Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am glad to see the Minister back in his place. With regard to the minor errors contained in those earlier regulations, is he assured that there are no minor errors in these regulations?

[George Eustice]

As I have made clear many times, this is a complex set of regulations. Some 80% of all the Department’s legislation comes from the European Union, so it has been a huge task for officials to bring it all across into retained EU law. I pay tribute to them for the huge amount of work that has gone into that. It is inevitable that, in such a complex operation, there will be occasional errors, oversights or changes. That is why the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided for the ability, in the event of drafting errors being made, for them to be corrected for a period of time after we leave the European Union.

I have answered that as honestly as I can; I hope this is the final word. I did many of these statutory instruments the first time round and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby did many more after I left the post, so we are returning to familiar issues to update the legislation.

Draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

I am pleased to open this debate on an important set of regulations, and I am grateful to hon. Members for being here when, obviously, another debate is taking place in the main Chamber. The regulations give effect to, and enable enforcement of, certain common fisheries policy and marine management measures, as part of the legislation needed for exiting the European Union. The regulations are one piece of a jigsaw that will ensure we have a functioning legislative framework when we leave the European Union. This statutory instrument is one of two that work together to amend fisheries legislation to make it operable for EU exit. A separate statutory instrument—the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—has been laid in draft and will be debated at a later date. It amends the vast majority of directly applicable EU regulations, for example those concerning illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries.

The SI under consideration today makes consequential amendments to various pieces of domestic legislation that are used to enforce and enable the implementation of those directly applicable EU regulations. The primary legislation amended is the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The amendments predominantly relate to enforcement powers. The secondary legislation amended is the Merchant Shipping Regulations 1993, the Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, the Tope (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 2008, the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009, the Fish Labelling Regulations 2013, the Sea Fishing (Points for Masters of Fishing Boats) Regulations 2014, the Sea Fishing (Enforcement and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2015, the Grants for Fishing and Aquaculture Industries Regulations 2015, and the Sea Fishing (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.

These lucky 13 pieces of legislation are simple and technical, to ensure that they operate correctly after EU exit. There are no changes to policy contained in the instrument. The instrument was considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and no concerns with the regulations were raised by either Committee. The former asked that we provide further explanation about the nature of the amendments. That has now been published in annex B of the revised explanatory memorandum.

The instrument is affirmative, as it amends existing powers to legislate, in particular in section 30(2) of the Fisheries Act 1981, and in the Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. The statutory instrument has therefore not been examined by the withdrawal Act sifting Committees.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I rise to raise two issues with regard to section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981, because of the effect it has on England and Wales, and on Scotland. Regulation 3(4)(b) under part 2, “Amendment of primary legislation”, mentions

“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”.

My understanding is that the Fisheries Act also refers to “enforceable EU restrictions”, so I wonder whether the intention is to leave in “enforceable EU restrictions” or to remove that part and replace it with something else. I rise as a new member of the Committee, unsure about how we go about amending a statutory instrument once it passes through here.

The same question arises with regard to regulation 3(4)(c), which states, in relation to section 30(2) of the Act,

“for ‘enforceable Community restriction or other’ substitute ‘retained EU restriction or retained EU’”.

It seems to be silent with regard to the enforceable EU restriction contained in the Act.

[George Eustice]

If there are any different answers, I will consider them before coming to my closing remarks, but I think the answer is that in all these cases our intention is to bring across retained EU law, the enforcement of which would then be done domestically. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to retain anything in our domestic statute that could in future be enforceable by the EU itself. The purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and indeed of these statutory instruments, is to ensure that we have an operable law book on day one, without leaving open the idea that the European Union could enforce anything under those.

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for that explanation. It is therefore my understanding that the reference to EU restrictions would also have to be removed from the 1981 Act.

[George Eustice]

My view is that they should be retained EU restrictions, but I will have a specific look at that before the end of this debate. Those restrictions would be retained EU restrictions rather than EU restrictions per se.

The amendments made by this statutory instrument fall into four main categories. First, where there are references to “an enforceable EU obligation” or “enforceable EU restrictions”, these are amended to “a retained EU obligation” or “retained EU restrictions”, to ensure that they remain operable as part of retained EU law. For example, section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981, which we have just discussed at some length, concerns the enforcement of EU rules relating to sea fishing. Amendments to section 30 change references to enforceable Community or EU obligations and restrictions to retained EU obligations and restrictions, to ensure continued operability of those enforcement provisions on EU exit. I hope that point reinforces what I have just explained to the hon. Member for East Lothian.

Secondly, there are some provisions that will be redundant or inoperable in UK law after EU exit. For example, paragraph 5 of schedule 4 to the merchant shipping regulations refers to an “EC number” in the list of details to be recorded on the register of British fishing vessels. That has been removed. Likewise, a reference to euros has been converted to pound sterling in the fish labelling regulations.

Thirdly, references to “member state or third country” are replaced in future simply with “third country”, because in this context existing EU member states will be categorised as third countries after we leave the European Union. For example, in article 3 of the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009, the definition of a third-country fishing vessel, which was

“a fishing vessel which is not a Community fishing vessel”,

has been amended to,

“a fishing vessel which is not a United Kingdom fishing vessel”.

Finally, cross-references to EU regulations are amended to bring them into line with technical amendments made to those regulations in the main Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. For example, in the fish labelling regulations, the designation of the Secretary of State to draw up a list of commercial designations of species has been deleted, because that is now provided for in Council Regulation (EC) 1379/2013, as amended by the main common fisheries policy SI. This is a consequential amendment arising from the amendments made by that SI.

This SI and the other UK-wide fisheries SIs have been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, reflecting the devolution settlements. The amendments made by this instrument mainly extend and apply to the United Kingdom, with some exceptions, so each of the devolved Administrations were heavily involved in developing the approach. A targeted engagement was carried out for the fisheries SIs, involving key stakeholders from the fisheries sector, the food industry and environmental non-governmental organisations. Additionally, a 10-week consultation was conducted through the fisheries White Paper, which described future fisheries policy as well as the legislative approach taken by these statutory instruments. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the approach.

This legislation is complemented by the Fisheries Bill, which will deliver our promise to take back control of our waters and decide who may fish in them and on what terms. It creates the powers to allow us, over time, to build a sustainable and profitable fishing industry. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will seek clarification and may get an update on the difference between paragraphs (1) and (2) before I conclude my comments.

The hon. Gentleman also made some comments about the replacement for the EMFF. As he will know, the Fisheries Bill, which we debated in Committee, creates the powers for us to issue grants to coastal communities and to fishermen to help them invest in more selective gear. It is absolutely our plan to replace the EMFF funds with future fisheries funds to support selective fishing and our coastal communities.

On pulse fishing, nothing has changed. Our intention is absolutely to bring a statutory instrument forward. Hon. Members will have noticed that these days, the House has a just-in-time delivery approach to legislation and agreements, but I absolutely stand by the undertaking that I gave.

Our intention is to lay the instrument during the month of January, but I will share it with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who tabled an amendment to the Bill on the matter, before the Bill reaches Report. I repeat that undertaking, which I gave to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that we will lay that particular instrument before the end of the month. If we do not, because we are unable to achieve those best endeavours as we had hoped in December, we will nevertheless not move to Report until we have done so and the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have had an opportunity to debate it.

In conclusion, these amendments are simple but necessary to ensure that certain CFP and marine management measures continue to operate effectively and can be enforced after the UK leaves the EU. The technical connections to domestic legislation are important to enable the continued enforcement and maintenance of sustainable fisheries management in the UK. The instrument marks an important step towards having a cohesive statute book for exit day and provides us with a solid foundation.

[Martin Whitfield]

I hope the Minister can satisfy two problems in one. To return to my earlier intervention, is he satisfied that the drafting in the statutory instrument gets over the problem of its miswording as compared with the Act? Does it achieve what he wants to achieve—to transfer the EU regulations and make them enforceable, albeit with a different title?

[George Eustice]

Yes, I am satisfied, based on the point I raised with the hon. Gentleman earlier. Replacing

“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”

with

“retained EU restrictions and retained EU obligations”

covers all those things. It is very clear that the provision is in the context of retained EU obligations and restrictions, rather than EU obligations and restrictions themselves.

[Martin Whitfield]

For my own satisfaction as much as anything else, the 1981 Act talks about

“enforceable Community restrictions, enforceable EU restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”,

yet the quote that has been lifted—the quote that will be replaced—discusses only

“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”.

