Draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 General Committees

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the draft regulations. As he will know, I strongly support the Windsor framework as a way out of the mess that both the Government and the EU had got themselves into. For that reason, we will not oppose the regulations, although I want to raise some questions.

I realise that these particular regulations are principally about ensuring that the appropriate authorities have the power to enforce the new arrangements, but, as the Minister will be only too well aware, it is essential that people understand what is expected of them so that they do not fall foul of these enforcement rules. In other words, we need clarity and timely guidance. On that question, may I begin by referring to paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum? About halfway down, it says:

“The SPS Regulation will also be applicable in NI, but under Article 1(2) and Annex 1 of that regulation, the standards in directly applicable EU law are disapplied in relation to retail goods under the Scheme.”

So far, so good. It goes on:

“This means that the relevant NI legislation does not apply to retail goods under the Scheme.”

But the very next sentence says:

“This SI applies the NI legislation to goods under the Scheme.”

Maybe I have misread the paragraph or missed something, but surely the relevant Northern Ireland legislation either does not apply to goods under the scheme or it does. Which of those two is it, or are those two consecutive sentences referring to different types of goods or different circumstances?

Next, the Minister will be aware that many of those who submitted evidence to the recent House of Lords European Affairs Committee inquiry, which produced an excellent report that I commend to all Members, argued that the implementation of these new arrangements, while a great improvement on the full application of the Northern Ireland protocol, will still represent an increase in checks and paperwork compared with the grace periods. Does the Minister accept that?

Let us take an example. There is a particular issue for hauliers who carry mixed loads—I think it is referred to as groupage—some of which is for the red lane and some of which is for the green lane but all of which is in the back of the same truck. In practical terms, how will the situation be managed to ensure the right enforcement for the right lane? Can the Minister give an assurance that no goods that qualify for the green lane will be subject to red lane inspection even though they are in the back of the same truck with red lane goods? To what extent will the red and green lanes apply to the products that he referred to?

The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that agrifoods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which I welcome, will be able to meet relevant GB public health and consumer protection standards. Can the Minister therefore confirm for the record, because I understand this to be the case, that cakes and ice cream containing the food whitener titanium dioxide, which is banned in the European Union but not in the UK, can continue to be moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and sold to consumers there?

From 1 October, businesses in Great Britain will be able to move prepacked retail goods as well as certain other goods, including fruit and vegetables, through the green lane to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. These requirements will come in in three phases. As I understand it, in phase 1, the “Not for EU” label that we have started to see will be required on all prepacked meat products, meat packed on sales premises and some dairy products. I understand that compound products such as chicken kiev are included in phase 1, but composite products such as pepperoni pizza are not. I am a vegetarian, but I thought it was important to raise that point. Is the Minister confident that the new arrangements, including the difference between compound and composite products, are well understood by manufacturers and traders? Will those enforcing the new arrangements take a proportionate approach to their implementation in this case and the others he referred to?

The provisions for seed potatoes are a great step forward and I welcome them, but can the Minister clarify the situation on the movement of certain shrubs and trees—in particular, oak, yew, honeysuckle, willow, hazel, dogwood, birch, chestnut, beech, fig, ash, jasmine, walnut, rowan, poplar, cherry, and hazel and hawthorn—given their importance for hedgerows? As I understand it from the document issued by his Department on 6 September entitled “Regulated plants for planting under a Northern Ireland plant health label”, the trees I just mentioned

“must not be moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland”,

although in respect of Acer, also known as maple, Malus, also known as crab apple, and crataegus, also known as hawthorn, it states:

“Some of the species in this genus have now been approved to move”

and advises traders to

“Consult your local PHSI Inspector.”

The Minister will be aware that the inability to move certain species of tree or shrub from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for planting causes a great deal of concern to farmers, growers and garden centres. Since only some of these trees and shrubs have been cleared for movement so far, what will be the process for clearing the rest so that there is ultimately free trade in these iconic species?

Finally, on any agrifood checks, it would really help if there was a veterinary agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee what discussions he has been having with the Commission about how to bring one into being, given that in the vast majority of cases we are still applying EU single market rules to the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I am conscious that this is quite a specific debate about the enforcement of the regulations in Northern Ireland. It is tempting to wade into reliving the debate with the EU and the Brexit debate, and to get into topics that are much wider than the SI we are debating . I will resist temptation and try to stick to the SI.

I will try to address the specific questions asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. On his first question, about paragraph 7.4 in the explanatory memorandum, he was quite specific about wording that may appear in legalese to be somewhat confusing. I will try to clarify that as best I can. The first sentence refers to the effect of the EU regulation; the second refers to the situation after the SI steps in to ensure that GB standards can be applied in Northern Ireland to goods that move under the retail movement scheme—if that makes sense. I am more than happy to correspond with him afterwards to try to clarify the position.

The enforcement in Northern Ireland of the retail movement scheme is set out in the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023. The enforcement tools available include suspension or removal from the scheme. However, the relevant competent authorities will take a pragmatic approach to enforcement in the first instance as we work towards maximising compliance with similar domestic schemes. I hope that we will see the compliance and flexibility requested by the right hon. Gentleman.

I did not have time to write down all those trees that the right hon. Gentleman listed, but I will try to deal with his concern. The EU’s risk assessment process for the movement of so-called high-risk trees will also be expedited. Once approved, they will move from GB to Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland plant label. The 11 most commercially important GB-native and other industry-prioritised trees will be expedited so that they can move in time for the main 2023 planting season. That includes important GB-native trees such as English oak, sycamore, beech and the many others that he mentioned.

[Hilary Benn]

The Minister has made an extremely helpful point, but did he also say that the trees would be ready in time for the 2023 planting season?

