Tree Planting

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Calum Kerr]

A free transfer!

Forestry will deliver on the annual carbon saving target. That was set at 0.6 million tonnes of carbon by 2010, which is rising to 1 million tonnes by 2020. Forestry is a huge part of the strategy in that area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, the Forestry Commission recently published a climate change action plan, looking at how we can build on the current success. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made the fair point at the start that although Scotland may be leading the way in the UK, there is still room for improvement. There is acceptance of the Select Committee Chair’s point about the most effective use of land. There are areas that we can and will develop further.

We heard about the annual planting targets of 10,000 hectares, but as important are the moves to speed up and streamline the approval processes for sustainable plantations. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire outlined, that needs to happen in England; the Scottish Government are already on the front foot in that respect.

I mentioned Cheviot Trees. When this debate was announced, its managing director, Harry Frew, got in touch with me and asked me to attend this important debate if I could because, in his words:

“We don’t feel the urgency of tree planting is seriously understood nor is activity being implemented in a meaningful way in England.”

Mr Frew is clear that the Government get it—they have the nice words and some of the rhetoric—but what is missing is action. I hope that in this debate he will get reassurance from the Minister that there is action to match those words.

I have a genuine concern as we head down the Brexit path about the ability and resources in DEFRA to deliver in a post-Brexit world. My own experience of getting responses out of DEFRA, as the DEFRA spokesperson, has been poor. Responses are slow. I got a response today to a question submitted on 1 September, and two responses are still outstanding. In a resource-constrained environment, in which people are struggling to do the day job, how will the Department cope with the bigger challenge for DEFRA—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is the rule of the House that he should have only 10 minutes. He has now gone on for longer than that, and if he does not bring his remarks to a conclusion, that will cut down on other hon. Members’ time.

[Calum Kerr]

Thank you, Mr Bone. I apologise for running over; I am concluding. Will the Minister assure Harry Frew that there will be action to match the ambition? Will she tell us what she will do to ensure that forestry is a success story in the future as well as today?

Soil Health

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mary Creagh]

Yes, the Minister has a degree in chemistry, so she will know about the importance of representative sampling. Such an analysis would only deal with agricultural soil, but would neglect conservation land, urban and coastal land, forests and most peat lands.

Let me turn to the cross-compliance regime. The Government’s reliance on cross-compliance rules with farm payments to regulate agricultural soil health is not sufficient to meet their ambition to manage our soil sustainably by 2030. The regime is too weak. The rules are too loosely enforced and they rely only on preventing further damage to soil, rather than on promoting activity to encourage the restoration and improvement of our soils.

Crucial elements of soil health, such as soil structure and biology, are not assessed at all in the cross-compliance regime, and there is a minimal inspection regime. Two figures really illustrate the changes in the past couple of years. In 2014 there were 478 discovered breaches of the cross-compliance soil regime, but in 2015, under the new common agricultural policy rules, there were just two discovered breaches of the new conditions, both on the same farm. I am pretty certain that the only reason those breaches were discovered was because there was soil run-off, which probably went into a watercourse. It was not Government inspectors, but the Environment Agency, that saw a polluting incident in a river, allowing the breach to be discovered. In theory, an outcome-based approach is fine, but we need adequate inspection and monitoring. Rules with greater scope, force and ambition are required to meet the Government’s goal to manage soil sustainably by 2030.

I turn briefly to subsidies for maize production and anaerobic digestion. We heard that maize production, when managed incorrectly, also damages soil. This is not just a question for fans of “The Archers”, in which Adam is trying to restore the soil structure in the face of opposition from evil Rob Titchener, who is evil not just because of what he did to Helen, but because of his approach to soil monitoring and restoration. We send Adam every good wish in his low-till approach to improving the land.

Maize production can increase flood risk and contribute to soil erosion. My Committee heard evidence that up to three quarters of a field could be sealed to—or become impervious to—rainfall in maize stubble fields over the winter, which results in the soil run-off that, as I said earlier, damages rivers. There is a very simple method to avoid that, which is roughly ploughing back in the maize stubble. If the Government could think of ways to incentivise farmers to do that, we would be only too happy to hear about them. We need effective regulation of high-risk practices.