It therefore omits four crucial words. The SI then repeats the four words by putting them back in. The thing that concerns me is that when people come to reconcile the 1981 Act with the statutory instrument, there may be a duplication or error, in which case people will have to go back to statutory interpretation. They may need to have to look at the notes to decide what we meant.

[George Eustice]

What I will do is check the hon. Gentleman’s point and write to him. This is a point he has persisted with. I feel I have answered him, and from the notes I have seen, I am satisfied that the regulations address the two things and catch all the possibilities. I will double-check the specific point he makes just to ensure there are no omissions in the language.

I turn to the point that the shadow Minister raised about the all-important eels regulations. Regulation 11(1) states that it

“applies where the Agency determines that a reduction in the fishing effort for eels is required in order to comply with Article 5(4)”.

Article 5(4) is being deleted, because it relates to the setting up of eel management plans. That has already been completed. The two provisions are linked, in that one was effectively a requirement on the Environment Agency to determine those reductions, but that was in the context of the bit we deleted. Both become redundant, since they relate to one another.

In conclusion, we have had a comprehensive discussion on the regulations. I am grateful to Members for raising points of detail on them, which are important. The shadow Minister is right that we need to get it right. We have embarked on a huge endeavour.

Agriculture Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I should indicate that those policy areas may technically be devolved because they are devolved. That is important.

In the notice given by the policy paper “Agricultural framework progress update: September 2018”, the Government talked about a period of 18 months to reach that concordat with the Scottish Government. Can the Minister give us any indication of a firmer timescale for that, given how long the discussions have been going on and—if I may infer—some of the challenges that he has perhaps skipped over in reaching agreement on these concordats or memorandums?

[George Eustice]

There is a lot of work to do. There are 92 different statutory instruments that we have had to put down in preparation for Brexit. Each of the devolved Administrations have had to do a large number of SIs themselves, and there has been an enormous amount of joint working at official level to share clauses and the legal drafting that our own parliamentary counsel has done, with the assistance of other devolved officials. We also now have 54 different Brexit projects, all of them about areas where we effectively have to either agree joint approaches or concordats, or agree that we will leave things fully devolved.

There is a large number of those projects. We discussed them yesterday. About one third of them are rated as being in the green box—everything has to be red, amber or green these days—recognising that there is already an agreement about how to proceed. On a number of others, more discussions are still needed, but that was highlighted yesterday. In the month ahead, there will be a lot of detailed working between officials.

I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Ceredigion that, through both the review of the JMC and putting the group that the Welsh Government proposed yesterday on a more formal footing, together with our plan for concordats and memorandums of understanding, we will address his concern, and that on that basis he will consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I will be brief. I understand why the hon. Member for Ceredigion has brought the new clause forward, but I cannot agree to support it. In particular, the Scottish National party position is that there is no need for a legislative UK framework of this sort. There are different common agricultural policy schemes in operation at the moment, for example, that do not disrupt the ability to trade across the UK, and land management needs are, frankly, too disparate to be covered under a single framework.

[Martin Whitfield]

I want to make a few points about this and to split them into the political and the legislative aspects. We have an opportunity with the Agriculture Bill to do what the National Farmers Union in Scotland has been crying out for—namely, to shape the decision-making process and establish it within the field of agriculture, for production and the environment. It would be a missed opportunity not to pursue that, given the length of time between agriculture Bills in the United Kingdom. We have an opportunity to provide farmers with a level of certainty and confidence, both of which, from the reflections that I have come across, are deeply lacking.

I said on a previous matter that the Bill is a framework and that there is little to see within it. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be seeing in it whatever they want to see. In doing that, we run the risk of creating something that means different things to different people. Agriculture is, rightly, devolved, but it does straddle the borders. There are farmers who do not necessarily have farms that straddle the border, but who are landowners on both sides of the border. This is an opportunity to give some certainty through a UK-wide framework, so that all our farmers and land managers and those who take an interest in the land are able to decide how they want to move forward with that confidence and certainty.

Secondly, I would like to address the politics of the Bill. We are in this position regarding this new clause and the Bill because there has been an inability for politicians to come together, consider and reach an agreement. I was grateful to the Minister for indicating the uphill challenge with regard to the memorandums that sit in front of the three devolved nations and England. However, he has highlighted the great problem that people have been unable to sit down and come to an agreement. That agreement has been desperately sought by the National Farmers Union, landowners, farmers and others on both sides of the border. There is still an opportunity to achieve it. It would be very helpful, as the Bill progresses, if the politics of it could be removed, so that some reality, certainty and, most of all, confidence can be given to our farmers.

A UK-wide framework would give an overarching picture in which each devolved area and England can continue to develop its own agricultural practices and those nuances that make a farm in Northumberland different from a farm in the borders and East Lothian. However, both those farms actually need certainty.

[Ben Lake]

I thank all those who have participated in the consideration of the new clause. I emphasise just a couple of things. It is of course true that there are policy differences between the different nations at the moment. However, we should also remember that there is—in effect, if nothing else—a UK-wide framework: the EU framework within which all the different nations tailor, operate and administer their policies. I therefore think there is a need to look again at how the four industries and four nations will work and co-operate post Brexit.

I understand what the Minister said about the memorandums of understanding and the concordats. I am particularly interested in the proposed dispute resolution mechanisms, or at least the potential for such mechanisms. I still argue that it would probably be neater and easier to understand if we were to have a single dispute resolution mechanism. My preference would be some sort of council of Ministers for agriculture, in which the four devolved Administrations could come together and agree on a more formal basis.

However, the point about the decision-making process was very well made by the hon. Member for East Lothian. I reiterate that we now have the initial frameworks and memorandums of understanding. There will come a point, whether in three, five, seven or 10 years down the line, when we will need to renegotiate, whether on the tricky issue of regulations or the even trickier matter of funding. An approach that sees us have an array of static concordats and memorandums of understanding would possibly not be appropriate.

This was a probing motion. Having now listened to the points made by Members on both sides of the Committee, I am tempted to go back and draft something else for the next stage of the Bill’s passage, and to then push that to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

International trade agreements: agricultural and food products

“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—

(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and

(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.

(2) In subsection (1)—

‘international trade agreement’ means—

(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—

(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or

(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or

(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);

‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;

‘relevant standards’ means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;

‘SPS Agreement’ means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);

‘WTO Agreement’ means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”.—(Deidre Brock.)

This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

We want some clarity from the Government to the effect that they are willing to state in legislation that they will rule out anything that undermines animal welfare, environmental protection and food standards. This is a pretty important part of the Bill.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is it not the case that new clause 23 would give protection to the timber industry and, more importantly, address illegal logging? We would extend our protections even wider. One of the great environmental tragedies is the loss of rain forests and the continuous forests that are needed. This proposal would give protection there as well.

[Dr Drew]

My hon. Friend rightly chides me that we never bring timber into this discussion. That is, of course, as important as food and other areas, so we should be looking at an integrated approach. He is absolutely right. This is important because, unless we state in the Bill how we will approach trade, we will lose the opportunity for agriculture’s voice to be heard properly. More importantly, there are no safeguards or failsafes in place, because the Government did not listen to us on the Trade Bill.

I hope the Minister recognises that across the terrain of the farming and environmental organisations and the food lobby, security is what is wanted, in the form of a new clause that gives the certainty that we will keep to our word—that the standards of British food will be maintained and will not be subject to cheaper, poorer imports. That is why we make no apology for saying that this is a really important part of the Bill, and that we hope the Government will listen and accept what we are trying to do.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I would like to speak to my new clause 14 and to support new clauses 12 and 23.

As has been said, there is a great deal of consensus regarding support for the principle behind the motions. I was with the National Farmers Union in Gloucestershire during the mini-recess in early November, and members were adamant that all the benefits that would come from the new subsidies regime would count for nothing if they were undercut by cheaper imports that were produced to lower standards. That would mean their either somehow having to lower their own standards, which they are adamant they do not want to do—they are proud of the standards they work to—or simply going out of business. As has been said, the green groups are supportive of the measures for obvious reasons, as is anyone who is interested in food sustainability and anyone who thinks it important that we stick to the standards we have kept to for many years through our membership of the European Union.

We know there is a threat; for all the reassurances the Minister can give us about not lowering standards post Brexit, we know that many in his party are keen to see that happen. To start with, the response I was getting from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was that there would be no lowering of British standards post Brexit, which obviously leads to the suspicion that we would allow lower-standard imports. The response has now moved, very late in the day: when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the farming Minister gave evidence to the EFRA Committee last week, they were keen to say that the measure would not apply to imports. The EFRA Secretary also gave me assurances that the Secretary of State for International Trade believed that as well. Given the record of the Secretary of State for International Trade on the matter—I was in Washington last year when he hit the headlines talking about chlorinated chicken and so on—I think that he is, to coin a phrase, “intensely relaxed” about the import of lower-standard foods.

