Agriculture Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

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

I therefore implore Members—particularly Government Members—to think carefully about these amendments and what kind of nation we want to be. We have a choice between supporting our agricultural industries to produce sustainable, high-quality food and becoming a world leader in environmental protections, and undermining our health and our farmers by choosing cheap, low-quality imports and that race to the bottom. I know which side I will choose to be on today, and I hope that the rest of the House will join me in supporting legal guarantees of high standards.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am the son of a Berwickshire farmer, and I am proud to represent one of the most fertile parts of rural Scotland. The food producers in my borders constituency are the best in the business; the quality of our produce is second to none. Others have spoken in this debate on both sides of the question, particularly around food standards, and they are all just as passionate about their own local areas.

What this debate has shown more than anything is the consensus that exists across the House, reflecting the views of people across the country, that our high UK standards of environmental protection and food production are the right ones and that they must be preserved. Where there is disagreement, it is about how we can best do that in the years ahead.

I understand why some hon. Members will support these amendments from the House of Lords, and I understand why a number of my constituents got in touch to ask me to do the same, but I will not, for three main reasons. First, I do not believe that they are in the best interests of farmers and producers in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. We are in this position because we have left the EU, and we will soon be outside the common agricultural policy and the common commercial policy. It is worth taking a moment to remember that these matters were settled when we were members of the EU. The EU did not, does not and will not ask its trade partners to adopt all its environmental and food standards, as the amendments would ask the UK to do in the years ahead. The trade deals we now enjoy, which we hope to roll over, were signed on that basis. Making the proposed changes would put the continuation of those trading relationships at risk.

Secondly, the amendments are not necessary. The law already forbids the things they seek to guard against. Chicken washed in chlorinated water is banned in the United Kingdom. Growth hormones in beef are banned. In the last few decades, it was the EU that signed trade deals, and this House had no role in agreeing them. In the future, the House will be a player in that process. The UK Government will conduct the trade negotiations, and this Parliament will scrutinise the Government and hold them to account. In the end, Parliament can block an international treaty if it so chooses.

Thirdly and finally, I fear that these amendments would be harmful to some of the world’s poorest people. Requiring every country we do a trade deal with to match all our rules would make it virtually impossible to reach agreements with developing countries. Those countries might lack the necessary bureaucratic infrastructure to meet all our reporting requirements, or the rules designed for a rainy island in the north Atlantic might just not be suitable for their climates.

I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone supporting these amendments; I simply disagree that the amendments represent the best way forward. They are not in the interests of food producers, they are not necessary to protect food standards and they would be bad for trade. Free and fair trade is what allows us to enjoy food and drink from around the world that our great-grandparents had never heard of. It allows our producers to sell their exceptional quality products globally. It is what is lifting the most vulnerable people in the world out of poverty. Trade is a force for good, and with the high standards that we set in law and the enhanced scrutiny that this House will provide for years to come, we have nothing to be afraid of.

[Caroline Lucas]

Until the last speech, I was going to say how lovely it was to feel a common view coming from the Government and Opposition Benches. Let me just say why I think the last speaker was wrong. He said that if we adopted Lords amendment 16, for example, we would be imposing standards on developing countries that they could not reach. In fact, the EU has all sorts of arrangements with poorer countries precisely to be able to support them in improving their standards. There is nothing here that would inflict inappropriate standards on some of the poorest countries. The hon. Gentleman also said that our standards are safe, but they are not safe if they are going to be undermined by cheaper imports that do not meet those same standards. That is tantamount to handing a knife to our farmers and asking them to cut their own throats. It is not a sensible strategy.

I want to speak to some of the amendments from the other place and particularly to Lords amendment 9, on the national food strategy. The amendment stipulates what that strategy should contain, including things such as the sustainability of food production and consumption, improving dietary health, reducing obesity, minimising food waste, ensuring that public procurement supports a shift towards sustainable farming, and so on. It is significant that cross-party support for the amendment in the other place was strong.

The letter the Minister sent to MPs last week explained that the Government object to amendment 9 because it would

“impose arbitrary timetable requirements for objectives the Government has already committed to fulfil”.

I hope she will forgive us, but we want to see that commitment in the Bill. We have seen already in the debate that we do not trust vague commitments, and certainly not vague commitments that do not even have a timetable to them, given that, as I said earlier, the Environment Bill is already 200 days late.

Lords amendment 11 is about protecting people from the adverse health impacts of pesticide use. It addresses what crop pesticides are currently permitted in the localities of homes and schools, as well as the exposures, the risks and the acute and chronic adverse health impacts for rural residents. It does not specify the distance required between pesticide use and nearby public space—that is for secondary legislation—but I can tell the Minister that we had a lot of support from the Clerks in both Houses in the drafting of the amendment, and we are convinced that it is an effective amendment to protect human health. It is very significant that Lord Randall, who is a former environment adviser to the former Prime Minister herself, has said how vital the amendment is.

Recent events have revealed that the precautionary principle is one of the most important scientific principles we have, and we should be implementing it here. It does not substitute for the overall shift that we need to see towards agro-ecology, but it would do something to protect rural residents who look out of their windows right now and see farmers in protective equipment in their tractor cabs, protected from the impacts of the crops they are spraying, while those rural residents have no protection whatever. We should be standing up for them and protecting them, and that is what the amendment would do.