[Mark Spencer]

Yes.

[Hilary Benn]

We are in 2023, so can I take it that the expediting process for the assessment will happen in very, very short order?

[Mark Spencer]

We are very keen to expedite this as quickly as possible. Obviously, no one will be planting a tree at this moment in time and we will then move into winter. I will clarify in writing exactly when we hope to have this in place, but we are conscious that we do not want barriers. We want to allow free market movement of goods wherever possible.

I turn to my friend from Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for East Antrim. I understand his passion and his commitment to Northern Ireland, and we share many of his ambitions. Of course we want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, but in creating the Windsor framework, we are trying to address the challenges that were brought forward through the protocol. He criticises us for not consulting Northern Ireland and those who are affected, but of course there is huge pressure to try to solve this challenge. I know that he would be one of those voices—indeed he was—saying, “Let’s try and overcome the challenges that we face in the protocol.” These are the solutions that we have brought forward and we are trying to expedite those solutions as quickly as possible.

The Windsor framework achieves a long-standing UK Government objective of restoring the smooth flow in trade within the UK internal market. By pursuing a green lane for the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland, supporting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, it restores that smooth flow of trade within the internal market by removing some of those unnecessary burdens that disrupted east-west trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful for that clarification—I understood that that was the case—but does it not illustrate a point that the right hon. Member for East Antrim made? I would have thought that he would welcome what is in the regulations because under the Northern Ireland protocol—this was why I raised the example—cake and ice cream containing titanium dioxide would not have been able to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It would have been banned because EU regulations applied. Now, because GB standards apply, which are GB-UK standards, it can move. Does that not demonstrate how this position represents an improvement on the mess with which we grappled previously?

[Mark Spencer]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: it protects the UK internal market, which we are very keen to do. I know that the right hon. Member for East Antrim is also keen to protect that. This is a good example of how things are working.

We have taken a lot of time this afternoon, so I would like to remind members of the Committee of the two critical components of the Windsor framework in the regulations. They will implement the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which will establish the new sustainable long-term solution for the movement of agrifood goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to the final consumer. Secondly, the Northern Ireland plant health label regime will significantly reduce costs for businesses moving plants to Northern Ireland, putting the process in line with the rest of the UK under the UK plant passport regime. Previously banned seed potatoes will once again be available in Northern Ireland, which is good news for our farms in Northern Ireland and for our Scottish farmers who export top-quality seed potatoes around the UK. This is a big step forward.

Let us not lose sight of the greater narrative. The statutory instrument is part of a wider framework that echoes our resolve to shape a brighter future for Northern Ireland and stands firmly on the pillars of economic prosperity and democratic values. I thank hon. Members for their engagement and questions.

Question put.

Draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2023

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 General Committees

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I will start by declaring my farming interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The draft statutory instrument delivers a package of modernising financial and operational improvements to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. I will highlight some of the fantastic work that the AHDB does: it invests about £42 million each year in a range of levy-funded services for farmers and others in the agrifood chain, including applied research, knowledge exchange, market intelligence and analysis, marketing and consumer education, and working with the industry and Government to establish new export markets.

The draft instrument modernises the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008 so that it can continue to deliver those important services efficiently and effectively. It will allow more agricultural services to access the AHDB’s services in future. It will deliver flexibility for sectors including poultry, wine and related agrifood chain industries such as supermarkets to work with the AHDB where they wish to. Any activities that the AHDB undertakes through this expanded scope will be funded by those industries in accordance with article 8 of the AHDB order, which enables the AHDB to charge for services. That will not involve a statutory levy.

The draft instrument delivers changes to help the AHDB reduce administration costs and to operate more efficiently. It will put in place a more efficient process for ministerial approval of levy rates, so that in future approval must be sought when changes are being proposed, rather than bureaucratic annual approval by default when nothing is changing. It will also enable the AHDB to deliver a temporary zero-rated levy if there is financial pressure within the sector due to exceptional circumstances such as a disease outbreak or a market crash.

The draft instrument will also deliver important modernising changes to outdated levy deduction provisions. Those provisions enable third-party levy collectors to deduct a percentage of the levy that they collect to cover any admin costs. However, Members will be aware that modern automated financial systems have significantly reduced the admin costs of collecting such a levy, so we want a more flexible provision to be implemented. The instrument leaves the levy deduction rate open to be reviewed and agreed between third-party levy collectors and the AHDB, rather than being set in statute at a specific rate. It can be much more flexible moving forward. This will deliver better value for money for levy payers, and more of the levy income collected will be returned to the AHDB to invest in delivering the services that we spoke about previously.

A further important update to the AHDB order concerns the maximum levy rate allowed for the sheep sector. The levy rate for the sheep sector has been at the maximum allowable rate for more than 10 years—we are going to raise the maximum ceiling for each sheep category by 25% to provide headroom within the AHDB to consult the industry further on the appropriate levy rate to maintain the services that they receive from the AHDB in the future. The new ceiling per head of sheep will be 75p for producers, and 25p for slaughterers and exporters. The Government consultation on that reform showed that key industry organisations such as the National Sheep Association and the National Farmers Union are supportive of raising the sheep levy ceiling. The AHDB will undertake further consultations with the industry on future options for changing those levy rates.

Finally, the draft instrument delivers some smaller changes to modernise the AHDB order so that it is up to date with current practices on invoicing, reflects consolidation of the pig sector, and is in line with Cabinet Office guidance on public appointments of board members.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On the amendment of article 12, which deals with who can vote, the measure will replace

“Any person who keeps pigs in England”

with

“Any person who pays the producer levy related to pigs”

I assume that that means that the number of people who will be able to vote is reduced, as there are some people who keep pigs who do not pay the producer levy. Is that correct?

