Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to add to the remarks made by one or two participants about being balloted out of the Second Reading. That was most unfortunate. With other major Bills in the pipeline, I hope it will be possible to ensure that alternative mechanisms are found to enable people to fully participate.

I will speak specifically to Amendment 7, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, which refers to growing crops for biofuel. Biofuels are something that we in Northern Ireland know a little about, because we have had one of the greatest financial scandals ever on the back of them. The renewable heating scheme was designed to replace the use of carbon-based fuels with more natural products, but of course it collapsed. Nevertheless, the point made in the amendment is important, and we need to ensure that it is included. If we are to meet our environmental targets over the years, we need to include not only fuels that are currently available but fuels that may subsequently become available—otherwise a great opportunity will be lost.

A number of Members have referred to hill farms, and that is a huge issue for us in this part of the country. But there is a wider point I want to make to the Minister—one which is perhaps not fully understood. Whatever is in the Bill, the fact remains that, to all intents and purposes, we remain, in very large measure, within the European Union as far as agriculture is concerned. Therefore, amendments that we will come to later in the Bill, including one of my own on standards, become progressively more important.

In many respects, the Government have refused to concede or acknowledge the reality of what they have agreed with the European Union in the protocol that deals with Northern Ireland. Even this week, as we are having this debate, people here are talking about building border control posts and asking how many acres need to be set aside to provide for suitable inspections.

In many respects this Bill is taking place in a vacuum, in that some of us are still bound, as far as state aid is concerned, and will have to comply fully with all that. Perhaps the Minister will address this in his winding-up speech, but I wonder whether he and his colleagues fully appreciate the downstream consequences of this as we go forward. If trade deals are done with other countries and cheap food emerges, we in Northern Ireland will still be bound by European Union standards; our farmers will have to ensure that welfare and other matters are fully adhered to. So if imports are not protected and we do not get the adequate standards in the Bill, our farmers will be at a huge disadvantage.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to a framework, but the framework we already have is the CAP and the standards that flow from it. In other words, we will end up with a two-track agriculture system in the United Kingdom—and we should bear in mind that agriculture is a much more significant part of our economy in Northern Ireland than it is in the UK economy as a whole.

I hope that the Minister, in winding up on this group, will be kind enough to address this issue and tell us how it is proposed to ensure that we have at least a parallel process in the United Kingdom, given that one part of it will be governed by the European Union, into which we will have no input, and yet the rest of the country will not. That is the dilemma that we face here.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has scratched, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

[Lord Empey [V]]

My Lords, one theme that has come up today has been the theme of definition. In the last group, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, led to a discussion of the differences between “conserve” and “enhance”. In this group, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has drawn our attention to the difference between “enjoyment” and “health and wellbeing”. I am inclined to agree with him on that, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, did so as well. When we look at access to the countryside, clearly a balance has to be struck: where large amounts of taxpayers’ money are being invested in the countryside, then quite clearly many people wish to seek access to it. I understand that, in certain cases, people who seek access to the countryside under certain circumstances can cause harm in so far as they can spread diseases and so on. Lots of people feel that, as part of the country, they need to have access and have a right to have access, so it is a question of getting the balance right. The point that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was making was that by making health and well-being a public good, it categorises something. Enjoyment is such a broadly based point that it lacks any kind of clarity. Those terms should be revisited.

On the general point about access to the countryside, we encourage people for health and well-being purposes to go there if they are resident in cities. However, we have to remember that many people live in the countryside who are not farmers, and there are many parts of the agricultural sector that are not farms. Some people have this idea that it is the job of people who work in the countryside to make sure that the hedges are well trimmed so that when the city dwellers come out at the weekend, it all looks very pretty. That is not what it is—it is not a museum. It cannot be maintained in aspic. The rural areas are living, working workplaces in many cases, and we want to ensure that that continues. However, I say to the Minister that the question of balance requires some consistency in how we define these matters, particularly when we are establishing public good. The general thrust of the Bill is good, but we must put more effort into consistency of definition.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. We cannot hear him so we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and will try to get the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, back later.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195 in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I note that there are a variety of amendments to this amendment, including one from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about which we will hear shortly.

The explanatory statement for this amendment says that it

“requires the Government to provide regulations for fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products.”

I am sure that we would like to see a day when farmers were not reliant on subsidies to maintain a sustainable income, but, on the other side of the coin, it would not be possible to encourage a rise in food prices when so many people in this country are suffering from food poverty as it is.