The Lords amendment on the climate emergency is vital. It would require the Secretary of State to have regard not just to the UK’s net zero target of 2050, but to the Paris climate agreement and the critical importance of acting now to drive a steep reduction in emissions by 2030. Right now, the Government are showing their world-beating ability to set long-term targets on climate change at the same time as demonstrating a world-beating ability to utterly fail to accompany them with either the policies or the funding required to deliver them. That amendment would put that right.

Finally, as others have said, it was laid down in the Government’s manifesto that they would maintain standards, yet when they are put to the test, they fail again and again. Those standards should not be put on the altar of a trade deal with the US and sacrificed; they should be implemented. That is what the Government promised in their manifesto, and that is what they should deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the delicious food—from lovely meat to the famous Cheshire cheese—that is undoubtedly available in her constituency. We are supporting initiatives to promote local produce, including through recent industry-led marketing campaigns. We will always champion our farmers and producers to grow more of our great British food.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to promote sustainable fishing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The Fisheries Bill, which is currently in Committee and on which I will be spending the rest of the day, sets out a legally binding framework, including fisheries management plans, which will help to protect and recover stocks; to support a thriving, sustainable fishing industry; and, we hope, to safeguard the environment.

[John Lamont]

Sustainability means that coastal communities around the UK, such as Eyemouth in my constituency, can continue to fish for generations to come. When renegotiating access to UK waters, how will the Minister ensure that all boats comply with our rules and that our marine life is protected from overfishing?

[Victoria Prentis]

In future, all vessels, both from the UK and elsewhere, will be subject to licence conditions set by the UK sea fisheries authorities. The conditions will set out the areas that can be fished, species that can be caught and types of gear that can be used when fishing in UK waters. Marine enforcement officers from all the fisheries administrations have the powers to inspect vessels and ensure that they comply with our rules.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Government on enabling public worship to resume in churches.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What the timeframe is for the resumption of church services as the covid-19 lockdown restrictions are eased.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

When the Church Commissioners plan to reopen cathedrals and churches for worship; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

That is a challenge indeed, Mr Speaker, but what I would say to my right hon. Friend is that I hope he has taken part in some of the uplifting online worship and services that have been available to him during the lockdown, and I would add that the warmth of the welcome, the opportunity for fellowship and the chance to grow in faith through prayer, worship and the revelation of God’s word will prove an irresistible temptation to my right hon. Friend to return.

[John Lamont]

I very much welcome that services can resume in places of worship in England and that private prayer is allowed in other nations of the United Kingdom, but what discussions have there been with Churches to ensure that people are encouraged to go back to church and are reassured that it is safe to do so?

[Andrew Selous]

The Church is delighted to be able to throw open its doors again, so that we can gather again for public worship and weddings in the way that we have not been able to do over the past three months. We will make sure that people are safe. I know that clergy and church wardens are taking their responsibilities very seriously to make sure that people are safe when they come, and we are really looking forward to seeing them back again in all our churches.

Protection of UK Food Standards

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

In Scotland and across the entire United Kingdom, we produce some incredible food. In the borders, where I live and which I have the privilege of representing in this place, we have many fine examples, including Standhill Farm tomatoes near Denholm; Shaw’s Fine Meats in Lauder; Hardiesmill ethical Scotch beef, which has been enjoyed on the Orient Express and is reared north of Kelso; ice cream produced by the Giacopazzi family in Eyemouth; Border Berries near Rutherford, which is one of Scotland’s last remaining outdoor berry farms; and Born in the Borders brewery outside Jedburgh, which creates real ale using barley grown in the neighbouring rolling fields of the borders.

I love the local foods produced in the borders, and I think that more people around the world should be able to enjoy food from Scotland and the rest of Britain too. That is why I am so excited by the opportunities that the global trade deals will offer to Scotland and the United Kingdom. We should be proud not just of the amazing foods that we produce but of the fact that they are of the highest quality and meet the highest standards of production in the world. Consumers in our country not only have an extensive choice of foods but can be assured that they meet the highest quality.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Is it not the fact that we have such high standards in this country that makes our foodstuffs and other products produced in Scotland so in demand across the rest of the world? Should we not be doing everything in our power to make sure that we can export more of what we produce in this country because it is so good?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I entirely agree. I will come back to it further, because there are some great success stories about where we have been able to export our food products, not just from Scotland but across the entirety of the UK, around the world.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Lamont]

I want to make some progress.

Sadly, in recent weeks the standards of the food we consume here in Britain has been conflated into a debate about our ability to trade on the international stage. As the son of a Berwickshire farmer who has the privilege of representing the rural communities of the Scottish borders, I know from very personal experience the truth of the saying that

“the cultivation of the earth is the most important labour of man.”

That is why it is so important that we get the Agriculture Bill currently going through this Parliament right—right for Scottish producers and right for Scottish consumers. Consumers rightly want high-welfare produce, and if our trading partners want to access the UK market, they must be required to meet those standards. Farmers and consumers have the right to expect no less.

