Agriculture Bill

Liam Fox Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to my amendments this afternoon, and to support several others.

My new clause 5 would help to rectify the absence of anything in the Bill to cut pesticide use. This is a really serious omission, given the harm that pesticides cause to insect life, including bees and pollinators, and to other wildlife, as well as the risks to human health. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to protect members of the public from the hazardous health impacts of pesticide use—for example, by specifying a minimum distance between where a pesticide is being applied and public or residential buildings. We do not need to look hard to find evidence of the so-called insect apocalypse, and the serious risks of pesticides to humans and nature. Recently, a call from more than 70 scientists urged the phase-out of pesticides as a “no regrets” immediate step, stating:

“There is now a strong scientific consensus that the decline of insects, other arthropods and biodiversity as a whole, is a very real and serious threat that society must urgently address.”

On human health, pesticide cocktails are of particular concern, as they can be far more harmful than individual pesticides, yet our own regulatory system only assesses the safety of one chemical at a time. There is also the exposure of rural residents to pesticides applied to nearby farmland. The lack of anything on pesticides in the Bill is even more disturbing given the Government’s dubious stance on the precautionary principle: refusing to transfer it fully into UK law and refusing to legislate against the risks of a US trade deal undermining it.

My amendment 42 is on the sustainability and resilience of agriculture more widely. It complements amendments 18 and 19 on agroecology tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which I strongly support. Amendment 42 would enable the Secretary of State to set and monitor progress towards targets for the uptake of integrated pest management based on agroecological practices, including organic farming. This would help to ensure that the catch-all clause on productivity payments does not undermine environmental objectives.

This week, a leaked copy of the EU 2030 biodiversity strategy revealed proposals for at least 25% of farmland to be organic, alongside a wider uptake of agroecological practices, a 50% reduction in pesticide use and cuts to mineral fertiliser use. On Second Reading, the then Secretary of State claimed that leaving the EU meant a greener future for British farming, where the UK would apparently do so much better for wildlife and the landscape. If that is to be reality and not just rhetoric, we need an Agriculture Bill that matches or goes further than the EU proposals on pesticides, agroecology and organic farming.

In response to covid-19, some argue that we should downplay nature and sustainability, and dial up food production. But that would risk doubling down on a food system that is contributing to what scientists last month called a

“perfect storm for the spillover of diseases from wildlife to people”.

One example is forest loss driven by rocketing demand for vast quantities of soya that is then fed to pigs and chickens, including in the UK. Agroecology is our route out of a dangerous dead-end debate that pitches food security, environmental protection and public health against each other. We can and must do much better than that.

Finally, my new clause 14 would go some way to fixing the Bill’s worrying lack of attention to the climate emergency. Having highlighted regulation as a gaping hole in the Bill on Second Reading, I strongly support new clause 8 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and am pleased that it includes specific provisions on climate. New clause 14 would complement that by setting a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture and land use in the UK by 2050 at the latest. That is much too late in my view, but I hope that the Government will pick this up. It would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish interim emission-reduction targets, as well as policies to ensure that those targets are met.

The Committee on Climate Change has said that “strengthening the regulatory baseline” is an essential step that the Government must urgently deploy to meet climate goals, so I hope the Government will support not just specific climate targets for agriculture, as new clause 14 proposes, but rigorous policies to meet them that place equal emphasis on biodiversity and public health. The climate emergency is just one reason why Ministers must say no to business as usual and yes to a resilient, re-localised and regenerative food and farming system. My amendments would go some way towards putting those things at the heart of the Bill.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I wish to speak against new clause 1. A real issue needs to be dealt with: the high levels of regulation imposed on UK farming can and do add to increased costs for UK farmers. High standards can be an advantage in two ways: first, in what they say about the United Kingdom and our attitudes to animal welfare; and secondly, when it comes to exporting, when we can show to those who want to buy British agricultural produce that it is produced to very high standards—that was a huge advantage to me on a number of occasions when I was Secretary of State for International Trade.

The best way to help our farmers is to have a proper cross-governmental strategy to improve UK farming exports. The proposed changes do not deal with that particular problem, but they do create a number of others. There are three main unintended consequences: the first is the damage to our reputation for observing international treaty law; the second is that the proposals would damage our ability to conclude our current free trade agreements, and potentially future ones; and the third is that they make a mockery of our current negotiating position with the European Union.

First, the new clause is not compatible with WTO rules. Food safety and related issues are anchored in WTO law. Only the slaughter of animals is covered as a welfare issue in the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. There is nothing that the Government will do to undermine food safety standards in this country, and to suggest otherwise is a complete red herring in this whole debate. It would be a fine start to Britain’s independent trade policy outside the European Union if we were to begin by finding ourselves in conflict with the very rules-based trading system that we believe to be necessary.

Secondly, the new clause would damage the chances of our completing our current free trade agreements. I can say from personal experience, in my discussions with the United States, that the US would walk were the proposals to become law in the United Kingdom, and it would be swiftly followed by others—the Australians, the New Zealanders and those involved in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership would be unlikely to take kindly to it. They do not want the incorporation of UK rules to become a prerequisite to trading agreements with the United Kingdom.