The fundamental point I wish to make with this amendment is that the distribution of income within the sector, from the production of food to the retail sector, is not balanced. It is fundamentally unfair. For many years, it has been the case that profit margins within the processing and retailing sectors can be substantially more while the primary producer—the farmer—can barely make a profit on the produce at all.

As a Minister in Northern Ireland who dealt with the food processing sector for a number of years, I saw examples of producers driven down to maybe half a penny of margin on a product. In the days before the Groceries Code Adjudicator was appointed in 2013, there were examples where companies would just say to the producers and processors, “We’re going to extend our credit terms and we’ll not pay you now for 90 days instead of 30”, and apply continuous pressure to drive down the margins. Now business is business, but when you have to substantially subsidise the primary producer through the taxpayer, you need a proper structure to ensure that there is a fair balance at the end of the day.

The remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is too narrow. It does not cover indirect suppliers to supermarkets, meaning that many farmers and small food businesses are not protected by the adjudicator or the code. We need an expansion of powers to cover the widest possible extent of the food supply chains that serve our supermarkets. This is not a new idea; in 2008 the Competition Commission looked at grocery supply chains and proposed the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to tackle unfair trading practices. This report also anticipated that the GCA’s remit may be insufficient, noting that that, if these practices continued, the Government

“should consider the introduction of appropriate measures, including the extension of … the role of the Ombudsman”—

namely, the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

During the past two decades, there has been significant consolidation within the retail and food processing sectors, adding to an imbalance in the market. Primary producers generally do not obtain fair prices and on many occasions do not cover the costs of production. This situation requires political intervention to protect what remains of our farming sector and to assist its rebuilding. We know about imports, weather and other factors, but the fact is that there is a persistent imbalance in the distribution of wealth within the sector from the primary producer to the retailer.

We are at a point of almost generational change with this Bill, and this is an opportunity to reset the clock on how we do this fairly and reasonably. We know that we want to see more food produced in the UK, and we want that food to be of an even higher quality than it is now. We want to see standards maintained. However, we also need investment by the primary producer, and a primary producer cannot invest properly in that business unless they are making money. Therefore, it is in all our long-term interests—not only for food security but for a whole lot of other reasons—to take this opportunity to take positive action to assist our farming community.

It is not simply to add costs to the sale of food in shops, it is to help with the equitable distribution of income and reflect a reasonable return on capital in the profits a farmer can make. That is nothing dramatic: all businesses need that, and I do not see why it should be any different with primary producers. I therefore support this amendment and others of a similar nature in this group.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eames (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in this group of amendments I will speak to Amendment 209. I refer to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, during our debate on Tuesday.

In this debate so far, I have been impressed by the frequent references that the Minister has made to the need to view the Bill in relation to the devolved nations. On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke powerfully on the importance of that relationship from a Welsh point of view and this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has reminded us of the connection with the problems in Northern Ireland.

So far as that relationship is concerned, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminded the House of the difficulties presented by the period during which the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive did not function. Amendment 209 is influenced by the problems of that period but now, thankfully, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are operating fully. However, the importance of the relationship between central government and the devolved Administrations in areas such as agriculture cannot be overemphasised in this debate. This amendment is an attempt to build on that sensitivity so far as one devolved nation is concerned, but it has implications for the others so far as the whole Bill is concerned and cannot be isolated to one devolved nation alone.

As the United Kingdom prepares to leave the EU, none of us can have a complete picture of the problems which will emerge for the farming community throughout the UK. Amendment 209 recognises this reality. For Northern Ireland farmers, the uncertainties of their geographical situation are well documented, with a land border about to become the border between the United Kingdom and the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, reminded the House, this is vital to farming communities in Northern Ireland. In addition, there continues to be confusion around the issue of what is normally referred to as a border in the Irish Sea. The implications of that confusion for transporting agricultural produce within the United Kingdom cannot be overstated for Northern Ireland farmers—hence their concerns about the future.