[Deidre Brock]

Does the hon. Gentleman think, then, that food imports should be produced to the same high standards as UK food production, and so would he agree that protection should be placed in legislation to make sure that that good food quality is protected?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. If I could ask her to be patient for a little while, I am going to come on to that very point.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Does it concern my hon. Friend that in Scotland we appear to have a campaign of disinformation that suggests that a vote took place in the House of Commons to reduce food standards in the United Kingdom, yet I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that no such vote took place?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point, which neatly leads on to the next part of my speech.

There has been considerable discussion about food standards in relation to international trade and, unfortunately, a high degree of misinformation about what will happen to our food standards. We are told by campaign groups and the Opposition parties that Parliament voted against protecting our food standards and that that opened the door to substandard food supplies flooding on to shop shelves. That is utter nonsense, and I want to use this debate to put the record straight.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech. I very much enjoyed the culinary tour of his constituency—I am just about ready for my tea, so he has made me very hungry. I spoke to him earlier, to seek his permission to intervene. Hailing from the constituency of Strangford, with its thriving agrifoods sector, I believe it is imperative that we remember that many of the standards to which we hold ourselves are actually higher than those that the EU has determined to be necessary. We must continue to accept only foods of the highest quality that bear British approval across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As I always say, better together.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. It is important to record that the UK Government have been very clear that they will never compromise on those food standards.

In Scotland, Food Standards Scotland will continue to ensure that all food imports comply with the UK’s high safety standards. The Government have also made it clear that they will examine options on labelling and better consumer information, including voluntary animal welfare assurance schemes and Government-backed labelling. Our Ministers will also work across the globe to enhance welfare standards through bilateral promotion with trade partners and advocacy of animal welfare and environmental issues in the World Trade Organisation and the World Organisation for Animal Health.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman from the highlands.

[Jamie Stone]

I think that I should declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, by pointing out that my younger brother is a maker of highland cheese. Highland crofters and farmers do very well out of the fact that the image of highland food is that it is of the highest standard. None of us wants to see standards lowered; I think that we in this Chamber speak with one voice in that regard. However, the general public are very discerning when they shop, and they are becoming ever more discerning as time goes by. I think that the more we push and advertise the sheer quality of Scottish, highland and Northern Irish food products, the better we will do.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the crucial point. Without doubt, we produce food of an exceptionally high value. I do not think that consumers in this country always recognise the value of the food we produce, and how lucky we are to live in a country where we can be assured of it.

The Government have made a commitment that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. We are, and will remain, firmly committed to upholding those high standards outside the EU. Crucially, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will transfer all existing EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, on to the UK statute book, where they will be enshrined in law.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman praising the quality of good Scottish produce, and I am sure that view is shared across the House. He made a serious point about misinformation. Does he not understand that the National Farmers Union has expressed real concerns about cheap food imports flooding the UK market and undercutting our excellent quality produce? Is he saying that the NFU is spreading misinformation?

[John Lamont]

I will move on to that point shortly. I have had a very robust conversation with NFU Scotland. It claims to support trade and to support the amendment to the Agriculture Bill that would have stopped our ability to do that trade. It cannot on the one hand say that it wants to support Scottish farmers and food producers to export, and on the other hand support an amendment that would have pulled the rug from under them. That is a conversation I have had with the NFU, and that is the purpose of this debate.

Our import standards, which are enshrined in UK law, include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in domestic and imported products, so that means no hormone-injected beef. Our standards also set out that no product other than water is approved for decontaminating poultry carcases, so that means no chlorine- washed chicken, despite what we hear from opposition parties and some parts of the media. Any changes to existing food safety legislation would require new legislation to be brought before Parliament.

As I have suggested, Scottish and British farmers have a great deal to gain from the lowering of trade barriers, which will allow them to access new markets for our high-quality produce. We need those new trade deals with other countries to enable our farmers and other businesses to expand the range and volume of products for export around the world. Let us take, for example, the export of Scottish malt and grain to non-EU countries such as Japan, or the enormous potential for further growth of Scottish red meat export. Last year, the total value of UK red meat exports rose by 13% to £1.5 billion, with 661,000 tonnes of pork, lamb and beef shipped globally from the UK. It was one of the strongest years on record.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am sure none of us in the House, regardless of our views on the European Union, American beef or American chicken, wants to prevent our farmers in any constituency from exporting their high-quality food. However, the very consumers the hon. Member mentioned a few minutes ago fill my inbox daily, concerned about the quality of food that will be imported into this country. They are afraid that the food that will appear on supermarket shelves will be cheaper and of less good quality than what is produced in this country. We want to protect those people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in taking interventions. Any interventions need to be short, because there is limited time for the debate and I am sure that the Minister wants sufficient time to wind up.

[John Lamont]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) explains to her constituents that she voted for an amendment that would have restricted the choice for consumers in supermarkets and stopped Scottish farmers and other businesses exporting. She would have stopped them doing the trade deals. I will come on to those points in a bit more detail shortly.

Within the overall increase in trade to non-EU countries, there are further opportunities to be had, particularly across Asia in markets other than China, such as Taiwan, Singapore and especially Vietnam, to complement the trade we will continue to have with the European Union. Scottish farmers can lead the way on those opportunities. Lowering trade barriers is key to realising that ambition.