There is an additional problem: it is about not just our current FTAs but our ability to conclude future FTAs with developing countries, which simply cannot afford to have the same level of animal welfare standards as we enjoy in a country as wealthy as the United Kingdom. It would be a great pity if, after all the work we have done to promote development, we unintentionally undermined it by agreeing to this change.

Thirdly, the new clause makes a mockery of what we are doing in our negotiation with the European Union. We are currently telling the European Union that we cannot accept the introduction of rules made outside our own country as a precondition of trade with the European Union—the so-called level-playing-field approach—but that is exactly what the new clause would do in relation to everybody else. I can imagine nothing that would bring greater joy to the bureaucrats of Brussels than the UK scuppering its free trade agreement with the United States on the basis that we were insisting on a level-playing-field agreement that we have categorically ruled out in our dealings with the European Union.

I wish to go slightly beyond the content of the proposals to the wider consequences. I worry about what some of the proposed changes say about the signals we would send as a country and our approach to free trade in general. It is worth pointing out—because almost no one seems to have noticed—that global trading volumes went negative in the fourth quarter of 2019. Before covid, global trade was on a downturn, with inevitable long-term economic consequences. Since 2010, the world’s wealthiest economies—the G20—have increased and increased the number of non-tariff barriers to trade: in 2010, they were operating around 300; by 2015, they were operating around 1,200.

There is a bit of environmental law here, a bit of consumer protection here and a bit of producer protection elsewhere. It all adds up to a silting up of the global trading system. Why does that matter? It matters because it risks the progress we have made in the past generation of taking a billion people out of abject poverty through global free trade. It is not morally acceptable for those countries that have done very well out of global trade to turn to the others that are still developing and pull the ladder up in front of them. We have benefited from a global open trading system. It is not only economically sensible, but morally the right thing to do to ensure that that free trade continues.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)[V]]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I served on Bill Committee and I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents, so I am enthusiastic about ensuring that the Government listen to the suggestions put forward by the people most affected by this Bill. There are huge insecurities throughout agriculture right now, with it anticipating new opportunities and challenges arising from leaving the European Union. Parliament is having to consider the Bill without knowing what those challenges will be and what our future relationships with other countries will look like. These insecurities have been highlighted by the sector for some time, and covid-19 means that the public have more recently been faced with these insecurities and the issues relating to the resilience of our domestic food supply chain. Closed restaurants, empty supermarket shelves and restrictions on imported food were issues that did not enter the public’s mind until just a few weeks ago. We should use the experience of this crisis to guide policy to build future resilience for our food and environmental security.

Many farmers and businesses in the agricultural sector will be facing unexpected financial hardship because of covid-19. Having witnessed the fragility of our domestic supply chain, we must ensure that the Bill includes provisions to support the domestic industry throughout the rest of the crisis. We must also consider practices our industry and consumers may be exposed to if our domestic industry cannot sustain the food supply following this and we have to look more to outside sources. With new trading agreements yet to be made, now we have the perfect opportunity to ban unfair trading and unethical practices. The Bill should ensure that food imports are produced to the equivalent environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards as those required of producers in the UK. The Government should also ensure transparency in our future supply chain, so that consumers are able to make ethical decisions for themselves and that the UK agriculture sector is prioritised over international imports. British farmers must not be subject to a system where they are undercut by food produced to lower standards and then imported into the UK. British consumers must not be subject to food with lower nutritional value, unaware of how their food was farmed.

This Bill has an opportunity to have a positive impact on farmers, business, the wider public and the environment if we get it right. That is why I was pleased to see so many contributions to the Bill Committee and why it is important that we include suggestions that will mean that the Bill has much more of a wider impact. The Ramblers, Britain’s largest walking charity, has asked that this Bill includes a requirement for landowners in receipt of public funds to fulfil their legal duty to keep public rights of way. I am supporting that suggestion from Ramblers, so that my constituents have the opportunity to explore nature and have access to a free way to stay active. That is just one way in which the Bill can support farmers to support the wider public. After two months of lockdown, I am sure that all Members from across the House, and the UK public, can appreciate the importance of access to nature and nutritional food. We have pulled together as a country throughout the crisis, and we should use this momentum to continue to support one another.

I am pleased to be able to speak on the Bill, to support workers in the agriculture industry, who are important but often overlooked keyworkers in the crisis. It is essential that a future trade agreement protects British farmers and consumers, and that is why I support Labour’s amendment. I hope that the Government have heard the important contributions we have heard, and take the opportunity today to legislate to protect the UK agriculture sector, and make use of our suggestions, which will have a positive impact on the wider public.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)]

This has been a useful debate, if not unpredictable in its contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) made one of the key points in her contribution earlier when she said that we in this House were not given a request by the British public to leave the European Union; we were given an instruction by the British public to leave the European Union. This House triggered article 50, this House set the date for leaving as 29 March and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) pointed out, 80% of the Members of this House were elected on a manifesto commitment to honour the result of the referendum, which is not something we should take lightly.