I support Amendment 209, for I am well aware of the importance to the Northern Ireland economy of our farming community, but I am equally aware of the contribution of the devolved settlement to the strength of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why I welcome the Minister’s references to the importance of the relationship between central government and the devolved Administrations, so far as agriculture is concerned. It is surely essential that these reflections are clearly stated in the Bill.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I want to speak on a number of these amendments but will make a small technical point at the beginning. Amendment 209 and others in this group refer to Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department. A number of colleagues have asked why this is the case—in fact the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, challenged it during one exchange some weeks go. But the Government’s amendment is in fact correct because power in Northern Ireland is not vested in the Minister; it is vested in the department. This goes back to some kind of anomaly in 1921. I have never understood or heard an explanation as to why that is the case, but it is. Amendment 209 is correct but some amendments in this group do not quite follow the same pattern. I think that would need to be addressed. The role of a Minister is to direct and control a department in Northern Ireland so that power is vested in the department, not in the Minister.

With regard to the amendments, my first question to the Minister is: what happens if Whitehall fails to get the agreement of one or other of these devolved institutions? What impact would that have and how would it be addressed in practice?

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

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

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and other noble Lords for their perseverance. The Minister has been granted the patience of Job. I fear that his patience may be frayed when we reach Report, but we thank him, the Public Bill Office and others for their enormous work in this marathon.

I will speak to Amendment 278 in my name, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for lending his name to it. It is clear from this group of amendments that an underlying fear exists. I want to see trade deals with third-party countries, but on the basis of helping the United Kingdom grow its economy and be more efficient, not of undermining significant parts of our industry. Over the last 40-odd years, the Government, consumer bodies, processors, retailers and farmers have expended an enormous amount of time, energy and money ensuring that UK food is produced to the highest standards possible. Why we would suddenly allow very inferior food products produced to a much lesser quality and standard into the United Kingdom to compete against our own superior goods I do not know, but it is possible.

I thank the Minister for arranging a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and others, so that we can at least hear his point of view, and that of the Department for International Trade, but there are too many straws in the wind that concern me. We hear talk of tariffs being applied to imported products, whether from the US or elsewhere, to level the pitch, but what is introduced one day can be taken away the next. The Minister must understand that not all parts of the United Kingdom are playing on the same level pitch. My part of the country is still in the EU and, pertaining to the previous group of amendments, we are still subject to state aid rules. Who will negotiate and implement those, and who will deal with any infringement of those? It is unclear. From our point of view—this has resonance for other parts of the UK—the standards we will be required to adhere to will be the standards of the European Union. There is nothing wrong with having different standards, provided there is an equivalence, and that can apply also to finance and other things, but who is to determine the equivalence?

This goes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, when she introduced this debate. A flash-in-the-pan commission will certainly not be able to do it. With no disrespect to the Minister and his colleagues, last October, when the withdrawal agreement was being made, promises were made about the arrangements not only to people in Northern Ireland but to the whole country. Those promises were not kept. Many of our representatives ended up endorsing a proposal that produced a border in the Irish Sea, and yet there continues to be a denial of this. Lest someone from the Box sends the Minister a note telling him that Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the UK market, I point out that this is not guaranteed, because it is subject to negotiation with the European Union, which at present could require us to make export declarations if we are sending products to Great Britain. The Minister needs to bear that in mind.

We do not want to make life difficult for our international trade negotiators, but if a situation arose whereby our farmers were confronted with different and lower standards in Great Britain, then because Great Britain is our biggest single market, automatically our farmers would be uncompetitive, and that would apply also to those operating in less favoured areas, such as the Scottish and the Welsh. This is a very serious business that we are discussing. I know that the Minister will be anxious to reassure us, and I have absolutely no doubt that he is sincere in that undertaking, but between 2 October and 17 October last year, I saw black become white. Therefore, he cannot allow an undertaking to be sufficient. It must have a basis in law, and this Bill, since we are discussing agriculture, seems a logical place to put it.

Someone who has been in the system for a long time knows that when an amendment comes, it can be argued that “Now is not the right time, we are in the middle of negotiations” or “This is not the right vehicle because we have another vehicle coming down the track which would be a more suitable location for it.” We can deal only with the vehicle that is in front of us at any point in time. What might come around the corner is fine, but if there is a sincere commitment to maintaining current or equivalent standards, it should have no difficulty being written on to the face of the Bill. Consumers and producers throughout the United Kingdom are basically supportive of that. Were it our tradition in this House to vote on amendments in Committee, I would pursue that today, but another opportunity will arise on Report in the autumn. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is a positive response then.

Some of us find ourselves left in the EU and required by an international treaty, supported by the UK Government, to adhere to EU regulations, even though we will have no input on them, which is another matter. There is so much at stake here, and we believe that maintaining our standards is good for the health of our nation, our producers and our food security and supply, and for allowing the sector to reinvest and be efficient. However, if we decide, for whatever political reason, to cut and run, which could happen, and since decisions can be made overnight, as we have seen in recent months, we need some legal assurances that we are not going to be left in such a position in the future.