[Mark Spencer]

That is correct, but we are talking about people who have pet pigs in their garden. They will pay a levy if they choose to slaughter their pet pig, but I would think that that is quite unlikely.

In conclusion, these modernising updates to the AHDB regulations will ensure that the AHDB can continue to deliver important services to farmers and others in the agrifood chains efficiently and effectively.

Convention on Biodiversity COP15: Outcomes

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I think the hon. Lady is incorrect in her understanding about that. The targets are still in place on our aim to achieve for our rivers a 75% “good” ecological status by 2027. That is what we signed up to when we were part of the European Union, that is still our target today, and that is what we will keep working on. It is important that we continue to try to improve the environment—she will know that, given the difficult things that happened with air quality in her city—and we will continue to try to make sure that we take that right across the country.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State and others in the House in welcoming this important agreement, but it only means something if countries do what they have signed up to do. Can she tell us when she intends to bring forward any proposals that may be required to ensure that we in the UK match the very ambitious targets that have just been agreed in Montreal?

[Dr Coffey]

Through the Environment Act 2021, some targets on improving the environment are already in primary legislation. We have just confirmed pretty much the environmental targets that we consulted on earlier in the year. I believe the statutory instruments are being laid today, and I think one is being laid tomorrow, so that Parliament can vote on those legally binding targets. Meanwhile, we continue to make other improvements, including through the clean air strategy, the biosecurity plan, existing plans for increasing biodiversity, and landscape recoveries.

We are already doing a lot of work. Indeed, we are changing our funding away from the basic payment system and what the European Union did—making payments to improve the environment based on the amount of land somebody owned—to paying for services, so that we can do more spatial targeting in a more intelligent way by improving water quality and reducing pollution. We will take that forward in aspects of the environmental improvement plan, which will be published next month, as well as in the changes that we will make through the environmental land management scheme.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate and on making such a terrific speech. As she said, the forthcoming COP matters enormously for all the reasons she set out. We need targets so we can measure progress—that is the great benefit of them—and we need funding to help make that progress. We need every country that makes a commitment to have a plan back home to deliver it. We need progress to be measured and above all we need leadership. We need leadership internationally, leadership domestically in communities and leadership by us as individuals.

The decline in biodiversity and the loss of species across the world is well documented, but sadly not well known enough. I should declare my interest, as one or two other Members have, as the water vole species champion. That is an extremely grand title, especially when it is held by someone who, despite his best efforts, has yet to see a water vole in the wild. I did once hear the characteristic plop sound that water voles make—I know Ratty well from reading “The Wind in the Willows” to my grandchildren—when they come out of their mud tunnels in the riverbank and drop into the water. Perhaps it is very hard to see them for the very simple reason that since the end of the 1990s, a nationwide survey showed that water voles had disappeared from 90% of the sites where they were found a decade before—90%! There has been a further decline in the decade thereafter. In the case of water voles, one particular problem is predation by mink, who need to be controlled. What is really needed, however, is to improve water quality and to encourage farmers to restore and protect healthy waterways—in other words, places and rivers where water voles can thrive.

The heart of the problem we must address—colleagues touched on this in their contributions—is that we as humankind have been making use of the earth’s gifts, those on the land and those beneath the seas that surround us, as if there was no consequence and no end to nature’s bounty. That is what we have been doing and the pace at which we have done that has accelerated enormously in the last century or so. Just as with the climate crisis, we know now that that is not true: there is a limit and we have to start taking proper care, because we rely on the natural world and biodiversity for our very existence, including our economic welfare. We should applaud the work of Pavan Sukhdev—I had the privilege to meet him when I was the Environment Secretary—and Sir Partha Dasgupta, who have taught us about the economic value of biodiversity, if we wish to measure it in that way, just as Nick Stern told us about the far greater cost of not dealing with dangerous climate change, as opposed to the far lower cost of dealing with it, saying, “You make the choice.”

As we know, the natural world provides us with the very essentials of life: clean air and water, and food and fuel. It regulates our climate and helps to deal with pollution. It stems floodwaters and produces medicines. It is the very foundation of our economic and social wellbeing. A few years ago, I had the honour and privilege to visit the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi. We went into a lab and there was a range of plants on a bench. I went along, asking “What’s this? What’s this?” One was a small artemisia sapling and another rather odd-looking bit of bark apparently came from the prunus africana tree. I happened to know, because of my job, that artemisia is essential to making combination anti-malarial drugs more effective. I learned that pygeum—I do not know if I have pronounced that correctly—from the bark of the prunus africana tree has properties that help to treat prostate cancer.

We stood there discussing malaria, which is predominantly a disease of the poorer world, and prostate cancer, which has been a disease predominantly of the better off world, although that is beginning to change. We rely on both those plants to treat those diseases. Let us imagine that some clod-hopping human being millions of years ago had walked through the forest and decided to pull up to examine the only artemisia sapling and the only prunus africana sapling on the planet—think what we would have lost. That is why there is such a strong argument for looking after both what we have and know about and the plants that surround us of which we have not yet discovered the properties.

Despite the gravity of the crisis in biodiversity, it is important to try to address the task with optimism, because in the end, making ourselves depressed about the scale of the challenge is not, in my experience, a great motivator for action. We know that we can make progress. We can look at the creation of the national parks: that extraordinary bit of legislation from the post-war Labour Government came out of a time of great conflict, economic crisis, debt and so on, with the support of politicians right across the House who were legislating to preserve beauty for posterity.

