kitchen table—the agreement can then be passed to a Government agency for approval.
George Eustice
If someone is accredited as a member of the Soil Association, they are able to claim a top-up to their basic payments scheme. So, yes, there are areas. In terms of clause 2(5), there is already precedent for that in the way that the EU schemes operate—EU regulations create the power for that to happen. We think it is a good model. Engaging people such as the Soil Association in some schemes could be really powerful.
Likewise, if we are to move to a system where we may want to pay farmers who sign up to something like an RSPCA-assured scheme or another scheme, it is important that we have a legal basis to be able to recognise those schemes. They will have to be UKAS accredited—we must have confidence in those schemes. UKAS has existed for many years. The last Labour Government introduced UKAS-accredited schemes in many areas. It is a successful model.
On that basis, I hope I have been able to reassure hon. Members that our intention in clause 2 is to address a concern that the shadow Minister raised earlier in the debate about how we will administer these schemes. I hope, therefore, that having put down this probing amendment, he will withdraw it.
Dr Drew
We will not push the amendment to a vote. I go back to what the Minister said. Who pays? Agronomists do not come cheap. I have a love for the Soil Association, which is down the road from me in Bristol, and for the RSPB, and I am a member of the Wildlife Trusts—I suppose I should have said that some time ago. They are very good organisations and they do very worthy work, but we are shoehorning them into the process. If this is the advisory role, with the best will in the world they will need to be paid for that. We could say, “Okay, we are taking the basic payment away, and we have therefore got something of the order of £2 billion to play with,” but that money will go very quickly when farmers sitting round the table are talking to the people in question. They will be charged quite large sums of money to get the environmental land management contracts together in order to get their earned recognition.
I ask the Minister to think a little bit. Yes, there is good practice out there—of course there is; but that is good practice working within an existing, well-known and well-regulated scheme. What we are considering is going into the unknown. I ask the Minister to dwell on the thought that we need a pilot operation. We need to know that the Soil Association is willing and able to take the role on. It is additional to what the association undertakes at the moment. It deals with farmers who come to it, who get a sum of money to become organic. The proposal before us is really asking it to be part of the regulatory regime. It might not be a regulator as I would normally see it, being in more of an advisory role. Will the Minister commit to doing some pilot work, so that we know how things will work in practice?
George Eustice
If the concern is that we would not pilot, and that we are just going to make a leap of faith on this, I can give an absolute reassurance that we will not. There will be pilots, obviously. Using some of the third sector organisations in the way we envisage will obviously require them to have the capacity to do it. Organisations such as the RSPCA and LEAF—Linking Environment And Farming—run existing accreditation schemes and have commercial wings set up to help to do that. We would not be making a big departure, in a way, from what already exists; but it would be on a different scale, potentially.
Also, what is proposed could be part of the mix. It does not have to be the entire thing. It could be an option to be used in some areas, particularly where there were more holistic accreditation schemes; but, alongside that, other components of the scheme might be administered in a more conventional way.
Most farmers already have to spend a fortune on land agents to fill out EU forms and pieces of paper, and bits of mapping and RLE1 forms, and whatever other nonsense is required under the current system, in order to get any payment at all. So the vast majority of them already have to pay land agents to do a lot of work, and the feedback that I get from farmers is that they would far rather work with an agronomist to get things right than have to pay someone to fill out paper endlessly.
Dr Drew
I hear what the Minister says. That is a wonderful world. I am not sure whether it quite exists, the way I see it. I have talked to some land agents who are sceptical about whether their income-earning possibilities on the land are anything to really keep them there. There is a lot more money to be made in urban activity, so I urge some caution there.
To return to what the hon. Member for Ludlow said, it is interesting to consider the proposal working, but at the moment the countryside stewardship scheme is under a big cloud. LEAF is suffering at the moment because farmers are not coming forward. It will be a big job for the Government to convince them, so that they are willing to go through the process. Otherwise some will say, “We will just try to make money out of what we have always done”—which is farming. Whether they will or not is another matter. Obviously some sectors will do well and others less well.
Again, I shall be interested. At least we have an assurance from the Minister that there will be pilots. I hope that he will discuss them with us and make them accessible, so that we can see exactly what is going on. However, there are question marks. I shall not press the matter to a vote, but the Government need to think about which organisations should be involved, how those on the land are to be encouraged to go through those organisations, and who will pay.
It will be very expensive, at least in the early days, because it is going into the unknown. We are ditching the EU regulation and coming up with a new regulatory framework, but it is not there now, and it will involve an awful lot of people working together to make it possible. With that proviso, and a request that the Government will come back to us to explain how the proposal will work in practice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State must set targets for the reduction of waste food and food products and must by regulations require recipients of financial assistance under section 1 to take steps to avoid and reduce waste of food and food products.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set targets for reducing food waste and to make regulations requiring recipients of financial assistance to avoid and reduce food waste.
This amendment is a bit more substantive. It addresses how serious the Government are about reducing food waste, which we would argue is a real problem in terms of recycling and waste removal. Ideally, everyone would support FareShare and food would be redistributed so that we did not have to talk about food waste. Certainly, organic food waste should never be burned or put into landfill. Either people should not create the problem in the first place or they should find other ways to dispose of the waste.
The Minister has spoken a lot about the food strategy. We now know that it is coming, although not quite as quickly as some of us would have wanted it to. It would have been very helpful if it had come in advance of the Bill so that we knew where agriculture fitted into the food strategy. Will food waste be in the food strategy, or will it be left in limbo?
We need to commit to some targets for the reduction of food waste. That may sound somewhat tangential to the Bill, but at the end of the day, as we argued on Tuesday, if the Bill does not cover food—particularly food that is not wanted—it is a very strange Bill. We should be thinking about food waste. It relates to climate change and to all our waste regulations, so it should be central. Indeed, we interpret UN sustainable development goal 12.3 as saying that it should be central to how the Government are thinking. They signed up to the sustainable development goals, so how will we put them into practice? Will the Minister recognise that food waste should play some part in the Bill?
The waste hierarchy, which the previous Labour Government created but which this Government have signed up to, is about how this all fits into what really happens on the ground. It is to do with livestock feed, anaerobic digestion, composting, conversion to biofuel and, as a last resort, landfill. Sadly, as I say, too much organic waste is burned, which is a terrible waste.
It is all about how the Bill will fit into the wider food chain. We have not really discussed that, but it is important. The Government should get the food strategy in place first; then we would have a much easier role in scrutinising the Agriculture Bill. I am keen to look at some of the work done by Sustain, which the Minister will know is a very credible non-governmental organisation. It has done a lot of work on the problem.
We need a much more robust approach and create a level playing field between all the different elements—business, Government, local authorities and consumers. We need to ensure that we create food sustainably and do not create food that we do not need or, if we do, that it goes to people who need it. At the moment, it just gets taken off supermarket shelves and disposed of. The amendment is about making the legislation much more user-friendly and much more about the real world. It is also about putting in some legal targets, and making them legally enforceable and sustaining them.
In their feedback to “Health and Harmony”, the Government have made some good noises. As we identified on Tuesday, they have said that the food strategy will be pretty important alongside the Environment Bill, this Bill and, dare I say, the Fishing (Access to Territorial Waters) Bill, all of which we hope will be enacted; otherwise, we will have no legislation to move forward with post Brexit.
All these things really matter, but unless we put them in the Bill, given that so much will be down to the powers of the Government, the Government will be able to do them or not do them. That is why the amendment is so important. Partly its purpose is to start a debate, but it is also important in terms of the way in which this needs to be laid out. The Government need to make their real intentions clear to all parties. I make no apology for saying that this is an important issue; it may not necessarily be as important as the regulatory framework or powers and duties, but we need to know the Government’s intentions for food waste with respect to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us some clarity on the Government’s thinking and on whether future legislation might have food waste reduction embedded in it. If not, let us embed it in the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was going to turn to waste in the primary production area later.
To finish the point about contracts and fair dealing, we will deal with that at a later stage in the Bill and debate it. We will try to address some of the problems in the supply chain where perfectly good food goes to waste because it has the wrong label or a purchaser has changed their mind at the eleventh hour. There is a limit to what farmers can do to control such food waste in the supply chain. That leaves us with the question: where could they control waste? The answer, of course, is at the primary production stage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon pointed out, if a farmer grows carrots and has the great misfortune to get carrot fly, there is already quite a financial penalty without then having somebody come along and say, “Now we are going to take all of your financial assistance away as well, because you have had a problem with your crop and there is some waste.”
As some Members know, I worked in the farming industry for 10 years before going into politics. We used to grow winter cauliflowers in Cornwall. We used to pray for frost in Kent to kill the cauliflowers there and hope that we did not get frost in Cornwall. However, there were times when we had severe weather in Cornwall that devastated the crop, and we would have to rotavate the cauliflowers into the ground and plough them in. The financial penalty was considerable. I can assure hon. Members we never wanted that to happen, but occasionally it does.
Nevertheless, we have commissioned WRAP to do a study of waste rates in primary production. It will report on that later this year. The area is complex, as I said, because of the weather, pests and disease, which tend to be the main contributors to the waste, but WRAP is looking into that.
I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Stroud that the Government take the issue incredibly seriously. We have made some progress in the past decade. We have targets already out until 2025, and we will publish an updated resources and waste strategy that will include food waste later this year.
Dr Drew
We will not press the amendment to a vote, so the Minister can breathe a sigh of relief. However, there are some reasons why we have identified the issue of waste here. If we do not identify it here, where do we identify it? Perhaps in time there might be a food strategy, which is a more appropriate place to put it, but it needs to be legislated on.
The Courtauld commitment is voluntary, so there is no real traction from Government. The problem is significant. It is estimated that 10% to 60% of production—equivalent to £0.8 billion—is on-farm food waste. It might get ploughed back into the ground, which might benefit soil nutrition and so on, but one hopes to see the food that we grow on people’s plates, otherwise it is not a good use of farmers’ time and it does not meet the consumer demand for the availability of plentiful food. There is a lot of work to be done in this area and we make no apology for saying that we will come back to it, whether that is in debates on this Bill or not. We will push for a food strategy, because we believe it is right for the Government to have one, and it must include a strong section on food waste. Without more ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “given” insert
“, provided that the information is collected and processed in accordance with the relevant data protection legislation.
(7A) For the purposes of this subsection ‘relevant data protection legislation’ means Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council (General Data Protection Regulation) and the Data Protection Act 2018.”
This amendment would make it explicit that any regulations must comply with data protection principles.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 100, in clause 2, page 2, line 42, at end insert—
“(8A) Information specified under subsection (8) must be proportionate and limited to protect the interests of the individuals and businesses concerned.”
This amendment would ensure that no more information is published about recipients of financial assistance than is absolutely necessary in the circumstances.
Dr Drew
This will be quick. The amendment is about transparency and data protection. Of course, farming systems are currently entirely within the domain of the EU. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about what the new regime will look like, what data protection principles will be in place, what those who receive payments will be expected to do and what protections they will receive from the methodology that will be in place.
Amendment 100 would insert a new subsection requiring information specified under subsection (8) to be
“proportionate and limited to protect the interests of the individuals and businesses concerned.”
The NFU in particular wants to test that to ensure that farmers are not subjected to additional requirements and are assured that, if and when they partake in the schemes the Minister wants them to partake in, they will have additional protection in terms of the general data principles.
In some respects, the amendments just look at how the General Data Protection Regulation applies to the Bill. I am asking the Minister to say that it applies, but that it will not in any way be a more onerous set of tests, and that those who have to provide information about what moneys they receive can do so in the knowledge that that information will not always be made available to everyone and that its provision will not undermine their business. Will the Minister say something about that? Again, we will not necessarily press the amendment to a vote at this stage, but it is important that we know the Government’s position.
George Eustice
We seek to roll over a power and a practice that exists under the common agricultural policy. As many hon. Members know, there is already complete transparency about the recipients of payments under the CAP. That information is already publicly available, and there may be such information that we want to continue to publish. The public would not understand if we continued to make public payments but a veil of secrecy suddenly surrounded them.
George Eustice
That is what the Minister said. I am not sure that that position is shared by Scottish Government officials. It is a recognition that yes, they could bring forward some primary legislation, but they would need something. It could be quite a simple clause along the lines of what we will propose later, but they would need something in order to have the power to make payments.
We have strayed slightly from the purpose of the amendment, as is often the case when we discuss such issues. In conclusion, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Stroud that we shall seek to use the powers in a proportionate way, as we are legally bound to anyway under the Data Protection Act 2018. On that basis, I hope he withdraws the amendment.
The Chair
I am satisfied personally that matters arising in stand part have been debated adequately during the course of the morning. However, we are taking this with new clause 10, tabled in the name of the Opposition, so I would be grateful if hon. Members confined their remarks to the new clause. We are also considering:
New clause 10—Annual assessment of funding for purposes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must report on funding for each purpose listed in section 1.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must be made for each financial year and must be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than 31 October in the financial year following the financial year to which the report relates.
(3) The first report shall be made by 31 October 2019 and shall relate to funding in the 2018-19 financial year.
(4) A report under this section must record, on the basis of best data available—
(a) the total sum of funding allocated to each purpose in section 1,
(b) the source of any element of funding under subparagraph (a) which comes from public funds, and
(c) the sums from each source under subparagraph (b).
(5) The Secretary of State must include in each report under this section—
(a) a statement of their opinion on whether any sum recorded under subsection (4) is sufficient to meet their policy objectives in relation to each purpose; and
(b) a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions if, in their opinion, a sum recorded under subsection (4) was not sufficient to meet their policy objectives in relation to a purpose.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “funding” includes any payment, grant, loan or guarantee.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the funding allocated to each of the purposes of the Bill, on its sufficiency to meet policy objectives and on the Secretary of State’s intentions if in their opinion funding for any purpose was not sufficient.
Dr Drew
We have made good progress on an important clause, but we now come to one of the central points of the Bill: where is the money? When will the money be paid and over what period?
The Government are clear that the commitment to fund agriculture in its existing form will remain in place until 2022, or whenever the general election comes, when things may change. The scheme starts only in 2021, so there is a dislocation, which will be important. No Government can fetter their successor, but they can—this is what our new clause seeks to do—put in place a mechanism so that any successor Government know what is implied on how the money should be forthcoming. That is an important part of the Bill. Alongside our argument about powers requiring duties —we lost that one, but we might revisit it—the financial arrangements are crucial. I make no apology for saying that we shall spend a little time on this.
Interestingly, there is unanimity among all the organisations, whether farming ones or green groups, that they want new clause 10. They want a clear mechanism in the Bill so that, whatever happens after 2022, or before that, when the new arrangement comes into place, there is an understanding that future Governments know exactly what is required of them. That is important.
The Minister probably has his 1947 Act in front of him on his table—look how long that lasted, and it was cross-party. There was no attempt to interfere with the 1947 Act. The Conservatives agreed when they came back in 1950 or 1951 that they would continue on the basis of that farm system payment. We are asking the same and we expect this piece of legislation to last 60 years. That might be ambitious, but if we get it right, that is the period we are talking about.
We know and support the direction of travel, but we want to know how it will be funded in due course in terms of a mechanism. That is crucial to the industry. It needs to know the longer-term requirements for food production, forestry, heritage and landscape. They will change dramatically over the next 60 years as they have done over the past 60 years. We hope they will change for the better because we would argue that we have done enormous damage. The problem is that the Bill is silent and has no mechanism.
Those of us who went to the lobby last Tuesday saw many organisations—there are too many logos on my bit of paper to fit any more on there—but they are as one in support of new clause 10. I hope the Government treat it with enormous seriousness. If they are not willing to accept it, there will be a lot of disappointed organisations and I would argue that the Bill will lack its central tenet, which is, as always, where and how the finance will be locked into place.
The new clause is about certainty and the predictability of the Bill. There is a degree of understanding that no Government can say how much money there will be and where it will come from, but we can have a mechanism to be reviewed every year. The Government could then say: “There will be money available to do all the wonderful things we have all signed up to.” That is why it is so important. Although the new clause is being debated early, it has to be debated at considerable length.
