Agriculture Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock]

These amendments once again go to the heart of the devolved settlement, and the question of whether for Scotland, “taking back control” means actually taking back control. The principle is that Scotland should be the arbiter of her own schemes and provisions, and should decide what is covered in them. There should be no role for a Secretary of State in the UK Government to be an overlord for Scotland’s agricultural sector, or for its support schemes. It makes sense for Scottish Ministers, overseen by the Scottish Parliament, to make those decisions.

I appreciate that, as we have already heard, the opinion of the UK Government is that compliance with the WTO agreement is an international obligation, and that the final decision should rest with them. I remind them that the Scottish Administration have had cases where they have been held liable for infringements of international agreements. I argue that Scotland’s Government should not be reliant on the UK Government to get those decisions right in order to avoid being stung by the consequences. Scotland is more than capable, I assure all hon. Members, of getting these things absolutely right on its own.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

It seems somewhat ironic that with all those policies, the Scottish National party would abdicate the decisions to Brussels; certainly on agriculture and fisheries policies, particularly those involving trade, Brussels would be making the important decisions.

[Deidre Brock]

I am not really inclined to rehearse all the arguments of the Brexit situation back and forth—they have been ongoing for some time. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the Scottish Government’s views on these issues, as well as those of the SNP group at Westminster.

I will refrain from pointing out that the WTO is falling apart at the moment, unfortunately, as a result of the actions of the US President, because that would be beneath my dignity, but it should be borne in mind that without a tribunal system, the WTO simply does not function. The point of the amendments is simply to ensure that Scotland has the freedom of movement to ensure that it complies with the agreements, whether or not the UK does. That seems a very fair and equitable way to do things. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration and agree to my proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have to say that I do not normally find myself in agreement with the Daily Mail, but on this occasion there may be something in it. The important point is that there are clearly people close to Government who have dramatic views that seem different to those of the vast majority of Conservative Members, as well as Labour Members. It is a question for the Government to decide who they choose to seek advice from, but it can hardly be denied that it is out there.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in an earlier evidence session George Monbiot advocated for precisely those points, and argued for desisting in the production of sheep and cattle on the uplands and planting them with trees? Does he subscribe to that view, as espoused by The Guardian?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but there is a subtle difference between witness evidence and the evidence that has been given in the important Dimbleby review on our future food policy. I think there is a difference, but, as always, I respect his observation.

Moving on from jousting about newspapers, it is important that to have a discussion about levels of food security, as I have mentioned. It is an intellectually plausible position to say that we do not have to produce our own food and that we could become like Singapore. That is an important political debate that should be had transparently, not in private emails between advisers. Without proper legal protection in place, many people will feel that whatever the Government say will just be warm words.

To go back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, at the last DEFRA questions the previous Secretary of State said pretty much what she just said. She said:

“Our high environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards are already in law, including legislating to prevent the importation of chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef”.—[Official Report, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 438.]

We were interested by that statement. Can the Minister clarify further the statement that they are “already in law” by providing the details of the legislation where those standards can be found? Can she explain what mechanism would be used if the Government are required in a trade negotiation to amend or remove any of the standards and describe, in that scenario, the level of parliamentary scrutiny that would apply?

That should be good ground for the Minister as she is an esteemed lawyer. I am neither esteemed nor a lawyer, so I was grateful that, after the exchange at DEFRA questions, the shadow Secretary of State sought advice. We have advice from the House of Commons Library and—guess what?—it is complicated. Inevitably, trying to unravel the complexity of bringing EU law into domestic law and the overlaps is difficult. I suspect the law would need to be tested and, as ever, different lawyers would give different advice; that tends to happen. Some think that EU-derived domestic legislation covering these matters could, in some circumstances, be changed by the Government using delegated powers in the Food Safety Act 1990, without the need even to seek parliamentary approval, let alone primary legislation.