Maize produced for anaerobic digestion receives a double subsidy: first through the CAP and then from the UK’s own renewable energy incentives. That is counterproductive and has contributed to an increase in the land used for maize production. The Government’s plan to restrict the subsidy for energy generated using crop-based feedstock is a move in the right direction, but it fails to prevent maize from being grown on high-risk soils. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether she has any specific plans on that issue.

Before I finish, Mr Bone, I would like to say a few words about the referendum result, a topic that I know is very close to your heart.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. When I sit in this Chair, I have no views on anything.

[Mary Creagh]

Excellent; that is great. I shall carry on regardless, then.

Some 80% of our environmental regulations are shaped by Brussels, and soil is no exception. The European Environment Agency researches trends in European soil health and looks at how cross-cutting policy objectives impact on soil management. It is not glamourous work—getting our hands dirty never is—but it is important for member states, including the UK, working towards the European Union’s target to ensure that by 2020 soil erosion is reduced, soil organic matter is increased and remedial work is underway on contaminated sites. It is important that we are able to meet our 0.4% target to improve soil carbon capture, as we have agreed to do in the Paris agreement. As we leave the EU, it is vital that the Government maintain that target and ensure that UK agencies take over the European Environment Agency’s vital work in this area.

Other Members wish to speak, so I will conclude by saying that soil is crucial to life on Earth. Neglecting soil health will damage our food security, increase climate change and damage public health. DEFRA’s upcoming 25-year environment plan gives us a unique opportunity to place soil protection at the heart of our environmental policy. We must stop seeing soil just as a growth medium and treat it as a precious, fragile ecosystem in its own right—it is the Cinderella of all ecosystems.

We need a joined-up soil policy between DEFRA and the Department for Communities and Local Government in relation to planning. We are pleased that the Government have acknowledged those issues, but now we await action. We want to see specific, measurable and time-limited action to protect our soil. I commend our report to the House, and I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree. Action is being taken, but although I could not get a firm answer from the Department, which said that data on peat extraction licences are not held centrally, Natural England estimates that there are currently 29 valid peat extraction licences. Five of those licences will expire before 2020; six more will expire by 2030; another four will expire by 2040; and the remaining 14 will expire in 2042. That is quite a lot of peat extraction between now and 2040. I obviously do not have the data on what areas of land are covered; it is all a little vague, which is why I would like the Minister to look into it. The way to tackle the issue is to try to buy out the licences so that the commercial activities do not go ahead. It should be on the record that I would like to see that done.

On the broader issue of carbon in the soil, there is already evidence out there. As Peter Melchett from the Soil Association said to the Select Committee:

“how you get carbon back into the soil is fairly settled science”.

We need a commitment that shows that the Government have fully embraced the need to act on that science. It is welcome that at an event last month the Secretary of State spoke of her own personal commitment to implementing the global “4 per 1000” soil carbon initiative. It is also welcome that the Government have confirmed that measures to increase soil organic matter will be reflected in the 25-year environment plan, but I hope there will be more than just a token reference to soil, and that the plan will set out the

“specific, measureable and time-limited actions”



to increase soil carbon levels by 0.4% per year that the Select Committee recommended.

The protection of agricultural soils should also, of course, be in the other 25-year plan—the food and farming plan. In fact, this illustrates the absurdity of the Government’s decision to have two completely separate plans. It is not possible to separate farming from the natural environment on which it depends and the rural communities that sustain it. It is unwise to look at food and farming purely from an economic, money-making viewpoint and nothing more, particularly if the focus in the food and farming plan on growing more, buying more and selling more British food ends up promoting further intensification, which would lead to more pressure on soils, not to mention more pressure on water and biodiversity, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. We will all end up paying the costs. The Minister will probably say that efforts are being made to cross-reference the two 25-year plans, but I stick by my original views that the issues ought to be incorporated into one report.

The Committee on Climate Change has said that, for the UK to meet the targets in the Climate Change Act 2008, a 15% reduction in agricultural emissions is needed by 2032. That will be achieved in part by action to prevent the degradation of our carbon-rich soils, about which we have already heard from other Members. Will the Minister say whether emissions from agriculture will be included in the Government’s emissions reduction plans? Will the food and farming plan set out how agriculture will deliver its sectoral share of responsibility for reducing carbon emissions?

