Agriculture Bill (Second sitting)

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I am sorry, but I wonder if we could ask the witnesses to speak up slightly.

[The Chair]

The acoustics in this room are appalling, which is nobody’s fault apart from the architect’s. If witnesses and members of the Committee could speak up, we would all be grateful. Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Q I repeat my declaration of interest: I was an employee of the National Farmers Union, and indeed of the Ulster Farmers Union when I was working in its office in Brussels a few years ago. I want to pick up on the points that were raised about divergence. On the point you just made about maintaining an area-based payment in case of volatility, what would be the consequence of different agricultural payment schemes operating throughout the UK?

Norman Fulton: Again, this is something that all Administrations need to be very mindful of in the choices they make. Agriculture is a devolved matter, so each of the Administrations can set their own policy direction and agenda. Under the protocol, which we will now be operating under, certain restrictions will apply in the case of Northern Ireland. We will have an overall envelope for state aid cover, but within that a percentage will have to be green box. That will put certain restrictions on the choices we make in future policy. That does not necessarily apply elsewhere in the UK. Scotland, Wales and England will all be able to set their own policy choices.

Again, we need to be careful that we do not start to open up distortions in competition, which could arise from all this. Although these matters are devolved, GB/UK is our domestic market, and we need to make sure we do not end up trying to undercut each other by using our support mechanisms to facilitate that. There is a great deal of responsibility on all the Administrations on this matter.

Ivor Ferguson: I fully agree with Norman. If we take Northern Ireland at the moment, we would like to think that we will have the same level of support. We will certainly need the same level of support. The fact that it is paid in a different way should not distort our market all that much, if there is the same level of money that comes in. We have to be mindful that our farming colleagues in southern Ireland will have a basic payment too, so we need a level playing field. We have to be very mindful of that going forward.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Q This question may be just for Mr Fulton, but both of you may care to comment. Agriculture is devolved, as you said, but the World Trade Organisation requirements for the agreement on agriculture are deemed to have been reserved. Will you comment further on whether schedule 6 gives DAERA the powers you need to meet the flexible requirements for Northern Ireland’s specific needs? Do you have anything to add to your comments in answer to the question from Fay Jones on how that regional variance will play out?

Norman Fulton: The schedule is primarily about rolling forward what we have, with options for simplification and options to keep pace with potential changes that may have happened elsewhere. It is not really about setting our future policy direction, which is something that we now need to take forward ourselves in the Northern Ireland Assembly, now that Ministers are back and we have an Executive.

On the WTO issue, yes, that is a reserved matter, but there is nothing in the Bill that we feel will constrain our ability to set our policy agenda. For example, there are no restrictions on green box support in WTO rules, and none at this time on blue box support—for example, headage payments. Hopefully, the UK’s share of the amber box coming out of EU will be well in excess of what any region, or the UK as a whole, could ever hope to spend on agriculture, so we do not see that as a practical restriction on our room to manoeuvre in any way.

Your final point was around distortion in the UK?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Q You started to comment in response to Fay’s question about regional variations. Is there anything you want to add to that?

Norman Fulton: It is something we all need to recognise. For example, if a region were to decide to go back to something we had in the past, a slaughter premium, you could easily see how that could attract animals for slaughter into that area. You would be starting to distort the movement and processing of livestock. A region probably would not want to do that because you would end up spending your regional support to support farmers located outside your region. Those are the types of things that could happen in theory, but I hope in practice they will not.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Q You mentioned the word “hope” twice there. I am also hopeful, but we are here to deal with legislation. Do you think anything else needs to be added to the legislation to reduce the reliance on hope? Is the hope about negotiating aims, or is there something that should be in the Bill that currently is not?

Norman Fulton: That is a very difficult question, because at the end of the day agriculture policy is devolved, so all the Administrations have the flexibility to deploy the budget that is at their disposal. I do not think there is a lot more you can do in the Bill to address that. It is more in the area of the common frameworks that govern how the regions co-operate across this area .

Ivor Ferguson: I will just add that we are mindful of regional variations across our areas. The future trade policy to be worked out will have an effect on that. If we diverge a lot, product coming from Northern Ireland into the GB market and vice versa will have added costs with the border inspection posts, or whatever you want to call them. There will be added costs. That is something that, if a trade deal did not go for us, or if there was a large-scale divergence, that would add a lot to our costs and we would need extra funding. We are very aware of that.

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

Q I seem to recall that in Northern Ireland, unlike in England, BPS payments have a maximum cut-off. That means that, although I assume you have to have cross-compliance on your entire holding, there is a maximum payment you can get. Might switching to more agri-environmental schemes result in some farms not delivering the public goods that they could deliver, because you would be limited in the amount you could give them? Do you think that, at that point, it would be worthwhile getting rid of the cap and allowing farms to participate fully on the all the land they have?

Norman Fulton: There is an overall cap on the current area-based system, but very few holdings hit that limit at this point in time. Again, those are the sorts of things we will need to consider in relation to the architecture we put in place. Certainly, if you were talking about large areas of land that needed to be brought back into good management and good condition, you would want that to be encouraged and incentivised, and any disincentive that might arise from a cap would have to be considered very carefully. At this point in time, there is no cap on agri-environment—well, there are caps on the amount that individual farmers can get. I know it is an issue that some farmers want to do more, and that is something we will have to consider in our next iteration of agri-environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Q Mr von Westenholz, the suggestion of insisting in the Bill that we only import food produced to the same standards as our farmers produce is absolutely the right principle, and the Government are committed to that in principle, but can you just talk us through the practicalities of what the relevant change to the legislation would be? I am just concerned about what it actually means to insist on equivalent standards. How would that be articulated in the Bill? Is that insistence not more appropriate to the trade negotiations, which will get into the actual detail of different sectors, important exports and so on? How would you frame that piece of legislation in a way that did not just open the door to all sorts of challenges on a concept that is not well defined?

Nick von Westenholz: It is a fair point, because the question of how you compare standards in this country with those in other countries is very complicated. I think there is a way that you can still build requirements into the Bill that address those concerns. Basically, you can provide safeguards to the Government’s stated aim on these issues. I should add that that is one reason that we very strongly called for a commission with the Government, stakeholders and industry to be set up that would examine these very difficult issues and make clear recommendations for precisely how the Government can safeguard our standards in future.

In terms of the Bill, you could require the Government to produce a register, for example, of what our food and farming standards are, or certainly the ones that we are keen to safeguard. We can then put in a requirement that imports should meet those standards or should have to demonstrate that they do, and possibly some sort of reporting mechanism to demonstrate whether imports are meeting those standards. There have been several amendments to this Bill and the last Bill to attempt to address that.