We can look at the size and commitment of the wildlife trusts. They have about 870,000 members, look after 2,300 nature reserves and provide some of the connections that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who spoke so well, was talking about. Bits can be looked after, but the connection between them will help us truly to restore nature, which is why, towards the end of my time as the Environment Secretary, I asked Sir John Lawton to produce a report precisely on how those connections can better be made.

We can look at the marine conservation zones, which were created thanks to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My right hon. Friend’s point about connectivity is very important. Is he aware of the agreement between a number of central American countries to create a wildlife corridor for the jaguar to survive, because it travels over a huge range? If it is cut off in certain isolated bits, it will simply die off.

[Hilary Benn]

I was not aware of that—I am now—and what a great idea for countries to work together in that way.

When we were taking the Bill that became the 2009 Act through Parliament, I was really quite surprised to discover how little we appeared to know about what was on the seabed surrounding these islands. Some very intrepid divers, some of whom I met, went down and took photographs. If the photos were shown to me or to anybody else and the question was asked, “Where was that picture taken?”, most people would say, “Is that the Great Barrier Reef?” No—it was under the murky waters of the North sea.

One thing we know about nature is that although we have been destroying it at a rate of knots, if we give it the chance, it can recover with astonishing speed. The North sea was originally covered abundantly in oyster beds, coarse peat banks and rock deposited by glaciers, and it was home to a rich community of marine species. A lot of that was sadly destroyed by bottom-trawl fisheries over the past century and it is now a relatively poor community of species.

Let me say a word on bottom trawling. It is an incredibly destructive practice, but it is unseen because it takes place beneath the waves. To make a slightly absurd analogy, let us imagine that to collect apples, someone decided to drag a net across the countryside taking with it all the hedges, tree saplings, bird nests and the trees on which the apples hang just for the purpose of collecting the apples in the process. People would be outraged and appalled, but that is what we have been doing on the surface of the seabed for a long time and no one sees it happening. It is about bearing witness to what is going on. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who is not in his place, talked about the deforestation of the Amazon. The thing about technology is that, with satellites, we can see how the rainforest is reducing over time. It is really important that we use all those means to bear witness to what is taking place in order to motivate change.



We find the recovery of nature in some surprising places. There has been a lot of debate about the impact of wind farms on birds, but research has shown that, in effect, wind farms act as artificial reefs. They can host a very wide range of marine species once nature has had a chance to recover.

My final point is about the contribution that nature makes to our health and wellbeing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am sorry that I could not be here for the beginning of the debate. Is there not a concern that although many marine protected areas have been designated, they are really just paper parks because things like bottom trawling are being allowed to continue? Does my right hon. Friend also share my concern that there is now a move towards deep-sea mining, which could be hugely environmentally damaging?

[Hilary Benn]

Yes, I do. There was cross-party support in the House of Commons for the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the creation of marine conservation zones. We basically have a planning framework; we have had one on land for a long time, but we did not have one for the sea at all. We are now confronted with a choice about what we permit. The ability to understand the consequences of what is happening beneath the waves is important. We now have the means to do something about it, but we cannot just say “We’ve got the designation —job done,” and move on to something else. That is not sufficient at all.

Yesterday, my wife and I were discussing what I might talk about in this speech. Apart from telling me, “You must mention the water voles,”—I have now duly done so, and I hope that she has noticed—she said, “Tell them about our oak trees.” For the past 30 years or so, we have been planting oak trees from seed, along with ash and silver birch trees. “Nature reserve” would be a very grand title for the eight acres of former farmland in Essex that my mother set aside, where nature has been left to do its work. The tallest oak tree is probably about 20 or 25 feet now. Over the years, the trees that we have planted—the trees that nature has brought—have brought with them cuckoos, owls, adders, foxes, muntjac deer, the odd badger and white campion, as well as loads of brambles that I attempt to do battle with whenever I can. Every time I walk on that piece of land, I feel the same sense of anticipation about what has changed, what has grown and what is different.

Why do we feel like this? Because nature is part of our very soul. It is about who we are and where we come from. Think of how we encounter it—looking out of the window of a train as it rushes through the countryside, seeing the first crocus of spring, encountering the wonders and glories of the Yorkshire dales, seeing a view of Ditchling Beacon or a view of Scafell Pike from Great Moss, or hearing the buzz of a bee at the height of summer. We do not hear that buzz as much as we used to, or see as many moths. I remember when moths were really common in the summer. When did I last see one? There was an extraordinary experiment in which people were asked to put a bit of sticky plastic on their number plate, drive around and count how many insects were caught. That showed that there has been a catastrophic decline.

[Chris Grayling]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

Ah! The right hon. Gentleman has returned.

[Chris Grayling]

I apologise for popping out briefly for a family call. Last summer, I went to the far north of Scotland. The further north we got, the more insects hit the windscreen. As more arable farming happens in the south of the country than in the north, that seems pretty clear evidence of the link between the disappearance of insects and pesticides. That is one reason why I was so attracted by the regenerative farming model.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely. There are one or two insects in the north of Scotland—midges in particular—that can cause a certain amount of distress, but just think of the glory of the Scottish countryside and the mountains. Who does not feel a sense of awe and wonder as they contemplate the astonishing biodiversity and landscape that our small islands reveal unto us?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the planting that he has done on his acres of land. He spoke about the changes that he has seen. I am fortunate to live on a farm, where we have had the opportunity to plant trees directly. We have planted some 3,500 trees, retained the hedgerows and put in two ponds. We regularly see bees, moss and lots of wildlife. The Government have committed to replanting across the whole United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that there should be more of a commitment to tree planting, to ensure that we can become the lungs of the world?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely. There should be no limit to the number of trees that we can plant. We can each play our part if we have the opportunity. As MPs, because of the nature of our job, we probably get invited to plant the odd tree in our constituencies.