Other Members have touched on reform to the common agricultural policy. I hope we will also hear today about the Government’s priorities for our agricultural policy framework once we leave the EU, to ensure that in future farm payments are better invested in public goods, from soil health to wildlife and water quality. In drawing up their plans, I hope the Government look to some of the great examples of best practice and forward thinking by UK farmers and growers on restoring our soils, including agroecological approaches.

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, there is currently quite a debate going on in “The Archers”. People will know of Adam’s struggles in trying to improve the long-term fertility of his soil, with his plans looking increasingly likely to be overturned by his land managers, on the advice of the evil Rob Titchener, who has been mentioned already. The previous Environment Minister, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, told the Select Committee that the primary incentive for farmers to protect their soils is that it is good for their farm business, as healthy soils are the bedrock of future production—indeed, we heard from the hon. Member for Taunton Deane that we will reach a point where there will be no more harvests, at least in some parts of the country, if we do not protect soil.

As the report says, the benefits of soil health are not always felt by those maintaining it, and the costs of soil degradation are mostly borne by others, from water companies to those living downstream at greater risk of flooding. Adam’s new farming methods are making Borchester Land uneasy. It has been too easy for Rob to paint Adam’s methods as a bit faddish, hippy-ish and self-indulgent, as opposed to his facing the hard-headed economic realities of farming. I hope that, as well as in the other 25-year plan, the Government really seize the chance in the food and farming plan and say that it is not unfriendly towards business to look at agroecological approaches. We need to be protecting soil as one of our most precious resources. It is that that will protect the future productivity of farming, as well as protecting our countryside.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mike Weir to speak for the Scottish National party, I am not sure: are we sub judice on some of the events in Borchester, or has that case passed?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Events involving the evil Rob Titchener?

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Yes.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I think Helen was acquitted at the trial, so his evilness is in no doubt and we can put it on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am always delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, because he always has something exciting in store for me. During Seafood Week we have established a working group with different seafood organisations. We are absolutely committed to promoting it, as we are with all our great British food. As I have mentioned, I am off to the Paris food exhibition and the China food exhibition to see what more we can do for our great British seafood and other food.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

7. What support her Department is providing to the work of the Department for Exiting the European Union.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)]

As he was one of my great Northamptonshire colleagues during the EU referendum campaign, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that my Department is doing all it can to support DEEU on policy development and stakeholder engagement right across DEFRA’s portfolio. I will shortly meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to discuss the enormous opportunities that EU exit presents for our food, farming and fishing sectors.

[Mr Bone]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the Brexit dividends is that we can take the money that the EU currently gives to our farmers and give it out more fairly and efficiently after we have left the EU? [Interruption.]

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The fact is that the money we get from the EU was British taxpayers’ money in the first place. The first thing I did on joining the Department was to agree with the Treasury that the current levels of farming and environment support should remain until 2020 to give our farmers continuity. [Interruption.] Of course, once we have left the EU we can ensure that our policies deliver for farmers while improving the environment. We want to work closely with industry stakeholder groups and the public to ensure that our policies are simple, good value for the taxpayer and free from the unnecessary constraints that we see today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, this is the first time at a European level that we have agreed that the lab tests do not reflect the reality of what vehicles are emitting, and we have put in place a process to get to real-world conditions. This country has been pushing for that for some time and last week we succeeded in getting a path to achieving it. That is major progress, which will help us to deliver our air quality commitments.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I welcome what the Minister has said and what the Government are doing. More generally, does she agree that climate change must be partly responsible for changes to air quality?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We need to look at both carbon dioxide emissions and nitrogen oxides emissions to make sure that we are delivering reductions in both. That is exactly what our air quality plans are about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Again, I shall be delighted to do so. Worcester is a special case, as it is on the Severn, like Gloucester. Much of the flooding there has affected assets, such as road assets. That culvert is central and I am happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and with the Environment Agency in order to address the challenges of that culvert.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

This week we launched the great British food campaign to grow more, buy more and sell more British food. We will be harnessing the expertise of pioneering chefs, entrepreneurs and farmers to build the UK’s reputation as a great food nation. In the new year we will be establishing the great British food unit to bring together DEFRA exports and UK Trade and Investment into a single team to support great British food companies. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I think we are all aware that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is still chuntering away from a sedentary position about Stilton. We have heard what he has to say about Stilton.