We ask the Government to consider the new clause very seriously. They have obviously been lobbied by all those different organisations, which effectively are the countryside—no organisation would not sign up to it. NC10 sets a duty on future Governments to report annually on how much money has been spent to meet the policy objectives set out in the purposes of clause 1(1), and whether this was sufficient to meet these objectives. Again, we support this important direction of travel, but it must say how it will work, which is entirely dependent on where the money comes from. There must be a mechanism in place to say how it will operate in future. No, we cannot say what money, but we can say how any future Government goes about trying to report on what the money should be available for and where it should go.
Greener UK, an interesting amalgam that spent a lot of time talking to the Government, is largely very pleased with the Bill, but pointed to an independent assessment commissioned in 2017 that estimated the minimum costs of the environmental land management commitments at £2.3 billion. That is down on the current £3.2 billion, but it is the minimum—the baseline. Some of us would argue that it must be higher than that, at least at the current level, certainly in the early days because we do not know how it will work.
If the Minister does not accept the approach set out in new clause 10, what approach will the Government take given that they have won over a lot of the green organisations on the basis that this is what could and should be happening? It is about making a commitment. As I say, a Government cannot commit to money future Governments will spend, but they can commit to the mechanism. We ask the Government to look very closely at the new clause and hope they listen to us and all those organisations.
I could tell the Committee of countless organisations—I will not because we are short of time and I would rather finish before the 1 o’clock break. The Minister has received the same words. I hope they meant something and that he is willing to respond. Otherwise, there will be an awful lot of very disappointed organisations.
Jenny Chapman
The organisations to which my hon. Friend refers are probably the same organisations the Minister mentioned. If they are willing to be held to account to ensure that this is done well, it makes sense to us that the Government ought similarly to be willing to have that security and accountability as we implement the scheme.
Dr Drew
My hon. Friend is right. Again, that is the basis on which this Bill has been brought forward. There has been a degree of consensus—we have tabled probing amendments that have not necessarily gone with that consensus, but at this stage there is unanimity. The organisations want to know what the mechanism will be and want it in the Bill. Otherwise, it is all just promises. I am afraid the Government will have to listen and either accept the new clause or come up with a better alternative. We will be listening very carefully, presumably this afternoon, to what they say. Otherwise, it will be impossible to believe that the Government can deliver on their commitments.
Ordered,
That the debate be now adjourned.—(Iain Stewart)
Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)
David Drew Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
That is absolutely the case, as my right hon. Friend points out. We have scrutiny by the National Audit Office, the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for example, and I always enjoy the many parliamentary questions I receive on every piece of detail about DEFRA’s spending priorities.
A statutory requirement to do annual reporting on DEFRA is in place already. However, this is an important point, so at a later stage of the Bill—perhaps on Report—I might be willing to explain to the House in a bit more detail what information we would envisage publishing as part of our requirements under the Government Resources and Accounts Act. In a world in which we want transparency about how we spend money in this area and what it is delivering, it may well be possible for us to decide to adopt a convention on the particular format of these annual accounts. I am more than happy to return to the House on Report to say a little more about that. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press new clause 10.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
That is all very interesting, and I largely concur with what the Minister says. The academic Steven Lukes, in his wonderful little book “Power”, always draws a distinction between the “power to” and “power over”. The problem with Government and that piece of legislation in 2000 is that it was all about how Government decide to report and to defray their financial considerations. To me, this is “power to”; it is a more consultative arrangement—there is a need to have a reporting mechanism whereby the Government say what they intend to spend.
That is nothing new, and it is exactly what happens every year under the CAP, which has a mechanism whereby the Council of Ministers signs off the budget, which is then reported to not only Parliament but all the farming organisations. The reality of that is that the farmers are either well pleased or start burning their tyres. That is where we are with agricultural politics, which is big on the continent, if not so big here, because our farmer organisations tend to work through the system. That, however, is the point: they are asking for a system to be put in place.
Farmers are very worried that if such a mechanism is not in place, a future Government of whatever colour or persuasion could, in effect, just say, “Well, there isn’t enough money, so we’re making large cuts, including to all these wonderful schemes that we’ve talked about.” The Minister is very lucid about how all these different organisations could be brought in, but it will not make a jot of difference if there is not any money to run the schemes.
In a sense, the new clause would protect any organisation or any person who clearly wants to obtain funding through the system available. It would give them some security, and all people are asking for is security and certainty. Although we shall not have a vote on the new clause at this stage, I hope that the Minister will reflect on it. It will come back in the Lords, but it is always nice if we can do things in the Commons.
There needs to be some mechanism to say not what the money is but how it will be defrayed. That is important under the CAP, where we had not just pillar 1 but pillar 2. For some of us in rural areas, that pillar 2 money was very important. There is security in knowing in what ways we can go on to make future plans. Otherwise we are subject to the whim of the Government. As has been pointed out before, an urban-centred Government might decide they did not want to farm the country, but wanted to use it for all sorts of other things. I would not want that, and neither, I am sure, would anyone on the Committee. However, it is the danger.
At least there could be a requirement to go on the record and state what was to be spent and how it was intended to keep the different provisions going. We shall not press the matter to a vote at this stage, but we shall keep the right to return to the matter for a vote at an appropriate time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I suspect that most Members understand the process, but to refresh memories, if anyone is thinking, “Hang on, why are we not voting on new clause 10,” the answer is that we vote on all new clauses right at the end of the Committee’s proceedings. That is where new clauses are taken. Where amendments are grouped—I should like to be able to say, “By the skill of the Chairman,” but actually it is through the skill of the Clerks—some of them, which occur later in the Bill, are taken at that point in the Bill. The fact that something is not voted on now does not necessarily mean it will not be voted on at all. That is not in my gift. It is in the gift of those on the two Front Benches.
Clause 3
Financial assistance: checking, enforcing and monitoring
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (h).
It is disproportionate to create criminal offences for failing to meet the rules of a financial assistance scheme. There are no specific offences for breach of the current CAP scheme rules. Breaches could be sanctioned through the application of penalties without the need for new criminal offences.
I hope that we shall begin to speed up now, Sir Roger. The amendment relates to the fact that there are certain offences in connection with the Bill. It is more of a probing amendment than one that we intend to press to a vote, and its purpose is to consider the mechanism and methodology by which the Government, through their Ministers, will decide whether funding has been used inappropriately. There is a question as to whether it is proportionate for Ministers to have the power to create a criminal offence for breaching a financial assistance scheme. That is quite an onerous responsibility on the Government.
Under the common agricultural policy there are currently regulations about obstruction of people who come to do inspections, and failure to give appropriate information. Is it intended that the Bill should include such provisions, or are the Government approaching the matter differently? As the Minister said in a previous debate, the Rural Payments Agency and, indeed, trading standards can operate in a quite draconian way when they feel there has been malpractice. Will the powers in question continue? In tabling an amendment that enables us to debate omitting the creation of offences, we are trying to identify the answers to those questions.
Obstruction might also happen in the case of someone from the Environment Agency, for example, who wanted to go on to a farm or holding, and who was prevented from carrying out their work. A number of us in the Committee will have had experiences of that happening—landowners barring the Environment Agency in the belief that it intended to do inappropriate work. We want clarity as to whether the approach under the Bill will be the existing one or a different one.
Clause 3(2)(h) gives the Secretary of State the power to create offences in relation to breach of the rules of the financial assistance scheme. There is a view that that may be disproportionate. As always, the matter is subject to interpretation, and one person’s breach is another’s poor practice, and not necessarily deliberate. Will the Minister give some clarity on paragraph (h) and on some of the repercussions if it goes through as it is?
George Eustice
I very much look forward to discussing the issue further on Report. As I said, in considering the mood and sentiment of the Committee, I undertake further to discuss the issue with Government colleagues and to report back to the House on Report. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Stroud will agree to withdraw his amendment and keep his powder dry for another day.
Dr Drew
I certainly agree. A report by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee identified some concerning inconsistency between clause 16, which contains an extended treatment in respect of monetary penalties, and clause 3, which does not. However, so long as the Minister looks at that, I will withdraw the amendment without further ado. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 104, in clause 7, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) increasing or varying direct payments in relation to England over the whole or part of the agricultural transition period for England.”.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State is empowered to increase payments during the transition period if that is necessary in the circumstances, for example to utilise any unspent monies or to protect the industry from harm.
Dr Drew
Again, I do not intend to delay the Committee for long. There are some concerns—dare I say, on both sides—about whether this is the appropriate way to look at the powers. Greener UK feels that there are some issues with what the provision might mean for the direct payment system. The amendment in effect looks at the ability of the Minister to pause or delay the scheme, as operated. The question is, what happens after the agricultural transition period, because it relates to the end of one scheme—the direct payment one—and the introduction of another, the environmental payment?
Amendment 104 is about how to manage the agricultural transition. If things are not working as we want them to, what do the Government do? Do they pause, extend or even reverse the reduction in the direct payments? We know what the Government intend, which is, come 2021, the percentage reduction in the direct payment. That sounds straightforward, but such things are never as straightforward as they sound. Will the Minister tell us exactly how the scheme will come into operation? It needs to be about certainty and fairness.
The danger of uncertainty for, or the potential removal of important sums of money from, farms that are already struggling could have a very deleterious effect on their ability to continue. That matters because we are, potentially, changing the landscape dramatically. If certain small farms go out of business, tenant farms in particular, that will have a major impact on what our landscape looks like.
I accept that the amendment is probing, but were it adopted some people might worry that we could say, “Okay, let’s just go back to direct payments, delay it a few more years.” On the one hand, we need to know for those who are losing payments what happens if the system does not quite work out, and, on the other hand, we need to see for those who are very inclined to see the changes what confidence they can have in the Government that those changes will happen as they should. There is concern on both sides: one wants the certainty that some payment system will be in place while the other believes that this is the wrong system, which is the reason for supporting the move towards environmental payments. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.
We are discussing everything to do with delinking the payments, moving from a system in which, in effect, we pay farmers to do what they have done to a system in which we pay farmers and others to do things that we want them to do. It is important for the Minister to identify how that is going to work.
George Eustice
I oppose this probing amendment for reasons that I shall set out. The shadow Minister made the good point that people want certainty. In the Bill, we have tried to give a clear direction of travel—that is to say, we believe that the end state should be a system in which we reward farmers based on the delivery of public goods, be that animal welfare or higher environmental outcomes, and in which we tackle the causes of low profitability in farming by improving transparency and fairness in the supply chain and making grant support available to farmers to invest in the future.
The difficulty I have with this amendment is that it would largely undermine the purpose of a transition, if the idea is that we would increase direct payments during the transition. If there were a particular problem that meant that a future Government decided they had to pause the transition, it would be open to them under clause 5(2) to extend the transition period. Provided that they brought those regulations in during the transition period, they could extend it for as many years as they liked, and if a future Government so decided, they would have the ability to say that they would not pursue what we have outlined, which is a phasing down of direct payments. It would be open to a future Government, if they deemed it the right thing, to pause that process, extend the transition and slow or halt the rate of decline. That option and that power are already in the Bill.
The issue I have with saying that a future Government could also increase direct payments during that time is that that would effectively undermine the direction of travel we have set out. It would mean that there was less money—potentially no money—to do the pilots we talked about earlier for the new environmental land management scheme that we want to roll out. It would mean that there could be less money, or no money, to make available to support new entrants to the industry or to help farm enterprises to invest for the future.
Of course, in addition to having the power already to pause and slow the taper on the single farm payment and to extend the transition period, later parts of the Bill, which we will come to at a future date, also contain intervention powers. Those are powers, in a severe market disruption, for the Secretary of State to declare exceptional circumstances in the market and intervene directly at that point to provide income support or market stabilisation measures. I believe the Bill strikes the right balance and sets a clear direction of travel, and my objection to this amendment is that it would largely undermine the purpose of the transition period.
If people want certainty, they need the certainty of a seven-year transition, but also an understanding that in all normal circumstances it is the Government’s intention to reach an end state at the end of those seven years. If we introduced the uncertainty that it might all be changed and that we might pay even more via direct payments, people frankly would not know where they stood, and I think that would send a mixed message. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Stroud will withdraw amendment 102 and not press amendment 104.
Dr Drew
I am happy to do so. Again, these amendments are just teasing out how the process will work in practice. It will be a difficult process; we are, in effect, asking people to change their business orientation completely in a relatively short time. They will have to learn to do very different things. That is why it is important to know, if those things do not work out, what the Government’s response will be. I think the Minister has said what the Government’s intention is. Only time will tell whether it works in practice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Power to modify legislation governing the basic payment scheme
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 106, in clause 7, page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (8).
This is unnecessary as it can be done as part of the phasing out under Clause 7, the greening rules can be simplified but the payment itself can continue. If this clause remains then there is nothing to prevent the ceasing of greening payments altogether, even though the explanatory notes suggest that the intention is to remove greening requirements but pay the greening monies as part of the direct payment.
Dr Drew
I should say in passing that there was a Henry VIII power in clause 5 that we allowed to slip through. It is one of the powers that no doubt the House of Lords will have great joy in pointing out to the Government, when and if the Bill gets there.
We are now considering clause 6 and two straightforward amendments, looking at the powers to modify from one system to another. The question is what the clause really adds to the Bill, given that clause 7 tells us that it will phase out direct payments and de-linked payments. One wonders why this power is in there at all and what the Government are doing by keeping the clause there. We would question why clause 6(2) and clause 7(8) are there and whether they are necessary. As the Minister has just said, either we have the strength of our convictions and we are going towards the greening of the farm, food and environmental system, or we will always be thinking that we could go back to a basic payment arrangement if all else fails.
Will the Minister explain what the clause does? The reality is that, if it remains, in extremis there is nothing to stop the Government going away from a greening payments system altogether and looking at other arrangements, as the explanatory notes highlight. Although we question whether the clause adds anything, if it was used inappropriately it could be quite dangerous.
George Eustice
I am grateful for the opportunity to address why there is a need for this subsection of clause 6. The greening provisions in the CAP, by the admission of the European Commission and the EU auditors, have achieved next to nothing in environmental outcomes.
The genesis of the subsection was the fact that in the last CAP reform voices in the European Parliament pressed for a move away from pillar 1 direct payments and for greater emphasis to be placed on pillar 2 agri-environmental schemes, while the Council of Ministers and member states resisted that and clung to the idea of direct payments. The outcome was a classic EU fudge, which attempted to put greening conditions on to the direct payments in a way that has not been effective.
We have ended up with rather ludicrous rules, such as there being one window in which land must be made fallow for the purposes of the ecological focus area rule and a separate window for the purposes of the three-crop rule. There is all sorts of confusion because people have fallow land and they have to work out whether it is fallow for the purposes of the EFA rule or for the purposes of the three-crop rule.
There are also lots of unintended consequences of the three-crop rule and problems with different species being treated as the same. I remember having a long argument with our officials some years ago about whether a cabbage and a cauliflower were the same or a different species, whether a winter cauliflower was different from a summer cauliflower, and whether spring wheat was different from winter wheat. Our contention is that introducing rules of that sort to the direct payment scheme has ultimately failed, as even the EU admits.
The inclusion of these powers gives us the ability to switch off the greening provisions. As things stand, 30% of the single farm payment is linked to the greening conditions. One of the National Farmers Union’s concerns is that we have a secret plan to remove the greening conditions and take 30% of the single farm payment at the same time. I reassure the NFU that that will not happen, because the way the wiring of the scheme’s funding works means that if we remove the greening requirements, the payments linked to them automatically go back into what is called the national ceiling—the budget allocation—and are reflected in the remainder of the basic payment scheme payments. This will not affect farmers’ payments, but it will enable us to remove a lot of the unnecessary administration and checking around the greening requirements, which have achieved very little.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 6, page 5, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Jenny Chapman
Absolutely; I completely agree. I have sat through some of these so-called line-by-line considerations, and that can be a very underwhelming experience. The feeling is that the scrutiny of the legislation is—well, where is it? It is just a to-and-fro across the room. But if I may say so, I think that this Committee is doing a reasonable job. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Jenny Chapman
We are excellent, aren’t we? We seem to have a Minister who is willing to accept that there are problems with his Bill, and we do not always get that. I hope that this will be a rather better experience than the one that the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire and I had previously.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s point about balancing speed with being thorough, I would say that the Government have had quite a long time to come up with something fuller than this. The Bill is rather empty, and there is lots of detail that could have been included. The Government have had sufficient time to do that, so to turn up and say, “Actually, we just want some powers and we’ll decide what to do with them at a later date,” is not good enough. We will continue to make that point.