There are certainly many in the Conservative party—the global Britain Brexiteers—who are keen to see us go to a no-deal scenario and, I believe, a race to the bottom. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), has argued that as socialists we ought to welcome cheaper food imports because they would solve food poverty. He is also the person who said that food banks were a great thing because they show big society coming together and people helping each other. I have urged him, on a number of occasions, to cross the border into Bristol to see what food poverty actually looks like. From what I know of his constituents, I do not think they would welcome the bringing of chlorinated chicken into the country.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Minister and the Secretary of State had the certainty that the minimum level was stated in the Bill, they would have some confidence and protection and the ability to say, when we come to trade agreements, “We can go no lower than this”? That certainty may help with the negotiations.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We know there will be huge pressure when the negotiations start. The US has made it clear that it wants to see its produce that is currently banned allowed into the country, and Australia and New Zealand have said something similar. The International Trade Committee has warned of the risk of an “agriculture for services trade-off” in a future deal with the US, and we know that when they get into the negotiating room that is what will happen.

During the passage of the Trade Bill, I tried to put in an amendment, and we were repeatedly told that the Bill was not about future trade deals and the scrutiny of them, despite there clearly being provisions in it that talked about such deals. When I tabled amendment 81, attempting to insert a non-regression clause into any new trade agreements, I was told that that was not the place for it, and Ministers now say that that would be outside the scope of the Agriculture Bill too—the farming Minister said that to the EFRA Committee last week. This Bill is about protecting farmers, our food standards and the fairness of the UK supply chain. This amendment is fundamental to everything the Government are trying to do to support and sustain high-quality British food, produced to high environmental food safety and animal welfare standards. I should have thought that the Minister would welcome its being enshrined in the Bill, so that the Bill matches those words.

We heard some concerns about the potential impact if we allowed American imports, for example, into this country. There are food safety issues; the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that chlorinated chicken is not about food safety standards but is just an animal welfare issue of how the animals are treated beforehand—the fact that a bucket of bleach is tipped over the chicken at the end deals with any hygiene issues. When he gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 31 October, I pointed out that the incidence of food poisoning in the US is around 10 times higher than in the UK. On average, one in six people in the States will succumb to food poisoning each year, and about one in 66 in the UK. The Environment Secretary was quite taken aback by that, and said he would go away and look at that.

A total of 380 deaths each year are attributed to salmonella in the US; there were no deaths from salmonella in England and Wales between 2005 and 2015. The campylobacter infection rate in the US is more than 6,000 per 100,000 of the population. In the UK that rate is much lower, and falling. The US has an average of 1,591 cases of listeriosis a year, compared with 177 a year in England and Wales.

Unless Americans are particularly unhygienic in their homes, there is clearly a food safety issue in American food. We do not want that imported into this country. Most recent evidence published by microbiologists at Southampton University in the US journal mBio found that bacteria such as listeria and salmonella remain completely active after chlorine washing. The process merely makes it impossible to culture them in the lab, giving the false impression that chlorine washing has been effective.

It is not just the case that we do things slightly differently here, and that although the American system deals with all the hygiene issues at the end, we deal with them throughout the production chain and they have the same impact. There is a very clear difference in the produce there. The Minister said that in the US they

“turn a blind eye to what might happen on a farm, and then treat it when it gets to the abattoir.”

That is why he said it was an animal welfare issue. It is not just an animal welfare issue. Even if it was, we would not want to accept that here anyway. Colleagues of the farming Minister, such as Lord Deben, will be very interested in this issue when it comes to the House of Lords. He said recently that imports of US-standard food would lead to a huge decline in food safety.

The routine use of antibiotics on farms is contributing to the growth of antimicrobial resistance and the rise of superbugs and putting public health at serious risk. That is five times higher in the USA than in the UK. The Minister will probably say that we are making strides to reduce the routine use of antibiotics in UK farms. In America it is still much higher, and if we are forced to compete with American imports, inevitably that will lead to intensification of our farming system here. Many more animals will be crammed into mega-farms, which will mean that antibiotic use inevitably will go up because that is what it tends to be used for—as a pre-emptive measure against infection when lots of animals are crammed together.

I think we will return to this issue on Report, as there is cross-party support for that. It is not enough for the Minister to say, “We do not want a lowering of standards.” I do not cast doubt on the Minister’s credibility—I believe that he does not want that. I believe that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not want that. Unfortunately, I do not believe all his colleagues, or that there are enough safeguards to rely on warm words alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The hard power, for want of a better term, that Parliament will have is the power to block ratification at the end of the process. As I outlined earlier, there will be a 14-week consultation process where anybody—consumer groups and whoever—can feed in.

As the negotiations progress, there will be regular scrutiny from the International Trade Committee, which will be a parliamentary Committee providing that scrutiny. Therefore, it will not be a mandate as such—in that sense, it is perhaps more akin to the Australian system—but it will have some of the features of the US system, in terms of parliamentary overview as the negotiations progress, but also the ability to block ratification at the end.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is not the danger with the procedure that the Minister is outlining that every time a trade Bill comes up with any country or group of countries, we will have a repetition of evidence and submissions from farmers, who will seek, rightly, to defend what we agree across the House about a bottom level. Removing that repetition would make life a lot more certain for farmers, in terms of how we are going forward in the agricultural community, but also, more importantly, it open ups space for other discussions that will be particular to an individual trade Bill, rather than something that I think we agree would apply to every trade discussion.

[George Eustice]

I think that that is right and it is why ultimately this area of policy is for the Department for International Trade, because it has to look at the whole trade piece. As the hon. Member for Ipswich pointed out, agriculture is unique and special, and that is why DEFRA has a special role in this—because there are complex issues in relation to tariff rate quotas, which a lot of people do not understand and which are very agriculture-specific, and lots of complex SPS issues. Agriculture is a unique and highly complex area of trade that we would need to get right.

In conclusion, a process has been set out; there is an ability for Parliament to block ratification and, if it so wanted, to make a resolution to strike down a treaty. However, in the light of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, I will of course undertake to talk to Government colleagues to see whether anything could be refined in this process to reflect the agricultural context of trade agreements and to look at the role of scrutinising those agreements from a strictly agricultural perspective. I do not think that it would be within the scope of the Bill, but I hope that in Committee I can give some additional reassurance in this regard.

Agriculture Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 14th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Drew]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We come now to the work clause. We make no apology for saying that this is our opportunity to pray in aid one of the things that the Government got completely wrong—the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. That happened under the coalition Government, and we hold the Liberal Democrats especially guilty.

I will not go into great detail. We know the issues, we know why we have tabled the new clause and I know why the Government are likely to oppose it, but we hope that they will at least think on this: there is a serious problem with the lack of labour in the agricultural sector.

A lot of agricultural labour is termed seasonal, although some aspects of what was the seasonal agricultural workers scheme was never seasonal—those who work in dairying or in aspects of the packing trade are not seasonal workers—and the reason why we rely so much on foreign migrant labour is because terms and conditions are not good. That is one of the reasons why we had the Agricultural Wages Board—to introduce a standard of terms and conditions that would encourage people to take that work—but it was not just about terms and conditions. The board also looked at future provision and training and investment in younger people to encourage them to come into the industry. Until one day when we are in power, we will carry on arguing that this is an important part of the way in which the agricultural sector could and should operate.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

As this Bill is looking holistically at the countryside, across the environment and workers, is it not exactly the right place for agricultural workers’ rights to be included?

[Dr Drew]

I agree entirely. In this brave new world, we are talking about supporting not just farmers and landowners, but the environmentalists who are going to come in and do some of the work. Again, this area is rife with exploitation. It is right that lots of people work as volunteers or are seconded from their companies, but there is the danger that that will become the norm. Unless we are careful, we have no regularity of employment structure.

The Government’s argument has always been, “Why is agriculture different? It is the same as any other sector.” Well, it is different. The nature of the work is different: it is hard and the hours are long. There is also the issue of loneliness, because most workers are by themselves. There will perhaps be only one or two of them if they work for a small holding. Larger holdings have more, of course, and are able to get protection through their numbers.