[Mr Bone]

On 22 January I expect to get a Second Reading for my private Member’s Bill—it is not a Government hand-out Bill, but I hope it will have Government support—abolishing the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is, I understand, keen to have the energy element. Would the Secretary of State like to have the climate change section in her Department? I think the Government are looking favourably on this Bill.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Our Department already has a strong responsibility for climate change—climate change adaptation, which is baked into everything we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

May I say absolutely clearly that the PAC will not get involved in any “vendetta” against the BBC? This is simply about value-for-money inquiries. For instance, the Comptroller and Auditor General, who certainly is completely outside politics, has expressed in public his concerns about the current arrangements. He does not have a statutory right of access to information. His staff are entirely dependent on what information the BBC chooses to give them in answer to their questions. His reports are badged with the BBC logo and they are always prefaced by a preamble prepared by the BBC Trust. The fact is that the BBC is a public body. It must be like other public bodies and held to account for value for money.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Long ago I used to do auditing of companies, and it seems to me that the BBC would be a prime target for that. Is not my hon. Friend surprised that the BBC has not requested that the National Audit Office gets involved?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is not for me to question what goes on inside the mind of the BBC. All I can say is that there is general consensus that we must move forward into the modern age and the BBC must be like all other public bodies, and that this Parliament, through our Public Accounts Committee, must have full financial oversight so that we have a well-run organisation that uses public moneys efficiently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed reduction in the number of Members of Parliament on the scrutiny of Government.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The next review of UK parliamentary constituencies—a subject of interest to one or two Members—will be based on a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament from 650 to 600, and it will be undertaken by the UK’s various boundary commissions, and not the Electoral Commission. As such, neither the Speaker’s Committee nor the Electoral Commission has made any assessment of its potential impact.

[Mr Bone]

Of course, one of the advantages of reducing the number of MPs is that fewer Whips will be required, but the first job of a Member of Parliament, who is not part of the Government, is to scrutinise the Government. By taking 50 out of these Members, the Government will not be scrutinised so well. Does my hon. Friend have a view on whether the size of the Government should be reduced proportionately to the reduction in the number of MPs?

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully and with a modicum of common sense, as always. He may well have half a point, but this is not a matter for the Electoral Commission and it is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Streeter]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and that is what many of our constituents want. The issue is: who is best placed to provide that impartial guide? Given the complexity of the question—there are so many unknowns—and the importance of ensuring that the Electoral Commission does not in any way undermine its neutrality and independence, it may not be the right organisation to carry out that task.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

If they are not the people to do it, I am quite happy to take on that task. It would be pointless having such a document because it will have pages and pages and pages of costs; I doubt that we would find a page on the benefits.

[Mr Streeter]

I will certainly put that offer back to the Electoral Commission. I am sure that it will be as enthusiastic as I am.

Winter Flooding (Preparation)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. For the convenience of Members, I do not intend to impose a time limit, but it might be useful to know that I intend to call the Front Benchers no later than 10.40 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I have three Members who want to speak. I would love to get everyone in, but we are pressed for time. So five minutes or so for each speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to delay for long, but before the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) explodes, we must hear from him.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The secondary reason why my hon. Friend came to the two constituencies was to judge the night life. Will he please tell us whether Wellingborough or Kettering had the better night life?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Well, I fear that however I answer this question, I am likely to receive invitations from right hon. and hon. Members of all parties to go and sample the night life in their constituencies. I thought the way in which the night economies were managed by the police, by the street pastors and by everyone in Wellingborough and Kettering made them both attractive destinations for people to go and visit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have heard from Mr Hollobone so we have got to hear from Mr Bone.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is an outrageous slur from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) to say that Kettering is the nightclub capital of north Northamptonshire when everybody knows it is Wellingborough and Rushden. Street pastors in my area do a tremendous job, in particular the Full Gospel church in Rushden, which has led the way with a homeless shelter. Does my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

On my way to Kettering, I promise and undertake to call on my hon. Friend’s constituency and witness the work of the street pastors there as well.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he seems to have indicated—I will take it as such—that he will support my new clause 1 or new clause 2. He gets to the nub of the point, although I suspect he has not even bothered to read the new clauses, because if he had he would not have led with his chin in the way that he just has.

I wish to make it clear at this point that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would prefer to press new clause 2 to a Division than new clause 1, but I will be guided by you later on that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has been exceptionally generous throughout his speech.

I have been looking at new clauses 1 and 2, and they seem to be the same except for the level of turnover specified in them. Is that the case, and will my hon. Friend go into some detail on that?