You could introduce amendments that are much more explicit. For example, they could set out the sorts of veterinary medicines—whatever it might be—that are prohibited and would not be allowed to be put on the market, as well as goods treated with those medicines that could not be put on the market in this country. That would be a very clear and straightforward legislative safeguard on standards, but you would be looking at quite a lot of text if you were to go completely across the board. There are a number of options.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Q I am not quite sure, but this question is possibly to both witnesses. The Bill is to a great extent an enabling Bill, and the words “the Secretary of State may” appear frequently. I wonder whether, were you going through the Bill with a red pen, you would change any of those mays to musts. In particular, I am looking at how we make the move from having been a full member of the EU and part of the WTO by virtue of that to completely being just on sole membership terms with the requirements of the agreement on agriculture. I am looking at any mays to musts and how to get to compliance with the agreement on agriculture.

Nick von Westenholz: I think as a point of principle, we would not just argue that any mays need to be turned into musts. We recognise that this is an enabling Bill and the merit of the Government’s having legislation that gives them flexibility. There would probably be some points where we would be more forceful than others, such as the powers around exceptional market conditions. At the moment, there is a “may” power for Government intervention when exceptional market conditions are adversely impacting agriculture—this speaks to that point I was making about volatility, as agriculture, probably more than other economic sector, can be subject to climate volatility, weather volatility, market volatility and so on—but we think there should be a trigger there that requires a “must” for intervention. I know some have argued that there should be more of a “must” clause around the financial assistance powers. I am not sure whether that would do the trick, because it could still be an inadequate amount of financial assistance that is provided.

The new clauses addressing multi-year financial plans and reporting are important and we are pleased to see them; we think that those, alongside the Government’s guarantee on the total budget, are just as important in giving farmers certainty and the ability to plan for the long term.

I did not quite understand the question on the WTO agreement.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Q I wanted to emphasise those provisions of the Bill that pertain to the WTO and ask whether any of those “mays” to “musts” were in that area.

Nick von Westenholz: Not that we have identified, but I will have another look at it after the session.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Q Mr Goodwin, in relation to the next generation of farmers, I would be interested to hear whether you have had any feedback from institutions and how you are working with universities and colleges to ensure that the next generation take advantage of this new legislation.

David Goodwin: We are working closely with various county agricultural colleges at the moment. We have just run an event in the north—I have forgotten the name of the college—in association with DEFRA, through our DEFRA grant holder, to engage with our members about this Bill in particular and the ELMSs that are coming forward. That is a project that we were looking to roll out considerably further; unfortunately, our timescale was put back when Parliament was prorogued and we had to postpone a lot of events that we were planning to run. Agricultural colleges lend themselves well to setting up and running events with our members and our target audience of potential members and people who are looking to come into the industry. We are certainly doing as much work as we can with county colleges and the universities, which are all struggling a little bit for students at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

Q How much confidence does the Bill and the general direction of travel give your members to renew tenancies?

George Dunn: The majority of my members are looking for longer terms; they want security. The average length of term on a farm business tenancy today is 2.9 years. Think of agriculture in terms of its long-term need to look at soil management, agri-environment schemes and so on. If you take land that has buildings it goes up to about seven, if you have land with housing, it is up to about 10 or 11, but we would expect those later ones to be even longer than that. Our members consistently ask for greater length of security of tenure. For example, if you go to a bank to borrow money to invest in your business and you can only show a three-year or a four-year time horizon, why would the bank lend you money to do any substantial investment if it only has a four-year period to pay that back? Even those tenancies that the CLA often claim get renewed year after year, are only for annual security. How do you go to a bank asking for support for something where you have annual security? We think there is a great deal of appetite for longer-term tenancies.

Judicaelle Hammond: I think my members want good tenants who look after the land and can pay their rents. They want tenants who are willing to innovate and continue to develop their business. It requires flexibility on both sides. I understand the appetite for longer tenancies and that can be agreed. However, what we do not want is a third party determining how two parties who are free to contract, contract.

Rolling tenancies happen and I therefore think that the figure of 2.9 years is a little misleading. We want a system that works for both parties, particularly in times of uncertainty. I would add that an awful lot of my members are somebody else’s tenant. They have land of their own, but they might add to it, for scale, for example.

George Dunn: In a situation where we have 90% of all farm business tenancies in England now being let for periods of five years or less, there is market failure here, which the Government need to address.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Q I would like to push you a little further on the security question. I recognise there are some differences here, but I think it is partly being presented as a question of equality, of a negotiation between equals. It does not quite seem that way from where I am sitting. Can we explore further whether more measures could go into the Bill to get the balance right for members of both organisations, but particularly Mr Dunn’s members, for whom it is presumably harder to get land if they are moved from a particular piece of land than it is from Ms Hammond’s members to get new tenants if the tenant has moved. Forgive me if I have got that wrong.

George Dunn: From our end of the spectrum, we do not want the Bill to have a minimum term for agricultural tenancies, because that will not help our sector at all. We want to see the ability for landlords, where they let long term or where they are nervous about letting long term, in case they get a tenant who they do not get on with or who does not pay their rent, or who does something to the historic landscape, if the landlord is the National Trust, to feel confident to let for a longer time, because they know they can get the land back early if there is a problem. We are absolutely on the money with that. There is what might be called an oven-ready amendment that could go into the Bill to achieve that.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Oh, please don’t call it that!

George Dunn: More widely, we think the taxation system needs to be looked at to incentivise longer-term tenancies and penalise shorter-term ones through the taxation system. Ireland has done some good things on the income tax side, which the Treasury could look at, but that is not something that would be put in the Bill.

Judicaelle Hammond: You will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with that. I do not see that there is a market failure. There might be things in the market that are happening at the moment, because of the way that the system works, that may be unsustainable. We will see what happens when the BPS ends. If you look at some of the reforms that have been made, not in Ireland but in Scotland, it all but killed the rental market. That would not be good for my members or for George’s. We need to be extremely cautious about putting things in legislation and rushing them through without proper consideration of the consequences for both parties. That could lead to a market that is even more nervous than it is now and, as a result, becomes ossified. I do not think that would be good.

George Dunn: We certainly need to learn the lessons of what happened—what is happening—north of the border, but that should not be an excuse to do nothing south of the border.

[Theo Clarke]

Q Mr Dunn, I was struck by your comment about tenancies being too short and the fact that people are just staying 2.9 years and not longer. In my constituency I have a lot of county farms, but I also have a real problem with the lack of a new generation coming through. One thing farmers have raised with me is that because the subsidies will not necessarily continue beyond this Parliament, they can plan for five years, but not for 10 years. Is there anything specific we can add into the Bill to address that specific problem? I totally agree that this longer-term issue is the problem. If I am a county farmer in Stafford, I cannot submit a 10-year business plan because the Government are only guaranteeing it for the first Parliament term. Is there anything specific we can do to address that?

George Dunn: All businesses operate within a sphere of uncertainty about the future for their market and how they intend to run their businesses in the long term. Anybody who thinks they can do a 10-year business plan and stick to it after year five is thinking wishfully. The idea of having multi-annual plans is really good, but they need to highlight how much money will be spent and how it will be spent through those plans, rather than just vague indications of the way in which the financial systems powers will be played. If farmers had a reasonable five-year horizon to work through, that is as much as I think they would be looking for.