I understand the NFU’s position, but farmers tell me that one of the things they most regret is the loss of the negotiating apparatus. They say that quietly; they will not say it to a wider audience. There are those who believe strongly that losing the negotiating apparatus has taken agriculture backwards. When we lost it, we saw that agriculture was not valued enough for such a structure to be in place. If the Minister does not agree with this new clause, I hope he at least recognises that there is merit in putting in place a structure and systems to ensure stability in farm workers’ terms and conditions. Too often, they are not paid the going rate, which means that people are not attracted to the countryside, which we all accept is a tragedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield]

Would that include the valuation of land by banks when they repossess, and the other professionals that are involved in taking over the land—it is not repossession at the moment—in that sequence of events?

[George Eustice]

A possession order would require a bank to justify its action to a court before being able to take anyone’s land. There have been a number of issues with secondary lenders, and mainstream banks, moving aggressively to seize and auction land, and selling it in a reckless way that is against the interests of the landowner and their creditors because they have that charge over the land. That area needs to be looked at.

With the confirmation that we have not forgotten those areas, and that we are looking at a consultation, I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud will not feel the need to press the new clause to a vote.

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and that of Mr Wilson. We have had a good-natured debate on new clause 31 and all the other amendments and clauses in the Bill. We have done a thorough job of examining every clause and amendment in great detail. I thank every member of the Committee for giving up their time and diligently intervening and contributing to the discussion.

I also thank my officials in DEFRA, who have worked incredibly hard. The Bill is the first substantive piece of legislation on agriculture that we have had since 1947. It has been a huge piece of work. Finally, and by no means least, I thank the Clerks. We particularly tested their patience when changing the plan for evidence sessions at the beginning, but I hope that we have been less difficult since then. We are grateful for the time and effort that they have put in.

Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I intend to speak principally to amendment 96 and, with the leave of the Chair, to make some comment on the situation that the Government have found themselves in, which is highlighted by the clause.

Agriculture is devolved, and the agricultural methods and the needs of farmers and farming groups—I will mention timber, as I keep doing—such as the timber industry are different in the devolved Administrations, and they are dealt with differently, with different solutions. Any piece of legislation needs to reflect that individuality. I am disappointed with the Agriculture Bill. I understand the political reasons, but I am disappointed in the consequence that more work on the Bill was not done with Scotland, in particular, and England. Northern Ireland has a slightly unique situation. A lot of the issues could have been addressed by people sitting in a room having sensible discussions. Instead, we find ourselves with clause 26, which infringes on the devolution settlement. The second that that happens, extreme caution is needed.

The matter is made even more complicated by the number of farms that straddle the border, as the hon. Member for Ludlow pointed out. I cannot say that a huge amount of consideration has ever been given to those farms, and matters are mainly dealt with now through the good common sense of farmers saying to people, “Someone owes me the money and I need it.” The Bill might well be a great missed opportunity to address how we deal with cross-border farms.

The purpose of amendment 96, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, was to highlight the risk to devolution. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments in connection with not only the current Government, but the difficulty of anticipating Secretaries of State to come. There is always a concern about new powers—not with the people who rightly say, “That’s not what we’re thinking”, but with the people who come later, who under the Bill would have the power to influence and cap the payments. That is not something that Scottish farmers want.

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

It is a pleasure to be back, as always, and to provide some continuity on a turbulent day.

We are discussing an important issue. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and her party have raised it several times, and we have had correspondence about it from Minister Ewing. I will therefore address it in some detail. The first thing to say is that subsection (1) is clear:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing compliance by the United Kingdom with the Agreement on Agriculture.”

The whole clause must therefore be read in that context of “securing compliance” with the World Trade Organisation, which is a reserved matter—incontrovertibly reserved.

When we look at what happens now, therefore, the point is that we do not have a schedule with the WTO. The shadow Minister said that, and I will come on to it later. The European Union holds the EU’s schedule, including the so-called amber box—the aggregate measurement of support allowance for the entire EU. EU regulation requires that we, the UK Government, on behalf of the whole UK—these obligations apply to all the DAs as well—must submit to the European Union the information relevant to the policies. The European Union has the power to limit the amount of money that we spend that comes into the amber box, to ensure that the EU as a whole—this has to be managed for 28 member states—does not breach its amber box.

The key point is that when we leave the European Union, we will have our own WTO schedule. We will have our own amber box allocation, which will be something in the region of €3.5 billion—a significant sum of money. Here is a question: if each part of the UK decided to spend a billion on amber box, trade-distorting support, so that England did a billion, Wales did a billion, Scotland did a billion and Northern Ireland did a billion, and say, for the sake of argument, we had an amber box allocation of £3 billion, could we say that Scotland had stayed within its legal obligations?

So the key point is not the argument that Scotland, Wales and all the devolved Administrations must abide by international agreements. Of course they must; we rely on that all the time. The key question is how they can know that they are doing so, when we have a collective allocation of perhaps £3 billion for the entire UK, and we have to be able to allocate that somehow.

A number of hon. Members have said, “There has to be a role for the devolved Administrations in this.” Subsection (2)(a) states that there should be

“a process for the appropriate authorities to decide how different types of domestic support should be classified”.

A process will be set out in the regulations by which all the devolved Administrations will be able to discuss and agree that.

Where there is a lack of agreement, there is, in subsection (2)(b),

“a process for the resolution of disputes”.

There is already provision here through regulations for us to say, “If one part of the UK thinks it should be able to spend more on trade-distorting amber box support, there is a provision for dispute resolution.” Fundamentally it is reserved; it is now reserved with the EU and there are legal obligations on us all to provide the EU with information. There is no duty on the EU to consult if we want to breach it; they just tell us what the policy is and what our limits are. It is important that, as the holder of the WTO schedule, the UK Government at least have the power to collect the data and demonstrate compliance. That is all that this clause is about.

[Martin Whitfield]

Should the process for the resolution of dispute in subsection (2)(b) be followed and there is no resolution, it falls on to the Secretary of State. We have already had a discussion about his or her role with regard to England and the devolved nations. Are we not able, in 2018, to come up with a better system that more rightly reflects the full powers of the devolved nations and the fact that perhaps the Secretary of State should not be the final arbiter in this matter?

[George Eustice]

Given that it is a reserved competence, it is right that the Secretary of State should be the final arbiter, because somebody has to be. We do not have a federal system; we have a devolution settlement. It is different from a federal system of government and we have deliberately stopped short of a federal model with qualified majority voting.

Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In the agri-food sector, as in most other sectors, our trade with the rest of the world is growing far faster than our trade with the European Union.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is also the case that Scotch whisky is created and bottled within Scotland and travels as a single product. The issue with Baileys is that it passes to and fro during its production.

[George Eustice]

That is the case with a number of other things that we import from other countries, including Iceland, which we import a lot of fish products from. We have ways of dealing with these issues.

As I said, the approach that we have adopted with the common rule book and the customs agreement will address those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

This is something different, and again we are here to help the Government. Everyone will be aware of the allergen issues that have sadly affected a number of families, some of whom have lost loved ones. This is an opportunity that the Government should take, because we can insert in the Bill a provision that will at least put into law what many of us feel should already be in law, but has not yet reached the statute book. This amendment would insert a new short phrase

“the indication on any labelling or packaging of a product of any allergen that the product is known to, or might reasonably be expected to, contain.”

We are all aware of two specific cases, and the subject was debated through an urgent question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on 9 October. It is interesting that a Government Member, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), stated in response

“These are tragic cases, and it is clear that the law needs to be updated. Will my hon. Friend tell us how quickly he expects the law to be changed in this regard? Will they also say more about what the Government are doing to provide guidance to retailers, to ensure that this type of tragedy does not happen again?”—[Official Report, 9 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 127W.]

Here is the opportunity. By making this simple amendment, we could make sure that products containing allergens are properly labelled, and that if someone does not label a product properly or takes a risk with it, they will be held responsible according to the law. Sadly, at the moment they are not.

The two recent cases are but the tip of the iceberg. I am allergic to corn—as a vegetarian, that is not much fun, because corn is one of the staple replacements. I get terrible tummy aches, or stomach problems, if that is proper parliamentary language. I am also allergic to penicillin and I know that. Sadly, some labelling not very clear, and although you can go online and find out, these things should be known. It is like anything: the consumer should be aware and learn through mistakes to some extent, but for some people that is a tragic line to take.

[Martin Whitfield]

Do we not live in a time when the make-up—the ingredients—of products changes so rapidly that relying on previous knowledge of whether a product is safe is not good enough? People need to check virtually every time a product is purchased.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I seem to be here to provide light entertainment, basically by giving the lads over there the chance to do a little bit of vegan bashing in the afternoon.

