Agriculture Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the Bill. In the time available I will raise four brief points and then turn to the important role that standards will play in negotiating trade agreements.

First, do the Government intend to publish an impact assessment before the Bill has finished its parliamentary stages? It is irregular for a Bill, even a framework enabling Bill—and especially a Bill of this consequence —to be sent to Parliament without a primary-stage impact assessment at the very least.

My second question arises from the welcome inclusion of food security. However, like others I believe the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. I also believe it should include reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability to ensure a more complete understanding of the realities. Will my noble friend consider this?

My third question is a United Kingdom question, and I declare my interest as a Scottish farmer. While fully accepting that trade is a reserved matter, I believe the Bill has missed an opportunity to clarify the involvement of devolved nations in setting WTO-compliant ceilings and the assessment of impacts from quotas and tariffs. Will my noble friend look again at these arrangements? In the same vein, I add in passing that this Bill is also an opportunity to embed the principles of fair funding for intra-UK allocation—as detailed in the review by the noble Lord, Lord Bew—to add some transparency to the methodology of how any future budget will be allocated.

My fourth point is that, like many others, I believe this Bill is an opportunity for the Government to adopt an amendment that would enable future access to precision-breeding tools such as new gene-editing technologies.

I now turn to the important role that standards will play in negotiating trade agreements. I have two points. First, I ask my noble friend whether the Government’s welcome commitment that trade negotiations will not compromise the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards can be understood as referring to UK production standards as a whole. This is critical as, where any production standards are lower than those required of UK producers, imports will impact on the ability of UK producers to compete on a level playing field.

My second point relates to how the importance of maintaining standards in negotiating trade agreements might best be addressed. The UK’s enviable reputation for high standards in food and farming has been achieved through successive Governments’ support for a national framework of standards, measurement and accreditation, collectively referred to as the United Kingdom Quality Infrastructure, UKQI. Here I declare an interest as the chair of the UK Accreditation Service, UKAS, which is the UK’s national accreditation body and a key component of the UKQI. UKAS accreditation is central to ensuring the effectiveness of standards through underpinning their implementation with a robust verification and certification system.

Furthermore, UKAS and BSI—the national standards body—operate within an international framework, as accreditation and standards are global activities. This mutual recognition of standards and accredited conformity assessment underpins many international trade agreements. Should a trade standards commission be established—and I believe there is a good case for doing so—one of its roles could be to look at how accreditation and linked mutual recognition arrangements underpinning standards should be utilised, protected and, where appropriate, enhanced, as a central part of trade negotiations and agreements.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, I agree with Amendment 170, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which calls for United Kingdom food security reports properly to reflect the necessary link between food provision, diet and the environment. Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others, points out that such reports ought to assess not just food supply but how much of it is wasted—a point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. Clearly, these reports must also be closely connected to targets and actions, as additionally emphasised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I am also in favour of her Amendment 62, which would require the Government to produce their report on food security annually, rather than every five years, as in the Bill.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments in this group that propose that the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. A more frequent reporting cycle will give the Government and others a quicker and clearer understanding of the issues and emerging trends, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. At Second Reading, I also said that a more comprehensive understanding of the realities would be gained from reporting if it included reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability. I therefore welcome the spirit of Amendments 163 and 172, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Their exact detail may differ from what I was proposing, but they would broaden the scope and context of the reporting in a not dissimilar direction, as well as encouraging the Government to detail any proposed changes to policy.

Finally, while declaring my interests as a Scottish farmer, I note that certain amendments in the group, notably Amendment 164, seek to ensure liaison, co-ordination or collaboration with the devolved Administrations. This should be seen as an important objective, both in Clause 17 and elsewhere in the Bill.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say a few brief words in support of what I think is the key amendment, Amendment 173. We need a national food plan. We heard very strategic speeches from my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other members of his committee, but it has to be a national plan. I say to the Minister that something like this new clause will be in the Bill, and it would be better if it were done with the Government’s agreement.

We in the UK are going to be alone once the transition period has ended, and we need to build our alliances. We can never be self-sufficient: our geography and climate do not allow it, nor does the shape of our country. We will always be food importers. I am in favour, as I have said before, of using as much of our land as possible to grow our own food, and it may not always be land that is open to the sky. It is not a nanny state approach; it requires a national plan. It simply cannot be left to market forces. Market forces have left us with between 2 million and 5 million people without enough food to eat.

Before Covid-19, I think that the general estimate was that about 40% of household meals were eaten outside the home. All that might change, but that 40% is pretty crucial, because the portions are not controlled by those who eat; they are controlled by the food business. As I said in a previous debate—a week ago, I think—portion control science within the food industry is very precise. It is designed to be obesogenic and to make us eat more. Therefore, there is an issue here that has to be dealt with and it is covered in the proposed new clause.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as I have listened to this debate my speech has got shorter and shorter. If ever there was a person ringing a bell and saying: “Press officer beware”, it is my noble friend Lord Greaves. I find myself strongly agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who said that the Government are getting into trouble here. Will they please do as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said and honour their own manifesto? That is all we are really asking for, and any of these amendments would take steps towards making sure that we know the standards are there.