Judicaelle Hammond: I totally agree with the TFA that the more certainty in the future, the better. Part of the problem we have at the moment is that we do not have certainty past next year. Although there have been commitments to maintaining the current level of funding, so far they are, unfortunately, just commitments. We would welcome a quantification as part of the multi-annual financial assistance frameworks.

Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Q On that last point, I would be interested to know whether any of you have had discussions with farmers’ unions or equivalent bodies, or Governments in other countries, in anticipation of the new trade arrangements that might be put in place. Do you detect any appetite to break into the UK market and in particular any willingness to adapt farming practices abroad in order to access our market? We represent a very big market for these countries. Do you think those which currently produce food at standards we would not accept might be prepared to develop better practices so that they can access our market?

John Davies: If we take America to start with, there is real hunger to access the UK market, but they are pretty adamant that their standards are the standards and that they work on equivalence. Obviously, we would have deep concerns about that for a number of specific aspects. Other countries are more flexible and will look to change, I guess, but I think it needs to be written in absolutely, in black and white.

Dr Fenwick: It is clear from the leaked trade talks document that came out in November—which we assume are valid—that there is that appetite. It seems to provide evidence that that appetite is there. We also know that from the defensive position taken by scores of countries when the UK and the EU first agreed how certain issues would be balanced—in those few areas where agreement was reached—in terms of the splitting of our quotas as regards New Zealand lamb and Australian products. The objections submitted then to the World Trade Organisation by these countries make it clear how important we are as an existing trading destination for them and as a potential destination.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Q My question is about aspects of the agreement on agriculture. Clause 42 states at one point:

“The regulations may make provision requiring a devolved authority to provide information to the Secretary of State.”

Do you want a corresponding requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved authorities on the operation of those provisions? This is about classifying domestic support in so far as it affects the agreement on agriculture and relates to our position in the WTO. It is a very specific question: do you think that Wales—and Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, as well as required to provide information?

Tim Render: That question is probably for me. This is an issue that we had extensive conversations with the Minister about regarding the equivalent text in the previous version of the Agriculture Bill. Yes, we would love a consent provision, but in the context of the last Bill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UK Government—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how the provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried over with this Bill. We look forward to him making that statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a later stage in the House, about how we would work together on that, about the advice and about, were there to be disagreement, our opposition being formally presented to the House of Commons to be part of your decision-making process. We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is heard effectively.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Q May I get some clarification? You say, “We have agreed a way of working,” but it is not in the Bill. Where does it exist, this way of working?

Tim Render: It is not in the Bill, but I have the text in front of me. It is an exchange of letters that was published in the context of the previous Agriculture Bill. In our bilateral conversations with the Minister and DEFRA colleagues, we have assurances that that can be taken forward in the context of this Bill.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Q I do not want to be indelicate—perhaps you are at a useful stage, and I acknowledge that the Minister is very co-operative on these matters—but do you think that there will be any harm in inserting an amendment to the clause, that the Secretary of State should also be required to consult the devolved authorities?

Tim Render: We would be happy with that, yes. That is essentially our way of working, but if it is written in the text, that would be even stronger.

Dr Fenwick: We would also welcome such an addition. It must be noted that this extends to far more than WTO issues, given where we are with our current financial ceiling; we are well below WTO limits. The WTO issue is absolutely essential to avoid disputes, but a key issue for us is the fact that we are moving from a very specific framework of financial ceilings for different areas of spending to one that is almost as liberal as it could be. It appears to us that there will be a single financial ceiling for agriculture expenditure in each of the devolved regions and in England.

For example, under EU legislation, we have multiple ceilings relating to how much we can spend on direct interventions in agriculture production and on young people, how much money can be diverted to rural development spending and so on. I am afraid that this area just screams divergence between nations at an unprecedented level, as do many of the other sections.

Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful, Mr Stringer. I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. One difficulty we have in discussing the Bill is that the philosophical underpinning is somewhat absent. These big questions of what agriculture is for, and whether we are going to have a future, sustainable agricultural system, trouble many of us. As I said earlier, those issues do not go away. He made a very strong point, which many Opposition Members will return to, about the danger of effectively moving the environmental harm elsewhere. That is a key sticking point, which I suspect will be returned to on many occasions.

We want to ensure that we can manage a transition. I would like to see us get to a much more sustainable system. I hope that the discussions we are having provide a structure to allow people to make that transition. The danger is that it becomes more expensive, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.

We may move to lower levels of food production in this country. That is a matter to be debated. Provided the standards elsewhere are good enough, from our point of view, it would not necessarily be the case that we would want to maintain the current levels. We will come to that when we discuss food security, no doubt. It is always tempting to say that we should continue as we are, because that happens to be where we are now. Looking ahead, do we think the world is safer than it was or not? Those are the questions worth asking.

Returning to discussion of the amendment, many of us would like to see much more local, sustainable production. People worry about food miles involved. Having rehearsed these debates in the past, I am sure there are transport experts in the room who will point out that it is not simple. Not being far away geographically does not necessarily produce a lower carbon footprint.

Those are matters that people rightly want to discuss and challenge. There is no better person to challenge those than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who displays a passionate knowledge. She has been bending my ear on this issue for the best part of two decades. [Interruption.] Sorry. That was when my hon. Friend was a very young person.

As is often the case, people are proved to be right. I am not sure that when my hon. Friend was embarking on those points two decades ago, everyone would necessarily have agreed or given her the space to make those points. She has been proved right. It is important to pursue the matter in the amendment. I take the Minister’s point that it might be possible to secure some support through the environmental land management schemes. Without wanting to sound like a broken record, it would have been a lot easier if we had had further detail on that earlier. That is why I think it is reasonable for us to keep pressing.

I understand that the Government did not have entire control over the political agenda in the past couple of years, but this has been done in the wrong order. The food strategy is really important, and we welcome it, but it just seems to be the wrong way round. The food strategy should be set first, followed by discussion on how to achieve it. We are in the curious position of trying to second-guess what is going to happen. Given that it may well be set in stone, as this is a key moment in agricultural policy, and may have to stand the test of time for 40 years, it is difficult to approach the matter in this order.

I fully appreciate what the Minister said about tackling poverty. From our side, every opportunity to tackle poverty is worth pursuing. It is a striking feature of too many parts of our country that the opportunity for people to eat healthily has been withdrawn from local communities. Sometimes, it is all very well to point the finger at individuals, but individuals can only choose from the choices that are offered to them. Ironically, it is not only in cities—in many villages and rural communities we have seen the absence of local shops. Of course, the market will do what the market will do unless we intervene.