I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to ensure that when we come to Report, he and his colleagues consider the widespread views in this House and ensure that our agriculture sector, food processing and all the welfare issues that have been addressed are not forgotten about, and accept that a nod and a wink will simply not be sufficient.

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

My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. It is a huge privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I appreciate the comments of all the previous speakers on this group of amendments.

I will speak to Amendment 279 in my name, and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his support. I apologise in advance for taking slightly longer in introducing this amendment. It is impossible and would be quite wrong to run groupings of amendments in order of importance, but this group is among the most important we have debated over the seven days that we have spent on the Bill this month.

While having my long-awaited haircut last week, the hairdresser asked, “Are you involved in this chlorinated chicken issue?”, as it has become known, such is the level of public awareness. I am slightly concerned about being accused of jingoism in this wide-ranging debate about our production standards. Having farmed all my life, I know that our production standards are not always perfect. However, over the past 35 years that I have been involved at national level, we have striven to respond to consumer concerns, and even anticipate changes, and react accordingly. This is a dynamic space, and the standards of crop and livestock husbandry, including animal welfare, food safety and care for the environment, that we have in place today have been hard-won and are being delivered every day on our farms.

Standards are reviewed every year to make sure that they are relevant and appropriate. We absolutely must not undermine consumer confidence in our food. I experienced the consequences of that in the 1990s with BSE in beef when I chaired the MLC: beef sales dropped by 30% overnight. Scaremongering over hormones in imported beef could have a similar impact.

It is important to state that I had been working on this amendment and had it ready to table before the Secretary of State for International Trade, Liz Truss, announced the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which has been launched today. Subsequently, the membership was also disclosed. I then found myself in a slight quandary. Do I table the amendment or not in view of the announcement? After careful consideration, I decided to proceed with the amendment for reasons that I will outline in a moment.

I was delighted by the announcement that the Government plan to establish the commission and I commend the Government for taking action. It was a pragmatic and sensible response to the rising tide of public concern about this issue. The appointment of Tim Smith as chair of the commission is an inspired choice. I know him well, as I do many other members of the commission. I am absolutely confident that, under Tim’s leadership, the commission will be thorough, will carry out its task with diligence and integrity and will seek additional expertise and advice if needed, which it will be, to ensure a good understanding not only of the issues at stake but the global marketplace that we are trading in and stakeholder views, in particular those of the environmental NGOs and consumer organisations. So I welcome this commission.

I have three fundamental concerns, hence my reason for deciding to proceed with this amendment. The first is the authority and influence of the commission. The second, linked to the first, is the role of Parliament and the obligation on the Government to respond to the commission’s initial report. My final concern is the longevity of the commission. There is no question that when the Secretary of State announced the establishment of this commission, it was an attempt to head off pressure to include a standards clause in the Bill. Much public comment since the announcement has described this as a sop and described the commission as toothless. This must not be a sop. The role of the commission is hugely important. It has a critical role, not only in defending our existing domestic standards but, importantly, in influencing future global standards of international trade. The current terms of reference understate the importance of the role and the influence of the commission.

Under the current terms, the commission will set up for six months and will submit an advisory report to the Secretary of State, which will be presented to Parliament. It will then be disbanded and disappear into the mist. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take its recommendations seriously or respond positively, and no clear indication that Parliament will be given dedicated time to scrutinise and debate the recommendations of the commission. The amendment addresses that weakness.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made a number of comments when speaking to his amendments, including how he felt that a number of noble Lords have tabled amendments because they wish to stay wedded to EU rules, even though the UK has, theoretically, left the European Union. That may or may not be true, but people in my part of the country do not have the luxury of that choice, because we are left in the EU. That is the brutal reality of the situation.

On 2 October last year, the Government produced a document called Explanatory Note: UK Proposals for an Amended Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. That amended protocol used phrases such as “Border Inspection Post”. It said that products coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would be “exported” to Northern Ireland, and that people moving goods would have to notify the authorities of that fact. It talked about a “zone of regulatory compliance”, which is the 27 EU countries plus Northern Ireland. This is the first time that I can recall a Conservative and Unionist Government proposing a border between one part of the United Kingdom and another. To their eternal shame, the Democratic Unionist Party in the House of Commons endorsed that proposal, describing it as

“a serious and sensible way forward”.