[Martin Whitfield]

In no way should my hon. Friend’s amendment offer anybody light entertainment. It simply offers to give the information to those people who are purchasing the produce so that they can make a decision, as she has rightly expressed in relation to eggs, which has been so successful. The amendment does not define how many days cows are kept or otherwise; it simply provides a vehicle for giving customers the information they need to make a choice.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the debate back to a more serious note. Basically, consumers are being misled. They would like more information, and farmers would like to give them more information so that when they have put more effort into producing their produce, they can be rewarded for that. That is all the new clause is about.

--- Later in debate ---

The most sensible solution is to hand over the responsibility and cash to Holyrood and let it work it out. Powers in areas already devolved should not be re-reserved. As the influence of Brussels wanes—potentially—so Edinburgh’s should become more prominent.

[Martin Whitfield]

Just for clarity, NFU Scotland has indicated it feels there is a lot of politicking going on between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government over the Bill.

[Deidre Brock]

There are significant areas of dispute between the two Governments; it is not politicking. We are hearing from NFU Scotland that there are issues it would like to see pursued by both Governments—I am quite prepared to acknowledge that it is both Governments—and I will be raising some of those points later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

Passing the amendments would kill two birds with one stone, relieving UK Ministers of a burden and going some way to show that the devolution settlement can be respected in legislation passed here, which I would argue is a fairly important point.

Under new clause 5, protected geographical indicators would continue to have the input of Scottish Ministers. There is currently no provision in the Bill for PGIs, but they are vital for Scottish goods. In the evidence sessions on the Bill and in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, on which I sit, we have heard time and again about the importance of PGIs, for a whole rack of goods, including those from various parts of England and Wales, and I think—I would have to double-check—Northern Ireland. A while back, a Minister suggested that PGIs could be bargained away to get a trade deal, which is a real worry for producers and exporters. The proposed new clause would ensure that Scottish Ministers get a say in any new scheme for PGIs, in order to protect Scotland’s unique place in the market.

While I am in full flow, I will address the Government’s amendments. I have concerns about amendments 9 and 11, in that they seem to dilute the purpose of a producer organisation and invite disparate entities to form one. That might also encroach on devolved areas, and I ask the Minister not to press it for those reasons.

[Martin Whitfield]

On that point—before we leave the question of recognised producer organisations—the Government’s wording certainly seems loose. Does the hon. Lady envisage a producer organisation that could cross the boundaries of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Deidre Brock]

That is certainly possible, and my proposal would allow for that possibility. Amendment 10 is odd; it is not clear why there should be no legal form defined for an entity in legislation. I hope the Minister can clarify.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

I will not say very much; I just want to echo some of my hon. Friend’s points. I was involved with the withdrawal Act, and today I have been reading the latest common frameworks document, which was released earlier today. A lot of it is about agriculture and the progress that has been made on agreeing frameworks for the UK after we leave the EU. It says:

“Further detail on the specific arrangements that are subject to ongoing discussion in relation to agricultural support is available online.”

Unfortunately, the detail is not in that document, so I have not had a chance to look at it. It is important for the Minister to indicate where the Government are at with this to inform how we proceed on these issues.

I have a few more questions about that. Our deliberations about devolution issues took place on the Floor of the House, so many hon. Members here might have taken part in them. Devolution is very contentious and important, and every now and again it is used to make points not directly related to the issues under consideration. I have a few questions about how the amendments might work and what the Minister thinks of them, because I have some concerns about them.

The Labour party is fairly relaxed about the approach set out in amendment 59. We can see the logic behind it, but we would like to ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith how they see it fitting with the ongoing negotiations about the establishment of common UK frameworks. That is the document that I have just referred to. Where are we? This is a moving thing, and the Minister is asking us to make decisions about a process that is still incomplete.

Amendment 60 works in conjunction with amendment 59, and seeks to remove the role of the Secretary of State and replace him with

“the appropriate authority to which an application is made under this section.”

I assume that it is consequential, given that amendment 59 seeks to redesign the process by which an application is made. Again, we are reasonably relaxed about that.

Amendments 60 and 61 seek to ensure that Scottish Ministers have the ability to grant consent to applications made to become a recognised producer organisation. What effect do the Minister and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith see that having in practice? How would it actually work? The Labour party is not stuck on this; we do not mind it. In truth, and I hope the hon. Lady does not take this the wrong way—I say this as a neutral observer representing a town in the north-east—these amendments look a little like politicking, rather than serving a true purpose. Can she assure me about what impact the amendments would have on the capacity of Scottish Ministers to process applications?

Amendment 64 is unfortunately a bit problematic, as it goes further than the devolution settlement currently allows. I am not trying to be provocative. I do not want to get into somebody else’s fight. The sticking point, if I have understood the amendment correctly, is that it seeks to ensure that the consent of Scottish Ministers is required for all regulations under sections 22 and 23, which extend to Scotland. As I understand it currently, the devolution settlement from the Scotland Act 2016 says that Westminster will not normally legislate in areas where the Scottish Parliament has competence. Admittedly, the Government have not shown great respect for that principle with the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and, as noted previously, this is not an area where the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Ministers currently exercise competence. If that is correct, the amendment would go further than the devolution settlement does at the moment.

The word “veto” has been overused in these debates in the past, but given the contentious relationship—if I can put it that way—between the UK Government and the Scottish Government at the moment, I am raising a concern and would be interested to hear what others feel about this. Were amendment 64 to be agreed, the Scottish Government could refuse to grant consent for provisions that relate to Scotland, which would be in the vast majority, given that the amendment covers the UK as a whole. Then we could be in a constitutional deadlock, which is not something that anybody wants to see. This process is all about avoiding that.

Officials in the Scottish Parliament are quite clear that they are committed to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks and they agree that this is a necessary approach to take. I do not want to see anything that we might agree here interfering with other processes. The important people in all this are the Scottish farmers and producers, and I cannot help thinking that they would be looking at this and wondering where they stand.

I would like the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to clarify whether this amendment is seen as consequential to the others that she has tabled, as this is not an area where the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government have jurisdiction, and therefore consent would not currently be required when regulations are made. I am not trying to be provocative or to insert myself in the middle of an argument between the Government and the Scottish Government, but we need to be mindful of the potential impact that any row might have on the lack of support for producers in Scotland, because they need to come first.

[Martin Whitfield]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Before we go too far down this road, I am wrestling with what is and is not in order in connection with this group of amendments. The hon. Gentleman leading for the Opposition indicated he wanted the Minister to illustrate whether this embraced the four corners of the United Kingdom. That is not strictly in the context of these amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith went a bit further down the same route.

Clause 34 covers the extent of the Bill. That is probably the appropriate moment to raise this issue and for the Minister to respond. If the Minister could forget that he heard a lot of what was said in the last 10 minutes or so, that might facilitate the response. The last thing the Chair ever wants to do is curtail debate, particularly about important subjects. This is an important issue, and I understand that. However, I do not think this is the right place for this particular line of discussion. If we could stick to the amendments before us, we might all make a little more progress.

[Martin Whitfield]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I would like an indication from you, following your determination, about the references in the amendment to the removal of the Secretary of State and the insertion of Scottish Ministers. Part of what I struggle with is whether that would extend Scottish Ministers’ powers to have an effect on England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[The Chair]

That is a very fair point, and I have been struggling with that as well, trying to decide how far we allow the debate to go down that road. I ask colleagues to exercise a degree of restraint, because there will be an opportunity to discuss the extent of the Bill later, on clause 34.

[Mr Goodwill]

During the comments by hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith at the start of this short debate, the point was quite rightly made that nobody here is representing Northern Ireland, so I rise to speak as a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. She asked if there were cases of protected geographical status in Northern Ireland, which indeed there are: Lough Neagh eels, Irish whisky, Comber early potatoes and Armagh Bramley apples. Indeed, there is also an all-Ireland protected status—there is no reason why that should not continue after we have left the European Union—for salmon.

My point is that, although we have no Government active in Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—DAERA, Northern Ireland’s equivalent of DEFRA—is engaged in a consultation on these issues. It is grappling with the challenges that need to be faced, whereas the Scottish Government seem to be pretending that this will not happen and are not engaging with it at the level they should be.

[Martin Whitfield]

Aware of your earlier comments, Sir Roger, I shall be relatively brief. I rise merely by way of seeking an indication, or an answer to my question, from the Minister, or indeed the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who moved the amendment, if they find chance to do so. I reiterate what NFU Scotland asked for, which is that the Governments on both sides of the border should sit down, discuss this and sort it out. That is what should happen. It is not a case for politicking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, stuck in the middle is a very important industry in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The agricultural industry is desperate for certainty and understanding, and needs it sooner rather than later.