Labour strongly believes in intervention. Where there are market failures, we want to respond to our constituents’ rightly held view that if there is no fresh fruit and veg in the local shop—as is too often the case—they are left with unpalatable choices because, as demand falls, it is hard for shopkeepers. What should we do? The amendments would give us the opportunity to provide support. I know that would not be welcome to market fundamentalists, and it might not be the most hyper-efficient way of producing food goods, but it produces something bigger, which is a public good—our people having access to the food that they deserve.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I am here in my capacity as a Whip today. Does he agree that the time will come when people will look back on the Bill as a lost opportunity? We have not grasped this—the point of agriculture, as many farmers, including Members opposite know, is to grow food. Is this not the time to tackle food poverty?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is considerable enthusiasm in many communities to grasp that opportunity, if it is given. Many communities do not have the resources necessary to do it themselves, without some external help and support. This is exactly the opportunity to do that.

I will touch on the Minister’s initial discussion of how Environmental Land Management schemes may operate. We are all enthusiastic and want them to work well. I have rather enjoyed the images that the Secretary of State has occasionally conjured up of a cosy chat around the farmhouse table. I caution the Conservative party—I think country suppers got it into trouble in the past. Members opposite may want to reflect that not all farms are the same. I have often noticed over the years that the kind of farms I have been invited to are wonderful, astonishing places—the crème de la crème of our system. Not all farms, in my experience—I go back to my days as a rural district councillor in Norfolk—are like that. For many farmers, it is tough. As we know from the statistics, they are barely eking out a living in some places. I have never been entirely convinced that all those farms would be quite so welcoming to the agri-economist turning up to have a discussion. From their perspective, it may feel a touch intrusive, if they are told to make changes that they will find very difficult.

My cautionary note is that this may work well for some. I was challenged by the NFU to visit a farm in Cambridge, which my team originally thought would be a challenge. It turned out that we have a wonderful farm on the edge of Cambridge doing some fantastic work through many of the existing agri-environmental schemes. I am sure it will do very well under the new system. My worry is what happens to farms in other places that will find this much tougher.

Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Kerry McCarthy]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 3, line 17, at end insert

““protecting or improving the quality of soil” includes the restoration of blanket bog and other peatland habitats.”

The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, and I served on the previous Bill Committee.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

And me.

[Kerry McCarthy]

And the Whip. That makes four of us; are there any more takers? Those of who went through the Bill then will remember quite a debate on trying to include soil as a public good. That was opposed by the Government and I remember that the right hon. Gentleman spoke vociferously against it. Lo and behold, it has now made it into the new version of the Bill. That shows that it is worth persevering with an argument, even if it seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the first instance. Someone may go away and think about it and come back and think: “She was right after all”.

Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Jones]

I will pass on the semantics, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

The Conservative party has an appalling record on animal welfare in government. Announcements are often piecemeal, weak and kicked into the long grass when it comes to the advancement of animal welfare in every sense, including providing financial assistance for land on which hunting takes place.

Many colleagues have repeatedly raised concerns about the use of trail hunting as a cover for illegal hunting. The weight of evidence from independent monitors and non-governmental organisations shows that trail hunting is not a genuine activity. Indeed, a poll commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports found that only one in six rural residents believes that hunting with dogs reflects countryside values; more than nine in 10 think that observing nature reflects true rural values.

The Bill needs to show that we care, that we will lead by example and that legislation made in this House is relevant and sensible. Wildlife crime continues to blight many of our rural and green spaces, and many animal species across the country. There can be little confidence on the Government Benches that wildlife crime is being tackled effectively when the National Wildlife Crime Unit now has only 12 members of staff: they are required to cover the entirety of its UK operations. We need to get our house in order, and provide adequate resources to ensure that we can enforce legislation.

I mentioned the successes of the last Labour Government.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Mention some more!

[Ruth Jones]

I will. This month marked 15 years since hunting with dogs was banned in England and Wales—two years after a ban was introduced in Scotland by the then Labour-led Government of my noble Friend, Lord McConnell, through the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. The 2004 Act, which banned hunting in England and Wales, was a landmark moment in the fight against animal cruelty, but there is still much to do to end the scourge of fox, deer and hare hunting in the British countryside.

I am sure that Members from across the House will have received pleas from constituents of all ages during the election that we continue to make progress on measures to tackle animal cruelty. In my constituency, I received numerous pleas that we take the matter seriously. I would go so far as to say that people in Newport West care more about animals than they do about—no, that is not true. It could be construed as such, but obviously they care equally for animals and people.

There are still 299 hunts active across Britain. Frankly, the sheer scale of the problem is shocking. The loopholes are widely exploited, and exemptions in the law show that we need to strengthen the ban. We can do that by supporting the amendments. The Government need to crack down on illegal hunting, and they can do that by strengthening the Bill and supporting the amendments. There is no real space for people to excuse away the chasing and killing of foxes as a mere accident, and what possible scientific research could justify chasing deer with dogs for hours across miles of countryside, only to shoot them at the end?

As the system of agricultural support payments shifts towards payment for public goods, we must ensure that public money does not support a cruel sport that should have been consigned utterly to history long ago. It cannot be right for public money, designated to fund real public goods such as animal welfare, could end up being be paid to places where land is also used for hunting with dogs. The amendments would rule that out, and should be accepted by the Government. Landowners are an important link in the chain. Hunts need land to operate on, and the more they are denied it the less opportunity there will be to flout the law.

If we make every effort to remove the temptations and opportunities to hunt, we will be doing what we can to stop the illegal killing of innocent animals. That was recognised by the Labour group of Nottinghamshire County Council, which passed a motion calling for the end of hunting, including exempt hunting, on council-owned land. I pay tribute to colleagues on the council for their activism and campaigning, and for standing up for what is right. By preventing support payments being paid to landowners convicted of knowingly allowing illegal hunting to take place, which we can do by supporting the amendments, we will ensure that landowners think twice before allowing hunting on their land, and provide added impetus to police and law enforcement authorities to pursue charges when they suspect landowners to have broken the law.

I am pleased that the new Minister has been appointed. I genuinely look forward to working with her on the Bill and working with her in the months and years ahead. When I was preparing this speech, I visited her website to see her views on hunting and what she said when she was an enthusiastic and conscientious Back Bencher. Like all good pupils, I found some interesting material. Under a section called “Victoria’s views”, the now Minister, then Back Bencher, noted that some of her constituents would disagree with her support for the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. I confess that that applies to me too.

The Minister also said that she believes that her support for the repeal of the Act does not mean that she has no regard for animal welfare. I say to her today that she should show us how much she cares by supporting these important amendments. She went on to say that,

“the Government should work closely with rural communities, animal welfare experts and lawyers”.

She is now part of the Government, so she can listen to the experts and support amendments that demonstrate our commitment to strong, secure and effective animal welfare policies.

Opposition Members are committed to ending the hunting of animals with dogs once and for all. The end goal is clear, but it requires us to be on our guard and alive to the new opportunities that may arise to continue the chasing and killing of animals. Amendments 49 and 50 would be an important step on the way to meeting our end goal. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support them.

Agriculture Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a pleasure to be back for a busy day in the Agriculture Bill Committee.

We do not dispute that agriculture is a devolved matter. However, this particular provision is about ensuring UK-wide compliance with an international agreement. That responsibility is, rightly, reserved to the UK Government. This is not about whether the devolved Administrations have the competence to implement and observe international agreements; it is about ensuring UK-wide compliance in an international sphere.