It is important to put ourselves in a position where we can build on our successes, but if the contentious amendments to the Agriculture Bill had passed, such trading opportunities would have been lost, to the disadvantage of Scotland’s farming sector and the wider economy. If Scottish National party Members and others who supported the amendments had secured them, that would have effectively blocked the enhanced international trade opportunities for Scottish farmers and many other distinctive Scottish industries. It is also important to note that no current trade agreements include provisions to force partners to operate by another country’s domestic regulations and standards. If we insisted on that, we could not roll over the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada and other parties such as South Africa and Japan. It would also call into question our refusal to accept a level playing field with the EU if we demand it elsewhere.

Trying to force all trading partners to produce to the exact same standard as the UK will only result in fewer export opportunities for Scottish farmers and cut them off from world markets.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing the important debate. Like him, I have received countless emails and letters from my Coventry residents who are rightly concerned about a number of our protections, particularly food standards, post Brexit. Does he agree that we should aim for the highest possible standards and protect those that we already enjoy here in the UK?

[John Lamont]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. To reiterate my earlier point, UK imports and food standards have not changed as a consequence of our leaving the European Union. Cabinet Ministers have committed at the Dispatch Box to maintaining food standards. The Prime Minister is committed to them, too. It is wrong to say that, just because we cannot control the production standards in another country, we cannot control our own import standards and food regulations. There is no other trade agreement where one country imposes its food production standards on another partner. It is also the case that WTO rules prevent such clauses in the trade deals that it governs.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech. Like him, I have many Moray producers who are responsible for produce of outstanding quality that is renowned across the globe. However, does he agree that tonight’s debate is a useful opportunity to set the record straight? There has never been a Division in this House that has lowered animal welfare standards and, as he said, the EU withdrawal Act takes all the legislation from the EU that protects our environmental standards, food safety standards and animal welfare standards on to the UK statute book.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite all the misinformation from SNP Members, the reality—the facts—are somewhat different. If there is another trade agreement that allows one country to impose its production standards on another, show it to me. If I am wrong about the WTO rules, I am happy to take an intervention from somebody who might be able to correct me.

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you so much. I was going to reference the US ambassador, who made it very clear recently that the US would not accept a US-UK trade deal unless US food standards were accepted within the UK. What does the hon. Gentleman say to the US ambassador?

[John Lamont]

The UK Government Ministers who represent us in these negotiations have made it very clear that food standards will not be reduced as a consequence of any trade deals. It is very interesting that the hon. Lady has not disputed my points or provided any evidence to support the case that one country’s trade deal with another country has imposed its production standards on that trading partner. Nor indeed has she been able to dispute the point that the World Trade Organisation rules ban such clauses in trade agreements. [Interruption.] We should be under no illusions that those on the SNP Benches, and indeed elsewhere, who were arguing for the amendments to be imposed were, at best, naive about the consequences of their actions or, at worst, reckless with the future of not just our food exporters, but every other business—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Can everybody just calm down a bit? It is an Adjournment debate.

[John Lamont]

Welcome to the world of Scottish politics, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To continue, those who were advocating for those amendments were, at best, naive about the consequences of their actions or, at worst, reckless with the future of not just our food exporters, but every other business that hopes to export its produce around the world.

An isolationist approach may be one that the SNP wants to advocate, but I want Scotland and Britain to take their places as global trading partners, so we can sell our top-quality food produce to every corner of the planet. Others may want to restrict the choices available to our businesses, but I hope that SNP Members will come clean and explain that they want to restrict our ability to trade. Their isolationist, anti-trade policy is not one that I think the people of Scotland, or across Britain, want to support.

I am entirely in agreement with the desire to create a thriving domestic agricultural industry that is not undercut by cheap foreign imports, while maintaining and promoting high animal welfare, environmental and food standards abroad. But the answer is not to pass legislation that would create an extreme, blanket, protectionist approach and to slam doors in the faces of our exporters. We need a robust framework that provides support to primary producers to provide security of food supply, while expanding the global trade opportunities to get high-quality Scottish produce on to kitchen tables in as many countries around the world as possible. I believe that the Agriculture Bill provides a platform for those expanded trade opportunities, while maintaining the tough environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards that we all want to see maintained. I know that Scottish farmers have what it takes to compete with the rest of the world, and Scottish farmers can be confident that this UK Government will back them all the way in securing the markets that they need to prosper in future.

Flood Response

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

The Government are already running a range of schemes to promote the planting of trees, including the urban tree challenge fund, where we announced successful bids at the weekend. We will publish further details in our tree strategy for England, which will come out in a few weeks’ time.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am sure the Secretary of State and many Members will have seen the dramatic pictures from Hawick in my constituency, where Sonia’s Bistro and the Bridge House bed and breakfast collapsed into the River Teviot. That was devastating for the business, but thankfully nobody was injured. May we pay tribute not only to the emergency services but to the Hawick flood group and all the other volunteers who made sure that that building was evacuated, and kept many other communities and people safe from what could otherwise have been a disaster?