We are questioning the Government on this. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State queried it with the previous Secretary of State, and we await a response with interest, because it is an important point. However, the seeming lack of clarity hardly fills us with confidence, because this is such an issue. Clearly, in the interests of certainty and clarity—which, in fairness, we can agree we do not have—we should put this in the Bill. We should agree an amendment to create a proper legislative guarantee that future trade deals will not allow imports of agricultural goods used to lower environmental, public health, and animal welfare standards. This is that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is, because it was made clear that there would be a clear response. I suspect that the issue is complicated and people are working on it, but I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern. This is something we need clarity on.

[Mr Goodwill]

I absolutely understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s objectives. His new clause talks about “agricultural goods”, which presumably includes animal feed. It is pretty much accepted that environmental standards in Brazil, Argentina, the United States and Canada are lower than ours. Would the new clause ban the importation of all agricultural feed, including soya beans and maize, into the United Kingdom, should the exporting country’s environmental standards not be as high as ours, given that those products are mixed, so it could not be done on an individual farm basis?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I fully accept that the provision would need to be thought through and worked through in future. My point is that in general we must be careful about such changes, because I do not want our agriculture sector to be put at a disadvantage.

We do not want what I have just been outlining to happen. I suspect that the Minister and the vast majority of her colleagues do not want it to happen either. I mentioned the chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, and it is worth spending a moment to remind ourselves of the exact nature of the kinds of low-standard food imports that we need to guard against.

When it comes to a trade deal with the US, we know that by and large its regulations on farm animal welfare are substantially lower than those of the UK. My understanding is that the US has no federal regulations at all in many of the areas in which the UK has enacted detailed regulations. The RSPCA raised, in evidence, the fact that 55% of the pork meat and bacon that we eat is imported. Virtually all of it comes from the EU, which follows comparatively high standards of production.

If we start going to the US, where they still use sow stalls and inject pigs with ractopamine, both of which are rightly illegal in UK pig farming on animal welfare grounds, we completely undermine our moral commitments against those practices, and allow undercutting of our farmers, who are committed to such higher standards. I remind members of the Committee that ractopamine is a feed additive used to manipulate growth in pigs, which has been shown to be highly detrimental to pig welfare, causing lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath. There is a reason we do not use it. It is the same for hormone-treated beef, which is produced in the US by injecting cattle with growth hormones to generate greater mass more quickly. That is banned in the EU on animal welfare and public health grounds.

The issue with the chlorinated chicken produced in the US is that the chickens have been kept in such dismal and intensive conditions that the chlorine is required to wash off the pathogens that they have become infected with during rearing and slaughter. The principle is animal welfare, but there is also a real question over food safety. Of course, we heard evidence on that. It is fair to say that there is dispute about the comparative rates of food-borne illnesses in the US and the UK but, as we heard from Professor Keevil of the University of Southampton, there are now studies that suggest that chlorine washing is not as effective as was once thought, and can make pathogens undetectable without actually killing them, so that they may remain capable of causing disease.

I feel strongly that those are not products that we want on our shelves or in our freezer cabinets. I will echo the words of the president of the National Farmers Union, who last week delivered this statement to a clearly discomfited Secretary of State:

“To sign up to a trade deal which results in opening our ports, shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here would not only be morally bankrupt, it would be the work of the insane.”

I might not have used exactly the same words, but I agree with the sentiment, and I think that the Secretary of State was discomfited because he knows that she is right.

It is crystal clear that we need a safeguard. How on earth do the Government expect to negotiate their way out of this, when the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has clearly said that chlorinated chicken must be part of any UK-US trade agreement? Why not come clean and admit that in the negotiations there will be trade-offs, one of which, sadly, could be selling out our farmers and our environment?

New clauses 30 to 32 are particularly interesting, and members of the Committee who have read them will note that they are detailed. They may think, “Gosh, what a clever bunch they are on the Labour side.” They may not—but it is actually better than that. Let me explain where the new clauses came from. I suspect that some Members already know, and I hope that the Minister was warned when she took the job. The new clauses—the exact words—were tabled to the previous Bill by none other than the current Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). That Bill never reached Report and there was no opportunity to debate the new clauses. I am grateful to eagle-eyed experts from an organisation that shall remain nameless—they know who they are—for drawing them to our attention.