It is neither serious nor sensible.

There are consequences to that. We export to Great Britain the vast majority of our agricultural products, whether milk or meat. Therefore, if the standards with which we are forced to comply begin to differ over time from standards here, our products would become uncompetitive. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, have attempted to communicate to us, by various means, that they wish to retain standards, but they may or may not be in their posts in the future, and we have to look long term. The worry I have, and which I know is shared by many others, is that once you have done a trade deal, if you try to then apply tariffs or to change your own standards and regulatory environment, it will start to break the deal you have done. You can then be brought to whatever adjudication processes are agreed, and no one knows what the outcome will be.

I do not believe we want a situation in which we put up food prices—that is not what I want to see. Other amendments that I put down earlier on Report sought to ensure that people at least had a choice and that the primary producer would, for once, get a decent slice of the cake, so that it was not always left to the supermarkets and processors. However, I fear that if things change over time, and because our farmers will be regulated by whatever the EU decides—which includes state aid, because we will be bound by state aid rules as soon as the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented—in such circumstances, we could very quickly become uncompetitive.

If noble Lords think it is only in my imagination that there is a border in the Irish Sea, I say this. In the first week of July, the Government allocated £25 million to help business deal with the consequences of the additional administrative work that would be required to handle a new situation. By 29 August, that had risen to £355 million. If there is no border, why are we spending £355 million, over two years, to help businesses with the transition?

For us, any diminution of standards in Great Britain is a matter of life and death for our farmers—it is as simple as that. It is a competitive issue. If EU and UK standards remain as they are, or if there is equivalence, that is fine. I hope that that is what happens, because you cannot freeze things in aspic for ever. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard points out, we are not perfect: we make mistakes and there have been examples of these. Nevertheless, if the balance changes over time, our farmers will effectively be hammered. In my belief, it is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom to see one of her four nations left in that situation. Although some of us warned of this in advance, the whole protocol has come about in a way that has the potential to break up the United Kingdom and cause huge damage. It is a very bad idea, but that is a debate for another day.

In Committee, I referred to the FSA and the Scottish equivalent. It is not entirely clear to me how an equivalence in standards would be enforced against the background of international trade deals being done and the fact that we are left in the European Union while the rest of the United Kingdom is not. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Given all these things, and that Northern Ireland’s biggest food customer is Great Britain, we are very concerned. Our farmers are very concerned that they would be left in a hopelessly uncompetitive position.

There are a number of amendments in this group and there will be a sequence of votes. I reserve the right to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House in circumstances where some of the other amendments are perhaps unsuccessful. I have put that on the record and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I wish this Minister were Secretary of State. If that were the case, I think most people in this House would be content and happy with the way of things. I hope that by saying that, I am not doing him any harm.

The Minister has gone out of his way on a number of occasions to tell us about standards in this country. He has referred both publicly and privately to the FSA and the Scottish equivalent, and I get that. However, I want to tell noble Lords of a little experience that I had a few years ago as a member of the TTIP all-party group, which concentrated on transatlantic trade. This happened in the year of the referendum but before it took place. The group was led by John Spellar from the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and other Members of this House were on the delegation.

We went to Washington DC and had a meeting with all the representatives of the US food producers, ranging from the cattle people to the grain people. There was a whole roomful of them, and they all have very powerful organisations based in Washington. I will spare the House: we came to the chap at the end of the row and he said, “I have 46 Members of Congress in my pocket. There’ll be no deal done unless I say so.” Are we seriously suggesting that we do an international trade deal with the likes of America, although it could be somewhere else, and then say, “You can bring your food in here but we’re going to put a tariff on it if we don’t like the cut of it”, or are we going to ignore it in a specific and limited way?

This is the problem that many of us have. Yes, we have good standards and we want to maintain them, but equally we do not want to see the hands of the Secretary of State for International Trade completely tied behind her back when doing international deals. However, to all intents and purposes some of us, in my part of the United Kingdom in particular, are left in the EU. The Prime Minister came over a year ago and said, “If you get pieces of paper, tear them up and throw them in the bin.” On 1 July this year the Government allocated £25 million to help us fill in those pieces of paper. By 29 August that had risen to £355 million. That is a lot of paper.