[Theresa Villiers]

I am very happy to do that. The Hawick flood group volunteers deserve our praise and thanks, as do so many volunteers in similar groups around the country.

The Climate Emergency

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). I recognise the passion with which he speaks about these issues and I share his concern.

I am pleased to be able to speak briefly today in this important debate. I very much welcome the measures contained in the Queen’s Speech. Other Members have covered the urgency of the need to tackle climate change so I will not repeat that argument, but it is right that this place is prioritising climate change and it is right that our constituents continue to contact us about climate change. I believe that this Government are prioritising measures to address climate change.

The new Environment Bill will ensure that environmental principles are at the centre of every decision the Government take. Tackling climate change is one of the issues that Scotland’s two Governments need to work on together. I believe they need to work better at it. The UK and the Scottish Governments are both world leaders in reacting to our climate change emergency, and they must continue their joined-up approach. That is why I was so disappointed by the opening speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). It was full of sarcasm and weak political point scoring, rather than recognising that both Governments need to work together on this issue. Our constituents expect us to work together and not engage in cheap party political point scoring.

It is important to acknowledge that the UK is a world leader in meeting the challenge of climate change face on. The UK was the first major economy to introduce legally binding long-term emissions targets and the first to announce a legally binding net zero target. We have cut emissions by more than 40% since and decarbonised faster than any other G20 country. We need to continue and step up those efforts, but they are remarkable achievements and as a nation we do not always give ourselves credit for them. I am optimistic that humanity will overcome this climate emergency. The way we will do that will not, I am afraid, be by spraying fake blood on Government buildings. It will be by changing our habits as a nation and through advances in technology: electric car battery improvements, advances in carbon capture and finding more sustainable ways of growing food.

Much of that work can start at home. I am pleased to see much going on in my own constituency in the Scottish borders. Scottish Borders Council, for example, has saved over 250,000 staff miles with its fleet of hybrid cars. Its newest high school, in Jedburgh, will be one of the first plastic-free schools in the UK. I have met community organisations such as A Greener Hawick and A Greener Melrose, which are passionate about encouraging people to live more sustainably. Alice and her team at Sea the Change in Eyemouth run beach cleans and outdoor explorer programmes, and organisations like Plastic Free Borders are sharing ideas about how to reduce the use of single use plastics. Such groups, which are encouraging changes in habit and capitalising on increased public awareness, have a huge role to play in how we tackle this emergency.

The final issue I want to raise is electric cars and how we ensure that every part of the country, particularly rural areas like those in the Scottish borders that I represent, can take advantage of them. I would very much like the UK and Scottish Governments to do more to ensure that all communities, regardless of whether they are rural or urban, have sufficient electric charging points to ensure that every resident who wishes to make the change to electric car use can do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

1. What plans he has to implement an independent farming policy after the UK leaves the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

6. What plans he has to implement an independent farming policy after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

The Government’s Agriculture Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, is the first major piece of legislation affecting agriculture since 1947. It provides certainty for farmers through a seven-year transition period and lays the foundations of a new farming policy based on public goods and fairness in the supply chain. At their request, it also includes provisions for Wales and Northern Ireland. This critical piece of legislation will enable us to seize the opportunities to help our farming, horticulture and forestry sectors become more profitable and sustainable.

[John Lamont]

Many farmers in my constituency are very concerned at the decision of the SNP Scottish Government to opt out of key parts of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that the Scottish Government have not presented alternative proposals, so many farmers may not be sure whether there will be a legislative framework to ensure support for farming after we leave the European Union?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, agriculture is devolved. At the request of the Welsh Government there is a schedule containing provisions for Wales, and at the request of the Northern Ireland Administration there is a schedule containing provisions for Northern Ireland. Scotland has yet to decide what it wishes to do. We have maintained an open offer to insert provisions in the Bill at later stages should the Scottish Government wish us to do so. Alternatively, they can legislate through their own Parliament, but they will need some legislation in order to be able to pay their farmers in 2020.

Agriculture Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, but the new Bill will allow us to tailor our approach to suit every part of the UK. Wales is taking this opportunity, and schedule 3 states clearly what it will do. Interestingly, we have not heard from Scotland yet.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The real risk to Scottish farmers is the fact that the SNP Scottish Government have failed to opt in to this Bill and failed to introduce a Bill in the Scottish Parliament to allow Scottish farmers to get the support they will desperately need after Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the SNP who are letting Scottish farmers down?

[Rebecca Pow]

Our Scottish Conservative colleagues provide strong representation for farmers. Farming is very important to Scotland, which is a rural area. The SNP and the Scottish Parliament have really missed an opportunity to get their details down on paper so that they can play a full role in the really exciting future that this Government are creating. If it were not for the Conservative Government and our coming out of Europe—I say this even though I was a remainer—we would not have this great opportunity.