Some people get very anxious about the overuse of delegated legislation. I have never been a Minister, and probably never will be, but I understand the attraction of it.
Dr Drew
We all make slight errors from time to time.
I have some questions for the Minister. I agree that the new clauses look like technical amendments, but I do not quite understand how new clause 2 relates to the Government’s policy document “Health and Harmony”, which sets out very different percentages for the gradual reduction of the basic payment. I presume that the new clause supersedes that document—or does it?
The policy document gives very clear figures for the direct payment bands: a 5% reduction for up to £30,000, a 10% reduction between £30,000 and £50,000, a 20% reduction between £50,000 and £150,000, and a 25% reduction for more than £150,000. That clearly implies that larger holdings would have more than 15%, so I do not understand how that relates to the figure of “up to 15%” in new clause 2. Does the new clause supersede the policy document? If not, what is the status of the policy document? Perhaps the Minister might like to start by answering that point.
George Eustice
May I intervene to point out the policy context? The UK Government took a decision in 2014, under the powers available to us under EU law, to modulate up to 12%—in other words, to take 12% out of the pillar 1 budget, reducing farmers’ overall BPS payment, and move it into the pillar 2 budget to support agro-environment schemes or the rural development programme. All we seek to achieve with this power is the roll-over of the legal underpinning that supported that modulation rate. Our proposed taper on the basic payment scheme will be on the existing payment; it is a taper on the payment after 12% has been modulated to pillar 2.
Dr Drew
I think I understand that, but I will clearly have to read it back quite carefully, because I am not sure that I totally understand it. I will see if I can get this right: we have taken 12.5% out, which might well have been the pillar 2 moneys, and we are now looking at a scheme, for what remains, that moves from the basic payment, through a de-linked mechanism, to some environmental payments. Is that largely right?
George Eustice
That is broadly right. Farmers currently receive a BPS payment, which is an allocation from the pillar 1 budget minus the 12% that was moved across in 2014. We reviewed that decision in 2016 and said that we would keep it the same until 2019. All we want is continuity for 2020, and this gives us the legal underpinning that we need to maintain the modulation decision taken in 2014. Any future taper and phasing down of the single farm payment, as outlined here, will be based on the BPS payment that farmers have become accustomed to receiving since 2014.
Dr Drew
I will read this interchange back very carefully to see whether it has been about what I think or whether I have misunderstood. This matters because, at the end of the day, farmers need to plan ahead, and 2021 is not that far in the future. Some farmers will lose a considerable amount of money, which they will have to replenish by moving into the new scheme, which we do not quite have yet.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many farmers have already entered into multi-annual environmental schemes. They need the security that the support will be there for them to deliver the plans they already have.
Dr Drew
That is very helpful. A lot of farmers have obviously entered the countryside stewardship scheme, but a lot of farmers have chosen to come out of it because they are very unhappy with it. We have to put that right very quickly, because if farmers are to have any certainty in the payment system, they have to know that the scheme to which they are applying exists, is capable of doing what they think and rewards them appropriately, otherwise they will feel short-changed.
I see this as largely technical, but again, it is very complicated. We are moving from a scheme that pays farmers for being farmers to not paying them at all. We will pay people—they may not be farmers—to do things with the land. We therefore have to be very clear that they will not be paid anymore for being farmers; the basic payment is going. Yes, there is a taper, as the Minister says, but it rolls through quite quickly. People need to understand that they will no longer be able to do what they were used to doing and be paid for.
We will not vote against this measure, because it is a technical change. However, I ask the Minister to communicate what is involved to as many people as possible. There will be a modulation, and it was never going to be a straightforward process—when I was on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we struggled to understand exactly how it worked in practice. The Minister will need a proper communication strategy, so people know that, when their money goes, on the one hand, they will have other ways in which to earn it, on the other.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Power to provide for phasing out direct payments and delinked payments
Dr Drew
Again, this is fairly technical stuff, but there will be some genuine repercussions if we do not get it right. I spoke previously, and I might say more about it when we get to the next group, about this relationship between the current system and what we are moving towards. It makes eminent sense that the de-linking happens pretty speedily through the transition process. Again, it has to happen in an ordered manner, with the regulations that the Secretary of State may make—we want that to be as clear as possible—fully understood by those upon whom the new system will be imposed.
Our amendment, which would clarify things by leaving out “either or both of”, is probing. The Minister has his own amendment, which will rephrase paragraph (b), but will he explain clearly how he understands the de-linked payments will be introduced in place of the direct payments? How will things operate over time?
The worry is that the new scheme will not necessarily be as accessible as the basic payments scheme. There will understandably be some losers, and the earlier they know that they will have to try to save some of the money, the better. The Government have made a big play of the advice that will be made available, but we still question who that advice will come from and who will pay for it. The more the situation is clarified at this stage, the better it will be for those who are being asked to pay an enormous amount.
The Minister has made a point about lots of people already having environmental schemes, but many do not. Those who have not got those schemes will have to quickly get someone to advise them on how they can fundamentally change their business operation. That is going to test smaller and tenant farmers.
George Eustice
Broadly speaking, although, as I said, one of our key thoughts behind the concept of de-linking is that it will be a tool to assist people with retirement. Because we do not want multiple systems—a new system emerging, a legacy system and a de-linked system—we have drafted this in such a way that, once someone takes the decision to de-link, it will apply to everyone and we will not have that problem. It will be a bold policy to help to support structural change and give farmers the freedom to invest that money as they deem right.
Government amendment 91 is another technical amendment that simply reflects the way the current direct payment regulations operate. There has been no change to our policy of trying to de-link payments, but the current direct payment regulation only contains financial provisions known as “ceilings” until the end of the 2020 scheme year. Introducing de-linking in 2021 means that ceilings under the direct payments will not be set for 2021. The existing basic payments will therefore automatically end in 2020 and we will not need to terminate such payments. The amendment reflects that. Other than that, the intent is exactly the same as originally drafted, but the amendment makes it clear, crucially, that de-linked payments cannot be made alongside the direct payments under the basic payment scheme, in line with clause 7(3)(b).
This is a technical amendment simply to deal with a similar point to the one I addressed with respect to one of the new clauses, which is that the ceilings expire and we might want to be able to make those de-linked payments based on a direct payment and not necessarily on the old BPS payment. Again, this is a technical issue that has its genesis in the way that EU payment ceilings and budgets are wired. I hope I have given the Committee a good explanation of what we seek to achieve through the amendment.
Dr Drew
I do not think farmers need agronomists; they need lawyers to go through some of this and work out whether they are entitled to various payments. It is a wee bit complicated, but maybe it will all be clearer when it comes out in the wash. As I have said to the Minister, I have always supported a retirement scheme for farmers. For too long, too many people have tried to stay farming when it is really not good for them or for their holdings. I welcome the fact that there is now a mechanism by which they can leave the land, by managing to take the payments over time.
Sandy Martin
The mechanism might exist for farmers who have been in farming for a long time and own their own land and want to come out of it, but how will that operate for tenant farmers? Will there be any complications for the relationship between the tenant farmer and landowner?
Dr Drew
That is a very pertinent point. In a sense, we are talking about trying to balance what the state might provide in support payments against the farm business tenancy. For a lot of farmers, trying to make that judgment is going to be quite difficult. One wants people to go out with dignity, and that means that we want them to go out with a sum that they can invest, which may be in other uses of the land or may be to buy themselves a cottage, or more probably, to rent a cottage in view of their impecunious state. These are real personal stories and we have to be careful that we are not just rushing through and making things unduly complicated, so that people do not really understand what they are entitled to.
I understand where the Minister is trying to get to, but I think this will have to be explained in a much more simplistic way, so that people can take advantage of it. There is no point having a de-linking scheme to enable people to leave the land and get new entrants if people do not see that it is appropriate for them, or do not understand it or think that they will lose out financially. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is absolutely right about the farm business tenancies. We need to look at the links and we have to have a debate on some of the Tenant Reform Industry Group recommendations, which sadly do not feature in this legislation. We very strongly think that they should, given that a third of our farms are tenant farms. It is an important part of our farm economy, yet it does not feature in the Bill, which we think is a lacuna.
I worry that there is potential for policy drift here. We start with the de-linking process for one reason, but it ends up doing something that is not intended—it is the law of unintended consequences. I can see people wanting to access the money without necessarily pursuing what we want them to do, which is to improve their land; the danger is that they will take the money and then new entrants will not be able to take over the holding because it is in a poor state.
These are real-life questions, and I worry about some of my tenant farmers. The quality of the farms they are holding is not good due to generations of underinvestment. This is all well and good, and we are potentially paying less money to do the things that we used to pay out to do, yet farmers are expected to make good with other environmental schemes, which is obviously going to be difficult given that they have limited time, and we are expecting them to improve the quality of the land. There is a bit of a question mark against that.
This is a probing amendment. I am sure will we have more definitive things to say in the next stage. The Minister needs to be aware that this debate is fine at one level, but when the schemes get out there and are interpreted by people, there could be some difficulties. I put him on notice that we will look at this again, and I hope he will reflect on some of the things that have been said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 91, in clause 7, page 5, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) making delinked payments in relation to England with respect to the whole or part of that period (in place of direct payments under the basic payment scheme in relation to England).”—(George Eustice.)
Clause 7(1)(b) enables regulations to introduce delinked payments in place of direct payments under the basic payment scheme for the whole or part of the agricultural transition period for England. This drafting amendment ensures that clause 7(1)(b) works as intended even if those direct payments have terminated otherwise than by virtue of the regulations introducing delinked payments. In that case the regulations would not need to make provision for the termination of those direct payments, as suggested by the current text. They would however be able to revoke the spent legislation about the basic payment scheme.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 7, page 5, line 36, at end insert—
“(e) make provision setting out rules for determining the status in relation to those persons who have received delinked payments where the agricultural transition period has been extended in accordance with section 5(2).”.
This amendment would clarify the status of claimants (in terms of whether they would be entitled to return to receiving direct payment) if the direct payments scheme is extended and therefore creating the possibility (under such regulation) to enable those who have opted to take de/inked payments to return, or otherwise.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 108, in clause 7, page 6, line 16, at end insert—
“(8A) Regulations under this section must set out explicit timescales for the payment of the direct payments or delinked payments that are due to entitled persons.”.
This amendment would ensure that those entitled to payments received those payments within guaranteed timescales to help ensure certainty of cash flow.
Dr Drew
The amendment is really a probing amendment, to consider where we are in relation to setting rules for the de-linking process. The Minister has already talked about that. I have just asked how this will work in practice. It is unclear, at least in my mind; maybe people are ahead of me on that. However, I think there is a need for further work in that regard.
What would happen if the Minister introduced a de-linked payment, but then made use of the powers to extend the transition period in accordance with clause 5(2)? The status of the farmer who has taken a de-linked payment is uncertain—we have identified that. He may be locked out of the system for longer than envisaged. This is really contingent on our previous debate. So, in taking the money—what? They then can use their opportunity on the land? The status of the person will be defined in law, but again it is a matter of how the process works in practice.
Under the CAP, there are payment windows, and—dare I say it?—this is all laid down for those who receive payments for work they have done. So things are not as clear in this new proposal. All of us who have rural constituencies know that the Rural Payments Agency is not very good at making the payments on time, for the right reasons or in the right amounts. So there are some question marks about the extant process and where we are now going to. If anything, it is going to be quite a complicated change. So it is really about whether farmers will be entitled to payments on guaranteed timescales, because again—dare I say it?—we do not have a good history.
Mr Goodwill
It strikes me as well, of course, that the farmer could take the payment but then his wife could establish a new business, in which case perhaps there would not really be a fundamental change; it was just a mechanism. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman shares my concerns and whether the Minister could comment on that situation.
Dr Drew
This did come up quite a lot on Second Reading. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East had something to say on it, or somebody else referred to succession planning. Farmers could take the money and then another member of the family could decide to carry on with the holding.
Jenny Chapman
It is an irritant for me that every time farmers have been referred to in this Committee so far—I have not mentioned this so far—they have been referred to as “he”. But the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby went an extra stage and said, “The farmer and his wife”—[Laughter.] There is a line. I just think we can do a little bit better than that.
Mr Goodwill
It is particularly difficult, because as I am down here doing this job, my wife is minding the farm, although I am the one who signs the forms when I make claims, so it is often difficult to distinguish the person who is farming from the person who signs the form—[Interruption.]
Dr Drew
I am not sure whether that helped or hindered. [Laughter.] We will move on.
Amendments 107 and 108 really try to tease out how this process is going to work in practice. I do want to say some things that are effectively for the stand part debate, but they link in directly with the clause. The issue is the way in which this phasing-out of direct payments and the de-linked payments will work. This is the clause that, if you like, executes that, so we need to look at it quite carefully.
A number of important issues arise, some of which have already been identified through the EFRA Committee, where I gather the Minister had quite a difficult time in answering questions about exactly how this process was going to work. It is important that he puts on the record again how he thinks it is going to work.
We are talking about considerable sums of money. If three years’ worth of payments for a reasonably sized holding are wrapped up into one, we are talking about tens of thousands of pounds, so we have to get the accountability of the process right. The average direct payment in 2016 was £20,000, but 10% of recipients received something in the order of £6.5 billion. The bigger landholders have traditionally received quite large sums of money through the single area payment scheme, so the mechanism through which we make that change is very important. Multiplying that over seven years, which is what the transition period will be, we are talking about large sums of money. It would be useful to know that in accepting this use of public money, the Minister can justify the larger sums involved.
As I referred to, the policy statement explains how the tapering down will operate. It would be good to know that there will be some further explanation of what that means for particular holdings. Let us look at some figures from real holdings, rather than the rather abstract figure that we have at the moment. What can those lump sum payments be used for? One can understand a tenant needing to acquire property, or to have sufficient money to pay the rent. Will recipients be limited to some use or reuse of the land, or will they basically have a free choice about what they do with that money? My notes refer to Lib Dem pensions Ministers and Maseratis; I think Steve Webb will always regret having made that point.
I have quite a lot of interesting evidence from the Landworkers Alliance and from the Tenant Farmers Association. Those are the people who represent smaller farmers and new entrants. The Landworkers Alliance is keen to know what that lump sum can be used for, how much flexibility there will be in the purposes outlined in clause 1(1), and whether—dare I say it?—the payments will be linked to the productivity of the farm or farmland. Could farmers, for example, put that money into a community land trust and collectivise those payments? That is an interesting point, because there are those who do not want to farm a holding in isolation, but want to do so on a more collective basis. Is the scheme flexible enough to allow that to take place?
The Tenant Farmers Association has written to me to support the concept of de-linking, because it thinks that farmers should be able to retire. However, although the money is of significant assistance to farmers who wish to retire, the question of what subsequently happens to that money, and any bar on what they can do if they have taken the money, are of keen interest. Those farmers might want to re-invest that money in another holding, or enable another member of the family to take that money and start a new holding. These things matter, because people have to start planning their businesses now. I know that I have stretched the Chair’s patience by moving away from the amendments, but my comments are part of our stand part contribution. We are asking the Minister to spell out in a little more detail what, in practice, these de-linked payments are and are not available for, because people are going to have to plan for that.
The Chair
Before we continue, let me make it clear that I am very relaxed about the manner in which stand part debates are conducted. They can be contained within the debate, or they can take place at the end of the debate. I am also clear that Members cannot have both.
George Eustice
We have had a comprehensive debate, and I want to pick up on some of the points that were made.