It is an old cliché that we trust this Minister implicitly but the one who follows him could be the devil incarnate. However, the closest we get to binding anybody to anything is to put it in to law, even though, ultimately, it can be changed. If we do not get something on the face of the Bill—and I cannot see any other bit of legislation it could go into—there is no other way of at least making the Government stand up and say: “Yes, we are changing it because …” That is what this is about.

I hope that the Minister is taking this on board. As my noble friend Lord Greaves also said, there will be ping-pong; a backhand, a forehand and the odd smash might be involved in this one. The House could get involved in a long discussion, asking the Government to honour their own manifesto commitment. I would not have thought any Government would want that.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I share the concerns about how standards will be maintained when negotiating new trade agreements and therefore, in principle, support what many of the amendments in this group are trying to achieve. In that context, I welcome the establishment by the DIT and Defra of the new Trade and Agriculture Commission. However, at the same time, I strongly support the important point made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Krebs, and others. A trade standards commission needs to be more than a temporary body with a six-month lifespan. It should be a permanent body with a continuing and influential role in any and all future trade negotiations, as is the United States International Trade Commission, among other examples.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lindsay [V]]

My Lords, as vice-chair of the APPG on Science and Technology in Agriculture, I believe that the Bill is a timely opportunity for the Government to consult on and thereafter create the option in future to oversee and regulate precision-breeding tools such as new gene-editing technologies. I therefore fully support the amendment and agree with everything said so far in its support. I also note the wide support that the amendment has attracted from reputable institutions across the UK, in mainland Europe and elsewhere in the world.

It is universally accepted that agriculture and food production must become more sustainable in a world that faces considerable challenges from climate change, environmental degradation and an increasing and more affluent global population. Most would accept that we need to be more innovative if we are to reduce the dependency on pesticides and fertilisers and tackle biodiversity loss while at the same time providing food that is sufficient, nutritious, sustainable and affordable.

The new generation of precision-breeding tools, properly regulated, would make a major contribution to delivering these vital objectives. It would be a step change in our ability to deliver a more sustainable, productive and climate-resistant agriculture. Finally, it would also align with the regulatory stance of other countries around the world whose scientists, breeders, farmers and consumers already benefit from access to these valuable precision-breeding technologies.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]]

My Lords, I have rather drawn the short straw in being the first speaker to disagree with the rather stellar line-up promoting Amendment 275. I have huge trepidation in doing that because all noble Lords who have spoken so far are people whose views I hugely respect and who have the best possible motives.

I have listened very carefully to what they have said and remain pretty concerned about any loosening of the regulation of gene-edited crops. I shall not talk about health issues and the health impact, but will focus on the environmental issues associated with gene-edited crops. I was chairman of English Nature at the time that this was giving the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, scars in the late 1990s and I was on the opposite side from him then, but I hope that the noble Lords who have spoken so far will not dismiss my arguments as emotional. I am talking about science as much as they are, and I would be disappointed if that were dismissed as Luddism. One of the failures of this debate to date, as it was 20 years ago, is that it immediately starts polarising, opposing voices are demonised and there is a sense of battle lines being drawn up. That is something that we should not repeat.

There is no doubt that there may be benefits from gene-edited crops that would be hugely valuable in the face of growing world populations and climate change. Some have already been talked about, including high yields, increased nutritional content, greater proof against drought, pests and extreme weather, less use of land and less application of fertilisers, but there are undoubtedly well-evidenced down sides as well. Let me go through those that bear weight with me. First, there is the undeniable issue that once gene-edited species have been released, that is irreversible and if there are any consequential ill effects, they cannot then be put back in the bottle. So this is important and tricky stuff. Secondly, there is the possibility of gene flows taking place between crops and close wild relatives. The impacts of that, which may be unforeseen, need to be carefully taken into account. Thirdly, and I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on this one, producing insect-resistant crops is not just stopping the insects eating the crops; it will have an impact on the biomass of insects in just as dramatic a way as killing insects with pesticides. We have to think about what is happening to our insect populations if many of our crops are to be developed with insect resistance. That is their food source. Fourthly, although gene-editing tools are coming on by leaps and bounds, even CRISPR and the like are not yet as precise as is claimed and there is substantial research evidence of unforeseen changes in other parts of the genome.

At the moment these crops are regulated as GMOs and there is a full assessment of the environmental impact before they can be released. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on 4 March this year, said that the Government would take a “science-based approach” to gene editing and there would be “strict controls” to safeguard the environment with

“a robust case-by-case safety assessment taking full account of the scientific evidence.”—[Official Report, 4/3/20; col. 609.]