I accept that many of those who seek a delay to Brexit have a range of motives, and I think an ounce of civility would sometimes do well in some of our proceedings. I accept that some seek a delay out of a genuine fear of what no deal might produce and want more preparations to be undertaken. However, there are also some in this House—we know it to be true—who seek to defy and reverse the result of the referendum itself. We in this House need to understand the democratic disaster that would await us if we took that course.

Many of us have made a number of compromises to be able to support the Prime Minister’s agreement—I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for her tenacity and simple good manners in the way in which she has dealt with the House—but if we are to leave the European Union in line with the instruction, it is a menu with limited options. We either leave with a deal, and the only deal available is the Prime Minister’s deal at the present time, or we leave with no deal, with unavoidable consequences.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Dr Fox]

I am not giving way.

The alternative is to revoke article 50 and have no Brexit at all, with unavoidable and unforeseeable consequences.

This motion focuses on the date of 29 March. At that point, we either have to leave with a deal, in line with article 50, or leave with no deal, for which the risks have been set out. If we choose neither of these, then we have to have an extension of article 50 either to make administrative changes for a deal that may already have been negotiated, or simply to have an extension when we do not know what the point of it will necessarily be. Let me say, on this extension, first, it is not in our gift unilaterally to grant such an extension; secondly, it requires unanimity among all 27 other European countries; and, thirdly, we cannot know what price might be extracted from the United Kingdom for that extension. It is not an easy option for the House or the country to take.

What are the alternatives to the Government’s policy? We were told at the outset of the debate by the shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), that Labour had repeatedly warned us about x, y and z. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have had nothing but inconsistency from the Labour Front Bench. The Labour leader did not want another referendum; now he does want another referendum, despite the fact that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), says it is telling Labour voters they are stupid. The shadow Brexit Secretary wants a referendum, but will not put down an amendment to say that it can happen. Labour said that it wanted to end free movement of people; now it wants to be part of the single market all over again. It said it wanted an independent trade policy, but what it has is simply legally impossible, because the European Union rules do not allow a third country to have an influence on EU trade policy. [Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Fox]

Mr Speaker, I have made it clear that in the nine minutes available to me, which I accepted in order to allow more Members time to speak, I will not be giving way.

For much of this debate I did not recognise the country being described as the country I live in—a country that many seem to be describing as isolated, inept and intimidated by its own future. I believe in the future of this country. We are not passengers in our own destiny; we are able to control our own future. This is a country with exports at record levels; a country where last year, when global foreign direct investment fell by 40%, foreign direct investment went up by 20%; a country with employment at an all-time high; a country that has had more consecutive quarters of growth than any other G7 country; and a country that is producing these results under good Conservative management.

Neither did I understand the picture painted of the preparations already made for no deal, because we and the civil service have spent a great deal of time on the mitigations.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

Pharmaceutical companies are ensuring—[Interruption.] I am not taking interventions. Pharmaceutical companies are ensuring adequate stocks and increased air freight capacity. We have set out our new tariff policies for day one, liberalising our economy so that 87% of imports will be tariff-free, and setting up a trade remedies authority to protect our steel and ceramics industries. The EU has also made its own preparations.

[Mr Clarke]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

We need to keep some balance in this debate. [Interruption.] I am not giving way—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much gesticulation. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is seeking to intervene, but it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to take the intervention. As I understand it, he is aware of the intended intervener but does not wish to take the intervention.

[Dr Fox]

The Father of the House already had more time to make his contribution than I have had today.

I want to answer the very direct question I was asked by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper): is the result of this vote that the default position is that we will not leave the EU on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement? That is the result of the motion we are debating tonight. But I have to say to the right hon. Lady that the only way to take no deal off the table in the longer term is to have a negotiated deal, unless we were to revoke article 50 and have no Brexit. There would be no worse outcome for this House, for this country and for our democracy than to have no Brexit. We have been given a clear instruction by the people of Britain. In the days ahead, we in this House must decide who in our democracy are the masters and who are the servants.

We heard from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) what can only be described as a diatribe about the will of the people, which she derided. I happen to believe that when this House contracts out its sovereignty on an issue, which we did on the European Union, and we tell the people of Britain that we will accept what decision they take, we are honour-bound and duty-bound to take that decision. When she says that the will of the people does not matter, it might not matter to the Liberal Democrats, but it matters to the Conservative party. For me, this is ultimately a decision about our democratic values.

[Wera Hobhouse]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I fear that it is more a point of frustration. No impropriety—[Interruption.] Order. I accept that the hon. Lady might be irritated, but the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way and now is not a time for points of order. If she wants to make a point of order later, I will take it.

[Dr Fox]

For me, what we are engaged in is the most important democratic debate in this country’s history. The British people have given our Parliament a clear instruction. It is time for us to determine who is the boss.

[Mr Speaker]

Under the Order of the House of today, I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion. We begin with amendment (a), in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who has since advised me and, equally—or more importantly—the House that she does not wish to move her amendment. I thank her for her courtesy in telling me and the House. However, I am advised that her co-signatory—it is in the ownership of the House—the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) does wish to move the amendment.