The point that the right hon. Member for Islington North made about front gardens is really important. One of the things we did after the floods of 2007 was to change the planning rules. People cannot hard pave over their front gardens any more unless they use permeable paving, because if we pave, tarmac and concrete over all the land in a town or city and huge quantities of rain fall out of the sky, of course the water is going to flood into people’s homes. That makes us realise the inter- connection between our choices as human beings and the consequences of not paying sufficient attention to nature.

I would argue that to be disconnected from nature is to be disconnected from the Earth itself, so it is not just self-preservation that should urge us to confront the threat of climate change and biodiversity loss, which are absolutely connected, but our love for the soil from which we all came and to which one day we will all return—but not just yet.

Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

I will come to that point later, if I may. At this stage, I want to say more about the food security report.

As I was saying, the first of these reports was published in December. It examines past, current and predicted trends. Food prices fluctuate in any given year. They depend on a range of factors, including food import prices, domestic agricultural prices, domestic labour and manufacturing costs, and exchange rates, all of which fluctuate over time. Some of these factors are influenced by our trading arrangements with other countries. Most food sector businesses are accustomed to fluctuations in supply chain costs, and they do not necessarily pass them on to consumers. Negative food inflation rates were recorded for much of late 2020 and early 2021, as we were in the earlier stages of the pandemic. We know now that, sadly, energy costs are rising substantially, and we are of course monitoring the effects of that on prices of products for consumers extremely carefully.

We carry out annual surveys looking at household expenditure on food, and we monitor that closely as well. Spending among the poorest 20% of households has been broadly stable for the last 14 years. Since 2008, between 14% and 17% of the expenditure of the poorest households has been on food and non-alcoholic drinks, while the average household has spent between 10% and 12% of its income on food.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Bearing in mind that we are the sixth richest country on this planet, what explanation would the Minister offer for the fact that a growing number of my constituents in Leeds Central are having to go up to a complete stranger at a food bank and ask them for help to feed their families because they do not have enough money to feed them themselves?

[Victoria Prentis]

I hope that in the course of my remarks I will be able to answer the right hon. Gentleman more fully, but in brief I would like to say that we clearly have increases in the cost of living. The Chancellor came to this House to talk about them in detail last week and I know that there have rightly been many debates on this important subject—

[Hilary Benn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

Northern Ireland Border

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My right hon. and learned Friend knows from experience that the UK Government have considerable patience for negotiation in order to reach agreement and sensible pragmatic settlements in these areas. He is absolutely right that we seek and would prefer a negotiated reform of the way the protocol is interpreted, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working on, but I hope I have given an explanation on a number of occasions now about the perspective that Edwin Poots brings to this and why he has acted in the way that he has. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will also understand that there is a difference between things we are responsible for in international law and things a devolved Administration are responsible for implementing under the devolved devolution settlement that we have.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It should be a cause of great sadness to all that the act of leaving the EU continues to cause such business and political instability in Northern Ireland. I have listened very carefully to what the Secretary of State had to say and think he was arguing that, while it may indeed be the case that the administration of SPS checks is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, the legal obligation under the withdrawal agreement and Northern Ireland protocol to ensure checks are done falls upon the UK Government. So, if the checks do stop, do the Government intend to use their powers under section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? He talked about a high bar; may I briefly read to him what it says?

“If the Secretary of State considers that any action proposed to be taken by a Minister or Northern Ireland department would be incompatible with any international obligations…he may by order direct that the proposed action shall not be taken.”

[George Eustice]

Of course the Secretary of State may direct, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, but for all the reasons I have given—for all the reasons that we understand—the bar for using such reserve powers is high. At the moment, checks are continuing. There is no breach, and the Government judge that at this stage, the right thing to do is appeal to the power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland to find a way through this.

Environment Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

When a coroner issues a prevention of further deaths letter, it is not done lightly. I would have hoped, as both a Minister and a Back Bencher, that there would be prompt and urgent action when a letter is issued. The consultation is fine. I do not doubt the Minister’s intentions, but I urge her to put a bit more flesh on the bones as to what we will do while the consultation is taking place to deal with areas that are of genuine concern to my constituents. People recognise that we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but, equally, they want things to happen sooner rather than later because their children and families are still breathing in a degree of air which, as the Minister says, is unacceptable. As she rightly says, no level of PM_2.5 pollution is actually safe. It is a real problem not just in the inner cities, but in many other suburban and urban areas—smaller towns as well as the larger cities—and I hope that we will have a little more on that from the Government.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join colleagues in sending our love, prayers and thoughts to the families of David Amess and James Brokenshire on their terrible loss.

I want briefly to talk about the office for environmental protection and say why I hope the House will support Lords amendment 31. The OEP is the answer to the question. It is at the heart of the Bill. Having left the European Union, everyone asked themselves, “Who is going to oversee the enforcement of environmental law?” and the Government have come up with the OEP, which we all support. On many occasions, in answer to the question, “Who will ensure that these targets are met?”—for example, that on halting species’ decline—the reply from Ministers has been, “The office for environmental protection”.

Ministers have repeatedly said, as the Minister has again today, that they support the independence of the OEP, including in enforcement, yet they want the power to issue guidance to it about the way in which it enforces its responsibilities. I simply say that the great still unanswered question in this particular debate about the Bill is; why do the Government want this power?

When Lord Goldsmith was debating this in the other place, he said that

“a guidance power is necessary to help ensure that the OEP continues to carry out its functions as intended.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 880.]