On the amendments, will the Minister confirm the evidence that he gave to the Scottish Affairs Committee? Some elements clearly affect the devolved settlement. With the greatest respect, more attention should have been paid to the consequences of that earlier.

I am concerned about the question of recognised producer organisations that cross the borders of the four nations. Yes, the amendment takes account of that, but there is the question of what happens if there is an argument about certification. If one side says yes and the other says no, who will take precedence?

The other point I want to make is about Government amendment 10. What sort of legal entity does the Minister envisage? Is it, or might it be, a collection of simple individuals? In that case, the Government might it challenging to find a legal entity to pass down those rights.

[George Eustice]

Following your steer, Sir Roger, I will reserve wider discussion of the scope of the Bill, or parts of it, for a later debate.

Amendments 56 to 64 are all linked, and many are the same. In essence, they would all delete references to the Secretary of State and instead insert “relevant authority”. I appreciate that behind this whole group of amendments is a belief, put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, that this is a devolved and not a reserved matter. I want to explain to her why we are very clear that that interpretation is incorrect and potentially based on a misunderstanding.

We have to look at the context of the clause, where we are recognising producer organisations. What are we recognising, and why are we recognising them? In this context, it is for one purpose only, which links to clause 23, which we will come to: we are recognising producer and inter-branch organisations in order to make them exempt from elements of competition law. It is incontrovertibly the fact that competition law is a reserved matter. That is absolutely the case. Clause 23 points to schedule 2 to the Bill, which amends schedule 3 to the Competition Act 1998 in a way that is advantageous to organisations that are recognised under the provisions of clause 22. Clauses 22 and 23 are fully reserved because they relate directly to competition law.

Some of the misunderstanding arises because of the possibility for joint ventures, or groups of farms or bodies coming together, to qualify for grant aid from the Scottish Government, if they put in the right legislation in future. Under clause 1(1), the UK Government for English farmers, or the Welsh Government for Welsh farmers, will be able to give a grant to a co-operative group of people who have come together. They have the power to do so. However, the power to recognise a producer organisation in this context for the purpose of exempting it from competition law must be done UK-wide because it is a reserved matter.

--- Later in debate ---

It is already the case that DEFRA, on behalf of the UK, leads in the GI process within our membership of the EU. As we leave the EU, it will be absolutely right that the UK Government should perform that function of recognising and designating a geographical indicator. None of this prevents the devolved Administrations from having a role in supporting and giving advice to companies that want to make an application for a GI. However, we believe beyond doubt that it is a UK Government responsibility.

[Martin Whitfield]

Could that work not be done within Wales or Scotland for the UK Government to rubber-stamp, much as the Minister has indicated the European Union do at the moment?

[George Eustice]

That is broadly what would happen, and it is quite possible that the Scottish Government, Northern Ireland Administration and Welsh Government will already sometimes be involved in giving advice or supporting individuals who want to bring forward those designations. However, the assessment and designation of them has to be done by the UK.

I hope that, having been given this clear explanation as to why clauses 22 and 23 are reserved, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith will accept that there has perhaps been a misunderstanding about the difference between the ability to award grants and the process of recognition for the purposes of an exemption from competition law, which is reserved, and will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Sorry, clause 34. I will leave the hon. Member for Darlington to speak to that. The hon. Member for East Lothian attempted to suggest, perhaps inadvertently, that the Scottish Government is relaxed about what happens to farmers in Scotland later on. The Scottish Government were the first in the UK to come out with a consultation paper “Stability and Simplicity” to provide some certainty for their farmers. We are very clear that things can continue as they are after 29 March and there is no need for the schedule in the Bill that some have called for.

[Martin Whitfield]

That is not what I was suggesting. I was merely pointing out that NFU Scotland feels that both Governments are politicking on the Bill.

[Deidre Brock]

Perhaps I misunderstood his intention, so I appreciate his correction. Sir Roger, I feel that the amendments in my name stand or fall together. If I pressed amendment 56 to a vote as the lead amendment, is it right that the rest of the amendments would follow that?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

All three amendments relate to trying to reduce some of the burdens that existing producer organisations have mentioned to us, and restrictions that they regard as unnecessary. Some of the EU rules on which we modelled the initial clauses, for instance, require all producers to be from a single agricultural sector, when actually we think there may be circumstances where groups of producers want to come together that span more than one sector. We think that is an unnecessary restriction that does not achieve anything.

In amendment 10, we propose to delete paragraph (d) from clause 22(2) in its entirety, so that a body corporate with legal personality is not necessary; we believe that to recognise a producer organisation there may be other models, including joint venture arrangements, that may stop short of being a body corporate. Again, we do not believe that that requirement is necessary; some might choose to do it but we think there should not be a requirement on them, and that they could convene themselves in other ways. Amendment 11 is linked to amendment 9 and also removes the reference to a “single agricultural sector” to allow there to be members from more than one sector.

On the EU fruit and veg regime in particular, we have had issues with Angus Growers in Scotland and with other producers in England too. Although fruit and veg producers welcome the grant support that they get through the fruit and veg producer organisation regime, many of them tell us that there are lots of problems with it. We frequently end up in litigation with the European Union because of poor or imprecise drafting or requirements that serve little purpose. The feedback from the people who have to deal with the schemes is that we should take the opportunity to sort it out, declutter it and make sure we have an equivalent scheme to offer them the support that they want, but with some of the frustrations removed. That is one part of what the Government amendments seek to achieve.

[Martin Whitfield]

Referring to my earlier point, does the Minister envisage the recognised producer organisations being made up of people from different legal entities? If so, how will he ensure the appropriate payment with regard to some bodies that will not be pursuable and some that will?

[George Eustice]

There are lots of other conditions. Subsection (2)(e) requires that the constitution of the organisation meets certain requirements. There are other such provisions as well, so we do not have to define them as a body corporate in law in order to have express conditions that mean they would all be jointly and severally liable were something to go wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should remain focused on the challenge we are trying to address: why do farmers not get a fair price for the food they produce? Why do they end up too often being price takers and why do they need public support and subsidies in order to break even? The answer is often in the way the supply chain works to their disadvantage. Let us tackle the causes of that disadvantage and have an Agriculture Bill that is specifically targeted at agriculture.

[Martin Whitfield]

With regard to agricultural products, where does the Minister envisage timber to be covered?

[George Eustice]

Amendment 112, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East, sought to state “all agricultural products” rather than “agricultural products”. However, we believe that we have already addressed that through part 2 of schedule 1, which we will come to. That lists agricultural sectors relevant to the producer organisation and fair dealing provisions. It is pretty exhaustive, and for the hon. Lady it has the term “other plants” at the end, which will capture everything that might be of interest to her particular diet. [Interruption.] Timber is another issue, but part 3 of schedule 1 creates the power to add to that.

We based the list on the contours of EU law and tried to have quite an exhaustive list. Timber is not on that list at the moment but there would be nothing to stop us from adding it, although we would have to consider whether it is appropriate to do so. We are predominantly looking at farmers and their relationship with processors. We have a particular problem with the dairy, beef and sheep industries, and that is the primary purpose here.

[Martin Whitfield]

The process in the timber industry is quite complex and crosses a number of bodies. Will the Minister look at that sooner rather than later?

[George Eustice]

The regulations that we can make under part 3 of schedule 1 give us the power to add additional things. Although I am Agriculture Minister, I do not cover forestry and timber, so I will need to discuss that with my ministerial colleagues. It is certainly an option and the provision is there to enable us to add products.

Agriculture Bill (Ninth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am trying to get at where the policies of the supermarkets and the buyers lead to food waste on farms. We are talking about when food is produced and supermarkets reject the produce—sometimes on spurious cosmetic grounds, but usually because of poor predictions of when they will need it. Perhaps it is a bad summer and the supermarkets are not selling as many salads or other summertime foods as they otherwise would. That is what we are trying to get to the bottom of.