The Opposition’s amendment 107 is about making provisions for determining the status of those persons who have received de-linked payments where the agricultural transition period has been extended. That links to the point that I addressed earlier. We are setting a clear course here, and if a decision is made under clause 7 to de-link all payments, as far as we are concerned there will be no turning back at that point. It will be possible, under subsection (1)(a), to continue with the basic payment scheme and make a decision to extend, but if at a later stage of the transition period a decision is taken to de-link all payments, from our point of view it is not possible at that point to turn back, nor would we want to do so. If at that point we decided that we still wanted an old-style subsidy system, the right thing to do would be to pass new primary legislation because that would be a major departure from what we envisage in the Bill.
I was asked about de-linking and about what will happen at the end and whether we will put conditions on what people can spend the payment on. During the transition, we envisage there being a progressive, year-on-year phasing down of the BPS payment. Alongside that, we will roll out new grants for such things as productivity, and we will roll out the new environmental land management scheme.
There is already a huge amount of bureaucracy, inspection and tedious form filling behind the BPS payment. If in year three, four or five the BPS payment is considerably smaller than it is now, farmers will rightly say, “Isn’t this a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Our BPS payment is much smaller, yet we still have this extraordinary inspection regime, we still have to employ agents to fill out all the forms, and we still have to have someone from the Rural Payments Agency come to walk our fields and inspect everything.” At that point, people will rightly ask whether the enforcement architecture surrounding the BPS payment fits the size of the payment, given that it is necessarily being phased out.
That is why our view is that if we de-link the payment we will not attempt to put conditions on that, because it will be a diminishing sum of money anyway towards the latter part of transition. We have not decided when to de-link. That might come later; it could be at the beginning—that is provided for. We would consult on that, but my expectation is that for a period we would phase down the existing BPS payment. A point would then come when, frankly, having all the architecture that we have now to enforce it would cease to be justifiable, and simply de-linking to get the system closed down would be the right thing to do.
The answer to the Landworkers Alliance, the members of which generally complain to me that they are ineligible for the BPS payment at the moment anyway, is that in so far as some of them might be eligible, if they took a de-linked payment they would be able to spend it on anything they wanted, as would any other farm.
A slightly separate provision—although it is linked, and they overlap in some respects—is clause 7(7), which creates a parallel power for us effectively to do what I described earlier: make a rolled-up payment of several years to a farmer who might be deciding to leave the land. We may exercise that whether or not we had de-linked. It will be open to us to run a scheme basically to make an exit payment to farmers, with several years rolled up in one, even if we are proceeding on the basis of clause 7(1)(a)—that is the phase-down. It will also be open to us to do it under subsection (1)(b), but if we were using subsection (1)(b) towards the end of the process to free everyone from the need to have their payment linked to the land, it might be less attractive at that point as an exit package.
Dr Drew
I have some fairly basic questions. Who makes the decision, and is it capped? Lots of farmers might say, “Great—we’ll take the money now. We’ve always wanted to retire.” The average age is somewhere between 60 and 65. Is the figure capped or could, effectively, thousands of farmers decide that now is the time to go?
George Eustice
Any regulations will be under the affirmative resolution procedure. We will work with industry and others on the precise scheme designs. We will not do it in a hurry. We think there is a great logic to de-linking payments towards the end of the scheme. We also think that having a scheme that supports retirement with dignity and voluntary exit is useful. That is why we have provided for that to be done under subsection 7(7).
Dr Drew
I think the Minister has answered the hon. Member for Ludlow well, but the trouble is that that is just the theory. My tenant may suddenly get tens of thousands of pounds. If he has left the farm in a very poor state, he may leave the holding. That is a potential legal minefield, which the Government need to look at. The general view is that rents will decrease after the area payments scheme goes. I was at a farm on Friday, however, and the farmer I spoke to was very clear that once the area payments scheme goes, the landowner will want to put the rents up because they will believe that they are losing out and the tenant could pay more. There are some complications here.
George Eustice
I would almost say the opposite. If the market is such that a number of people choose to retire and there is no longer the inflationary pressure of a BPS payment driving up rents, rents might decline in some areas. That is not necessarily a bad thing. If rents go down, it is not great for landlords, but it creates opportunities for new entrants to come in with lower overheads and produce food for the country. There is a problem with the BPS scheme, which has inflated rents and made it difficult for entrepreneurs to get on to the land and make a sensible living.
Amendment 108, which was also tabled by the shadow Minister, puts explicit timescales on payments. I understand the frustration of many hon. Members who have had farmers coming to them in recent years and complaining that they have been unable to get the payment. We address the issue in a number of ways. First, under retained EU law, the existing timescales already set out in EU law would come across. I know that farmers will generally take the view that unless they are paid in December their BPS payment is late. In fact, the payment window opens at the beginning of December and closes in June, so there is quite a wide payment window under EU law. That will come across through retained EU law, but we have made some improvements in recent years in terms of getting money to farmers as quickly as possible. Last year more than 90% got to farmers by the end of December.
George Eustice
That is absolutely correct, but the scrutiny of Parliament will demand action. I was going to say that one of the strong features of the Bill is the fact that it gives the Government the power to act to sort out the dysfunctional EU auditing processes that create late payments.
Clause 9 gives us powers to sort out what is called the horizontal regulation. That is the regulation that sets out all the conditions on payment and the plethora of audit requirements, which often duplicate one another and are unnecessary. The primary cause of the problem we had last year in the BPS system was that under EU law we were forced to remap 2 million fields in one go, to try to get their area accurate to four decimal places. If we had not done, that we would have had a fine from the European Commission of more than £100 million, so we had to attempt the exercise. However, it inevitably caused problems on some farms. Many hon. Members will have had farmers reporting to them that fields had disappeared, or, in some cases, their neighbour’s fields had ended up on their holding. That is what happens when we try to remap 2 million fields. We would not have had to do that, had we had the powers to strike down those requirements.
Secondly, the issues we have at the moment with the countryside stewardship scheme are largely due to the fact that the EU, under horizontal regulation, introduced a new requirement that every single agreement must commence on the same date; so whereas we used to spread the burden of administration across the year, with people able to start in any month, everyone had to start in January. That meant a huge pile of application forms coming in at the same time. Our agencies had to employ lots of temps to try to process the work; and we all know what happens if there is a surge of temporary agency workers to process work. There were inevitably errors and problems. Again, we could remove those rather ludicrous requirements that the European Union imposes on us—in that case under clause 11.
I hope that I have been able to provide some further information about how we would intend to use the clause 7 powers, both to de-link and to make lump sum payments available. I hope I have also reassured hon. Members that the answer to the problem of late payments lies in clauses 9 and 11, not in an amendment to clause 7.
Chris Davies
As the Minister has had a very busy day and has overlooked answering my question, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman—whose constituency is, of course, not far from the border—shares my concerns about cross-border land ownership, and areas where there are devolved Governments, where decoupling could cause a problem.
George Eustice
I must apologise for missing my hon. Friend’s important point, which links to a number of others that have been made about how we treat cross-border applications. In effect, what we will be doing is putting in place administrative agreements with Wales and the other devolved Administrations to ensure that where we have cross-border farms—we have similar arrangements in place now—we will have an agreement about how to approach these things to make sense of them and to ensure that things are done in a joined-up way.
Dr Drew
Whatever is happening with England and Wales, we have Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is going to be quite a complicated issue. There will be farmers in Northern Ireland who farm on both sides of the border; they will have whatever the common agricultural policy is and whatever the Northern Ireland policy is within the framework of the United Kingdom policy. That will greatly determine what they intend to farm, how they intend to farm and whether they wish to stay in farming.
Martin Whitfield
Obviously, in the schedule for Wales, de-linking is discussed, but we do not have a schedule for Scotland.
Deidre Brock
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the fact that different schemes already operate across the UK in the different jurisdictions, so I am sure that dealing with this is not beyond the wit of man or woman. I am assured by the Minister’s reference to administrative agreements. I am sure that something could be found along those lines to help to sort out the whole issue.
Mr Goodwill
As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I can say that this is not just a problem in agriculture. There is no devolved Government there and it is very difficult for civil servants to second-guess what might be done, because it has been a long time since decisions were made on which they could base their activities. For those in Scotland, the policy seems to be to stick their fingers in their ears, sing “la la la la” and pretend that it is not going to happen.
Dr Drew
I will not go down that line. The Chairman will be relieved to hear that I am not going to get involved in devolved politics. I think this has been a very useful debate that has been far and wide in scope. It has not really been about the amendments, but the stand part has allowed us to look at some of the possibilities of what will happen—2021 is not very far in the future. People will be doing their planning now, particularly if they have it in mind to leave their holding, and they will need security, certainty and some very good advice on whether that is the right thing to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am grateful for the discretion of the Chair, which has allowed us to get through this issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
General provision connected with payments to farmers and other beneficiaries
Jenny Chapman
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 9, page 7, line 10, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Jenny Chapman
I hope that the Minister can name at least 70 of them, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched 70 consultations in 2018 so far. They are all on really important things, of course, but I would say that this measure, in clause 9, is as important as some of the things.
Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)
David Drew Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill, but first I have a few preliminary points to make. I remind Members that electronic devices should be switched to silent mode and that tea and coffee are not allowed in Committee sittings.
The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the Committee Room, shows how selected amendments have been grouped for debate, generally on the same or similar issues. Decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper; the selection list shows the order of debate, but decisions on each amendment will be taken when we come to the clause that the amendment would affect. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates on individual clauses and schedules after debate on the relevant amendments.
Clause 1
Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for the purposes listed in Clause 1.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 45, in clause 3, page 3, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations for the checking, enforcing and monitoring of financial assistance in Clause 3.
Dr Drew
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. Clause 1 is in some respects the centrepiece of the Bill, and I imagine that the Committee will spend quite a lot of time on it today, because it will put the Government’s approach into practice.
Let me say at the outset that the Opposition have no difficulty supporting the notion of public money for public goods and ensuring that the environment is central to agriculture. However, we have some problems with the way in which the Bill has been put together. Certain parts of it lack substance, and it certainly lacks a mechanism not just to allow our environment to flourish, but to give us a food supply and safeguard health. As I said on Second Reading, the White Paper was entitled “Health and Harmony”, but health seems to have disappeared from the agenda.
The Opposition will move amendments to bring into the Bill the areas that are not covered. Later today, for example, we will move an amendment on climate change, which is not formally mentioned in the Bill, just as it was not mentioned in the Budget speech yesterday. Given the role that emissions play in agriculture, we think that it is essential that climate change is addressed in the Bill.
We believe that the Bill does not safeguard our food supply or tackle inequalities. Sadly, it follows as a syllogism that bolstering the environment is no good unless we can combine it with protecting food and health. We need to look at food inequality in particular. Amendments 44 and 45 address a point that we will make several times during the passage of the Bill, which is that this is about powers. We believe that the Bill needs some real bite. We might trust the Minister—we believe him to be a very good Minister—but he will be here only for a period of time. It is vital that we put some duties into the Bill so that a future Secretary of State will have to deliver the things that we want.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s remarks closely, and I have huge sympathy for what he says. Does he agree that a possible benefit of changing “may” to “must” is that if a more urbancentric Secretary of State were appointed, that imperative would ensure that he or she supported our agricultural sector, rather than saying, “Perhaps I might, but I don’t choose to”?
Dr Drew
That is exactly the point I am making. We are seeking to strengthen the Bill. We come not to wreck it or to make it impracticable; we come to improve it. We believe that one way the Bill would be improved is by the inclusion of duties. As the hon. Gentleman quite rightly said, there may be a future Government who are less partial towards agriculture, and it is vital that we fetter them. That is why we have legislation.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that his amendments would, in fact, be a lawyers charter? It would be open to any pressure group to take the Government to court for not doing something that they said they must do. It would take away the element of judgment from Ministers in any forthcoming Government of whichever colour and give it to the courts.
Dr Drew
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as much as I respect him—we have had many hours together in this place. The reality is that all we are doing—the Bill will probably last as an Act for the next 50 or 60 years—is including in the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State must provide financial assistance. That is what legislation is about. It is not: “the Minister might want to do it and they might not want to do it.” This is about ensuring that the Minister is very clear that when they have to introduce these major changes, there are some parts that they must deliver.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Is not the main point that if we have laws that allow Secretaries of State to do things or not to do things in the future, then to a certain extent we are reducing the ability of this place to scrutinise law? In some ways, we are moving law making or regulation into the hands of people rather than into the hands of the law itself.
Dr Drew
That is the point. The argument I am advancing is nothing other than something that has been advanced in the other place. I do not know what the Minister thinks about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords, but it is hardly a strong supporter of the Government’s approach. It reported:
“We are dismayed at the Government’s approach to delegated powers in the Agriculture Bill.”
That is a cross-party Committee, and as much as we will do our bit in this place, I suspect that the Government are not looking forward to taking the Bill through the Lords, because the Lords will certainly make those points, following their current investigation. In the 36 clauses, they identify 26 powers of Ministers to make law, including five Henry VIII powers, which we always tend to question. Perhaps it is the Opposition’s job to be the lender of last resort to ensure that we do not allow things to slip through in any way. We make no apologies for concentrating on this important issue early on. We are not asking for everything to be turned into duties—that would be silly. Clearly, a future Minister will need discretion, but unless they know what the law is, it will be totally down to discretion. That is not a good thing.
It is interesting that we are now undertaking legislative scrutiny, because the Select Committee is looking at the Bill at the same time as us. If we had had pre-legislative scrutiny, perhaps we would have ironed out some of these issues. This was certainly one of the dominant themes during the evidence sessions from different groups. I do not think that any of them would argue that they were happy with the powers currently left in the Bill; some duties are needed. I have no doubt that we will debate this over the course of the morning, but we regard it as a missed opportunity. According to the explanatory statements, amendment 44
“would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for the purposes listed in Clause 1,”
and amendment 45
“would require the Secretary of State to make regulations for the checking, enforcing and monitoring of financial assistance in Clause 3.”
Those are pretty important things. If the Secretary of State is not asked to do those things, they do not have to do them. They may want to do them—the Government may feel it is their duty to do them—but, sadly, there is no legislative enforcement. That is why we want to put this in the Bill.
This is once again about the way in which the House should operate, and we challenge the Minister to promise to place duties at the centre of the Bill, so that it will do what we—certainly on this side of the House—want it to do, which is to cement the relationship between environment, food and health. The Minister has a duty to look at issues such as public health and the safety of the industry, which one would have thought is what the Minister for Agriculture should be doing—it is central to their whole being.
We hope that the Government are listening and that the debate gets off on the right foot. We would like to work with them on this, but we make no apologies for pressing the amendment to a Division if there is no consensus. If the Minister makes concessions, we will listen to him. It would be interesting to know why the Government are unwilling to put duties in the Bill; is it because they are worried about some of the powers, which they might not want to use? If so, perhaps the Minister would say which powers the Government really need discretion on, and we will listen and see if we agree.
The finance and the regulation of finance should be a duty, and something that the Minister of Agriculture should have to face Parliament about because of the nature of their responsibilities. We are strongly in favour of the two amendments because they would make sure that there are duties on the Secretary of State and the Minister for Agriculture in clause 1. Amendment 45 would impose a duty to look at the way in which we regulate finance.
After Brexit, the common agricultural policy will no longer provide our regulatory system, so it is even more important that we get the Bill absolutely right. Whatever one’s views on Brexit, agriculture is the major industry that is most dependent on the EU for both budget and regulatory framework, so we must get the Bill right, today and in subsequent sittings. As I have said, the House of Lords has a fair amount to say in the paper that it produced—I am sorry that I have only a photocopy, but we all have photocopies because they do not produce hard copies any more—which is a pretty devastating critique. The Lords are worried about how much the Government are leaving to statutory instruments.
We all received a copy of the Agriculture Act 1947, which is well worth reading, in case anyone has not read it. [Interruption.] The Minister is waxing lyrical about it. The 1947 Act put into primary legislation the way in which the agricultural system in this country was to work for generations. All we are saying is “Let’s do the same with this.” This Bill replaces the 1947 Act. One could argue that the changes in 1975 and 2005 were minor compared with 1947 and 2018. Let us start on the right footing and know what we expect the Secretary of State to do, because that is what we are here to do. Parliamentary scrutiny is meant to improve legislation, not wreck it. We think that our proposals will fundamentally improve the Bill and make sure that we get off on the right foot and that we have a better Bill at the end of Committee.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
We should not adopt the amendment. I disagree with the shadow Minister—we have chosen to use the term “may” rather than “must” because that is how we draft all of our legislation when it comes to powers to pay. The approach we have adopted is absolutely consistent with our constitution. I want to give the Committee a few examples. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, introduced by a Labour Government, contains the following provision:
“The Secretary of State may give or arrange for the giving of financial assistance in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred in any matter related to or connected with a DEFRA function.”