We judge that it would be of use to the Committee to consider the new clauses. They are deeply probing and have an illustrious pedigree, because they first saw the light of day during the brief, tricky period when the current Secretary of State was on the Back Benches, having resigned his post over a difference of opinion with the then Prime Minister about our relationship with the European Union. To some extent, we are slightly puzzled that those amendments have not been re-tabled by the Government for this version of the Bill. It would be useful to hear the Minister explain why the Government apparently now feel that these worthy proposals, tabled then, are not worth revisiting now. I will choose my words carefully, because the Secretary of State is clearly not part of the Committee. I ask the Minister, why does she not agree with the proposals? Perhaps she does.

We were particularly struck by what these new clauses seemed to be looking to achieve. Members of the Committee will agree that they deal with complex and technical matters on which a degree of expertise is needed in matters of animal health and veterinary pharmaceutical practice. Our understanding is that the aim here was to place in primary legislation many of the protections and safeguards on food safety and animal welfare that already currently exist in secondary legislation, both retained EU and domestic. The force of the proposals would be to ban the sale of animals or products from animals that have been treated with a range of compounds whose use is currently illegal in this country, except in restricted circumstances where they are being used under veterinary supervision for veterinary therapeutic purposes, and only then if residues are acceptably low.

It is truly a fascinating read to see what these compounds include. Schedule 1 lists testosterone, progesterone, oestradiol 17β, stilbenes and trenbolone, which are all hormones permitted as growth promoters in US beef production. The beta-agonists listed are used as growth promoters, more commonly in pig production, and I believe that ractopamine, which I mentioned earlier, would be classified under that category.

Most interestingly, new clause 31 would prohibit the sale, for hygiene reasons, of any animal product that comes from animals being treated with any substance other than potable water for the purpose of removing surface contamination. By my understanding, that would essentially preclude the sale of chlorine or oplactose-acid washed chicken in this country.

[Mr Goodwill]

New clause 31 does not actually refer to post-slaughter use and, as it is sloppily drafted, would apply to the washing of show animals at shows, the use of saline solution for washing eyes or, indeed, the use of diluted sheep dip after docking of sheep. Does the hon. Member recognise that the new clause needs tightening up? It refers to an animal during its entire lifecycle.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, I am hugely grateful to the right hon. Member, whose drafting skills I would happily draw on in trying to improve the amendments. He will reflect that the new clause was sloppily drafted not by Opposition Members, but by the current Secretary of State. We are very happy to work with the right hon. Member on improving it, but I think he knows what was being referred to in those circumstances.

It seems to us that the Government are currently refusing to include in the Bill a ban on food imports produced to lower standards than our own. They have also dodged amendments to the Bill that were suggested previously by the current Secretary of State himself, which seemed to aim to ensure the exact same thing—banning the sale of animal products in this country that had been subjected to chemicals and processes that we do currently allow here.

What exactly has been going on? The Minister needs to come clean on this. The Secretary of State did not include these prohibitions either in the previous Bill or in the current Bill, even though he was the Minister in charge of both Bills. What came over him when he briefly left the Government? What conditions was he made to accept when he agreed to come back and then to become Secretary of State? Does this whole episode not show that, in his heart of hearts, he probably agrees with us that the only way to safeguard our animal welfare and food safety standards and to prevent our hard-pressed British farmers from being undercut by cheap, sub-standard imports, is to put these provisions in the Bill?

We believe that new clause 1 is the crucial amendment. It would not just strengthen the Bill but safeguard its core aims. We make no apology whatever about pressing it to a vote. I urge the Minister to listen closely to the unanimity of voices on this amendment and to recognise the need for this addition to the Bill. I appreciate that this is a tough moment for Government Members. As they vote, they must be aware that the future of many of their constituents is on the line. I want to safeguard their future, our countryside and our food safety.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I rise to support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has said on new clause 1. I shall also speak to new clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), with the support of many of his Conservative colleagues. At the moment, I am the only Labour Member whose name has been added to it, but I am sure that many others would join me on Report.