[Philip Davies]

As ever, my hon. Friend is eagle-eyed. The amendments are the same, but the purpose of tabling two was to give the House a choice, because as it happened, I envisaged the interventions that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has made.

At Asda, we found huge reluctance on the part of suppliers to stop special offers. They lobbied Asda for ever to do more and more of them to promote their brands, and an everyday low price did not offer them the same marketing opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, but people ought to be aware that the Bill leaves great scope for the adjudicator to decide what to do. People should not have too much faith. The Bill deliberately gives it massive power and freedom.

[Mr Bone]

We have very limited time, because the House agreed to the programme motion, so perhaps we could speed things up. I notice that the Minister has been deep in conversation and looking at the new clauses. I wonder if she might intervene and accept new clause 2, because then we could move on.

--- Later in debate ---

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) has made the point that if supermarkets stick to their agreement, there would be nothing for the adjudicator to do. We would be paying her a huge salary to do nothing, which seems a bizarre situation, but there we go. On the other hand, there might be lots of complaints and everything could be working fantastically with everyone thinking that the Bill has been a great triumph, with even small suppliers thinking that it has been great, and all the rest of it. Well, in seven years’ time, we can let the Bill expire and decide for ourselves whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. We can also decide whether the threshold I favour is worth putting back in again if we agree to it today or worth inserting if we do not. We will be able to see how it works in practice. If all my fears turn out not to be a problem, it can all be resolved when the Bill is looked at again in seven years’ time. If my fears are proved to be correct and people accept that some of my concerns were true, it could equally be dealt with at that particular point. Why box ourselves into something that is a complete waste of time? Let us have a sunset clause, so that we can deal with any anomalies and the Government can start from scratch with a future Bill that is more fit for purpose.

[Mr Bone]

I am considering whether to support new clause 3. Am I right in understanding that if, in seven years’ time, the post of adjudicator turns out to have been superfluous, it would just fade away, whereas if it has been a good measure, Prime Minister Cameron would, in his 21st year or whatever, be able to reintroduce it?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. He knows as well as I do that if such a sunset clause is not introduced, and if the Bill is shown to be a completely unnecessary waste of time and an expensive bit of bureaucracy that we could well have done without, it will carry on endlessly. Nobody will have the guts to do anything about it. The provision will provide a mechanism for getting rid of the legislation if it is seen to be unnecessary. If it were seen to be necessary—who knows, I do not think it will, but it might—people could bring it back and would be anxious to get the legislation in place again. My new clause 3 will stop some ridiculous white elephant carrying on in perpetuity, when it is seen to be unnecessary. I say in passing that it would be sensible if more Bills had sunset clauses included in them, so that we can analyse whether they have been worthwhile and have done what was said on the tin.

My intention in this group of amendments has been to focus on new clauses 1 and 2. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to divide the House on new clause 2, which would put the same £1 billion threshold on suppliers as applies in the Bill for the retailers themselves. There seems no good reason to me why the same figure should not apply to both sides of the equation. A Division will enable us all to see who has gone into the Lobby to look after the interests of big multinational suppliers and who effectively wants their constituents to pay more for their shopping to benefit the bottom line of those companies.

I do not believe I was sent to Parliament to boost the profits of Heinz, Mars or Nestlé, who are perfectly capable of looking after their own interests. I want my constituents to pay the lowest price necessary for the products they buy in the supermarket. They are already struggling with the cost of living. How ridiculous it would be if we were to put legislation in place that made them pay more than they would otherwise need to pay for their shopping. I hope that the Government will see sense and realise that the same equation should apply on both sides of the supply chain—to retailers and suppliers. I hope they will think about that and listen to reason. If they do not, I hope the House will force them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Paice]

My hon. Friend is entirely right.

[Mr Bone]

I have been listening to my right hon. Friend’s speech very carefully, as it serves to balance the debate. I am very attracted to new clause 2. The Bill is designed to look after the small guy and not the big guy. How would accepting new clause 2 present a problem?