If we go back further, the Science and Technology Act 1965 states:
“The Secretary of State...may defray out of moneys provided by Parliament any expenses which, with the consent of the Treasury—
some things never change—
they may respectively incur”.
The 1965 Act that created powers to make payments uses the term “may”. I know that the hon. Member for Stroud has a romantic attachment to the Agriculture Act 1947, which is a good Act—I have read it. How about this for giving powers to a Minister:
“Where...it appears to the appropriate Minister expedient so to do, or if it appears to him otherwise expedient so to do in the public interest, he may by order fix or vary any such price or other factor as aforesaid notwithstanding that under the enactments regulating the operation of the arrangements in question”?
So “the Minister may” is used throughout the 1947 Act. We are simply being consistent in the approach that we take when it comes to spending powers.
Simon Hoare
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.
I shall be incredibly brief. I feel that the issue is one that the Minister has addressed in terms of the historical precedent in legislation of using “may” over “must”. In the interests of the speedy progress of the Bill, if the shadow Minister presses his amendment to a vote, I shall be voting for the Government side of the argument—the Whip will be relieved to hear that.
Simon Hoare
There was an audible exhalation of breath there.
I suggest to the Minister, however, that this issue is likely to come back as an amendment in the other place and that we are likely to debate it on Report. I therefore make this point gently to my hon. Friend: the environment—not in the green sense of the term, but the political environment—and the circumstances in 1947 were very different from now with respect to the understanding of the importance and the appreciation of the need to have a vibrant agricultural sector. One can attribute all sorts of reasons for that, but it happens to be a fairly basic statement of fact.
I hear what the Minister says about the historical precedent, but I am not certain that changing “may” to “must” fundamentally weakens or alters the Bill. I think it would strengthen his elbow. Unfortunately, he will have successors in due course, as will the Secretary of State. He and the Secretary of State both have a very clear commitment to a strong agricultural cycle; I think that is beyond debate.
Dr Drew
It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for North Dorset put his finger on one of the strong reasons for moving the amendment. To some extent, we want to fetter future Governments, whether Labour or Conservative. It is important we understand that one of the great changes brought about by Brexit, as I mentioned in my initial remarks, is to agriculture.
Let us be honest: agriculture is a centre point of the EU. We pay a higher contribution because we were not able to change the nature of a pro-agricultural budgetary arrangement. We may have wanted to, but we did not. Now that that is gone, there is a real danger that agriculture will slip further down the Budget agenda—there was no great mention of agriculture yesterday—so it is important to use legislation to bolster the accountability mechanism and to make sure money is spent in this area. I have some knowledge of the history of why we ended up with a cheap food policy, but that policy had two sides to it. It was about keeping the urban proletariat fed, but also guaranteeing farmers that they would get a price, whether through deficiency payments or the minimum income guarantee, given the way in which the Common Market set up its pricing mechanism.
I am sure the Minister has been working overtime on the old word search to find a few “mays” and he has done very well in terms of cherry-picking. Some of us were in Parliament when the NERC Act was passed, and I am sure there are “mays” in it; any piece of legislation will have the word “may”. I challenge him to find one that does not have the word “may” in, but it will also have the word “must”. I will say, with the best of intentions, that to compare the NERC Act with the Bill is to undermine the importance of the Bill. NERC was a very good piece of legislation; it tidied up BOATs and RUPPs and the way in which we had access to our countryside and it set up the replacement for the Countryside Agency. It was important in its own way, but it pales into insignificance in comparison with the Bill, which is about our food, our future health and, dare I say it, the way in which we want the countryside to be protected. Yes, we can find examples of where powers have been used in preference to duties, but most pieces of legislation have some duties at their centre point. The Bill does not.
George Eustice
Of course some legislation has duties but my point is that in the context of payment powers, the power to design schemes and make financial payments, “may” is the appropriate word to use. That is what is used in the NERC Act in the context of making payments. Through all of our legislation that relates to agriculture from the Agriculture Act 1947 onwards, that has been a consistent approach to making a payment.
Dr Drew
I hear what the Minister says, but of course that has been nothing to do with the British Government. Since the mid-1970s, agriculture has been entirely subsumed within the EU. We have not had any discretion. The budget has been fixed in Brussels, and it has been fixed in the way we had to make our contribution. As the Minister feels strongly, that may be a good reason to get out of the EU, but it is not right to see the Bill as a parallel. This is a very different time. Post Brexit, the British Government will be setting their budgetary arrangement for agriculture, and unless they are compelled, they can just say, “We don’t really want to give much money to agriculture.” That is up to the Government, of course, and it has to deal with the consequences. The Minister quite rightly says that we can repeal anything, but to talk about repealing legislation is a strange way of passing legislation. Let us get it right in the first place.
George Eustice
I very much hope that, like the 1947 Act, the Bill stands the test of time. My point is that a Government hostile to our environment or animal welfare or commitments in these areas could repeal the legislation if they chose to. The hon. Gentleman knows that I was on the leave side, and my recollection is that when he was previously in Parliament, he was on the sceptical side of the Labour party—campaigning against membership of the euro, for instance. Does he not agree with me that this is an opportunity for us to embrace self-government and that we should not fear doing so?
Dr Drew
That is a good reason to introduce the Bill, but it is also a good reason to make sure that we have duties at its centre point. If we do not have those duties, all the other things that the Minister has talked about—commendable though they may be—are subject to the whim of the Government, and more particularly the Secretary of State, who may have no time for agriculture. That is quite possible.
We will press the amendment to a Division because we think it is important to make it clear that duties should be at the centre point of the Bill—not throughout the Bill, but on the most crucial part: the financial arrangements and accountability for them. The hon. Member for North Dorset says that the matter will come up on Report, but I dare say that, given what has been said in the House of Lords, their lordships will give this more than a going over.
It is important that we have this debate today. I always used to get really riled when my party was in government and I was told, “Don’t worry, we’ll sort this out in the Lords.” I felt that it was important that we sorted it out in the House of Commons—the democratically elected Chamber. The House of Lords can scrutinise and improve but we should be making the fundamental decisions in this place.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Drew
I support amendments 72 and 41, but I shall speak to amendment 49. The Bill is about improving the environmental quality of our agriculture, and there is no better way of doing that than ensuring that we improve soil, water use and the development of our countryside to provide the most efficient agriculture. Those issues will take up much of our time on this Committee.
I make it clear that amendment 49 comes from the Uplands Alliance, which has some concerns about how it will fare once the Bill is passed unless some account is taken of the uplands. We all know how difficult it is to farm in the uplands; I am afraid that, whatever the Bill does, it will not make it much easier. Sheep farmers are largely farming on the margins. We will be careful to try to rule out anything that would undermine their ability to get a fair price for their sheepmeat. We are wary of any free trade deal with certain parts of the world, and we make no apology for making that argument.
The Uplands Alliance’s point is that the easiest way of dealing with environmental degradation in the uplands is rewilding, recarbonisation and allowing the land to go back to nature, but of course that does not give anyone a living. The people concerned do not have a living at the moment; they may get some money through direct environmental payments, but those are effectively a subsidy to keep them on the land.
Why does this matter? It matters not only because upland farmers deserve our support, but because this is about our kept landscape. Rewilding the whole uplands landscape may be attractive, but will it draw in the tourists? Will it give us a sustainable rural community? I suspect not. If we want these people to carry on farming, we have to allow for a balance between the environmental payments that they will be eligible for and their ability to farm at a profit, which can be done only if we invest in them.
Amendment 49 is important because it looks at the reality. I do not happen to represent any upland areas, but some hon. Members present do, so in a sense I am speaking on their behalf. They will know exactly what I am talking about.
Mr Goodwill
My constituency takes in two thirds of the North Yorkshire moors. The hon. Gentleman spoke about rewilding, which is precisely what would happen if the heather moor land was not managed properly. People would not be happy to see that, because they see the heather moor land as a fragile environment that they want to sustain as a public good.
Dr Drew
That is exactly why we must balance the environmental aspects of the Bill with the reality of farming in those areas. I am trying to identify the issue that the Uplands Alliance asked us to address in the amendment, which is about looking at traditional and sustainable forms of agriculture. As has been said, agro-ecology is a new term, but in many respects it is revisiting the past; it is about how we have always tended to consider farming in certain parts of the world as traditional. How we maintain that landscape—a farmed and managed landscape—depends on a relationship between what is farmed and the environment being managed by those farmers.
The alternative is rewilding or having much larger holdings. In essence, we would end up ranching those holdings; they would have to be on such a large scale because the money would not be there in any other way. That would be deleterious to our countryside, and many farmers who want to remain would have to be moved off the land.
It is important that we have this debate. I support the important agro-ecological points of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, because we are giving the Bill some substance. We disagree with the Government: we need examples of how such agricultural improvement will work and how to deliver it. Many others support the amendments, as my hon. Friend said, such as the Soil Association. In its written evidence, which we have all looked at, the Landworkers’ Alliance very much encouraged this direction of travel, to see how agriculture can be improved, made sustainable and meet our sustainable development goals. We will talk in detail later about climate change, which is central to this debate.
I support my hon. Friend’s amendments, and I make no apology for saying that they improve, as we said we would, the status and clarity of the Bill on how agriculture should move. I hope the Government will look positively at what we are trying to do.
George Eustice
It is a pleasure to respond on this group of amendments, which all have in common the tendency, which occurs when a list of purposes such this is published, for a range of organisations to want to be name-checked. They become concerned that unless they are name-checked they are being left out. Allow me to take this opportunity to assure the Committee that all the purposes that the amendments want to include are already included.
First, allow me to set out our approach. We have set out our desired goods, outcomes and overall purposes, which we deliberately kept broad so that we did not miss things out. In clause 1 we have explicitly avoided trying to come up with an exhaustive list of every feature of our environment, every environmental asset and every type of scheme we might do under these purposes. For instance, it is true that the clause does not specifically name-check soils—one of our most important natural assets—or pollinators, bees, meadows or farmland birds. Every single one of those natural assets are assets that we seek to enhance and protect and do well for under the powers that we have within the purposes set out in part 1.
On amendment 72, I assure the hon. Member for Bristol East that I am passionate about soil health, as is the Secretary of State. As I have mentioned, people such as Sir Albert Howard, the great 20th century agronomist, who is seen by many as the father of the organics movement, recognised almost 100 years ago that we could not mine soil and, as he put it, submit it to banditry and take all the goodness out of it—we had to manage it. Good husbandry is all about recognising the cycle of life; the health of our soils is not just about chemistry. It is about not just the NPK fertiliser that we put on a field, but the complex interactions, the humus in the soil, the organic matter. It is a living ecology, not just a growing medium.
We absolutely recognise that, which is why soil features prominently in our policy paper. I guarantee the hon. Lady that when we roll out our new environmental land management scheme, it will have a plethora of interventions and schemes to support good soil husbandry and good soil health, because we know that if we get the management of our soils right, it can have implications for carbon mitigation. It can be a carbon store. It is also the case that if we get the management of our soils right, we can improve water quality and reduce our reliance on synthetic fertilisers.
I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government take this matter absolutely seriously, but we do not agree with the amendment. It is not just that it is unnecessary, because soil is already covered in the purposes in paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1)—as far as we are concerned, soil is covered by a multitude of the existing purposes already—but that it has an unfortunate consequence. Crucially, it would insert, at the end of paragraph (a),
“managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment”
the phrase
“and enhances soil health”.
While the intention of the amendment was to broaden the objective to include soil health, in fact it narrows the scope of the purposes. For instance, we might have a scheme to promote and support farmland birds, but it might not be immediately recognisable how that might help soil health. The use of the word “and” as opposed to “or” would narrow the scope in a way that would be detrimental to our environment and would be bad for assets such as birds, pollinators and a range of others. On the basis of that assurance, given my passion for the subject and the guarantee I give that it will be a prominent feature of the new scheme, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree not to press the amendment.
Amendment 49 links to a number of representations, whether from the Uplands Alliance or those in the agro-ecology movement, which suggest that we should include an approach to farming systems. Although I think that is unnecessary, because individual farming systems will be covered by a multitude of purposes that we have already set out, I want to take this opportunity to assure the Committee about some of the things we are looking at.
First, on uplands, we believe that our public goods payment approach has real potential to give a rewarding, viable and stable business model to the upland areas. They are better placed than many farms to benefit from the provisions on, for instance, payments for public access. They are able to help and assist with things such as flood mitigation and there are some quite big environmental schemes they could get into. The uplands could also benefit from issues such as peat-bog restoration. If we adopt an approach based around payment on public goods, we believe the uplands would naturally benefit from that. Of course, they also look after and maintain a lot of our natural heritage—the stone walls, the hedges and the beautiful landscapes—that are referred to in subsection (1)(c). We believe that the existing purposes already cover the uplands, certainly in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1).
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after “(d)”, insert
“limiting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture or horticulture or encouraging activities that reduce such emissions or remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, or”.
This amendment would add to the purposes for which financial assistance can be given that of limiting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture or horticulture or encouraging activities that reduce such emissions or remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.
I shall endeavour to speed up a little, but again this is an important part of the legislation because it refers to climate change. To be fair to the Minister, climate change appears in subsection (1)(d), which refers to
“mitigating or adapting to climate change”.
We accept and are willing to support that, but we wish to improve on it by adding the words in our amendment.
Again, this is important. If we are serious about a new Agriculture Act, we ought to be serious about how it impinges on climate change. Those are not my words but the words of Lord Deben, that well-known socialist former MP, now in the Lords, John Gummer. Some in the Committee heard, as I did, what he said in the Attlee Room when he introduced the report of the Committee on Climate Change. He was rather scathing about the way in which agriculture has failed to meet its targets for reducing emissions. He was overall pretty sceptical about the Government’s performance—as he can afford to be, given how deep-seated he is in this place—and was particularly critical of agricultural emissions having flatlined, which is not good enough.
The Opposition make no apology for tabling the amendment. We have done so to give some bite to the Bill and make climate change the fulcrum of how agriculture performs so that we see those improvements. Not only have agricultural emissions in general flatlined, but net carbon sequestration from forestry has flatlined. The United Nations has produced a report through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, saying, “Forget 2 degrees. We should be worried about even approaching 1.5 degrees.” We can play our part by being serious about this issue and passing this simple amendment to ensure that we can do what clause 1(1)(d) says:
“mitigating or adapting to climate change”.
I hope the Minister will take note of what we are saying. The amendment is a minor change in wording but makes the important statement that agriculture has to play its part in dealing with climate change. As Gilles Deprez said when giving evidence to this Committee, he strongly believes that farmers are already paying the price for climate change, and dealing with it is not just something that they should do for the wider community. They are already suffering the effects of climate change, as we have seen this year with the drought. I am not saying that droughts are anything other than climatic occurrences that have happened through the ages, but those climatic events—whether floods, drought, or very cold winters that mean that farmers are unable to plant when they want to, let alone harvest when it is very wet—come around far too regularly for them to be anything other than an aspect of climate change.
I hope we can reach some agreement on this issue. Given who sits in the House of Lords, those Lords will spend an awful lot of time talking about this aspect of agriculture, so the Minister might as well be prepared. He cannot influence proceedings in the Lords, but whoever takes this through—presumably Lord Gardiner—will be spending a lot of time trying to deal with various people, whom we could name, who will be saying, “Come on—sort this out. We need to have some words in the Bill that show how agriculture is prepared to play its part in dealing with climate change.”