That sentence is laden with meaning. We could say that it contains a touch of gentle warning. We could argue that it suggests that the Government are not wholly confident that the OEP will go about its work in the way that Ministers intended, because they want to be able to issue guidance about the way in which it does its job. I simply say that, having looked at the debates in the Lords and heard what the Minister had to say today, I still have not heard an answer as to why this guidance power is required. In practice, could the OEP ignore such guidance? We do not actually know what the guidance would contain, and I am not aware that Ministers have given a single example of what they would try to say in such guidance.

Other public bodies have very important functions. For example, as far as I am aware, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is not subject to similar guidance from Ministers about the way in which it carries out its work. Ministers have said that it is not about direction, but it is about accountability. Could someone explain to me exactly what the difference is between the two things? I am not sure that I see a difference and nor did the Lords in the other place. That is why I think we should stick with what is contained in Lords amendment 31.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt this debate, but colleagues may or may not be aware that, this week of all weeks, there is now a demonstration in Parliament Square involving Piers Corbyn. The people there have erected a gallows—gallows to be used against Members of Parliament. I would suggest that at the very least it is not only crass and unthinking, but that it must also be a breach of public order. I simply rise to ask whether there is anything that can be done about it.

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has raised this matter, because I saw that set of gallows as I was coming into the House today and I spoke to the police outside the gates. I said, “I don’t know who the protestors are; I couldn’t see. If they are protesting against capital punishment in other countries, good luck to them, but if they have put that gallows and that noose there, directed at us, especially given the events of the last week, it is not only crass—that is a very gentle description of what they have done—but scandalous.” The police officer to whom I spoke said, “Well, we could go over and have a word with them.” It is not acceptable, because it is a threat. We should be able to carry out our job without being threatened by people out in Parliament Square. I hope that the House authorities might be able to follow up the point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for their points of order, and completely understand the concerns that have been expressed. I also understand that the authorities have been informed by the Speaker’s Office about the situation. Mr Speaker has also informed me that there may be a statement later if necessary and that these issues would be covered in it. I suggest that we leave it at that. Thank you.

Real Fur Sales

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Christian Wakeford]

How could I not agree with my hon. Friend, given that I name-dropped her in my speech? That shows that there is clear support not only in this Chamber but in the main Chamber and both Houses.

I invite hon. Members to imagine a scene—I apologise in advance for the picture that this will paint. A nearby neighbour is keeping two dogs outside the house in a wire cage. The cage measures not more than 1 square metre and has a wire floor and a wire ceiling. The dogs are never allowed to leave the cage, and over time exhibit signs of mental distress. They take their frustration out on one another and repeatedly pace. Over time, one dog’s legs become deformed and have open sores from standing on the wire floor. The other has untreated diseased eyes. They have no escape from the intense summer sun or the freezing winter nights. One day, the neighbour forces electrical probes into either end of each dog and ends their pitiful lives.

That scene would be utterly intolerable for any right-thinking person. I imagine that in witnessing such treatment of animals, a great many, if not all, of my colleagues, friends and the great British public would have called either the police or the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and would have rightly expected that individual to be prosecuted for animal cruelty. But in all important ways, the scene I describe is not hypothetical. If we simply switch the animals in the cages from dogs to foxes and move the location to Finland, Poland, China or another in a decreasing list of nations still permitting fur farming, that animal cruelty is a daily reality for far too many animals. More than 100 million animals—foxes, mink, raccoon dogs, chinchillas and others—are kept like that daily.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. As well as being cruel, is it not utterly illogical that Britain, having rightly taken the decision to ban fur farming here, continues to be willing to allow the products of cruel fur farming to be imported into the country? Does that not strengthen the case, supported by so many right hon. and hon. Members, for banning its sale in this country?

[Christian Wakeford]

I completely agree. It is a cruel irony that we have illegalised the practice in this country but offshored cruelty. It is not something that I am particularly happy about, and hopefully we will see change.

The 5 million or so animals caught for their fur in barbaric traps that are banned in the UK fare no better. Sometimes they are left languishing in traps for days, and often chew off their own limbs to escape.

Our debate today should allow us to discuss whether the UK should be playing any part in an industry that we find so unconscionable in our own country. Despite our previous world-leading progress in banning this outdated and cruel practice, we have since continued to allow the import and sale of fur from abroad, effectively outsourcing animal suffering. Since 2003, we have imported—

Environment Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]]

I wish to speak to new clause 5 on the state of nature target.

There are few things that can lift our spirits as much as time spent with nature. Who does not feel a sense of awe and wonder at the astonishing biodiversity of our landscape, its creatures and its plants. As well as ensuring that that same sense of awe and wonder can be enjoyed by future generations, it should be self-preservation, frankly, that urges us to confront the threat of biodiversity and habitat loss. We should have respect for the soil from which we came—the soil that has given us everything that we can see around us: food; fuel; raw materials; medicines; and the ability to capture carbo. It is the soil to which we will, one day, all return—a reminder of our place in the natural order of things.

The truth is that we can no longer take all this for granted. Why? It is because we are destroying our natural world at an alarming rate. In the words of the Minister’s own Department:

“Much of England’s wildlife-rich habitat has been lost over the last century…and there has been widespread species loss.”

The latest state of nature report records a decline of 13% in the abundance of UK species since 1970. Some 15% of UK species are now endangered, including the red squirrel, the water vole, the ghost orchid, and the meadow clary. The number of moths has decreased significantly in the past 50 years and a third of British wild bees and hoverflies are in decline. A total of 97% of our wildflower meadows have been lost since the 1930s. This is a crisis caused by agricultural practices, pollution, urbanisation, habitat loss and climate change, and it requires action, and that is what this new clause seeks to do.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to binding targets, but I think that it can be strengthened to make a good Bill better by including a target to halt and begin to reverse the decline of habitats and species by 2030. That should not be too difficult in principle for the Minister, because this is exactly what the United Kingdom called for in drawing up the leaders’ pledge for nature, which commits to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030. But, of course, to reverse loss, one must first halt it. The problem is that the Bill’s timetable for setting targets does not fit in with the 2030 biodiversity pledge, so the new clause would place a requirement on Ministers to draw up, before the Conference of the Parties later on this year, a 2030 state of nature target to halt and begin to reverse the decline in species and habitats and to set out a plan to do so, including how the target would be measured. It would need to cover the abundance of species, their risk of extinction and the extent and condition of habitats, bearing in mind that widely accepted and reliable sets of indicators already exist to enable us to assess these things.