[Sir James Paice]

It is entirely for the Government to decide whether to accept new clause 2. It does not cause me a huge problem, but I believe it to be completely unnecessary for the reasons I have described. Nothing I have said could be deemed to suggest I am against it, but I just do not see any need for it. I certainly believe, however, that there is a very real problem that needs to be addressed, and this Bill seeks to do precisely that. That is not the basis on which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley proposes his amendments, however; as he has said, he does not agree with the Bill at all. I do agree with it, and I would like its provisions to become law as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I support new clause 2. In most people’s eyes the Bill was designed essentially to protect the UK supplier, particularly of fresh produce, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said. What the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has just delivered is a scaremongering speech designed to undermine British suppliers of fresh meat and produce. That is extremely regrettable.

Last night I attended a speech given by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). His speech was entitled, “Deregulation for Growth”. I must admit to being slightly confused about what I have heard so far during this debate, because it seems to be about regulation. How, I ask the Minister, will the Bill be consistent with the Government’s growth agenda? Perhaps she will tell us when she responds.

The Minister last night said that there was a two-for-one principle—that for every £1 of additional burden imposed through regulation, £2 of savings of regulation had to be found. That brings me to new clauses 4 and 5, which are designed to highlight the fact that the Bill as drafted will embody the law of unintended consequences writ large. It will potentially benefit suppliers not only from elsewhere in Europe, but from right across the globe, when most people who support the Bill think they are doing so in order to help the farmer down the road in the United Kingdom. That is far from the case. What will happen is that the Bill will enable suppliers from overseas to exploit our system, at a time when our own suppliers and producers are not able to access overseas markets on an equivalent basis.

[Mr Bone]

I am sure my hon. Friend is going to explain new clause 4 in more detail. I am troubled by the way it is drafted, as it says

“if they have their principal headquarters outside the European Union.”

Why not outside the United Kingdom?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend anticipates the argument that I am going to put. I was in discussion about whether an amendment referring only to “outside the United Kingdom” would be in order and selectable. On advice—obviously, I am responsible for deciding whether to act on advice—I decided that my new clause was much more likely to be selected if, instead of referring to the United Kingdom, I referred to the European Union. That is because of single market and European Union rules. Obviously, I wanted to ensure as far as possible that my new clause would be selectable, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is saying that the whole public debate is about why cannot we buy British—buy UK food and thereby avoid the risk associated—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I shall be brief, because under the programme motion we have only half an hour left to discuss the whole of the remaining stages of the Bill. The programme motion has been proved to be hopeless, as we will not even get to the next group of amendments.

I refer the House to my entry in the register. I cannot quite relate to the supermarket industry, but I can relate to the travel industry, where the margins are similar and the competition levels are as great, and there are a number of big suppliers who put pressure on smaller suppliers. In my day, I was one of those smaller suppliers, but I did not come across the practices that have been described as happening in the supermarkets, where there have been nasty attempts to force the use of the hauliers demanded by the supermarkets. I did not come across such things, so I accept that this is a very different case.

The whole House supports the small producers, who are unfairly penalised by the actions of very large supermarkets. However, the House should not be united in giving support to companies that may be even greater than the supermarkets. I am attracted by and minded to support new clause 2, unless the Minister—and a very fine Minister she is, too—can persuade the House that there is some fundamental reason not to support it. It is possible that having listened to arguments from all parts of the House, she will say that the Government accept new clause 2.

That is the sort of thing that I would like to see more often in Parliament when reasoned cases are made which do not in any way affect what the Government want. In fact, new clause 2 enhances what the Government want. If big companies are excluded from being able to use the adjudicator, that will allow the adjudicator more time and allow the adjudicator to reach decisions more quickly on the small suppliers that matter. That is why I intervened on the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I wanted to see whether there was a reason why we should not adopt new clause 2. I see no reason why we should not go ahead and accept it. I hope the Minister will do that, but if not, I am minded to support it in a Division.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on this series of amendments and for tabling the amendments, through which we have discussed and probed various issues.

It might be helpful to recap briefly on why we are here, which relates to the reasons why I may have to disappoint hon. Members and not be able to accept their amendments—that is, the purpose of the groceries code adjudicator and how we have come to the Bill before us. That relates to the Competition Commission report, which found that although the market was functioning effectively in delivering low prices to consumers, some practices by large retailers could have an anti-competitive effect.