We know that farmers do not necessarily have the resources, expertise or access to investment that they need, so again, let us hope that that is where the money will go. It is crucial to deliver the budget in a way that allows farmers to make those changes. We heard in a previous debate about agro-ecology that this issue is linked to soil quality, water management and the way in which farming systems need to change to take account of emissions. Not including this amendment in the Bill would be a missed opportunity, and again I make no apology for introducing it. Climate change has to be taken seriously, including in the Bill.
George Eustice
I can be fairly brief, because I have already spelled out some of the principles behind Government’s approach. As the shadow Minister acknowledged, subsection (1)(d) includes a simple but clear purpose, which is
“mitigating or adapting to climate change”.
Why have a long, cumbersome sentence of 29 words when six words will suffice? His wording—
“limiting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture or horticulture or encouraging activities that reduce such emissions or remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere”—
can be summarised as “mitigating climate change”, and we already have that term in subsection (1)(d).
George Eustice
Yes, and I did not seek to give a fully detailed exposition of the impact of soya, but the progress that some sectors—notably the pig sector—have made in reducing their carbon footprint has been by reducing their reliance on imported soya. The hon. Lady is right that it has a range of impacts on the environment.
I recognise the intention behind amendment 50, but I think it would only lengthen subsection (1)(d) without adding any meaningful change. I hope I can reassure hon. Members that the powers outlined in the subsection already enable us to do what we all seek to do on gas emissions.
Dr Drew
What the Minister says is laudable, but it takes us back to the problem of powers and duties. The Secretary of State does not have to do any of this. The simple fact is that, according to the Committee on Climate Change, agricultural emissions are not on track to deliver the carbon budget savings required by 2022. Amendment 50 may be wordy, it may be an addition and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington says—it may lead us to argue about what “mitigation” means, but we tabled it because at the moment there is no guarantee that agriculture will play its part in dealing with climate change.
The reality is that unless we put some teeth into the Bill, either the Government or, dare I say it, farmers will not have to do anything. We are putting the onus on farming and farmers to deliver their contribution towards reducing emissions. There has been much good work, but the fact is that agriculture’s contribution has flatlined. We have to do something about that, so we make no apology for saying that we will press our amendment to a vote. The issue will come back to haunt the Government in the House of Lords, where countless Members will make the point that agriculture has not reduced its emissions as it should have, so we must place an obligation on it to ensure that it does.
The Opposition believe strongly that the money that will go from direct payments into environmental support has to target emissions reduction, so the wording is really important. I hope that all hon. Members will think about the matter, because it will be brought back to the House. It will be important not only to this Bill but to the forthcoming environment Bill—I do not know what will be in that Bill, unless it says that we will actually reduce emissions. Whether it is in this Bill or that one, that commitment has to be there.
Without further ado, I ask for a vote on amendment 50. We make it clear that if the Government will not yield on these words now, they will have to yield on similar words later.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert
“(h) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses to ensure public access to healthy, local, sustainably produced food.”
This amendment would add to the purposes for which financial assistance can be given that of ensuring access to healthy, local, sustainably produced food.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 70, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert
“(h) supporting the delivery of improved public health outcomes.
‘(1A) Support under subsection (1)(h) may include, but is not limited to, measures to:
(a) increase the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit and vegetables and pulses,
(b) reduce farm antibiotic and related veterinary product use, and antimicrobial resistance in harmful micro-organisms, through improved animal health and improved animal welfare,
(c) provide support for farmers to diversify out of domestic production of foods where there may be reduced demand due to health concerns,
(d) reduce harm from use of chemicals on farms, and
(e) reduce pesticide residues in food.”
Dr Drew
The nature of the food we produce is another area of the Bill that needs to be improved and strengthened. This is the Agriculture Bill—although, some say that there is not enough agriculture in it—and it should take, by every stretch of the imagination, more account of access to food and the improved quality and distribution of that food. We pass legislation to try to improve the current situation.
Many of us on this side feel that the use of food banks, as well as the poor quality of food and problems with access to food, are a tragedy and a scandal. We are not here to get involved in the politics of that, but to look at the practicalities of ways in which we can help. We would all acknowledge that the distribution of food is as much of a problem as the production of food, which is why organisations such as FareShare are so important; they work with food producers to distribute food to people who cannot afford to buy it through the normal market mechanism. Recognising those problems is important to us, both as Labour politicians and as human beings. This is the appropriate part of the Bill for amendment 51.
The biggest single challenge facing the NHS is obesity, and we need to do something about that in the Bill—it may be called the Agriculture Bill, but it is also about food. We ask the Government at least to acknowledge that this is an issue worthy of discussion, debate and improvement.
Mr Goodwill
Healthy and unhealthy people shop at the same supermarkets. Is it not their choices that make the difference to their health, rather than the food on the shelves?
Dr Drew
That is an interesting view, but it depends on what food is on the shelves. Maybe I have misled the right hon. Gentleman, because it is not just about supermarkets and the retail end; it is also about fast-food business, which has to be part of today’s debate on the food we produce, who buys it, and how we can help them if they cannot afford it.
Sandy Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that advertising, taxation, supply and various other aspects determine people’s choices about what foods to eat, and their knowledge of what foods are available to them, and that we should seek some sort of food strategy so that we know what sorts of foods we want to be available to the population?
Dr Drew
I thank my hon. Friend, because that is exactly the point we are making. This concerns not only obesity but its consequences, such as the rise of diabetes, which has doubled over the past 20 years. I am told—although I cannot source this—that the UK already has the most ultra-processed diet in Europe. I think that means we eat too much fast food, which the Bill must recognise is a huge public health issue.
Despite the title of the White Paper, “Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit”, health has been marginalised. That is disappointing. Health should be central to the whole debate on the food we produce, who it is produced for, and whether it is affordable.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I am interested in the direction of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he agree that this is about production, and that everything is either safe or dangerous depending on moderation? Moderation is key here; not how we produce food, or why we produce it, but eating it in moderation.
Dr Drew
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is also an issue of distribution and who is able to afford certain types of food. Clearly we are trying to move the debate towards ways that we can encourage people to eat better food and maybe less of it, which we will not manage unless we can talk about those issues in the Agriculture Bill Committee. It is not just about domestic production, but where other food comes from. We have a very successful export industry, but we import a huge amount of food from abroad that we could substitute through domestic production.
Chris Davies
I am sorry to intervene yet again, but I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s line of direction. Could he give an example of food produced in this country that is not healthy?
Dr Drew
We should produce sugar, but we should put a tax in place to determine the amount of sugar in products. I have a producer of fizzy drinks that has had to go through the whole process of taking the sugar out—it used to do that but then put the sugar back in; it no longer does that. I will not mention it by name, but it has been quite an impingement on the business. It did that because that was what it was told to do. We do not want to be overzealous in how we treat the production of food, but if we do not do something about it, the consequences will be dire. There are consequences at the moment, with so many people suffering from obesity.
Simon Hoare
I fear that the shadow Minister is becoming some sort of food Stalinist. I do not know where he is coming from. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is absolutely right; this is an agriculture Bill. What people who buy products from our farmers then do with those products is subject to all sorts of food standards and regulations, but we cannot put an onus on our farmers—apart from those who are selling direct at the farm gate, farm shop or farmers market—about what people who are adding value to a product do to it. I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud about education, but this is a draconian amendment that he is promoting.
Dr Drew
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and we can disagree about what is Stalinist. Why did the Government call their White Paper “Health and harmony”? Why did they not just call it “Farming and harmony”? We all did our consultations, maybe more in oral form than in written form in some cases. Why did we all say, “The Government are on to something here, having linked together environment, food and health”? As we have discussed this morning, they already have some difficulties with food, but they have an even bigger difficulty with health, particularly public health.
This is a very minor amendment that would provide an additional sub-clause, supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses to ensure public access to healthy, local food, which we have not stressed. We are very much in favour of local food chains as an alternative to the globalisation of the food market, because we think it is very important that people have access to good, local food that is sustainably produced. That is very minor. It is just adding a sub-clause, which would do things that presumably the Government want to do, given their public health strategy. If they do not want to do it in this part of the Bill, where will the strategy have any bite? We should argue the case that public health is important to an agriculture Bill, and we make no apologies for pushing the issue. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has to say about her amendment. We believe this is important and should be in the Bill, and this debate is the start.
Kerry McCarthy
I entirely support my hon. Friend and his amendment 51, but my amendment 70 is a bit more detailed. I will talk first about the public health, food-related issues.
As has been said, the White Paper is called “Health and Harmony” yet there is a conspicuous lack of information about what the Government want to do to improve public health. Almost 4 million people in the UK have been diagnosed with diabetes, 90% of those type 2, which is very much associated with diet. That costs the NHS £12 billion a year, which is a good enough argument to try to do something about it.
Childhood obesity has been mentioned. We now have more children classified obese at the age of 11 than in the US, which is definitely cause for alarm. Recent research by Kellogg’s described food deserts in our most deprived areas, where it is really difficult for families to get their hands on affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. I think two of the top five areas are in south Bristol.
I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food and a member of its children’s future food inquiry, which recently published data. Members might know that the Government have an “Eat Well” guide, which is meant to indicate what a healthy diet looks like. It is not used as it should be, in that it does not inform public procurement in the way that it should, but it is out there. The inquiry’s report found that almost 4 million children in the UK live in households that would struggle to meet the official nutritional guidelines. They would not be able to afford to eat in line with what the Government recommend as a healthy diet.
My amendment also mentions the overuse of antibiotics in farming. That is not the use of antibiotics to treat illness; it is usually the result of intensive farming, with the routine over-prescription of antibiotics to compensate for the fact that animal husbandry is not as good as it could be. That is causing a public health crisis. The former Chancellor, now editor of the Evening Standard, went to the States and made a big speech to highlight that this is a public health crisis for anybody who is reliant on antibiotics.
We have seen the rise of superbugs in the NHS. I have a niece with cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis patients rely on periodic applications of antibiotics, which are fast becoming ineffective. We need to take serious steps to reduce their routine use in farming. The amendment also refers to reducing the use of chemicals and pesticides on farms, and the associated health risks have been mentioned.
I very much look forward to the Government’s food strategy document. I was originally told that the outline document would come forward just before Christmas, but I have heard rumours that is has been put back further and may even have been shelved. I do not want to rely on reassurances that all this will be dealt with in a food strategy document.
I appreciate the concerns that we cannot necessarily deal with what the finished product would look like, but we could look at measures such as grants for marketing, infrastructure for on-farm processing, creating local farm supply chains and what the Minister mentioned earlier about having food production around cities, so that it would be easier to get healthy food into cities. We could also look at an equivalent to the EU fruit and vegetable aid scheme. Public procurement is incredibly important as well. There is a lot more I could say on the subject. There is a chance in the Bill to ensure that people have healthier diets. It is crisis that we cannot just ignore.
Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)
David Drew Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point; I say that with some smugness, having lost three stone since the start of the year. I have another two to go, and the cake did not help.
Simon Hoare
I am unleashing my inner Tom Watson, which is a scary prospect. However, this is a serious point. We as policy makers should focus our attention on the educators. People need more education. We are entirely wrong to knock our supermarkets, which are the principal food retailers in this country. They provide food on the shelves at all price points and of ranging quality, allowing people access to the fullest and widest range of foodstuffs ever available to food consumers in our history.
George Eustice
The food strategy is alive and well. The hon. Lady is right and it is in my notes and I intended to mention it. We have a food entrepreneur, Henry Dimbleby, from the Leon food chain, who is doing a piece of work at the moment on the food strategy that will obviously complement what we are doing here. However, we believe we have the powers in the Bill to do the things that we want to do in this space.
On that basis, I hope that those who have spoken to amendment 51 and 70 will consider withdrawing them, because I believe that the issues they are trying to cover are already covered in the Bill.
Dr Drew
To start with, I declare an interest: my wife has a stall on Stroud farmers market every fortnight. Please come along to see the wonderful wares that she sells. I had to get that on the record.
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Clearly, we are not going to come to a meeting of minds, but the issue will come back. I keep reiterating the fact that the White Paper, “Health and Harmony”, and the issue of public health which it identified as a crucial element in the way in which the food chain functions in an Agriculture Bill, are not going to go away. It may be that this is not the time to force a Division. I make that clear, but we make no apology for saying that we will come back on this because it is important that we understand that people out there may not understand the legislative process but they understand what they think should be the elements of what we do for the future of the policy.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East says on the food strategy. It would be helpful if the Government were clear on when it comes forward, as it should be with the environment Bill, because these are interrelated. This is the problem with legislation. We only have one side of the coin, when we need both sides to make sense of the totality of the Government’s approach.
It is important that somehow health is in the Bill and I hope the Minister will reflect on this. Public health matters because what people eat depends entirely on their access to food and its availability and what they can afford. It is also to do with the fact that to some extent we have an influence, through production and distribution.
I hope the Minister has listened to the debate. We will not push the matter to a Division at this time, but it will come back because people feel very strongly about it, whether it concerns food poverty, or purely obesity and diabetes, or the reality of how food is increasingly the reason people’s life expectancy is determined. I understand what the Minister has said and I know there are lots of contingent points in his argument. However, I hope we can extract that and at a future time clarify where public health is in relation to the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jenny Chapman
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) No financial assistance may be given by the Secretary of State in relation to the purpose under subsection (1)(f) unless the practice for which financial assistance is to be given pays full regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.”
This amendment would ensure that any financial assistance provided in relation to ‘the health and welfare of livestock’ purpose in Clause 1 recognises the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.
Jenny Chapman
That very much depends on the terms on which we leave the EU. Whatever those terms are we need to be absolutely clear about our standards on animal welfare, food safety and all the rest of it. If we are not, there is scope for these very high standards of which we are all proud to be watered down in some way. That is the sole motivation behind the amendment. It is not intended to ridicule the Government, or to try to show that we care more about animals than Government Members do or any of that. It is about making sure that, in the future, the UK maintains its position as a world leader on these issues.
Dr Drew
My hon. Friend will remember my interchange with Jason Feeney of the Food Standards Agency when I pressed him on the degree to which the FSA looks at food quality. He argued that it mainly looks at hygiene and safety. However, that clearly shows the organisational changes that will be required, because somebody has to look at quality, and if it is not the FSA, some other agency will have to be invented to do so. At the moment, that responsibility is subsumed within the European Food Safety Authority.
Jenny Chapman
That is another example of how difficult this issue is and of the work that will be involved in making sure that we keep current standards as they are, or raise them higher than they are today. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that enables us to be confident of that, which is why we encourage the Government to accept our amendments, or if they will not, to bring forward measures that they find acceptable.
This is important. It is about the reputation of our country around the world. The people with whom we seek to trade in the future will be mindful of the legal framework in which our food is produced. It will be a lost opportunity should the Government not agree to bring something forward that will provide clarity for our producers.
George Eustice
The provisions that I am reading are very much around EU law and retained EU law, but I take the hon. Lady’s point that she may have intended the measure to be broader.
There is a third point, however. We are clear that we accept some of these principles. We will provide for a new environmental body to police them. We have already said that we are committed to those principles coming across. There is a difficulty, however, in the practice of a scheme where financial incentives are being paid. It is not always black and white. For instance, the “polluter pays” principle sounds great in theory, but what if there is a diffuse pollution incident somewhere in a water catchment that might involve small contributions from a number of farms that are difficult to locate? It is not always easy to just say, “We need regulation,” or, “We need enforcement,” on this farm or that farm.
In recent years we have successfully paid farmers to support them in investing to improve slurry infrastructure. We have had a successful scheme in the past two years to pay farmers to put lids on slurry stores, so that they can reduce ammonia emissions, for instance. If we are serious about tackling complex environmental issues such as diffuse pollution, we have to be willing to venture beyond what can be achieved with a blunt regulatory instrument and instead be willing to have financial incentives, rewards and grants to support good practice. A requirement to abide by the “polluter pays” principle will often be used, as in this case, by people who want to sit on their hands and not spend money. If we are serious about doing payment for public goods properly, we must be willing to exercise judgment and to support schemes that may fall into the grey area between what would normally be covered by regulation and what would be covered by an environmental purpose.