We therefore maintain that the clause is reserved, and we cannot concede that the regulations may be made only with consent from Scottish Ministers, because that would impinge on our powers to ensure our compliance with the World Trade Organisation agreement. We recognise that devolved Administrations have significant interests in these matters, and we are working closely with those Administrations on the draft regulations. We have made a firm commitment to consultation now and in future in the making and operation of the regulations.

Turning to amendment 99, the clause underpins the Government’s commitment to continued compliance with WTO regulation following European Union exit. The UK is a founding member of the WTO, but, as a member of the EU, was bound by the regulations of the common agricultural policy, which ensured compliance by all member states with WTO obligations. Outside the common agricultural policy, we will have to have a new regime and a new approach to ensuring compliance with our continuing WTO obligations.

Agriculture is devolved in the UK, so each Administration will decide their own future policy on farm subsidies. The clause allows each Administration to do that, but it gives the Government powers to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO obligations. We will continue to work closely with devolved Administrations officials, as we have been doing for more than a year. I am assured that the relationship is good and that that work is going well. It is important to ensure that all parties’ views are properly considered.

An agreement between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government contains commitments that the draft regulations will be presented to the UK’s four Agriculture Ministers with the aim of securing agreement, followed by an exchange of letters. In that context, I ask that the hon. Lady withdraw her amendment.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak—I am double hatted—not as a Whip, but as a shadow Minister with responsibility for European affairs, formerly Brexit, which I still am at the moment.

I shall speak to amendment 99, which I hope will offer a balance. The Minister obviously understands that we recognise that WTO compliance is a reserved matter, but also that agriculture is devolved. We therefore feel that placing requirements on the devolved legislatures, without a corresponding requirement on the Government to at least consult them, is not fair. This is a delicate balance to strike, and we feel that amendment 99 is a balanced way forward.

It is interesting that clauses 40 to 42 will mean that we have to adhere to WTO rules—specifically, the agreement on agriculture. They bind us to supranational rules, which is an interesting take on where we are as a country, given that so many Ministers and Brexit-supporting MPs have for many years made the Brexit case by stating, and in fact restating, their devotion to sovereignty and their desire for the UK Parliament to have complete control of our laws, borders and money, to use a phrase, which they appeared to want. However, here we are putting into legislation the requirement to adhere to a supranational, unelected body, with its own court of dispute resolution, the findings of which we will all be bound by. I want to make sure that Government Members are aware of that.

[Victoria Prentis]

indicated assent.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Good. Excellent. We have that on the record. I happen to like supranational rules—provided that nation states have debated and agreed to them—which advance the course of human wellbeing, equality, sustainable development, animal welfare, biodiversity and all those other wonderful things that the Bill will put into law. I would like us to amend the Bill with amendment 99, so that the way we do that balances out the responsibilities between the nations of the United Kingdom.

Signing up to an international treaty is not a loss of sovereignty—clearly the Government agree in relation to the WTO, which is quite interesting—but an exercise of it. We believe that co-operation with other nation states is good. Contrary to what some have said, nations do not do better when they isolate themselves from supranational co-operation; I definitely heard a Minister say that recently.

I am curious, because it appears from these clauses—I might have this wrong—that the Government seem to want to take back control not to share that control with the nations of the UK, but to concentrate power in ministerial hands. We would like to make sure that that power is properly shared with our elected representatives in the regions and nations.

Clauses 40 to 42 are perfect examples of that concentration, because they give Ministers the power to make demands of the elected legislatures on a devolved matter, but with no reciprocal requirement on the Government to involve or even consult those legislatures. Given that the previous Government found that the WTO-only option was most damaging to the economy, and that the current Government do not seem to want to release any more recent assessment of the impact of downgrading our ambition to the much inferior WTO-only agreement, we think it even more necessary to make sure that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted.

WTO means tariffs on some products and a regime for which our farms are not ready. The amendment cannot fully ameliorate the potential damage to our economy and farms from reverting to a WTO-only deal, but it would at least mean that the devolved legislatures were properly involved.

During the evidence session, I asked the Welsh Government’s director of environment and rural affairs whether he wanted a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved legislatures on the operation of those provisions. I said:

“This is about classifying domestic support in so far as it affects the agreement on agriculture and relates to our position in the WTO. It is a very specific question: do you think that Wales—and Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, as well as required to provide information?”

He said:

“This is an issue that we had extensive conversations with the Minister about”—

I am absolutely sure that that is true—

“regarding the equivalent text in the previous version…we would love a consent provision”.

He also said that

“in the context of the last Bill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UK Government—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how the provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister”—

that is the previous Minister, who is now Secretary of State—

“has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried over with this Bill. We look forward to him”—

presumably, this now means the new Minister—

“making that statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a later stage in the House, about how we would work together on that, about the advice and about, were there to be disagreement, our opposition being formally presented to the House of Commons to be part of your decision-making process.”

He wanted there to be a way that any opposition by a devolved legislature could be presented to the House of Commons. He said:

“We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is heard effectively.”

I do not doubt that, but when I asked him again about what that agreed way of working was, saying that it was not in the Bill, he confirmed that it is not in the Bill, but said:

“It is an exchange of letters”.––[Official Report, Agriculture Public Bill Committee, 13 February 2020; c. 94, Q145-46.]

Exchange of letters is a good thing, but it is not legally binding. Bilateral conversations, again, are a good thing, and I have absolutely no doubt that DEFRA, the Welsh Government and other devolved Administrations are consulting properly, but we want this in the Bill, because an exchange of letters is not adequate. It relies on the good will of Ministers. I have no doubt that the Minister has good will towards all the devolved nations, but we want to ensure that that good will is bound into law with a modest requirement to consult the devolved legislatures.

I ask Government Members, and the Minister, to note that the backdrop to these clauses is that the WTO now appears to be no longer just the backstop, but the frontstop—I do not know whether there is such a thing as a frontstop, but this seems to me to be a problem, because that is the worst of all the possible options identified by the previous Government. At the very least, we should be ensuring that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted.

[Victoria Prentis]

Very briefly, the hon. Lady has made an entertaining speech, in which, I politely suggest, she is trying on this particular issue to have her cake and eat it. The reason we cannot agree to these amendments—though we share her views on the importance of talking to and consulting with devolved Administrations; I do not think there is any doubt in this room about that—is that we keep as a reserved matter compliance with WTO rules. We are absolutely part of the WTO; she is right on that. I take on the chin her sharper comments about whether that is fully understood, but it is certainly understood by those on the Government Benches, and she should be in no doubt about that.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point about what Mr Render said in evidence and the assurance given by my predecessor, who is now Secretary of State, I am happy to look at whether we should restate that commitment, and I undertake to do so.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I completely understand that agriculture is devolved and compliance is reserved. That is why our amendment would require consultation to take place. It would not be a veto on the part of the devolveds, which I understand others might wish to have. I would like the Minister to consider that as a compromise.