Some of us sat on the Committee that considered the first draft of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament. I was also on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, as well as part of as various all-party parliamentary groups, and there were also debates on these matters in the Chamber and at oral questions. Ministers, including the then Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Farming Minister and, at various points, the International Trade Secretary, gave us verbal reassurances.

There was a bit of a trajectory, because in the early days, we could get Ministers to say only that UK standards would be protected. Eventually, after lots of prompting on our part, some of them—although certainly not on the International Trade side—said that that also applied to imported goods. The Minister needs to reflect on why it is very clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, that those assurances are not believed. The absolute fact of the situation is that everyone, from the NFU to environmental and consumer groups, wants those things enshrined in law, as do the Conservative Members who have signed the new clause.

The Minister has talked about including those assurances in a trade Bill, but when the Trade Bill was introduced to Parliament, we were fobbed off. We tried to get something in there, but were told that it applied only to current trade agreements and not to future ones, although some legal opinion said that it did. When we tried to discuss that during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and all the discussions about Brexit, we were told that it would pop up somewhere else. That game of musical chairs just does not wash with people. We want to see this measure in the Agriculture Bill because it specifically relates to food standards and animal welfare, as we have heard in detail.

I remember trying to bring the matter up during arguments about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, way before Brexit. The then Member for Streatham, who was our shadow Business Secretary, made great play about the NHS being at risk under TTIP. When I started trying to talk to him about chickens, he looked at me as if to say, “What on earth is she on about now?” Now, the chickens have come home to roost—metaphorical chickens—and everyone knows about the issue, but nobody is convinced that the Government are willing to support preventive measures.

We spoke earlier about articles in the Daily Mail and The Guardian. I will quote a Guardian article from 6 March—hon. Members are probably ready to sneer at it—which said:

“Agriculture in the US remains quite backward in many respects. It retains a position of resisting more information on labels to limit consumer knowledge and engagement.”

The vested interests involved in the US food sector are absolutely immense, with huge lobbying efforts and huge amounts of disinformation and press work. The article continues:

“Its livestock sectors often suffer from poor husbandry, which leads to more prevalence of disease and a greater reliance on antibiotics”,

which we know is an issue.

“Whereas we have a ‘farm to fork’ approach to managing disease and contamination risk throughout the supply chain through good husbandry, the US is more inclined to simply treat contamination of its meat at the end with a chlorine or similar wash.”

The article continues:

“In the US, legislation on animal welfare is woefully deficient.”

That article was penned by the now Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, during the brief hiatus after he left the Government in February 2019. He immediately turned to The Guardian to make known his views on just how worried he was about US animal welfare.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Lady understand that the US actually consumes most of its own beef? Only about 13.5% of its beef is exported, mainly to Japan and the far east. There is not a great stockpile of American beef looking for a market, either in the UK or the EU.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am not sure that that is particularly relevant. At the moment there is a ban on hormone-pumped beef entering our markets. The UK is the third biggest market in the world for food imports. It is clear that if the doors were open, there would be a potential market here and the US would be very keen to get into it. Most of the discussion on trade deals so far has not been about the beef sector anyway.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has already said, at about the time that the now Secretary of State wrote that article, he also tabled what are now new clauses 33, 34 and 35 to the then Agriculture Bill. Why would he do that? He had made the arguments in public. He did a sterling job trying to defend the Government’s position during the first sitting of the Agriculture Bill. He came across as reasonably sincere, but the moment he had the freedom to say what he really thought, he went to the press and wrote an article in The Guardian outlining clearly and eloquently what his concerns were. He did not seek verbal reassurances from the Government; he sought legislative reassurances. So if it is good enough for the Secretary of State when he is allowed free rein to say what he feels, I am sure the Minister can understand why many of her colleagues on the Conservative Back Benches and Opposition Members also agree with him.