Amendment 74 relates to animal sentience, on which we have already published draft legislation. The Government are absolutely committed to making the necessary changes to UK law to ensure that animal sentience is recognised. This country has always been a leader in the field. In 1875, we were the first country in the world to pass legislation to regulate slaughterhouses. The Protection of Animals Act followed in 1911, and in 1933 we updated a lot of our regulation, particularly of slaughterhouses. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 recognises animal sentience. We would never have passed any of that legislation if we did not believe that animals were sentient beings. That is beyond question; both sides of the House and all Governments have believed it for at least 140 years. We are committed to introducing a Bill to recognise animal sentience.
George Eustice
I cannot guarantee that that Bill will be introduced by March, but obviously we are working on the basis that there will be an implementation period, in which case all those principles will apply. More importantly, however, I can guarantee the hon. Gentleman that all retained EU law—the entire body of legislation that governs everything from slaughterhouses to transport regulations—will be brought across. That is already happening in a large wave of statutory instruments made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Every single piece of EU animal welfare legislation will be effective and on our statute book by the end of March.
Dr Drew
There is the rub. We know that something like 80 SIs are coming our way. We may not choose to object to them all, but even if we object to only eight or 10, it will wear the Minister out, wear me out and have huge implications. Effectively, it will mean that we cannot do anything else, because that is what the nature of the SI process implies. It is all well and good saying that secondary legislation is the way forward, but it will not necessarily be very practicable.
Jenny Chapman
I am not surprised by any of the Minister’s comments. His attempt to reassure the Committee on EU retained law and SIs was not particularly effective. As we said at great length during the passage of the withdrawal Act, the ability to amend the Act is of deep concern to us. We think it is far better that the provisions should be in the Bill now, so that everyone can see exactly where we are. We are not happy with the approach that the Government have taken, and not just in these areas but in many others.
The Minister invited me to look to clause 3 for reassurance. Again, we come back to the powers that have been given to the Secretary of State, which are so wide-ranging. Although there are suggestions in the Bill about what those powers may be used for, the lack of precision is astonishing. Clause 3(2) states that “under subsection (1)” the Secretary of State
“may (among other things) include provision”.
It is extraordinary that the Government are attempting to proceed in this manner and expect the Opposition to go along with it. We are just not going to do that.
I might not be minded to press the amendment to a Division today, but I do not want the Committee to interpret that as demonstrating any kind of satisfaction on our part; it absolutely does not. We intend to return to these issues, which is one of the reasons why we will not press the amendment today. That might increase our chances of being able to return to the issues, which are fundamental to why we think the Bill is so flawed. I take the point about linking the issues to financial assistance. There might be something in that, although taxpayers want to know the principles by which their hard-earned cash will be spent in this area. I do not think that the Minister has responded adequately to our concerns. I expect that in the other place, and on Report, we will go over those issues again.
As for amendment 74 and the promised new Bill, we want and need to see the Bill, not just assurances that it is on its way. The Secretary of State said, “I want this to happen because I too am a sentient being.”
Jenny Chapman
Yes, there are degrees of sentience. It is not good enough, and there is no justification for not having introduced the Bill already. I am not going to divide the Committee, because we are pressed for time, but I expect that the issue will be debated again as the Bill proceeds. I want to restate our dissatisfaction with the whole approach to the Bill. It is not good enough, and the Government could have done an awful lot better. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Drew
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2), and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State may also give financial assistance for or in connection with any of the following purposes—
(a) starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity;
(b) supporting businesses or communities in rural areas; and
(c) supporting persons who are involved in the production, processing, marketing or distribution of products deriving from an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity.”
This amendment would extend to England the powers provided to Welsh Ministers in Schedule 3 paragraph 1(2)(a) and (c).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 88, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State may also give financial assistance for or in connection with any of the following purposes—
(a) supporting businesses or communities in rural areas;
(b) starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity;
(c) supporting persons who are involved in the production, processing, marketing or distribution of products deriving from an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity;
(d) supporting the production of such part of the nation’s food and other agricultural produce as it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom.”
Amendment 89, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Financial assistance under subsections (1) and (2) may only be given to—
(a) persons who are involved in the production of products deriving from an agricultural or horticultural or forestry activity, (including recognised producers organisations, associations of recognised producer organisations and recognised interbranch organisations as established in part 6 or as recognised under the CMO Regulation at the date of enactment of this Act); or
(b) those with an interest in agricultural land, where the financial assistance relates directly to that land.”
Amendment 90, in schedule 3, page 30, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) Financial assistance under subparagraphs (1) and (2) may only be given to—
(a) persons who are involved in the production of products deriving from an agricultural or horticultural or forestry activity, (including recognised producers organisations, associations of recognised producer organisations and recognised interbranch organisations as established in part 6 or as recognised under the CMO Regulation at the date of enactment of this Act); or
(b) those with an interest in agricultural land, where the financial assistance relates directly to that land.”
Dr Drew
I shall try to be a bit briefer on this amendment, partly because the hon. Member for Ludlow has three amendments to our one. I make no apology for the fact that it is more of a probing amendment. There has been some discussion about the relationship between supporting environmental goods and what remains of helping farmers or people who work the land. Paragraph (b) is quite important to me, having done quite a lot of work on rural policy over the years. We have not really spent much time looking at how rural fits alongside agriculture.
One of my worries about the legislation is the way we are changing from the common agricultural policy, of which, as the Minister rightly said, I was a critic. There were many things wrong with it, but one of its strengths was pillar 2, and the way in which pillar 2 was able to enhance and, dare I say it, rebuild rural communities. One of the problems with the Bill is that rural communities hardly seem to feature at all. Yet the strength of agriculture is in the context of the rural communities in which farmers and others live. It is quite important that we tease out from the Government how they see pillar 2 being reframed in a British context.
I would argue from the outset that the previous Labour Government, the coalition Government and this Government have not done enough to support rural communities. Too often money was forthcoming only in a grudging manner. We frequently failed to match-fund the moneys that were available through pillar 2, which meant that very often schemes did not go forward. Part of my reason for tabling the amendment was to raise the issue of rural communities, and to say that hopefully there will be opportunities for us to put something more definite in the Bill to say that we really want to enshrine pillar 2 in the legislation. Otherwise, all will be lost. There is no other opportunity; there is no forthcoming rural Bill. We may have a sentience Bill, we may have a sentencing Bill, and we may have a Bill to ban animals in circuses.
Dr Drew
We may; we might; we must—some time, over the rainbow. Lots of bits of legislation are possible, but they are not necessarily going to be introduced very quickly, so rural affairs must feature.
The amendment is more of a probing amendment. As we move towards environmental support payments, we must consider what that means for farmers. I have always been a doughty champion of smaller farms and tenant farms. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has said, I worry that there are holes in the legislation, with regard to how it will actually work. In the evidence session I referred to the regulatory underpinning, which is important but, as yet, not at all clear. That is why we wanted evidence from the Rural Payments Agency, despite all its failings, and from the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and indeed from Dame Glenys Stacey, to know what the format is. We have had her interim report but no final report yet on how the regulatory regime will operate for farmers. That is important because, although we are debating primary legislation, that is what will underpin it. Rural communities are important and we need to know what the Government will say about that.
In terms of the national interest and social justice, we must be able to feed ourselves. We feel strongly about food security, and I have argued for that. It has not really featured in the past decade, although it did in the previous one—it drove agricultural policy. It was one of the reasons we changed at European level from the previous regime. We strongly felt that it was better to pay farmers—in this case, landowners—and that may be where we dug ourselves into a problem. I always argued that there should be a de minimis and a de maximus payment structure. Colleagues did not necessarily agree with that, but that is why we have ended up with some of the problems we have had in respect of the area payment scheme. We need to look at how we can encourage our farmers to produce more of their own produce, and that is a reason for probing this. It is about good-quality, healthy food—we have had that debate already. We need to look at how that is coming forward.
That all sounds theoretical, and like good things for good people, but that is what we have committed ourselves to in the Welsh schedule, so they are getting this. We may well say, “Lucky old Wales” and feel disappointed that England does not have the same. It would be interesting to know how we will defend the interests of England. That point was made at great length at Second Reading by the hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). Who speaks for England? Wales certainly has greater flexibility in how it can use its money in its schedule. I have said that it is likely that we will end up with four different agricultural systems—nuanced, but different. We must understand where England stands, particular in relation to Wales. Should Scotland and Northern Ireland come forward with the same proposals, they would need to be looked at. We must look at how payments will be allowed as well as for what, and to whom. That is why agriculture, horticulture and forestry are crucial in how we look at who gets the money and for what reason. That is about public interest, and it is about putting what we really want people to do on the face of the Bill.
George Eustice
No, not at all, and I will return to that point. We have an alternative plan for rural support and support for rural communities.
Paragraph (c) of amendment 52 states that financial assistance can be used for
“supporting persons who are involved in the production, processing, marketing or distribution of products deriving from an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity.”
That could open the door to Unilever being paid grants for its manufacturing or a haulier with a chill chain operation being paid to take food to Tesco. It would even enable money to be paid to Tesco itself. I am not sure that the amendment would achieve what those who suggested and promoted it hope to achieve. In fact, it would open the door to a severe dilution of the Bill’s intention.
That said, we understand from our discussions with the Welsh Government that they are a little uncertain how they will use the power. They wanted it as a fall-back provision and envisaged using it for a short time until they could replace it with something else. It may be a provision in the Welsh schedule that is used in a very limited way, if at all, depending on the development of Welsh policy.
I turn to our plan for delivering for these areas, which is the shared prosperity fund. It will have a rural strand. The shared prosperity fund will replace the plethora of EU structural funds. We are working very closely with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Government colleagues to ensure that there is a rural programme within that shared prosperity fund and to ensure, for example, that LEADER and other grants have some kind of successor scheme.
George Eustice
One Bill at a time. When legislation is introduced on the future shared prosperity fund—I understand that there will be a consultation later this year—everyone will then have an opportunity to participate in that debate, but it is a debate for another time. We have enough issues on our hands at the moment.
Amendment 88, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, is similar to amendment 52, with the exception that he has added a paragraph (d) that would effectively require us to have regard for self-sufficiency. I note that he has borrowed the language in paragraph (d) from section 1 of the Agriculture Act 1947. Obviously it was a very different time—1947 was immediately after the second world war. We still had rationing books; we did not end rationing in this country until 1954. Our levels of self-sufficiency in the run-up to the second world war had been woefully low.
To put that in context, self-sufficiency today is very high by historical standards. In the late 19th century, and up until the second world war, our level of self-sufficiency hovered between 30% and 40%—far lower than it is today. It was a series of interventions, including the 1947 Act and others, that meant that it peaked at somewhere close to 70% in the late ’80s. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, there was a cost to self-sufficiency at that level: appalling levels of intervention, perfectly good food being destroyed, and production subsidies to produce food for which there was no market. The old-style production subsidy regime that used to pertain to the common agricultural policy was totally dysfunctional and severely discredited, and was therefore dismantled some time ago.
It is important to recognise a distinction between self-sufficiency and food security. Sometimes people conflate those terms. Food security depends on far more than self-sufficiency. We know that to deliver genuine food security both nationally and internationally, vibrant and successful domestic production and open markets are necessary. Just look at this summer, when we had an horrendous drought and crop failures across the board. That happens. It is the nature of farming, and it is therefore important, in order to protect food security, that we have open markets and trade. That has always been the case.
The other reality is that in a modern context the greatest threat to food security is probably a global one. We have a rapidly growing population, set to reach 9 billion by 2050, and we have the countervailing force of climate change and a lack of water resources, which means that in parts of the world where we are currently producing food it may be more difficult to do so in 10 or 15 years’ time. Scarcity of water could be a global challenge. The issue of food security is less about national self-sufficiency in case there is another world war—our negotiations with the EU are challenging but we do not envisage it getting to the state of our requiring something like the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939. The challenge on food security, insofar as it exists, is ensuring that we can feed the world.
Another question is how best to deliver food security and a successful farming industry. Is it best to do so through direct payments—subsidy payments based on how much land farmers have? Direct payments were decoupled from production some 15 years ago, so those who suggest that direct payments are somehow a guarantor of food security are wrong. Many hundreds, or possibly thousands, of people own a bit of land, have a job in the City where they earn their income, mow the grass a couple of times a year and keep a few pet sheep on the land, but nevertheless hit the collect button on their single farm payment. That cannot be a viable, long-term approach.
The question therefore is how do we best support a vibrant and successful farming industry? Our view is that we should not do it through subsidies of the old style, but by supporting farms to become more profitable, to reduce costs, and to produce and sell more around the world. That is why the approach that we have taken to deliver food security, such as it is, is included in subsection (2), which covers the power to give grants to help farmers to invest, and the power to support research and development so that we can see the next leap forward in plant breeding or in animal genetics. There are powers later in the Bill that we will debate at a future date to allow producer organisations to be formed so that farmers have more clout in the marketplace and get a fairer price. There are powers to improve fairness and transparency in the supply chain. Where we want to end up is with a successful, vibrant, profitable farming industry that is able to produce more food.
Dr Drew
As I said at the outset, this is—from us, at least—a probing amendment, so we will not push it to a vote. I was intrigued by some of the Minister’s arguments; the nuance between self-sufficiency and food security was interesting. I have always thought that with more self-sufficiency came greater food security, but maybe I am naive about that. The Minister dealt with the issue of farmers’ lack of forage during the recent drought. It does not matter whether farmers are more self-sufficient or trying to work out a more secure supply—the reality is that there was no supply. It is all well and good to talk about open markets, but farmers were looking everywhere for sufficient forage for their animals for the winter. Lots of them are facing real financial difficulty; if they bought at the wrong time, they are paying through the nose because of their problems in not being able to get sufficient grass from their land.
I take the Minister’s point—it is a clever argument, but when it comes down to the practicalities, I am not sure it is one that I would buy completely. Likewise, he lauds the fact that, for some of our foodstuffs, there are greater movements towards what I would see as self-sufficiency. The market I know best is milk, because I have a former Dairy Crest factory at the bottom of my garden, which is now owned by Müller Wiseman. The milk industry is classic—we should be 100% self-sufficient, and we are not only because of the craziness of the relationship between the farmers, the processors and the retailers. The reality is that it is a very difficult market, and we cannot provide enough of our own milk because that relationship has never been good. That is a reason why, right at the beginning, we had the milk marketing boards, which functioned well for many years. They were seen as very state-led, but we produced enough of our own milk, as was reflected in the price.
Mr Goodwill
While I can understand some of the advantages of the milk marketing boards, was it not the case that during the era of intervention buying, the milk marketing boards—because of their size—were the ones making milk, butter and skimmed-milk powder interventions, while our competitors across the channel, with their co-operative structure, were developing new, innovative products that are now seen in our markets?
Dr Drew
I agree. That is why, on the back of the milk marketing boards, we created Milk Marque, which was a co-operative. Sadly, it did not stand the test of time. Talking to farmers retrospectively, many of them believed wrongly that there was a better, private solution. We have seen a monopsony grow up, which has caused the producer to face all the same problems, except that they are more subject to the whim of that marketplace, where we should be producing as much of our milk as possible. We will not get delayed on this too much, but it is a classic case of the Government’s needing to recognise that they have a role to play. They still set the parameters, even if they do not intervene in the ways in which they used to do, by controlling that marketplace completely. I hear what the Minister says. Parts of his argument are highly believable; I am more sceptical about other bits, but as we go through the Bill, no doubt we will see where the Government are going.
To go back to the start, food security is an important issue, and we need to recognise that it will keep coming back. This was a probing amendment that we will not push to a vote, but we have had an interesting discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State shall also give financial assistance for, or in connection with, the purpose of establishing, maintaining and expanding agro-ecological farming systems, including organic farming .—(Kerry McCarthy.)
This amendment would ensure that new schemes support agroecological farming systems, including organic, as a way of delivering the purposes in clause 1. Agroecology is recognised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation as the basis for evolving food systems that are equally strong in environmental, economic, social and agronomic dimensions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister will be delighted to know that I am going to be very brief on this one. There is concern that it is not very clear in the Bill whether the public goods that are identified in clause 1(1) will be the primary focus for any payments, as we have already said that there is a limited pot of funding available. The Bill needs to reflect the fact that the Government have made a commitment that future policies will be underpinned by payment of public money for the provision of public goods.