[Victoria Prentis]

We need to ensure that the provisions made under the clause are fair and proportionate. We want to involve devolved Administrations and I have set out how we intend to do so. In my view, that is adequate, so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I wish to make a few remarks on amendments 32 and 33. We will not support amendment 32 because it provides a veto for Scotland on the reserved matter of WTO compliance. The hon. Lady is right about the WTO; we could have a whole discussion about why and how we have ended up with the WTO and where we seem to be going, but today is not the day for that.

On amendment 33, we still feel that our amendment to clause 40 would have provided a good compromise of a consultation process, whereas the SNP amendment removes the requirement on the devolved Administrations to provide that information. It would have been better to be more balanced. We will not vote against that amendment, but we wish the Minister to take into account the fact that we offered a compromise in amendment 99, and we urge her to consider that at a later stage.

[Victoria Prentis]

Starting with amendment 32, now that the UK has left the EU, we have become a fully independent member of the WTO. That means that the UK Government are responsible for ensuring that the whole of the UK complies with its obligations. In fully federal countries such as the USA and Canada, the WTO always insists that agricultural trade is reserved—that is how the WTO functions with federal states. One of the UK Government’s obligations under WTO rules is to notify the UK’s use of agricultural support to the WTO membership. It is essential that the nations of the UK take a consistent approach to classifying agricultural support in accordance with those requirements.

Clause 42 provides for a decision-making process that will, quite properly, involve all four nations of the UK. That will be set out in regulations made under the clause. Where a decision cannot be reached through that process, the UK Government, as the hon. Member for Bristol West said, must ultimately be responsible for the final decision, but we hope that agreement can be reached. The amendment would remove the safeguard of final decision making from the Secretary of State and potentially impede our ability to comply with WTO obligations where we cannot reach agreement, although we hope that we will.

Turning to amendment 33, the whole clause must be read in the context of “securing compliance” with the WTO agreement on agriculture, which is incontrovertibly a reserved matter. We need to be able to reassure WTO members that, despite the unusual degree of agricultural devolution in the UK, we have the means to ensure that we will have the relevant data to be able to comply. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations for securing, from any part of the UK, the information necessary for the UK Government to meet those international obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I agree with much of what the previous speakers have said. New clauses 1 and 4 are grand in their way and I will support them, but we have to go further. I want to see the standards of the EU maintained, but perhaps that is for a different debate. However, it is possible to write it into domestic law that imports have to match the sanitary and phytosanitary standards of the WTO.

The WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures is clear that science has to underpin the standards to protect human, animal or plant health. The agreement allows states to protect their food supplies and the imports of supporting products to the benefit of citizens. I know the argument will be that Ministers seek to protect citizens, but we do not know that that will always be the case. We should seek to ensure that citizens have the confidence to believe in this measure and in future Governments, and in the commitment to protecting foods and health. Citizens should also have the right to understand how Governments intend to do that and should have the ability to challenge them if necessary.

The SPS agreement allows standards to be set, so we should have them set. That would have allowed Ministers to assure the public that animal welfare and plant health would be maintained, and that imported food would be of a standard that we could rely on for health and the protection of life. As NFU Scotland recently pointed out, assurances around priorities in negotiations work only if the US upholds its side of the bargain. It stated:

“After all, there’s no point having a level playing field if the two sides are playing to different rules.”

I therefore support new clause 7.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I will make a few brief remarks on behalf of the shadow European affairs team. As we leave the European Union, we want to make sure we do not lose anything in terms of our high standards and that we try to spot the places where there is potential for loopholes, which I hope none of us wants.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East admirably made the case that the Secretary of State’s real views are in alignment with ours. We therefore present the Government with an opportunity to vote for the Secretary of State’s actual views. We in the European affairs team feel we are here to make sure that the transference of Europe-wide rules to UK standards is not undermined by trade agreements with other parts of the world. We simply want to safeguard that. So, on behalf of the shadow European affairs team, I want to add my support to the case made by Opposition Front and Back Benchers, which, after all, reflects the Secretary of State’s views.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank hon. Members for tabling these new clauses. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to talk once again about the importance of food standards. The hon. Member for Bristol East will never find me sneering at or questioning the importance of food standards. This is an important debate, and it is right that we have it here, and while considering other Bills, as we move to a new world where we have left the EU and hopefully have free trade agreements with many other countries.

I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to not lowering our standards as we negotiate new trade deals. The Prime Minister has consistently stated that we will not compromise our high environmental, food safety or animal welfare standards now that we have left the EU. We made that commitment in our manifesto, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade reaffirmed that commitment to the House earlier this week in respect of a US trade deal.

--- Later in debate ---

The World Trade Organisation allows for trade restrictions in very specific circumstances, such as for food safety or to protect public morals. It is not clear to the Government that the requirements of new clause 1 would meet the WTO criteria, and we are concerned that we would risk significant challenge from it. That is what I was trying to say, in a slightly flippant way, to the hon. Member for Bristol West earlier about having our cake and eating it. As she said, we are signed up to the WTO; as such, we must abide by its rules. We are concerned that the new clause would affect the trade of the more than 160 WTO members. It could draw a challenge from any of them, if they believed our import measures were arbitrary, discriminatory or a disguised form of protectionism.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Is the Minister not making my case that the WTO is therefore the lowest common denominator? It is a real problem that we have ended up heading in this direction.

[Victoria Prentis]

I feel that the hon. Lady was partly making my point: we have to stick to WTO rules. I think she and I agree that we want to comply with WTO rules. As a lawyer with many years’ experience, I am explaining my concern that the new clause would possibly not comply with WTO rules—I put it no more strongly than that.

Prior to the start of negotiations for each new free trade agreement, the Government will publish—indeed, we have done so this week—our approach to negotiations, including our negotiating objectives and other explanatory material. We did so on 27 February ahead of the start of negotiations with the EU, and on Monday this week for the US negotiations. Right hon. and hon. Members, and the general public, have a chance to scrutinise those documents and the Government will rightly be held to account. Once negotiations are under way, we will continue to keep the public and Parliament informed. We believe that that approach strikes the right balance of allowing Parliament and the public to scrutinise the trade policy, while maintaining the ability of Government to negotiate flexibly in the best interests of the UK.

I turn to new clause 30 and new schedule 1. As several hon. Members have said, the provisions were tabled when the previous Agriculture Bill was before the House during the last Session. The hon. Member for Cambridge will recognise that domestic legislation already provides for a prohibition on the use of substances listed in new clause 30, and for maximum residue limits for substances to be specified. My response to the comments about the new clauses that were tabled by the current Secretary of State is this: are we not fortunate to have a Secretary of State who is a champion of standards in our food and agricultural sector? Quite frankly, to turn around the words of the hon. Member for Bristol East, the Secretary of State wholly supports the Agriculture Bill as drafted. He has been reassured that this is not needed in primary legislation, and if it is good enough for the Secretary of State, it is good enough for me.