I accept that the target is ambitious, but if we are not going to be ambitious now, when will we be ambitious for the state of nature? It is not as if we do not know what works to bring about change for the better. We do. We just need a lot more of it. The truth is this: we have always known that the natural environment sustains our souls, but we have now come to understand that it also sustains our very existence. That is why it matters and that is why we should do now what we know in our hearts to be right. I hope the House will vote for the new clause.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]]

I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to this important debate. It is a great relief to see the Bill come back to this House, but equally it is a great disappointment to learn that it will be back just for today and we will have to wait until the next parliamentary Session begins after Easter for the second allocated day. When the Minister responds to the debate, will she give some indication that she intends to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible and that procedures in the Lords conclude before the summer recess? We must go into the COP26 conference in November with clarity that this ground-breaking piece of legislation is on the statute book.

I wish to speak about two aspects of the Bill, the first of which is the Office for Environmental Protection. I am delighted to welcome the Minister’s announcement today that the OEP headquarters will be in Worcester in the west midlands, near my constituency. Worcester is, of course, on the River Severn, which is the largest river in the country and has recently been in flood through my constituency. The whole Severn catchment area requires considerable attention and will get greater focus thanks to Dame Glenys Stacey’s presence at the headquarters from time to time, in her new role.

Alongside the EFRA Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and we called for a greater degree of independence for the OEP. Having met Dame Glenys at our pre-appointment hearing in December, we took some comfort from our opinion that she is the right person to lead the organisation, but we are concerned that she has sufficient budget to recruit the number of people required and the experts she needs, and to reflect the OEP’s responsibilities in helping to deliver the 25-year plan.

When the Environmental Audit Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny, we were also concerned about the environmental improvement plans. We felt that the OEP should advise the Government on the establishment of targets, as was the case under the previous regulatory regime through the European Commission. We welcome the fact that targets are enshrined in the Bill but think it important that the body that will have part of the responsibility to monitor compliance with those targets is also involved in setting them. We would very much like to see confirmation from the Minister that the date for establishing the environmental targets can be confirmed with a statement of intent ahead of COP26.

The second aspect I wish to speak about is amendment 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). It would require the Government to include in the environmental plan steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. As part of our inquiry into biodiversity and ecosystems, my Committee has repeatedly heard that central to restoring our greatly depleted natural environment—about which we have heard from other speakers—is building a better relationship between people and nature. It was called for in the Glover review; we would like to see it enshrined in the Bill and urge the Government to support amendment 28.

Agriculture Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

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

[Victoria Prentis]

Oh dear. I remain very fond of my hon. Friend, who continues to tempt me, Madam Deputy Speaker, down routes that we really do not need to go down in discussing this legislation—indeed, we are all busily debating amendment 18 as if it were before us.

To return to what we are meant to be talking about, if amendments 12 and 16 remained in the Bill, they could create a long list of new conditions that imports under trade agreements would have to meet. Such conditions do not exist under any agreement that the UK or the EU have to date, and they could also apply to trade already taking place, which we very much hope will be the subject of roll-over deals.

We will drive a hard bargain for access to our market, and existing import conditions will need to be respected. However, trading partners would be extremely unlikely to agree to all the potential new requirements in the amendments. The amendments are also not totally clear on what we would be asking of our partners. For example, what is relevant to protect the environment in the UK will surely not be what is relevant to other countries with different climates or conditions. From rules on nitrates to rules on hedgerows, our standards are sometimes bound to differ from those abroad.

Given that uncertainty, I am concerned that the amendments could jeopardise the 19 currently unsigned agreements that we are seeking to roll over. Trade, of course, already takes place under those agreements, with existing import requirements met. Unpicking those and demanding the numerous extra conditions in the amendments could upset the current deals if partners refused and walked away. In the worst-case scenario, that could affect whisky exports to Canada, worth £96 million, potato exports to Egypt, worth £30 million, and milk powder exports to Algeria, worth £21 million.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I think the hon. Lady said a moment ago that the problem with the amendments was that they would impose conditions that the EU has not sought to apply to any existing trade agreements, but is that actually the case? Is it not true that the free trade agreement between the EU and Chile in 2003 explicitly included a reference to animal welfare—the point made a moment ago—and that when the EU negotiated a trade deal with the Mercosur countries last year, it made the reduction of tariffs on egg products conditional for the first time on the countries concerned, namely Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, keeping their hens in line with EU animal welfare standards? If the EU can do that, why are the Government resisting us doing that when we take back control?

[Victoria Prentis]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the EU has been able to put welfare standards of various kinds and levels in different trade agreements over the years. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, as long as it is done in compliance with international law. The point I was trying to make—I apologise if I did not make it sufficiently clear—is that it would be unwise, particularly in the agreements we are seeking to roll over in very short form, to add a set of conditions that, to my reading at least, are not entirely clear and that are broadly drafted. It would be difficult to agree with the partners with whom we already trade as part of these continuity agreements a whole new set of conditions and, indeed, a method of assessing those conditions in very short order. That might well put them off agreeing a deal with us. That is my concern.