This is not about farmers choosing to do certain things with their produce; it is about trying to get to the bottom of the unfair relationship. We have the Groceries Code Adjudicator, but although there are measures in the Bill to strengthen that role, they still do not go anywhere near far enough. The Groceries Code Adjudicator has said that she does not believe she needs any more powers, whereas I know that farmers and a significant number of people throughout the supply chain are crying out for that relationship to be made fairer and be more firmly enforced.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the data is not with the farmers, but with the supermarkets through the buyers’ decisions on what they take and what they reject? Surely we cannot expect the farmers to differentiate the uses made of their crops?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes, that is entirely the case. This is about the food supply chain. If we are only to look at our food system in relation to farming and treat that as something segregated, we cannot help farmers in the way they need to be helped.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Subsection (4)(f) provides for a purpose to collect data on food waste. That purpose is covered, but the other purposes the hon. Gentleman mentions are not covered. I will turn to animal welfare in a moment, but in terms of wages and conditions, as I pointed out, that is rightly picked up by regulations in other parts of our legislation, already enforced by the GLAA and HMRC to ensure that we adhere to those. On matters such as terms and conditions and pay, the object is to have the right regulation, which applies equally to everyone. It is not necessarily about just requiring people to publish the regulation and leaving them to their own devices. As I said, the purpose of subsection (4)(b) is to promote transparency in the supply chain.

I turn now to amendment 116 relating to animal welfare. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Stroud about the importance of animal welfare. I was very clear that it should be listed in clause 1 as a purpose for financial assistance. He says it should be recognised as a public good; it is. It is declared as a public good in the very first clause of the Bill. It is not appropriate, however, to have it in this particular clause for reasons that I will explain. If we want to deliver animal welfare outcomes, we can use a number of tools to approach that. We can raise the baseline of regulation and if we do so, we would do so using provisions such as those under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as we did with CCTV in slaughterhouses. That should be legislation that applies equally to everyone.

The second approach that we can take is to introduce financial incentives to support farmers for adopting an approach to livestock husbandry that is better for the welfare of the animal. We make explicit provision for that in clause 1. It gives us the power to give grants to farmers to invest in new livestock housing that enables more enrichment of the sort the hon. Gentleman describes. It gives us the power to award financial incentives to farmers who sign up to holistic animal welfare accreditation schemes, such as RSPCA Assured or others. It also gives us other powers to help support objectives around animal health and welfare.

The third option is to improve labelling, which I know a number of hon. Members have raised in the past. Things such as method of production labelling or method of slaughter labelling can be introduced, and there are often debates on these issues. Those are the three key areas. They are not necessary in this particular part of the Bill. We can—and do—deliver our animal welfare objectives in many other parts of the Bill. We do not need a requirement here for information on animal welfare to be disclosed, because it should be either a regulation that is enforced uniformly or an incentive scheme. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 3, which links to any payments made to incentivise high animal welfare. Clause 3(2)(e) gives us the power to require people to keep records and subsection (2)(a) has the power to make provisions around information. In the context of the financial incentives that we intend to offer, we can already require the disclosure of information to support the enforcement of those schemes.

[Martin Whitfield]

On that point, does the Minister envisage that the regulation will facilitate the Secretary of State’s collecting the information, or is he hoping it will just be volunteered, because it is being retained by the farmer?

[George Eustice]

In the context of any financial grant or incentive awarded to a farmer under the powers in clause 1, the regulations provided for in clause 3 could stipulate a legal requirement to provide certain information. If farmers enter such incentive schemes, there are already powers in clause 3 to require that information. As for animal welfare in the wider context, that is a regulatory issue that should apply equally to all.

I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Stroud about the importance I place on animal welfare, but we pick up those policy objectives elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

Nice try, but whatever the deal is, let us see it and judge it according to its merits. One of the tests that we will apply is the effect that it will have on manufacturers, food producers, communities and the devolved Administrations, and whether it respects the nations of our country and keeps our Union together. Those are the things that we will be thinking about, and we think that having a customs union is essential. We could have referred to a single market deal or any number of things, but we have chosen to be specific in the amendment. We want to understand what the Government expect to happen should we leave without a deal and without being part of a customs union with our nearest neighbours at the end of March next year. We are deeply worried about that.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is it not the case that, because of the circumstances surrounding the Bill on the question of no deal or deal, and because the Bill represents scaffolding, a lot of people are seeing what they want to see in it, when there is actually very little to see? The sort of certainty that is proposed in these amendments would go a long way towards giving our farmers and rural communities confidence about what is expected and intended.

[Jenny Chapman]

That is a really important point. If I was a farmer, I would be incredibly worried by the Bill in general, but my anxiety would be heightened by this clause and by what I might anticipate happening, given the reports we are reading in the press. I do not think that any hon. Members present have any certainty about whether a deal will be reached, what a deal will look like if it is reached, whether it will be approved by Parliament, or whether it will be approved by the Cabinet, so to blithely assert that there will be a deal and that everything will be fine is not good enough.

We have one opportunity to get the Bill right. This clause could be the lifeboat for many people in the industry. It is important that we understand what the Government intend and what they would do, under the powers given to them through the clause, should we leave without a deal and without being in a customs union.

The National Audit Office report states that the Government are generally underprepared for a no-deal outcome. To be fair, DEFRA has done more than many Departments, but that is because it has had to, because so much of its activity is affected by Brexit. Because the Government are underprepared, there is now panic. A year ago, we anticipated having a deal in October, then it was last week, this week and probably next week. Where is the deal? The anxiety in Parliament is palpable, and it is starting to be felt in the country too. There is an emerging sense of panic, whether about transferring staff from valuable wildlife protection work in Natural England or about the need to stockpile food. We know that the industry has already rented out virtually all the available food storage in the country, and people are incredibly worried about that. Given the lack of clarity and information, their concern is understandable and valid.

The Government have a duty to ensure that there will be food in the shops in April. I know I will be accused of “Project Fear” mark II, mark III or whatever—I understand that, and I am being careful not to enter into that kind of thing—but we must be honest. I do not know whether hon. Members had a chance to read the Government’s technical notices, which were published this summer, but they make pretty grim reading. The Government now acknowledge and anticipate many of the concerns that were deemed to be part of “Project Fear”.

Agriculture Bill (Seventh sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Public Bill Committees

We seek to achieve something altogether more tailored and more local, where local knowledge can be brought to bear to help design these schemes. That is a far cry from what we have now, where it is all about clunky mapping, digital maps and onerous application forms sent into some office somewhere, with people then having to sift through information and enter it all on to a computer system, with all the problems inherent to that. If we want to get much more local knowledge and much more tailored schemes, we should engage partners locally, where they are able to benefit. That is what we intend to achieve through subsection (5).

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

On a point of clarity, and more to put it on the record than anything else: there is no intention for any of the delegation to go beyond England and affect any of the devolved nations, is there?

[George Eustice]

No, this is a power for England only, and it will be for each of the devolved Administrations to decide how they want to design their enforcement and management process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield]

A similar power is contained in the Northern Ireland schedule. What is the position with regard to Scotland for the chains crossing the border?

[George Eustice]

Scotland has no plan for its future agricultural policy. It will be for Scotland to ask us to add a schedule on its behalf or to bring forward its own legislation. A point was raised on Tuesday in a discussion on clause 1 whether we will make available details of how much money had been spent on delivering certain purposes. The answer is that, as well as publishing the recipients of support, this power would also enable us to publish the purposes and the broad intention of what we are delivering with that power.

Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but of course we must view all this in the context of a seven-year transition period, at the end of which it is our objective and our vision that there will be no basic payment scheme as it is known today. What we would envisage happening in those scenarios is that we would free up land for new entrants to come in, who would get used to working in a different way from the start.

It would be quite possible, for instance, to prioritise the roll-out of a new scheme to those new entrants coming on to land that had been exited and was no longer eligible for the BPS payment. I would also envisage that some of those new entrants coming on to that land would also be likely to qualify for the productivity support. We have to see all this in the context of the fact that we do not want a single farm payment to be carrying on forever. We have set a clear pathway to move to a different approach over a seven-year transition period.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Is not the situation that the Government envisaged one where, by using this de-linking, some farmers may release themselves from land that they see as being less profitable in the future, take advantage of the de-linking, retain land that is more profitable and then continue to claim for that—in other words, make a profit by reducing their business to shape it for what will make money for them again in the future?

[George Eustice]

Broadly speaking, although, as I said, one of our key thoughts behind the concept of de-linking is that it will be a tool to assist people with retirement. Because we do not want multiple systems—a new system emerging, a legacy system and a de-linked system—we have drafted this in such a way that, once someone takes the decision to de-link, it will apply to everyone and we will not have that problem. It will be a bold policy to help to support structural change and give farmers the freedom to invest that money as they deem right.

Government amendment 91 is another technical amendment that simply reflects the way the current direct payment regulations operate. There has been no change to our policy of trying to de-link payments, but the current direct payment regulation only contains financial provisions known as “ceilings” until the end of the 2020 scheme year. Introducing de-linking in 2021 means that ceilings under the direct payments will not be set for 2021. The existing basic payments will therefore automatically end in 2020 and we will not need to terminate such payments. The amendment reflects that. Other than that, the intent is exactly the same as originally drafted, but the amendment makes it clear, crucially, that de-linked payments cannot be made alongside the direct payments under the basic payment scheme, in line with clause 7(3)(b).