To go into detail, as the hon. Member for Cambridge did, new clause 30 does not refer to the operability amendments and other provisions in the exit legislation made last year—obviously, because it was drafted before that. That legislation deliberately took a flexible approach to the specification of maximum residue limits, rather than the more onerous scrutiny that the new clause would lead to. The legislation will come into force at the end of the transition period. Setting a maximum residue limit for a particular substance does not overturn the legislative prohibition on the use of substances as growth promoters.

Parliamentary scrutiny is, of course, important. But, as was explained in debates on the exit statutory instruments last year, a non-legislative approach when setting maximum residue limits is more efficient and likely to avoid unnecessary delays, which might have financial implications for industry and make the UK less attractive to pharmaceutical companies looking to market veterinary medicines. If that were to lead to a reduction in available medication, it could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As such, although we recognise that there are arguments for increasing the level of parliamentary scrutiny, the Government prefer to maintain the approach set out in our exit legislation—of course, it was not around when the amendment was drafted—that was considered and approved by Parliament at the end of last year.

Turning to new clause 31, I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge can agree that there are instances in which substances other than drinking water are already deemed appropriate for the specified purposes, having been subject to rigorous risk analysis processes. In fact, the EU has approved lactic acid for treating beef carcases, recycled hot water for carcases of certain species and clean water—not drinking water—for fishery products. I hope we can agree that it would be regressive to undo what are already considered safe practices. The unfortunate effect of the new clause would be to stymie any process for considering new substances for use in the UK in future. It could restrict the potential for innovation to realise new hygiene benefits.

The wording of new clause 31, whether intended or not, goes much further than existing restrictions—I do not want to talk about sloppy drafting, but I am concerned that such a provision could result in serious animal health and welfare implications. Live animals could no longer be effectively washed or treated with antiparasitic treatment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, such as sheep dips. Udder washing is a perfectly normal practice to stop mastitis, and we would not want to interfere with that. Maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we eat remains a high priority for the Government, and the current regulatory framework ensures that.

New clause 32 would prevent meat and other products from conventionally reared meat chickens from being sold or supplied in the UK unless they are produced to a stocking density no greater than 39 kg per square metre, which is our current maximum in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has set a maximum stocking density of 42 kg per square metre. As such, the new clause would mean that meat chicken legally produced in Northern Ireland over 39 kg per square metre could not be sold in the UK. I am sure that was not the intention when the new clause was drafted.

Further, although we have a strong domestic sector producing around £2.4 billion of poultry meat per year, in 2018 we imported £2.1 billion of chicken meat and chicken products. Some of those, including imports from some EU member states, do not meet our stocking density requirements. Imposing a restriction of this kind on imports might result in food security issues, and it would certainly impact cost. We all want to move in the same direction on animal welfare, but we may not be able to do so by means of new clause 32.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to standards and to highlight Parliament’s role in scrutinising our negotiation approach to free trade agreements. However, as I mentioned, we have retained EU legislation for existing protections on food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards, and I therefore the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.

Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Prentis]

I see the good intentions behind the new clause, and I understand the desire to ensure that Ministers’ decisions on geographical indicators are made in the best interests of all stakeholders across the nations. However, that is not quite what the new clause would do. It would give Scottish Ministers a veto over Government decisions, even when there was no Scottish interest in those decisions. GIs are a form of intellectual property law and are therefore a reserved matter, so it would not be appropriate to go down the path proposed in the new clause.

Nevertheless, even though GIs are reserved, the Government recognise that the devolved Administrations have always played an important role in these schemes—Scottish salmon, for example, is an important export—and I am keen for that to continue. I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that my officials have worked closely with colleagues from the devolved Administrations to agree a working-level arrangement to underpin very close co-operation in the new domestic schemes. That was agreed and signed by senior officials in the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, on 4 October last year. The arrangement ensures that the devolved Administrations will be included in the assessment of GI applications and will have a say in the development of scheme rules. I believe that this arrangement does what the hon. Lady seeks with her new clause.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I rise to say on behalf of the shadow European affairs team—in the spirit of transitioning from one state of affairs to another—that Labour Front-Benchers have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the SNP are trying to do. Of course, we want to protect GIs and people’s ability to trade using them, which is a strength. We particularly want to make sure that, given that—I have to reiterate this—the prediction that moving to World Trade Organisation trading rules will be the worst-case scenario, we do everything we can to protect our specialist food producers. However, the Labour party cannot support the new clause as worded because of subsection (2), which would give Scottish Ministers a veto. I will not go over old ground, but it is consistent with Labour policy that we could not support it because of that part, but we support the spirit of what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve.

I urge the Minister to work with all parties and producers across the whole United Kingdom so that we can protect our GI products. They are dear to us and to our sense of who we are, and as we leave the European Union, they may matter even more. There are Members across the Committee who feel very strongly about GIs in their own constituencies.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Work is ongoing on this exact issue. I encourage Labour Members to join the all-party parliamentary group on geographically protected foods, at which we will discuss this, so that we can hold the Minister to account.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

What a wonderful invitation. I was mentally running through Government Committee members and trying to think of a geographical indicator in the constituency of each one, and I think I did pretty well, actually. Probably all of us have a product in our constituencies whose GI status we want to protect, so the hon. Lady’s offer is useful.

In that spirit, as I said, we support the sentiment behind the new clause. We cannot support subsection (2), but in every other way we support making this law, because we need to do everything we can to protect our GIs. I am sorry if that disappoints the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, but that is where we are at the moment.

[Deidre Brock]

I appreciate the words of the hon. Member for Bristol West. There is that veto word again. I think it is more a matter of respect for the devolved Administrations and their knowledge of the conditions that apply in their areas, rather than seeking to override their views of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Ministers, as the Bill potentially allows for.

Leaving that aside for the moment, I stress how incredibly important protected geographical indicators are in Scotland and to those producers and areas fortunate enough to have been awarded membership of the scheme. There are many questions outstanding about the replacement scheme. There are fears that it will be in no way strong enough to stand up to the US tendency to prefer a trademark system, which is a lot weaker than the European PGI scheme. Previously, a producer who came across a good that made use of their brand inappropriately had the whole of the EU standing behind them when they took action against the offender. We are not entirely sure what we will have instead.

This is something I feel very strongly about. I have done quite a lot of work on PGIs. We have taken a lot of evidence about them in the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I know how important they are, particularly particular to some of the further flung areas of Scotland. I hate to use the word fragile when talking about rural areas because I know how it sometimes offends people who live up there, but there is no doubt that PGI status is crucial to maintaining people’s ability to stay in some of those areas, to work there and to keep the countryside alive with people. I will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

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

Briefly, what new clause 17 boils down to is ensuring that Scottish farmers can plan ahead. It would ensure that the resources that will be made available to support Scottish farmers are known about in advance of the implementation period completion day. To be honest, I am not sure that a month is long enough notice, but it would at least be notice.