How does the Minister see such assessments taking place if there is a change from the regulatory framework for gene editing, and where will scientific advice on the impacts on the environment come from? I made some inquiries with the chairman of Natural England a couple of weeks ago, which formally advised the Government on the impact of genetically modified crops on the natural environment, and he has revealed that Natural England, English Nature’s successor, can no longer afford a specialist team in this area so it has disbanded any expertise that it had.

Of course, a perfectly good EU review of the whole issue of gene editing of crops and animals is under way and due to be published next April, so why are we rushing to make an amendment to the Bill that would jump the gun? Can we not wait to see what that review reveals? Rushing to deregulate gene editing, as some wish to do, to bring us into alignment with the US risks us pursuing the US market, which will always be a smaller, specialist market for UK food products, and risk our not being able to continue to do business with our major existing EU markets, depending on what they decide.

Therefore, why not wait to see what the EU decides to do after April 2021? In the meantime, the Minister would have the opportunity to lay out more clearly how his assurances on controls to safeguard the environment would work and it would enable a much broader public debate on acceptability. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about open and transparent consultation, but changing the entire regulatory regime for gene editing under cover of darkness in the Agriculture Bill without any prior public consultation does not seem the right way to start off in an open and transparent way with the general public, who, for good reason or bad, are sensitised to this issue.

This artificial need for haste feels very like going back to the bad old days of the late 1990s, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, recalled during a debate on previous amendments. Monsanto tried to ride roughshod over British public opinion and the British political process. It got a very bloody nose and set any case for responsible genetic modification back by 20 years.

The signs are there again. One side has terrific zeal that this technology will solve all problems; the other side is denigrated as an unscientific bunch of woolly- pully tree-huggers. Public concerns are reduced to an equation that says, “Well, if we explain it more carefully to the public, of course they’ll accept it”, but that is the worst possible way of approaching a public consultation exercise that involves something very near and dear to the hearts of all people in this country—what they put in their mouths and what happens to the environment.

Let us not fall into the trap of 20 years ago. Let us take this steadily and have a properly scientific, open and transparent debate, and let us not set off on the wrong foot by accepting this amendment.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool)]

It may help the House to understand what is going on if I clarify that the debate is now on Amendment 28. We will continue with the speakers’ list, as written down, for this group. At the end, after the Minister has spoken, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to respond to Amendment 28.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support everything that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has said in moving Amendment 18, so I shall be brief. I added my name to this amendment for reasons I outlined at Second Reading. It is irregular for a Bill—even for a framework enabling Bill—to be sent to Parliament without any sort of formal impact assessment. It is yet more irregular for a Bill of this consequence not to be accompanied by a primary stage impact assessment at the very least.

For well over a decade, successive Governments of different political hues, have for good reason seen the requirement for departments to produce impact assessments alongside proposals for new legislation as central to their commitment to better regulation. Accompanying impact assessments enable parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of proposed new legislation to be better informed. Parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny further benefits from impact assessments because of the role of the RPC, which my noble friend mentioned. The RPC is the government-appointed Regulatory Policy Committee which independently assesses the quality of a departmental impact assessment of the costs, benefits, risks and opportunities of a proposed new measure. It then publishes an opinion, which is available to Parliament and others, on whether the evidence and analysis contained in the impact assessment are sufficient to support whatever is being proposed. As my noble friend said, it is an essential and valuable discipline. It helps Parliament, Ministers and the departments themselves.

I am glad to say that it is rare nowadays for a department to produce legislation without an accompanying impact assessment, but it has happened in the case of the Agriculture Bill. This omission is especially regrettable, given the varying impacts of the wide-ranging measures that this Bill proposes to enable. That is why I have put my name to this amendment.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my interests are as listed in the register. I should add in relation to Amendment 18, to which I wish to speak, that I am a former chair of the Better Regulation Executive and worked closely with the Regulatory Policy Committee which has been referred to already. I also worked closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has tabled this amendment, and with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey, who has supported it. I fully endorse their comments. I am particularly disappointed in Defra’s poor performance with regard to the impact assessment of this Bill or, more accurately, the lack of an adequate impact assessment. When I chaired the BRE, Defra was one of the better performing departments and regularly produced satisfactory IAs. As the Minister knows well, I fully support this Bill and the policy changes it will introduce. As has been stated numerous times, this is the most serious change in agricultural policy in a lifetime. We need fully to understand the implications of this fundamental change.

Of course, this amendment is a process issue. For many, it is rather tedious and not “sexy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, stated. However, it is a crucial part of understanding how new policies or changes in regulation will impact on those affected by it. As one well-known system is demolished and another unknown system is introduced, we have a huge void by not having an impact assessment better to understand of the economic costs and benefits of this change. I hope that the Minister will explore this further with his department and be able to reassure the House that this issue will be addressed as the Bill progresses on its journey through both Houses and into legislation.