Crucially, the essence of the Bill is to move away from making payments simply for the privilege of owning land, as has been mentioned, and towards the concept of paying for public goods. That is the cornerstone of the Bill, and it is absolutely the right thing to do. The basic idea of receiving money for doing something for the public good has met with universal approval, not just from farmers but from environmentalists and right across the board with everybody I have met in Taunton Deane so far. That is true of improving the quality of our water—currently, only 14% of our rivers are classed as clean, which is absolutely shocking; planting more trees to help to reduce the speed of run-off from the hills to the Somerset levels, which will help to reduce the terrible flooding that we have had over many years; and creating new habitats to improve biodiversity and reverse the catastrophic declines in plant and animal populations that we have witnessed in our own lifetimes, as the 2016 “State of Nature” report clearly sets out.

In many cases, EU agricultural policy has been the driver for those wildlife declines, with the loss of mixed farming—grass is so important to that, as it was on the farm where I grew up—less rotation, fewer hedgerows and increased pesticide use. The increased use of pesticides has reduced the quantity of plants on which foraging insects rely; indeed, we rely on those insects to pollinate our crops. The Bill offers an opportunity for new schemes that emphasise the protection of biodiversity and help to redress those losses. Habitat creation schemes such as the one run on West Sedgemoor by the RSPB, which is producing tasty beef, creating summer water meadows and bringing back the snipe—I am proud to be the RSPB snipe champion—are really working. The Bill offers the opportunity to build on such schemes, which I welcome.

There is, however, one thing that I must ask the Minister. If farmers and environmental groups are already involved in environmental stewardship schemes, will those schemes still operate following the implementation of the Bill? Will they be allowed to run their course, or will they end with those groups then having to apply for new schemes?

The Minister will not be at all surprised to learn that I am now going to mention soil, because I have bent his ear on the subject many times. Half the soils in the east of the country are likely to become unproductive within a decade. That was highlighted in our Environmental Audit Committee report—and I see that the Committee’s Chairperson, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), is in the Chamber. Soil erosion is a very serious issue, as is the fact that soil has been treated as a growing medium rather than a living habitat for far too long. I therefore welcome the priority that the Bill gives to soil health, and I was pleased that the Minister came to the launch of the Sustainable Soil Alliance in the House. I hope that the work that it is doing to advise on how we could monitor soil erosion or set targets to address it might influence the way in which payments are made.

Leaving the EU: Upland Farming

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Pritchard. I will return to the issue at hand, Welsh farming.

In Wales, the situation has been compounded by the decision of the Labour Government of my country to reduce direct payments to producers by 15% by moving money from pillar 1. However, the point remains that CAP payments offer a degree of stability. While previously, under CAP, farmers did not have to worry overtly about the impact of Westminster elections on the amount of agricultural support they would receive, they could easily now face a situation in which a new Westminster Government could radically alter agricultural support policy. As we see from the power grab, the Labour Government of my country have abdicated all responsibility.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I will not give way. I will carry on, mindful of what the Chairman has said. While the British Government have promised to protect the current UK level of EU payments until 2022, the reality is that once we have left the EU, agricultural support will become an annual issue for the budget, or at the very best a three-year cycle under a future comprehensive spending review. There is no guarantee that current levels of funding for Wales will continue after March 2019.

We urgently need clarity for Welsh hill farmers, particularly about what the budget for agricultural support will be and how exactly it will be administered. Now that agricultural support has been re-reserved, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how it will work for Welsh hill farmers. Will the Welsh share of agricultural support be based on our agricultural footprint, or do the British Government intend to distribute funds for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland based on Barnett consequentials?

During the referendum, the leave campaign argued that farmers would receive a dividend post-Brexit, because the UK would no longer have to make contributions to the EU budget. However, the reality is that there will be less money for Government investment post-Brexit, because the economy will slow and revenues will subsequently be less. Agriculture could find itself way down a long list of priorities for Westminster. Will the Minister outline what intergovernmental discussions have been held between the UK and the devolved Governments, and where exactly we are on getting clarity on the vital issue of agricultural support?

The third major issue is access to export markets. The European Union is a vital market for Welsh meat. Hill farmers inform me that approximately half of all their lambs are exported to the EU on a frictionless, zero-tariff basis, and 90% of all Welsh meat exports are destined for the EU. The EU is the largest global market for agricultural produce, and while the rest of the world is doing everything possible to get access to that market, the British Government are moving in the opposite direction. Preserving those markets is vital. It is sobering that some of the highest new tariffs are agricultural. The lowest that tariffs on lamb can be under WTO rules is 40%, and they are far higher if the product is frozen or processed in any way.

Admittedly, a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU could solve the problem, but while the British Government continue to maintain that no deal is an option, those of us who have concerns about the British Government’s negotiating strategy cannot be accused of scaremongering. We only have to look back to the chaos caused by foot and mouth. There was a collapse in market prices, a collapse in farm incomes and a host of other problems, all because farmers could not export to the EU. Impacts on upland farms were particularly acute. While such circumstances occurred due to a ban on exports rather than trade barriers, such impacts are worth bearing in mind when we consider the potential impacts of harder Brexit scenarios.

Now is the time to commit to maintaining tariff-free access to the UK’s largest trading bloc through our membership of the EU single market and customs union. That would ensure that our food producers could continue to export tariff free, that there would be no other barriers to trade and that already established, complex supply chains were not disrupted. The Farmers Union of Wales agrees. The president of the union, Glyn Roberts, said:

“Since the Referendum we have maintained that we should remain within the Single Market and Customs Union, and every day that passes brings more evidence supporting our view that at least in the short term, leaving these institutions would be a grave mistake.”