The Competition Commission found that, through buyer power, the large retailers were engaging in practices that transferred excessive risk and unexpected costs to their suppliers, and that this in turn could reduce the incentive of suppliers to invest and innovate, which would act against the long-term interests of consumers. It is worth noting that all six members of the Competition Commission group who undertook the market investigation into groceries agreed that the transfer of excessive risks or unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers is likely to lessen suppliers’ incentives to invest in new capacity, products and production processes. If unchecked, those practices would ultimately have a detrimental effect on consumers. Paragraph 11.375 of the commission’s report states clearly that all but one member of the investigation panel considered the adjudicator essential for the monitoring and enforcement of the code and that the code on its own would not be enough. That relates to the points my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised earlier.

The Competition Commission’s report is absolutely key. It created the groceries supply order and the code is derived from it, and that is what needs to be enforced by the adjudicator. That is why the Government will resist the amendments that would encourage the adjudicator to deviate from the report.

It is worth mentioning that creating the adjudicator was in all three major parties’ manifestos. It has been endorsed by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny. It is appropriate at this moment to report to the House that, following our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee and other representations, pre-appointment scrutiny by the Select Committee will now happen. I am delighted that the Government have been able to accommodate that request, because such scrutiny from a Select Committee is welcome, leads to better legislation and strengthens Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

The Minister is quite wrong on that. I am not coming from that position; I came to that view after listening to the debate. Does she not fear that there is a danger that allowing large suppliers to go to the adjudicator will clog up the system so that it cannot look after small suppliers, which is what it is supposed to do?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not believe that is the case. The adjudicator will obviously be able to make their own assessments. The industry is confident that there will be very few complaints, and I wholeheartedly hope that will be the case, but if we find that there are many breaches of the code, and if the evidence comes from a variety of sources, the adjudicator will need to look at that and be empowered to make recommendations and requests, and they will need to be properly and adequately resourced in order to do so. Therefore, an arbitrary restriction on who can complain would actually make the adjudicator’s life harder and, indeed, could increase the risk of judicial review, so we will reject the new clause and encourage hon. Members to oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.

The hon. Member for Shipley seemed to suggest that the provision would cost consumers more money, but all the supermarkets that gave evidence on the matter said, when asked, that complying with the code had not caused them to raise prices, so his concerns are misplaced. This will not cost consumers. Indeed, surveys have shown that 84% of consumers support the adjudicator, and I am sure that hon. Members will be well aware from their mail bags that there is a great deal of public support for the adjudicator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I absolutely give that assurance. If a body such as the OFT receives information, particularly from a respected public servant, we would expect it to respond appropriately as part of its general duty, but we do not want to be overly prescriptive in how we set that out in legislation. I hope that that reassurance is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and I urge him not to press his amendment.

Amendment 28 would require the adjudicator to set out in guidance which laws will apply to arbitration and where it will be conducted. The amendment is superfluous, because it would duplicate information that is already in the groceries supply order. We discussed arbitration in Committee, as did the other place when it debated the Bill. Article 11 of the order sets out the rules that will apply and the fact that

“the seat or legal place of arbitration will be London…or such other city within the United Kingdom as the Supplier nominates.”

Of course, the adjudicator may choose to publish guidance on arbitration, but we do not believe that it is necessary to make that a requirement under the Bill.

[Mr Bone]

Is my hon. Friend at all contrite about the fact that we will not reach the second and third group of amendments?

[Jo Swinson]

No, I am not. We have had an interesting debate, although I suspect it could have been more concise; nevertheless, we are where we are.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) tabled amendment 27 on commencement. I am happy to make a commitment that the Government intend commencement to take place two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is, however, usual procedure not to set that out in legislation, but to allow the Secretary of State discretion to commence an Act by order.

Finally, I cannot accept, in fact or in spirit, new clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley. I agree that we do not want statutory offices to continue when they are not needed, and the Government have been working according to that principle. Indeed, in accordance with our general policy on sunsetting, the Bill’s sunset clause—clause 15—means that the Secretary of State must review the adjudicator every three years and may decide, if appropriate, to abolish the office. However, proposing an arbitrary end to the Act is not appropriate. If, in seven years’ time, the problems with large retailers that have led to the creation of the Bill and the adjudicator persist, we would not want the Act to be repealed automatically. I reassure Members that the Secretary of State will be rigorous in reviewing this matter. I believe that that is a much better way to ensure that statutory offices do not continue unnecessarily.

I hope that hon. Members are satisfied with my assurances and explanations, and that they will not press their amendments. If that is not the case, I urge hon. Members to reject the amendments before us.