The public goods are listed in the Bill, but it does not actually indicate whether they will be a funding priority—it just says that these are things that money can be spent on. It does not specify that any payments for productivity should contribute to the delivery of public goods. The two things could be entirely separate.
We have already discussed the fact that the Bill contains powers and not very much on duties, which means that it is vulnerable to change or being dropped entirely by a future Secretary of State. As I understand the Bill, there would be nothing to stop him or her from implementing payments for productivity only, without any reference to the public good. There is no indication as to how the pot of money would be divided up between the two, so there is concern, and Greener UK and the pesky environmentalists that people have talked about have been working on the amendment. They just want some assurance that a future scheme would not be weighted in favour of productivity payments, with no requirement to reduce environmental impact, and to make sure that the delivery of the public goods listed in clause 1 would not be undermined by the productivity clause.
Dr Drew
I have very little to add to what my hon. Friend has said. Basically, the amendment seeks to clarify what is meant by “productivity”. We believe the Government have quite a narrow definition of productivity that undermines the environmental sustainability that the Bill is based upon. We hope the Minister will say how he would interpret productivity and that he will take a wider view since we are looking at different aspects of productivity besides the purely agricultural and limiting definition that could be implied. For us, the issue is about improving quality and efficiency, but also about how we go about doing that. Again, that is the weakness of the Bill. It says a lot about what it might want to do, but not much about how it will do it, so we want that clearly defined. Reducing dependence on pesticides, weedkiller and fertilisers is implied in the way in which the Bill is being promoted, but exactly how that will be attained is not in the measure.
Sustainability, a primary feature of the Bill, needs to be spelt out more clearly in terms of how the legislation is entailed, otherwise there will be a misuse of public money. For example, we are not really spelling out how we want to minimise the carbon impact of agriculture. We know that agriculture could achieve carbon sequestration much more fully than it currently does.
On climate change, we are looking at issues to do with restocking levels and how they would impact on emissions levels, and at the antibiotic issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East identified. Amendment 53 would require a proper consultation on the meaning of “productivity” and a much broader understanding of sustainable productivity.
George Eustice
I will try to be brief in dealing with the two important points. First, the impact of amendment 73 would be to subordinate subsection (2) to the purposes in subsection (1), which is problematic on numerous levels. I can reassure the hon. Member for Bristol East that when it comes to the payments that we will make for the delivery of public goods, which we envisage being the cornerstone of the future policy under subsection (1), there will be conditions attached to those and requirements for entering such schemes. There will be enforcement provisions, as I said, in clause 3 to deal with that.
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern that we do not want to support something on the one hand that might undermine objectives on the other, but it is inappropriate to link the two in the way that she does because the right way to do it is to apply conditions on both. It is possible for us to apply entry-level conditions for the payment of productivity grants so that they explicitly do not undermine some of our other objectives. That will change from case to case depending on what is being supported. If there was something that dramatically improved yields but had an impact on the environment, we might be cautious about supporting it. If we supported, for instance, robotic technology to aid harvesting, it might not have any natural crossover with the provisions in subsection (1). I think the correct way to approach this is to put the right conditions on schemes under both subsection (1) and subsection (2), so that they complement rather than undermine one another. The amendment is unnecessary.
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Drew
I shall not say that much more. We have our misgivings about “must” and “may” and some of the issues that arose in the wider debate. It was appropriate to debate clause 1 in considerable detail, because it is the clause that sets the Bill in the direction of travel that it is taking.
I shall confine my remarks mainly to new clause 7, which is important. Not least of the remarks I want to make is that the Government have been clear about setting a lot of store by environmental land management contracts. The White Paper, “Health and Harmony” contained a quite long piece on environmental land management. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I will not quote the whole of it, but it does say:
“The government will work with farmers and land managers who wish to improve the environment by entering into environmental land management contracts, which could span several years.
These contracts will make sure that the environmental benefits farmers help deliver, but which cannot be sold or bought, are paid for by the public purse.”
This is about money and how we pay farmers and others to do things on the land. The White Paper gives lots of examples, including
“helping deliver high air and water quality”
and
“protecting and enhancing biodiversity on their land, by providing habitats for wildlife, for example”.
We feel that new clause 7 is worthy of inclusion because it tries to identify from the Government exactly how environmental land management contracts will operate and the way in which moneys will be paid. The danger is that such things will slip by if we do not draw attention to them. Various organisations support what we are trying to do, including the Uplands Alliance and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for the lowlands. The Ramblers are keen to ensure that access to the land is a crucial part of any contract that is negotiated, so that when public moneys are granted, people have the right to access the land.
The previous Labour Government spent a lot of time on access arrangements. Sadly, we did not get as far as we wanted on coastal access, but land was made available for what is figuratively called “the right to roam”. That was done in perhaps a more persuasive manner than was necessary—the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced legislative bite—but there was solidity in how access was allowed. That is why it is important that we link access to the debate on clause 1.
I do not have much more to say about new clause 7. We are not happy with some aspects of how clause 1 has been dealt with. There have been lots of promises and good intentions, but there are holes in the Government’s approach to the Bill. It is not just me saying that; the House of Lords Committee was scathing about the way in which so much depends on statutory instruments, rather than being in the Bill. We will vote against the clause, because we feel that it is important to get some of the detail we have been arguing for into the Bill.
We have spent a lot of time—more than five hours—on clause 1, but it is effectively what the Bill is about. If clause 1 is not right, the rest of the Bill is pretty unimportant. We will be tabling other amendments, but we have spent a lot of time on the clause to try to get the Bill right. Sadly, the Government have not moved as far as we want them to. Hopefully, they will get other chances on Report and Third Reading, and things will happen to the Bill in the House of Lords. We are trying to be helpful. We not trying to wreck, but to improve. With that in mind, I hope the Government will understand why we are not willing to vote for the clause.
George Eustice
Briefly, the Government regard new clause 7 as unnecessary because clause 1, as it stands, gives the powers necessary to design schemes. The lesson we have learned from decades of working with these schemes is that the environment is inherently complex, so we often need an iterative approach to the design of schemes so that we can add, remove or refine options as we move forwards.
The system that we have had with the common agricultural policy has been completely dysfunctional and unsuited to that aim. We have ended up with a morass of regulations that define everything from the minimum and maximum width of a hedge, to the maximum width of a gateway, what size a buffer strip should be, what type of flowers people can grow, and what type of plants people can grow on top of a hedge. It is a ludicrous morass of regulation and we do not want to recreate it. We need the powers that will enable us to design contracts that really work, farm by farm, at local levels.
Dr Drew
I hear what the Minister says, but those environmental land management contracts will be even more complicated. A whole-farm approach is great—we want that to happen—but we are going to look at every bit of woodland and watercourse, and all the ways in which field boundaries are currently maintained. That will all be wrapped into the contracts, and somebody has to manage and monitor that. Will that be any easier than the current system?
George Eustice
Yes, I believe it will be easier, because our vision is that there will be an expert on the ground. That might be somebody from one of our agencies, such as Natural England, or it might be an agronomist with whom a farmer works, who visits the farm, walks the farm, and sits around the kitchen table with the farmer to help them put the scheme together. Having given it their assent, there is then a presumption that it is supported through the system.
We want less emphasis on mapping, and fretting about a bush in a field in Derbyshire and whether it is an eligible feature, and whether a farmer claimed something that he should not have claimed. We want to get back to a human relationship between an adviser and a farmer, and I believe that we can make the systems work far better. To do that, we must avoid trying to define too much in regulation, since it hampers the ability for judgment on the ground.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)
David Drew Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I beg to move,
That on Thursday 25 October, after hearing oral evidence in accordance with the motion agreed to by the Committee on Tuesday 23 October, the Committee shall hear oral evidence from the following until not later than 4.30pm—
(1) Ulster Farmers’ Union;
(2) NFU Scotland;
(3) Scottish Government;
(4) Quality Meat Scotland.
I wish to record my thanks and that of the Committee to the patient Clerks, who have made accommodations following late requests for additional witnesses.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Simply put, we need to hear from the Rural Payments Agency and the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The one thing that came out of our earlier sittings was that no one quite knows how what is in the Bill will work, so we need to know from the extant organisations—they might be replaced, but that is something for the Government to decide—exactly how they think they will operate. I ask for another sitting to hear witnesses from those organisations. They might not be able to come, because of the short notice, but they should be called to account. I hope that would be agreed unanimously.
The Chair
In answer to the point of order, my understanding is that the organisations to which you refer were invited to participate but to date have failed to say that they want to attend. I am not sure, but I suppose we have similar powers to a Select Committee to compel them, but the fact is that they have not responded.
Furthermore, those organisations have the right to submit written evidence if they wish to do so at any time. I strongly advise and encourage those with an interest in the Bill—I of course am strictly impartial—to do so, if that is what the Committee wishes. I, however, have no power to alter an agreed programme, so I must now proceed.
I shall add one caveat: if by consensus—it has to be by consensus—the Committee decides to take further evidence later, my understanding is that that is probably practicably possible, but the Programming Sub-Committee would have to reconvene. I suggest that the most practical way forward, given that we are where we are and that those organisations have not responded, is that they are encouraged to provide written evidence, which will of course be made available to all the Committee. It goes without saying that, outside this Committee Room, neither the Chair nor anyone else has any power to restrict conversations between any Member and any organisation, so if Members wish to seek input and advice, they are at liberty to do so, as always.
Question put and agreed to.
George Eustice
Q
John Cross: Over the years, I have been quite heavily involved in international trade development, and one of the things that struck me in the south-east Asian markets that people talk about, and particularly in China, where there are huge opportunities, is that when you sit in front of Chinese veterinary officials and talk to them about market access, their primary and secondary questions are all about proof of traceability, evidence of traceability, evidence of centrally co-ordinated disease control strategies and data. They talk about product quality and price et cetera at a much lower level later. Any of the big markets we would aspire to balance our whole trade picture with would challenge us on evidencing traceability —that would be their very first question.
Indeed, if we actually look at our proposition, as an English industry out there on the global stage, you cannot get away from the fact that all the other big meat-producing economies and traders have either already done what we are doing or are in the process of doing it now, at pace. I strongly believe that in this country we produce some of the best—if not the best—meat products in the world, but the challenge from future customers and competitors will be to prove it. At the moment, our system creaks and struggles to do that, whereas with the powers that we seek, that would be a real-time service that could be demonstrated digitally anywhere in the world, and that would put us completely on the front foot.
Dr Drew
Q
John Cross: To completely enable our vision of the livestock information service, your data has to be complete —you cannot function with half or sub-optimal data. If you are eradicating disease, and that is your focus on that particular usage of data, then unless it is complete, you will not achieve your goal. At the moment, DEFRA has powers to collect data for statutory purposes, but it doesn’t actually have the authority to share that data and to allow people within the supply chain to make use of the data.
There are a whole lot of opportunities for farmers themselves. For instance, there is at the moment a desperate need for farmers to make informed purchasing decisions about whether the cattle they are buying have come from a TB high-risk area or an edge area, or whether they are going to a low-risk area. That whole area of risk-based trading—for any disease, not just tuberculosis—needs information. You cannot manage risk without data. You need the ability to collect data in a complete format from everyone, and then you need to be able to share it so that farmers can access it easily and quickly and it is available in the supply chain. That is what is different—the collection of complete data and making it available.
Professor Fox: First, I would like to say that the Bill provides a really good framework for taking the whole agriculture sector forward. It has a lot to commend it, particularly the provision for payment for public goods and the recognition of a need to transition the sector into a new place.
In terms of the things around regulation enforcement that we would like to see, from an environmental perspective, the Bill could provide an opportunity to have a clear and simplified regulatory baseline. At the moment, we have a series of maybe four key pieces of legislation that are applied disparately, and the Bill offers an opportunity to provide farmers with a clarified and simplified view of what is required of them. I believe that will lead to better conversations between farmers, suppliers and ourselves about what is expected.
Within that, it should be recognised that the provision of environmental goods or public goods should be contingent on compliance with that regulatory baseline in order to give the public confidence that their money is invested in farmers and in outcomes that are genuinely provided in a healthy and vibrant countryside.
Dr Drew
Q
Professor Fox: The issues in farming, and the impacts that farming has on the environment, will be consistent, whatever regulatory or legislative framework is in place. Our skilled workforce is there to advise farmers and to work with them, but then to enforce regulation if necessary—we will be consistent. Unless the Bill or the Secretary of State determines that other regulations will apply, the current framework will roll forward, and we will work on that basis.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Professor Fox: Part 1 of the Bill provides the Secretary of State with powers to make grants to farmers for various public goods, including the management of water—within that, the management of flooding would clearly be a potential beneficiary. The opportunity to manage floods better through landscape-scale work with farmers is already widely recognised. There are a number of schemes around the country where farmers provide attenuation ponds to reduce flood flows, and in so doing provide important community benefits. This scheme of paying for public goods may well support and augment that, and that can only be welcomed.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Ringing the changes, would you like to kick off this time, Dr Drew?
Dr Drew
Q
Jack Ward: There is terrific potential for us to increase our market share. At the moment, we are about 50% of fresh produce, but that is enormously variable. On tomatoes, we only do about 20% of production; on pears, it is about 27%. There is a terrific opportunity. There is an appetite to buy British and an appetite from the retailers to buy British. We have the technology and the skills. There is an opportunity to increase our consumption, so from a fresh produce point of view we just see opportunity ahead. It is just a question of capitalising on that opportunity.
Helen Browning: The Bill is the only bit of the jigsaw that we currently have and we are pinning a lot of our hopes and fears on what it contains. The other more detailed policy that will come through will largely determine whether the powers given in the Bill are used in the right way and will lead us into a great future or not. We are also waiting for a food plan, which will be very important in terms of the market and the market pull. We do not know what the trade environment will be.
The Bill gives some new powers, which is helpful, but it does not set out anything other than the skeleton of what might come. There is a huge amount of devil in the detail that needs to follow, and we need to join all of those things up before I can properly answer your question. I can say what I would like to see in 20 years’ time, but I think the Bill gives us the “may”s, not the “will”s, and a lot more detail needs to follow.
Dr Drew
Q
Helen Browning: The areas where I am still unclear in terms of the public good section is whether we are really focusing enough on soil. We talk about land; we do not talk about soil. We talk about natural culture or natural heritage; we do not talk about wildlife and biodiversity. We need to be a little more specific about some of those areas. Given that we do not yet have any sense of what might happen in other places around a food plan, I would like to see public health mentioned within the Bill as a public good. That would be very helpful.
There is an interesting split: there are some provisions for the support of public goods, and those are very welcome, although they need to be expanded. We then also have a lot around productivity, which could be helpful, but again the devil is in the detail in terms of how we are lining up and looking at those productivity measures.
Are we looking at the environmental and social impacts of what we are doing when we talk about productivity? How do we define that? We need to make sure that we are not setting up some new great initiatives in one place, maybe on the fringes of the field, but not thinking about the overall industry and how it will operate, and how we are going to green the whole of farming and the food system over the next 20 years.
There are still some improvements that need to be made, but, as I say, it is the way this will be interpreted, particularly the definition of what we mean by productivity, that we need to look at hard.
Jack Ward: The first thing to say is that the fresh produce of industry is largely operated outside of the common agricultural policy; it has had very little support over the past 40 years. Some of the things in the Bill are definitely positives. We welcome the continuation of the producer organisation scheme, and we look forward to conversations with DEFRA and the industry to see how we can improve the operability of that scheme. We all recognise that it has its shortcomings, but, going forward, it is a real opportunity.
The productivity piece is interesting. Within fresh produce we are always interested in how you reduce the risk of growing some crops and how you increase and improve the quality of those crops. The other interesting piece is around supply chain fairness. I know that is still to come, but obviously when you deal with multiple retailers and 85% of everything we produce goes through the hands of 10 people—possibly soon to become nine—how you address that imbalance between a large number of relatively small businesses and some enormous businesses is a constant source of tension.