The first point I am making is that if we have already have sufficient powers to maintain standards, how can we do trade deals? Why are we not saying specifically that we do not want this in the Bill because it might tie the hands of the Secretary of State for International Trade? You cannot have your cake and eat it. Either we have those standards or we do not. The difficulty that my part of the United Kingdom is left in is that we have no choice and no say, and will have no say, in what regulations we have to maintain. I cannot imagine the US or anywhere else doing a trade deal and then meekly lying down and accepting that we put tariffs on their products. That is the antithesis of having a trade deal. You do your deal, and that is what the deal is.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made the point about equivalence: it does not have to be the same. If it were equivalent then that might be a way around, but if we just say bluntly, “We can bring in cheap food but we’ll put a tariff on it”, there is no point in doing a trade deal because no one is going to agree to it. I can say, from having seen these people in the US, that there are no circumstances in which they are going to be dictated to. Forget about the politics of it; it is the reality of Congress and the people who come from the rural areas. They know which side their bread is buttered, even if we do not. I think we are living in a fool’s paradise.

My second point is that I was quite upset that the House of Commons decided to hide behind a money measure in dismissing the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. Yes, we have to be careful of the barriers between the two Houses, but that seemed an unnecessary way around it. They could have stated why they were opposed to it—a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. But to hide behind a money issue, when what we were talking about was trivial in comparison, was unfortunate.

The Minister and his colleagues have been exceptionally patient with, and helpful to, us all. But he must remember that for some of us, this is the difference between having and not having an industry. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, this is our largest single industry, it has the largest manufacturing, and of all the companies in Northern Ireland, the top five or six are all based around the agricultural sector. That is why these amendments are important, and that is why I hope we can give the House of Commons another chance to look at this.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I would very much like my noble friend Lord Gardiner to be the Secretary of State, but I have to disagree with him that it would make any difference. I think the die is cast; the Department for International Trade is against these amendments, as is No. 10. They do not get farming in this country, and it would not matter if my noble friend was Secretary of State. I think we are batting our heads against a brick wall. But let us continue to bat our heads against the brick wall, and we might finally get a crack in the brick wall.

Amendments 16B and 18B seek to increase the resilience and sustainability of UK food and farming, and that is to be welcomed. On the sustainability of UK farming, I would like to go on a quick tangent, because, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I am concerned about the sustainability of farming, and I think a lot of English farms, as a result of this legislation, will be turned into theme parks. My fear of that was heightened when I listened to “Farming Today” last week. I do not know whether my noble friend listens to “Farming Today”, but it was an interview about what was going to happen as a result of ELMS coming in. It took place with a Defra representative in Cumbria, and she said a farmer could take his sheep to a show, and he would be able to get a grant for that because that is engagement; it is under the heading of “heritage, beauty and engagement”. This is not farming; this is taking it to the extreme. So I ask my noble friend: if a farmer is going to be able to get an ELM grant for taking his sheep to the show—and good luck to my noble friend Lord Inglewood—would the farmer be able to claim the same engagement by taking his produce to the harvest festival service? There, in the church, everybody would be able to see his grain, his potatoes, his leeks; that is engagement of the highest kind, so surely the theme park managers will be able to benefit from that.

Let me return to the amendment. Again, in the committee I sat on, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, it was quite clear that the hospitality industry is keen to buy the cheapest food at the cheapest price and sell it at the cheapest price, regardless of where it comes from and what the quality is, let alone the animal welfare standards. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—and I am happy to support him once again on his amendment—told us how much of the food we consume in this country comes from the hospitality side. That is a major concern. I have already described how difficult it was to get evidence from some of these people, but what evidence we did get did not fill me with any confidence for the future of farming and animal welfare standards in this country.

My noble friend the Minister, when opening, said that these amendments were disproportionate. If they are disproportionate, it means that the current system is adequate, and the current system is clearly not adequate, because we have heard of the bolt-ons that are going to be necessary and which are taking place. Surely, much the cleanest and best thing to do is to persuade the Department for International Trade and No. 10 that Amendments 16B and 18B should be included in the Bill.

It is absolutely right that there should be independent oversight of these trade deals, and that that body should report to Parliament through the Secretary of State. I have been in the Minister’s position and, after a cross-party defeat—and, so far, the Minister has no supporters, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Curry, have six each—I went to see Viscount Whitelaw, who was Leader of the House, and apologised for getting heavily defeated by a cross-party amendment. He looked at me and said, “Malcolm, perhaps they were right.” I wonder whether my noble friend could take that back to his Secretary of State.