I am sure that the Minister could give that commitment today, but I think we would all agree that it would be much better written into the Bill. The Minister can think of the new clause as a sort of love letter to Scottish farmers, Parliament can think of things being done in the right way, and I would just be glad to have it confirmed.

Farmers, just like any other business, do best when they have some clarity on their long-term planning—we have heard the Secretary of State say that on several occasions. Providing that certainty and clarity—that honesty and transparency—is the work of the Government in this instance, and that is what new clause 17 asks for. Scottish farmers need that certainty and therefore the Scottish Government need certainty on funding. I would prefer farmers, crofters and Ministers to be told earlier whether funds will be made available that are at least equivalent to the cash that has been available to farmers and crofters up to now, but I look forward to the Minister telling us that the Government agree that farmers and crofters need that certainty and that they accept the new clause.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

We on the Labour Front Bench would say that the new clause makes a reasonable request. There are lots of ways in which we could try to deal with the problem of divergence and the tension between devolved and reserved matters and protecting regional interests, which we wish to do. There are various alternatives that the Minister could commit to. Having something from her on the record today, in Hansard, will be helpful.

Regardless of whether the new clause is agreed to, I am sure that all of us on the Opposition Benches will hold the Minister to her word; she is a woman of her word. If she makes a commitment on the record that there will be some form of report, we will put it in our diaries to follow that up. If the new clause falls, but she has made that commitment, we will be coming back to this point a month before the implementation period is over, at the beginning of December. I hope that, in that spirit, the Minister will consider making the commitment and therefore, when the time comes, the relevant statement can take place. It is completely reasonable that farmers across the whole of the regions and nations—not just Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom—can have that continuity and some certainty at least.

I may be wrong, but I am guessing that the Minister might be about to say that it is not necessary to add the new clause to the Bill. We have heard that before, and I understand the argument, but it would be good to have some recognition on the record that we can hold her to.

[Victoria Prentis]

In my experience, farmers would much prefer a cheque to a love letter. Maybe I have met the wrong ones. In that spirit, the only commitment I am going to make is the important one, which is a commitment to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament, giving real certainty over funding for the coming years. That is worth a great deal more to farmers than a new clause that would merely require the Secretary of State to make a statement on agricultural funding for Scotland.

I reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that in recognition of the perceived injustice felt by Scottish farmers over convergence funding, the Scottish Government will receive an extra £160 million over two years in 2019-20 and 2020-21. All Members will know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is ultimately responsible for financial matters across UK Government. Treasury colleagues lead on discussions on all funding matters with Finance Ministers in the devolved Administrations. DEFRA will continue to work closely with the Treasury and the devolved Administrations on funding arrangements, but the Government have committed to year-on-year funding, and I am afraid that is the best I can do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments and for her honesty in accepting that there have been flaws and deficiencies in the previous system. We all share the same aim: we want payments to be made accurately and promptly. We look forward to the promised improvements at the RPA and will therefore not press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Agriculture Co-ordination Council

“(1) There shall be an Agricultural Co-ordination Council composed of—

(a) the Secretary of State, or representatives of the Secretary of State,

(b) Scottish Ministers, or representatives of Scottish Ministers,

(c) Welsh Ministers, or representatives of Welsh Ministers, and

(d) DAERA.

(2) The Council shall establish a common framework to monitor any disparities within the United Kingdom—

(a) in standards of food production;

(b) arising from the exercise of powers to give financial assistance for any purpose which may be specified;

(c) arising from the power to make payments under the basic payment scheme or to make delinked payments; and

(d) in marketing standards.

(3) The Council shall review any framework established under subsection (2) at least once in each calendar year, and may amend a framework.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

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

On behalf of the Labour Front Bench—both the shadow DEFRA and European affairs teams—this is an offer. The new clause is probing, as I am sure the Minister will have noticed. We seem to have got a bit stuck in Committee on the question of how, as we leave the EU, we resolve tensions between devolved powers and duties in agriculture and the reserved powers and duties on WTO compliance.

As we said on WTO compliance, it is a sad state of affairs that we have got to, but none the less we have. The new clause makes the modest suggestion of creating a route to assist in resolving that tension. Establishing an agriculture co-ordination council does not undermine either UK sovereignty or devolution, but it attempts to provide a forum for discussing and addressing any possible differences that might affect compliance, undermine the consistency of standards, or involve various other matters listed in the new clause.

We are not being particularly prescriptive. We have suggested elected Government Ministers or their representatives, so that the council is democratically accountable, but we have left open the timetable and the process. The new clause is a suggestion—not one that we will press to a vote, but one that gives the Minister the opportunity to tell us what she believes the alternatives to be. If not this, then what?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am reminded that the Government Whip and I both read English at university, and “A Modest Proposal” can mean something quite different. However, I thank the hon. Lady for her new clause seeking to establish an agriculture co-ordination council. I accept that she is asking me generally to explain our plans.

The UK Government have been collaborating closely with all devolved Administrations on a UK-wide framework for agricultural support based on Joint Ministerial Committee principles over the past two and a half years. The framework is planned to cover policy areas such as agricultural support spending, crisis measures, public intervention, private storage aid, marketing standards, cross-border farms and data collection and sharing.

Our aim is to have the framework in place by the end of the transition period this year. The shared view of DEFRA and the devolved Administrations is that such a framework does not need to be set out in legislation, but can be suitably managed through non-legislative intragovernmental co-ordination, which could be codified in a concordat. In addition, DEFRA Ministers already meet our devolved Administration counterparts on an almost monthly basis, as part of the inter-ministerial group. A new agricultural co-ordination council would therefore be an unnecessary addition, as that existing group provides a successful forum for discussion and co-ordination between each part of the UK.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Minister for responding to our probing amendment with more information, as I had hoped she would. I reserve judgment on her assertion that what she described all works very well, because that is a matter for the devolved Administrations to comment on, and I expect that they will in due course, possibly in the final stages. I am happy not to press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

Agricultural co-operatives

“(1) The Secretary of State must promote agricultural co-operatives by—

(a) offering financial assistance for the creation or development of agricultural co-operatives, and

(b) establishing bodies to provide practical support and guidance for the development of new co-operatives.

(2) The Secretary of State shall examine any proposal for primary or secondary legislation to assess—

(a) its impact upon agricultural co-operatives, and

(b) whether that impact is disproportionate in relation to its impact upon other producer organisations or interbranch organisations.

(3) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may be given by way of grant, loan or guarantee, or in any other form.

(4) An organisation shall be recognised as an agricultural co-operative if it meets the conditions in subsections (5) and (6).

(5) Condition 1 is that the organisation—

(a) is registered with the Financial Conduct Authority as a co-operative, or

(b) is constituted under the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.

(6) Condition 2 is that the organisation—

(a) operates in a sector which is listed in Schedule 1 to this Act, and

(b) includes at least one member which is an agricultural or horticultural producer.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision specifying the criteria under which financial assistance under subsection (1)(a) may be offered.

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote agricultural co-operatives.—(Daniel Zeichner.)

Brought up, and read the First time.