Our farmers are proud of the standard of their produce. They have some of the highest environmental and welfare standards in the world. If the British Government insist on dragging us out of the EU single market and customs union and pursuing free trade deals with third countries, it is vital that those standards are not compromised in any way, and that our markets are not opened up to substandard produce. It is essential that such matters are not regarded as exclusively within the remit of the UK Government and Parliament. As Hybu Cig Cymru chairman Kevin Roberts has said,

“Any future trade deal must take full account of the needs of the Welsh red meat sector.”

Ultimately, any future trade deal must be fully endorsed by the National Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

To close, agriculture, due to its complex supply chains and its prevalence in Welsh culture, is the backbone of the rural economy. It is vital, therefore, that the UK and Welsh Governments should do all they can to ensure its sustainability and success into the future. As the director of NFU Cymru, John Mercer, told me,

“Farmers were promised a bright and prosperous future after Brexit and it is now imperative that those political promises are upheld.”

Welsh hill farmers potentially face a perfect storm of hindered access to their main export markets and the opening up of the UK domestic food market to lowerstandard food produce. Policy makers cannot afford to get it wrong. With the clock ticking, it is time for Ministers to start coming up with some answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Rwy’n llongyfarch fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus yr Aelod dros Ddwyrain Caerfyrddin a Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) ar sicrhau y ddadl hon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr on securing this debate. Dwyfor Meirionnydd is eryri—mountainous and magnificent to the eye. It has been a man-made landscape for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Livestock husbandry made much of the environment, and taking farmers and families out will unmake it.

Earlier this year, I held a series of events with agricultural societies and farmers unions, which included visits to upland farms in the Trawsfynydd, Abergeirw and Cwm Prysor communities of Meirionnydd. Time and again, I heard anxiety for the future and a real fear that the voices of upland farming and upland communities would be lost in the Brexit lobbying cacophony.

Geraint Davies—Geraint Fedw Arian Uchaf of Rhyduchaf—is the chair of the Farmers’ Union of Wales in Meirionnydd. He has a lot to say about Brexit, but I will keep it simple. He tells me that in Wales, we need evidence of a long-term vision for rural communities as a whole, a sense that those communities matter, and an appreciation of their dependency on the rural economy. The single farm payment is spent in local shops and stores. Rural development programme money keeps local contractors in business. There is an interconnectivity to the agricultural economy that is as far-reaching and vulnerable to change as any environmental habitat.

Much is made of the payment for delivery of public goods. Farmers do not need to hear that that is a good thing—most agree—or that a way will be found to conform to World Trade Organisation requirements. They truly need to know not just whether but how a 100% level of public payments for public goods will work. I beg the Minister to respond to that. How will it conform with the WTO regulations?

In the same breath, if agriculture payments are to be used as environmental tools to deliver environmental benefits, we need clarity on the role of grazing livestock and how to manage grasslands to maintain habitats while symbiotically producing meat that inherently meets high-quality welfare standards.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Many of the issues in my constituency that involve the farming community are exactly the same. In terms of the overall principles of future farming support, does she want a system that simply replicates the current common agricultural policy, that promotes efficient and productive farming, or that focuses on the marginal farms in our country, which I suspect we both have in our constituency? It is important to understand the driving force that she sees as being behind the future CAP.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

To speak frankly, I would like to see a system that does not result in the upland clearances of farmers. Farmers and their contribution are important to the wildlife, and we should consider the people and their role.

On the significance of grazing, it is important to have an awareness of the impact of under-grazing and over-grazing, local knowledge and the implicit co-operation of the Government, environmental officers and agriculturalists. It goes without saying that such awareness cannot be centrally managed from Westminster; it must be devolved.

Farmers in my constituency are being told to diversify and that they need to look at the sort of animals they produce. Surely, however, we need to acknowledge that only native mountain breeds are suitable for upland environments. It is simply not an option to diversify by crossing with lowland breeds, because large-carcase sheep simply cannot survive the winter, let alone fare well in such environments. At the same time, the small breeds that will flourish in mountain environments have their markets in Europe, and we are yet to find another market for them.

I take this opportunity to call on farmers to speak to each other and to speak out. The Brexit debate has been, and remains, toxic. People have been driven to one side or the other. Frankly, by now, it does not matter how someone voted in the referendum, but what happens now does matter. It is fast becoming clear that individual businesses and communities as a whole are at risk. Wales was sold Brexit on the back of unsubstantiated soundbites. Now is the time to come up with the substance of these promises or to come clean and admit that the risk to Welsh communities is a price Westminster is willing for us to pay.

Coastal Erosion

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kirstene Hair]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I absolutely agree. There are huge studies going on in my constituency as well, because we need to do the groundwork, but we also need to have the funding ready for when those studies complete, so that we can go ahead with the work that needs to be done.

Of course, when it comes to coastal erosion, the waves do not respect local authority boundaries. Erosion affects areas up and down the coastline and different local authorities face common and related problems. This is not something that should be left to local authorities alone; there is space for a much more joined-up approach to erosion at all levels of Government. However, such action must also be timely. I do not want to see Montrose ending up as a cautionary tale for other parts of the coastline.