This is a technical amendment simply to deal with a similar point to the one I addressed with respect to one of the new clauses, which is that the ceilings expire and we might want to be able to make those de-linked payments based on a direct payment and not necessarily on the old BPS payment. Again, this is a technical issue that has its genesis in the way that EU payment ceilings and budgets are wired. I hope I have given the Committee a good explanation of what we seek to achieve through the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandy Martin]

I do not particularly want to address the amendments or the whole de-linking scheme in detail, but we need to bear in mind one or two basic principles. Obviously, if we support the movement to payment for public goods, and a tricky transition, people who have farm businesses that will be involved in that transition need to understand what will happen to them before they get there.

We do not want large numbers of farmers to move out of the business involuntarily. Subsection (7) provides the opportunity for support for somebody who has voluntarily decided to leave the business. However, there is a problem with small farmers in particular, who might have extremely delicate finances. They need to know before they get to the year in which they might find themselves unable to continue financially—indeed, they would need to know three or four years before—whether they are going to get there. They need to know that before deciding whether to take the lump sum payments under subsection (7). If they do not know whether they will be financially viable under the new payments regime more than three years before, that might become a fatal position for them. They might take the payment and go anyway, even though it might turn out that they would have been better off and happier continuing to farm under the new payment for public goods system, rather than the current system.

[Martin Whitfield]

To return to a point mentioned in evidence that we have raised a number of times, this is very much a situation where we see scaffolding but nothing underneath it. The problem for the farmers is that they have no certainty about what is coming down the line. We are approaching the transition period very quickly and they need the time to decide.

[Sandy Martin]

I totally agree. Whether or not we can see what will go around the scaffolding might be annoying to us, or it might feed our fears that an awful lot of work will be done without any democratic control or oversight, but it is far more important for those involved in farming to know what will be put on that scaffolding, because they might well be making decisions without knowing.

Subsection (7) is like an offer that those farmers cannot refuse—not because they know that the consequences of refusal will be dire, but because they do not know and will therefore just go for the easy option. We do not want large numbers of smaller farmers to face going out of business or choosing to take payments under subsection (7), leaving the field clear for those with more money and resources and a better understanding of the complicated regime that the Government are thinking of introducing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

Whatever is happening with England and Wales, we have Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is going to be quite a complicated issue. There will be farmers in Northern Ireland who farm on both sides of the border; they will have whatever the common agricultural policy is and whatever the Northern Ireland policy is within the framework of the United Kingdom policy. That will greatly determine what they intend to farm, how they intend to farm and whether they wish to stay in farming.

[Martin Whitfield]

Obviously, in the schedule for Wales, de-linking is discussed, but we do not have a schedule for Scotland.

[Dr Drew]

That is absolutely true, but I am not sure that that helps me.

Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I rise to support amendments 70 and 51. In response to the hon. Member for North Dorset, I should say that it is unfair to say that either amendment places an onus on the producer regarding what goes on to the plate of individuals who decided what or what not to buy.

Both amendments, in particular amendment 70, seek to increase the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and other items. The Bill seeks to take a wider view of the agricultural sector—to see it right from the start to the end. We are looking now at where the Secretary of State can place moneys to emphasise and promote. When we talk about public health, one aspect is the food itself but another is the overriding story—and I use that word carefully. There is the mental health approach that flows from good quality food, when people understand the nutritional value of the purchase and the story back to the individual farm or farmers who produced it.

This country’s health should be broader than just the narrow nutritional value and include children’s understanding of where their meat, vegetables and fruit come from. One aspect, raised and agreed across the House, is the importance of the educational element. That is the responsibility of farmers but also of communities, parents and the Government. Should our farmers not benefit financially if they open their farms, against some very strict health and safety protocols, to allow children in to see where the potatoes and carrots grow in the fields, as they do in my constituency of East Lothian? That is an important element of growing up that, along with seasonality, has become separated from a lot of children’s and citizens’ understanding of the availability of food.

Both the amendments, in particular amendment 70, lend emphasis to that, to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to provide support to that wider educational and nutritional need. It is not a case of the Secretary of State dictating what does or does not go on to somebody’s plate or what they choose to do with food when they purchase it; the issue is about the ability to put that holistic view envisaged by the Bill and to allow farmers to receive payments and support for the good work that they can do at their stage.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

The amendment proposes allowing the Secretary of State to enhance payments to farmers. If there were a vegetarian, or even a vegan, Secretary of State who decided, after reading one report one week and another the next, that eating meat was no longer in the public interest and no longer healthy, would the amendment also allow the Secretary of State to remove all payments to the red meat industry?

[Martin Whitfield]

I hark back to the vote we previously had on the difference between “must” and “may” and probably leave it at that.

The only other point that I want to raise is that the producers, as well as being under an obligation to produce, would, under amendment 70, be allowed funding for research and development for improved crop varieties and cultivation methods. That will be important going into the future.

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

I want to take the amendments from this group in turn, starting with amendment 51. Elements of the policy and the purposes that we have spelled out will often lead to incidental improvements in and contributions to public health, which I will come to describe.

A number of hon. Members have pointed out that this is predominantly a consumer choice issue. The Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England do a lot of work to promote healthy eating.

[George Eustice]

I was going to say that that could be provided for under clause 1(2), which enables us to support businesses to improve their productivity if that were necessary. Broad beans, as a leguminous crop, often need less or no fertiliser at all, so that can be an environmental benefit. The current EU scheme enables broad beans and other leguminous crops to be used as one of the contributory factors to the environmental focus area. That is already recognised in the existing scheme, and there would be nothing to prevent us from recognising that in a future scheme.

Under subsection (2), a lot of things can be done to support the delivery of the local sustainably produced food objective. In the last 20 years, there has been exponential growth in consumer interest in food provenance, large growth and expansion of farm shops, and growth in box schemes and farmers markets—I know the hon. Member for Stroud has a well known farmers market in his constituency. There has been huge growth in consumer interest in this area. Under subsection (2), it would be possible for the Government to design a grant scheme to support farmers to open farm shops and to develop their own marketing and box schemes.

Subsection (1) is on the purposes for the delivery of environmental goods. We can pursue a lot of policies under those purposes and objectives that would deliver increased health outcomes. For instance, under subsection (1)(f) on animal health, we could support schemes that lead to a reduction in the use of antibiotics, which would have an impact on public health and safeguard some of our critical antibiotics for the medical sphere.

Under subsection (1)(a), as I described earlier, it would be absolutely possible for us to support an integrated pest management approach, leading to a reduction in the use of pesticides where they were seen to be of concern. Under subsection (1)(a) we could also support a pasture-based livestock system; there is some evidence, although mixed, that livestock such as sheep and cattle raised on pasture and grass have higher levels of omega-3 oils, which are good for public health. There are a number of areas where the purposes we have set out under clause 1(1) also reinforce public health measures.

[Martin Whitfield]

I apologise for my slight slowness; the Minister discussed subsection (2) and suggested that productivity extended beyond the productivity of the field or produce to a wider concept of the word. Is that correct? The end of that paragraph mentions

“agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity.”

Should that not therefore read “business” rather than “activity”, which suggests the activity of growing and maturing livestock?

[George Eustice]

I discussed that with parliamentary counsel. The issue is the subject of a later clause and no doubt we will debate it in more detail then: this is not a narrow economist’s definition of productivity—it is not part of the so-called “productivity puzzle” that people are trying to solve. We are using productivity in its rounder sense, which could include reducing costs, reducing inputs, adding value and increasing the price of things. It could also include—it is very explicit about this—setting up a new business, which could be a retail business allied to a farm business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

That is another example of how difficult this issue is and of the work that will be involved in making sure that we keep current standards as they are, or raise them higher than they are today. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that enables us to be confident of that, which is why we encourage the Government to accept our amendments, or if they will not, to bring forward measures that they find acceptable.

This is important. It is about the reputation of our country around the world. The people with whom we seek to trade in the future will be mindful of the legal framework in which our food is produced. It will be a lost opportunity should the Government not agree to bring something forward that will provide clarity for our producers.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is it not also the case that, if such a measure were in the Bill, in any future trade negotiations both sides will understand our bottom line and will not attempt to change it, because of the significant challenges in removing something from an Act? Indeed, it would empower the Secretary of State to build on the assurances that have been given.