Agriculture Bill

Debate between Neil Parish and Richard Fuller

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

[Neil Parish]

It is great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and to speak in this debate. I say clearly that I shall be supporting amendments 2, 12 and 16 tonight and I will explain why.

This Agriculture Bill goes exactly in the right direction. As we have left the common agricultural policy, we can now move in a more environmental direction. We can bring in much more rotation of crops and go back to traditional types of farming. We can reduce nitrates and pesticides, plant more trees, capture carbon in more grassland, have more grass-fed beef and lamb, and produce poultry and pigs to very high standards. We are reducing all the time the amount of antibiotics used, and we are creating a much greater and better product. Animal welfare is at the centre of our production.

I welcome the fact that our farmers have produced such excellent food throughout this pandemic, and I pay tribute to the food processing industry, which is worth £120 billion to this country. It is the largest manufacturing industry in this country and 60% of the food that is processed is produced in this country under very high standards. So the whole direction of the Bill is right, it has to be the case and I very much support it and the way that we go. It gives us the independence and sovereignty to do it. Likewise, we now have the sovereignty to develop, argue for and produce our own trade deals. So why are we not a great beacon of animal welfare and the environment as we negotiate these trade deals? We have in our manifesto a commitment both on animal welfare and the environment. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State for International Trade to have the armour of Parliament’s backing to say, “I can’t negotiate away that particular part of the deal with you because it is written down in law”?

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the frustration that hon. Members feel that, when it comes to trade deals, we are told at one time, “Well, it can be in that Bill,” and at another time, “It needs to be in that Bill”? Would it not have been helpful if the Department for International Trade had been here today?

[Neil Parish]

It would indeed. My hon. Friend is right. If we try to amend the Trade Bill, we get told, “That is not the place to put it.” If the Agriculture Bill is not the place to put it either, where is the place to put it? The place to put it is in this Parliament. I will very much support this, as do my hon. Friend and many Conservative Members. We want to negotiate very good trade deals, and not only with Australia, New Zealand and America. Do not forget that this is about not today and tomorrow, but probably several years down the road. What about when we start to do trade deals with Brazil? Brazil has burned down 2.5 million acres of rainforest this year and what do they do? They grow sugar beet and soya, they produce poultry intensively and they destroy the rainforest. When they have destroyed 2.5 million acres of rainforest every year, they will move on to another bit of land. They have destroyed the fertility of that land. They do not even farm the land in the right way. They destroy the environment and the land for farming and if we are not careful, that is exactly where we are going to take it.

Instead of that, we—the British—believe in animal welfare. We believe in the environment. All the signatories to the NFU petition agree on the way forward. So do the Government. I have every respect for the Government and the Minister. But, for goodness’ sake, get the backing of Parliament. Yes, we will get a certain amount of scrutiny of the trade deals when they are done, but the deal will be signed and then presented before Parliament. There will then be the option of objecting to it, or voting it through.

That is why the work has to be done. We do not need the whole Trade and Agriculture Commission; we could have a slimmed down version that could consider every individual deal over the years, as we sign it, to ensure that we do not trade away those standards, and that we improve standards across the world—that we raise the standards of animal welfare and the environment. Surely that is laudable. All of us can support that, irrespective of our political party. I urge the Government: instead of saying, “We’ve got the power. We can vote it down and stop those rebels whatever happens”, we want something really positive from the Government. I support the Minister very much in what she is doing, but let us get this measure in, so that we can actually support trade and trade deals in the future.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Neil Parish and Richard Fuller

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

It is bizarre for the Government to attack one of the sectors of British industry that has done the most to innovate and bring in new products, while ignoring other parts of the industry that have not made the same changes. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the core of the issue is the impact on obesity. Office for National Statistics figures show that obesity among adults doubled between 1993 and 2013. The proportion of obese children in 2013 was 9.5%, which was higher than in 2012, but lower than in 2006-07. The products being targeted originate from way before the current obesity issue. Irn-Bru, which is often described as the national drink of Scotland, was introduced in 1901. Robinsons Barley Water was introduced in 1935, and Coca-Cola in 1886.

The Government are ignoring the advice of Public Health England which, in its October 2015 report, said that it is not possible to compare the impact of price increases achieved by, for example, the introduction of a tax on sugar sweetened drinks, with other factors, such as the demonstrated effects of marketing on children or the impact of in-store promotions on purchasing habits. Nevertheless, the general tone of the available evidence is that restrictions on marketing and promotions may be more effective than fiscal measures.

[Neil Parish]

Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be better for the Government to work with the companies to reduce the amount of sugar in their drinks, rather than bringing in any form of tax? In the end, all we will do is to make it more expensive for poorer people to buy these drinks. That will not necessarily stop them drinking them, whereas if the amount of sugar in them could be reduced, that might have a greater effect on their diet.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, speaks with enormous sense and knowledge. He is, of course, absolutely right. It is much better to engage the industry than arbitrarily to impose a levy, especially one with such great uncertainty. The OBR states:

“The tax will operate with a specific revenue target of £500 million for the second year of implementation”.

It goes on—here is some real Budget gobbledegook—to say:

“From a pre-behavioural yield of over £900 million, the behavioural responses lower the yield to around £500 million a year. As a new tax likely to prompt a large behavioural response, these estimates are clearly subject to significant uncertainty.”

Well, there we have it—not a clue at all.