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government are risking that happening by leaving the implementation of further solutions to the 2022 to 2028 six-year plan for flood risk management. Angus cannot wait until 2022, or until any time between 2022 and 2028. Even by 2022, swathes of the Angus coastline will have been lost. The risk of flooding and erosion to Montrose, Arbroath and other coastal communities in Angus will be even more serious than it is today, and existing defences are being put under increasing and unbearable strain.

It is the responsibility of local authorities, the devolved Administrations and the UK Government alike to start working together on the issue as a matter of urgency, so that we can quite literally hold back the tide that threatens so many of our coastal communities. The Government are due to publish their updated national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy next year, and within that I ask the Minister to consider ways to make that work happen, ensuring that everyone involved in protecting our coasts around the whole UK is working effectively together.

Will the Minister ensure that the dedicated funding is available from Montrose to Margate? If the Scottish Government cannot support my constituency, can Scotland’s other Government step in, once again, to help?

Coastal erosion and the associated issues warrant their own fund, and such a fund must not work as slowly as the flood risk management strategies. In Angus and across Scotland, erosion is happening fast and we need a scheme that operates more quickly than on a six-year cycle.

I hope that the Scottish Government will take these suggestions seriously and give communities fighting erosion the renewed and dedicated support that they need, but what about the individuals and businesses who cannot be helped, or who do not get the help they need in time? They deserve our support too, and I ask the Minister to consider a form of compensation scheme for those who lose their property or land to erosion. It is only right that those affected by erosion get help to rebuild or relocate, and such a scheme would help to cancel out the deterrent effect of the threat of erosion if people considering moving to or investing in a coastal community had that reassurance.

No such scheme exists anywhere in the United Kingdom and it is my hope that sooner rather than later we get such support in place—not only in Scotland, but in all parts of the United Kingdom.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking passionately about this important issue. Is she aware of the economic impact that flooding can have? A number of businesses in my constituency have been affected by flooding and have then been unable to get insurance for their premises, so they now face relocating to another part of Scotland just to allow them to continue doing business—not because they have been directly affected by flooding, but because insurance companies are no longer able to provide them with insurance on competitive terms.

[Kirstene Hair]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and hope that the Minister will take seriously my call for this kind of compensation scheme, which would help constituents in the borders, in Angus and indeed across our United Kingdom in areas that are prone to flooding.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing this important debate. She is a tireless champion for Angus on a number of local issues and this morning she has again demonstrated what a strong voice she is for her constituents. In Berwickshire in my constituency, we do not have the same coastal erosion problems as in Montrose and other parts of Angus. However, the coastline remains vulnerable and I want briefly to mention some of the challenges we face.

I would argue that Berwickshire has some of the finest coastline in the United Kingdom. Anyone who has taken the east coast main line will have been impressed by the Berwickshire coastline north of the border. The communities of St Abbs, Coldingham and Eyemouth, and Cove all have spectacular views of sea cliffs, fantastic beaches and the wide-open North sea. The 28-mile-long Berwickshire coastal path from Cockburnspath in my constituency to Berwick-upon-Tweed has, at Tun Law, the second highest cliffs on Britain’s east coast and some internationally important habitats for sea birds, coastal flora and marine life. We also have one of the world’s most famous geological sites, that of Siccar point. It is an example of a Hutton’s unconformity, which led the founder of modern geology, James Hutton, to conclude that the Earth was much older than was widely believed in the 18th century. From the beautiful Pease bay to the spectacular St Abb’s Head and Coldingham bay, this stretch of coastline deserves to be looked after and cherished, in the same way as those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

We are lucky in Berwickshire that, because the cliffs are mainly of hard rock, they are more resistant to weathering. However, the softer cliffs at Lower Burnmouth and Cove are under threat. Local erosion through the use of the coastal paths, as well as residential and recreational development, may threaten maritime cliff and slope habitats as well as coastline stability. Parts of the coastline are also vulnerable to flooding, particularly around Eyemouth, where damage to properties has occurred four times since 2012—just last March, a flood warning was issued. The town is lucky to have an extremely well organised community group, the Eyemouth response team, who respond efficiently and professionally to emergencies such as flooding. They were in action at the beginning of the year and, astonishingly, were able to put up flood barriers at the end of the harbour in just 20 minutes.

The Scottish Borders Council manages the Berwickshire coastline well, including maintaining and protecting the coastal path and working alongside Edinburgh Council on the Forth estuary local flood risk management plan. However, I agree that the Scottish Government must step in. In recent years, the choice of the Scottish National party’s Administration in Holyrood has been to slash local authority budgets across Scotland. Since 2013, the Scottish Government’s revenue budget has fallen by 1.8%, but the SNP Administration have chosen to pass on a much larger cut of 7.1%—£744 million—to local councils, including those in my constituency in the Scottish borders and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus. Councils simply cannot be expected properly to protect their coastline without additional support from the Scottish Government, and I commend my hon. Friend for her efforts to put pressure on them. I hope that the UK Government will be able to assist too, in doing more to protect our beautiful coastlines.