In summary, the tools we have to ensure high standards are, as I have tried to set out, many and varied. They are strong enough to protect standards, even under pressure. We have existing regulation under retained EU law, which is watched carefully and controlled by the Food Standards Agency. Parliament can scrutinise new trade deals, as indeed the Select Committee on International Trade is about to do for the Japan deal. Other experts, including those on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, can advise us on trade policy. Last, but by no means least, we have the buying power of the British consumer, who is increasingly committed to high standards of animal welfare.

We will carry out a serious examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK market. We will start to consult on that before the end of this year. That combination of measures will protect producers of high-welfare British food, while allowing us to import when we wish.

Turning to amendment 17 on emissions reduction targets—

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

On that issue, it would be helpful for the Minister to address whether the legal guarantee regarding amendment 16 would impact on the UK’s progress towards our climate change and net zero goals. I think it would, and without that guarantee, it would be much easier to bring in Brazilian beef, for example, which would increase the carbon footprint for a family shop—it would be much higher. That does not even touch on the issue of palm oil or the destruction of our rain forests, which have already been mentioned.

I will finish by talking about the fate of amendment 18. I really do think that the Minister should look at strengthening the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission in the way the amendment suggests. I know that, technically, we cannot vote on it or debate it tonight, but I do think, as she has already heard from Members across the House, that this issue is not going to go away, and it must be addressed.

[Hilary Benn]

I, too, listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I have to say that I agree with the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), because I do not understand the Government’s resistance to putting these sensible changes into legislation. The problem the Government have is that the more they claim to want to do what the amendment is seeking, but then say, “But we can’t do it”, the greater they raise in the minds of everyone watching—farmers, consumers and others, as well as colleagues on both sides of the House—the idea that something else is going on here. So, let us be honest about this.

We all know how trade negotiations work and the pressure that trade negotiators come under. Let us consider the United States of America—with which the Government, to be fair, are very keen to get a trade agreement, because they have decided to move away from the best trade agreements they have, with the European Union. The fact is that that pressure will exist regardless of who wins the presidential election next month. I think the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put his finger on it when he read from the letter, in which it appears that Ministers are saying, “Well, don’t do this because it will make it more difficult”. But how is doing what the Government promised to do in their manifesto more difficult—and it is only fair?

The Minister talked about undesirable side effects. I listened very carefully but I heard her give only one example, which was her reference to hedgerows in Africa. I understand the point she was trying to make, but it does not really work when we look at the new clause in amendment 16, because subsection (2)(b) talks about standards that

“are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to”

the areas we are discussing. Furthermore, the very next subsection gives the Secretary of State the power to determine what those standards are equivalent to. The argument made by the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that somehow there will be a fixed process that would lead to absurdities does not really wash when we read what is actually in the amendment that their lordships have put together.

I want to talk about sow stalls, which were banned here in 1999. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the new cruel confinement law, as it is called in California, which not only bans the use of sow stalls in that state, but bans the sale in California of pork produced in other American states that still use sow stalls. I am advised that that includes Iowa and Minnesota. Could the Government please explain why it appears that California is able to ban food products produced by what we regard as cruel means in other states of the United States of America, but that we somehow have difficulty in doing the same in deciding our new rules?

The final point I want to make is on the new clause in amendment 17. Again, I do not understand the Government’s argument. The Minister said that sector-specific targets were not really helpful, but the basic and obvious point is this: if we are going to meet our climate change targets, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, we are going to need progress in every single sector of the economy, agriculture, land use and forestry included. Therefore, it seems that it would be really helpful to have an interim target to help the farming industry to make the changes that we know will have to come. I am pleased to hear that quite a few Government Members will vote for them, but I urge the Government at this stage to think again.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Farming and the future of the agriculture industry are subjects that I am incredibly passionate about. Before entering this place, I had been involved for my whole life in the farming sector, and I use this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is my view that for far too long our agriculture industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that the sector undoubtedly encompasses have been restrained and stifled by the workings of the common agricultural policy. Through the CAP, our agriculture industry has become less competitive through ill-thought-through subsidy schemes that have impeded productivity, stifled innovation and failed to protect the environment as much as we could have. Let me be clear: this is the fault not of the farmer, but of the system they have been constrained by. A change is required and this Bill goes a long way to shaking up the system and achieving that, which is great news.

I will use my time to talk about Lords amendment 16. This has rightly received much attention and I have given it immense thought as I want to ensure that our agriculture industry thrives and is truly sustainable long into the future. However, as we look to adopt new legislation, it is vital that we scrutinise the detail and the anticipated consequences.

Let us be clear about the current position: the Bill does not lower food safety standards. Of course, the amendment goes much further and obligates that any agri-environmental food import must be produced and processed under standards that are equivalent to the UK for animal health, plant health and environmental protection. We must ask ourselves: while the intentions are entirely laudable, in reality, what will the consequences be for the supply of food that we wish to import, such as the vast amounts of tea imported from Kenya, bananas from the Dominican Republic or coffee from Vietnam?

Let us take environmental standards, for example. If Vietnam and other developing countries, such as Ghana and Indonesia, that export coffee beans to the UK were expected to provide evidence that they meet UK carbon emissions targets, I can see that that would have a dramatic impact on the UK retail and hospitality sector, as I suspect that countries would not be able to meet such requirements. Equally, it would not make sense for the UK to require trading partners with certain climates and environmental conditions, which are very different from those here in the UK, to meet our specifications, such as the UK’s requirement for nitrate vulnerable zones, which are specifically adopted to UK conditions. It is vital that that level of detail must be explored and considered at this stage, to see whether it is practical to try to enforce this amendment to a domestic piece of legislation abroad and to see whether it is workable in law. I want to see a thriving agricultural sector.