DRAFT PESTICIDES (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020 DRAFT PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I am asked to remind Members about social distancing arrangements and to email any notes to Hansard at [e-mail]

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

Both statutory instruments relate to the effective regulation of chemicals. The first, the draft Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, makes further updates to retained European Union legislation for plant protection products—more commonly known as pesticides—and maximum residue levels. Pesticides are regulated in the EU by two main EU regulations. The first is regulation 1107/2009, which concerns the authorisation of active substances and the placing on the market of pesticide products that contain approved active substances; the other is regulation 396/2005, which governs the maximum residue levels of pesticides permitted on food and feed. Another EU directive concerns action to promote the sustainable use of pesticides.

We put in place various pesticides EU exit statutory instruments last year to ensure that a national regulatory regime could operate sensibly in future. These included the Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which dealt respectively with the two main EU regulations. A further SI, the Pesticides and Fertilisers (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, dealt with consequential amendments to domestic legislation, enabling it to be linked correctly to retained law.

The draft Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 makes further, very minor amendments to address developments since the original EU exit SIs were produced. The EU has moved on with its regulation; we therefore have to catch up. These regulations have no significant impact on businesses. The amendments are needed, first, because of new EU legislation that has come into force recently. Some adjustments are therefore needed to ensure that the retained law continues to work correctly in a national context, including where the new EU legislation interacts with the corrections that we have already made in the earlier SIs.

Secondly, the Northern Ireland protocol means that EU regulations on pesticides continue to apply directly in Northern Ireland. We need to amend the earlier UK-wide exit SI so that redundant references related to Northern Ireland are removed, which will ensure that the cross-references work correctly. Thirdly, we need to update some transitional provisions in the earlier SIs so that they apply from the end of the transition period when the retained law comes into force, rather than from exit day. Finally, we need to make minor technical corrections to SIs regarding the establishment of harmonised risk indicators. In short, without this instrument, various highly technical provisions will not be retained in national law in a way that works smoothly.

The second instrument is the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Hon. Members may be familiar with POPs—persistent organic pollutants—not least from David Attenborough programmes. They are also known colloquially as “forever chemicals”. The SI makes technical amendments to retained EU legislation for POPs, which are substances that are recognised as being particularly harmful to the environment and to humans. The EU POPs regulation was put place to fulfil commitments under both the UN Stockholm convention on POPs and the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. The UK is a party to both conventions.

The instrument is needed for two reasons. First, EU regulation 850/2004 was re-made by the European Parliament in July 2019 and is now 2019/1021. An earlier EU exit instrument put in place for the original exit day in March last year now needs to be replaced to reflect that. It is very similar, but we need to update it. Secondly, the instrument removes references related to Northern Ireland and updates the legislative cross-referencing, as will the first instrument. The following provisions were included in the earlier exit SI and are now included once again. It provides for the repatriation of all decision-making functions and powers from the EU to the Secretary of State, the Welsh Minister and the Scottish Minister to exercise in their respective areas. The Secretary of State may exercise these functions on behalf of a devolved Administration, with its consent. The Secretary of State will also publish reports on the management of POPs, which are currently submitted to the European Commission for publication.

The following provisions relate to the new provisions in the EU recast of the original legislation. The Environment Agency will assume the role given to the European Chemicals Agency to provide technical and scientific support. This role will be fulfilled with the consent of the devolved Administrations. Additionally, the EU regulation places a duty on the UK to take necessary measures to trace and control POPs once they enter the waste stream. Ordinarily these measures would be implemented in the UK under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. However, as work on delivering these measures will continue beyond the end of the transition period, this instrument creates a new power for Great Britain to make regulations to enable us to do that. The exercise of this new power will be subject to parliamentary approval and is time limited, with a requirement to make any regulations before 31 October 2023. Finally, the requirement to amend this regulation also provides an opportunity to include the Northern Ireland protocol provisions applicable to this regulation.

In conclusion, I can confirm that these instruments will be able to function with or without a deal with the European Union. The Government are committed to ensuring continued levels of protection for human health and the environment, as well as providing stability and continuity for business. I beg to move that these instruments, which were laid before this house on 8 October, be approved.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is good to have you in the Chair, Mr McCabe, and it is a pleasure to speak for Her Majesty’s official Opposition this afternoon. It is good also to see the Minister in her place; I think that this is the first time I have faced her since my appointment to this role—

[Victoria Prentis]

Sorry.

[Ruth Jones]

No, it’s okay. And it is a pleasure to do so, of course.

With another week, however, come another two statutory instruments from this Government. Minsters have dithered and delayed, essentially since July 2016. As we now approach the end of the transition period, we are forced to rush through important safeguards and protections, and vital standards and basic legislation, to ensure that any disruption on 1 January 2021 and beyond is mitigated as best as possible.

It is simply not good enough, and I urge the Minister to think about how this looks, not necessarily just to Opposition Members, but to the people of the United Kingdom, who want and expect legislation considered in this House to be given the necessary time to be scrutinised, evaluated and amended where and when necessary. Although we will not seek to divide the Committee, I remind the Minister that we will hold the Government to account.

We are here to discuss two statutory instruments. I will deal with them separately, but in one speech. The draft Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 will make a number of amendments to earlier EU exit SIs that convert EU legislation into British law, to reflect EU law ceasing to apply and retained EU law coming into force at the end of the implementation period, thereby ensuring that the national regime will operate effectively. It also makes amendments as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, under which the EU regimes will continue to apply. We understand that legislative changes are therefore required to remove Northern Ireland from retained EU legislation so that the new regime will apply in Great Britain only, rather than UK-wide. For the studious among us, paragraph 2 of the explanatory memorandum outlines in further detail the reasons for the draft regulations, which the Minister has outlined this afternoon.

Many in the Opposition will find it interesting and not a little puzzling that Ministers have not sought to consolidate all the relevant changes into a single instrument, as with the Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were recently debated in the other place. It would be helpful if the Minister explained in as much detail as possible why a consistent approach has not been taken. The House is at risk of being swamped with delegated legislation, and the Government have a duty to ensure that appropriate scrutiny is carried out. Colleagues in the Opposition and, I know, in the other place are increasingly concerned at the risk of our having two sorts of environmental regulation—some that are tidied up, accessible and coherent, and others that are tangled like a bowl of spaghetti, unintelligible to normal human beings and capable of being understood only by specialist lawyers. That is simply not good enough. I urge the Minister to take that on board as constructive criticism.

People deserve good government, and good government needs good legislation, not rushed-through SIs that are inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of people out in the real world. Paragraph 7.9 of the explanatory memorandum sets out the United Kingdom’s national strategy on control programmes and how sampling will run alongside the 2020-to-2022 period that our friends in the EU use. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined when Her Majesty’s Government will begin planning beyond 2022. When will Ministers engage with stakeholders, and in what way? For Opposition Members, the most fascinating point about the draft regulations is whether Conservative Ministers may choose to continue to align on this issue with our friends, neighbours and allies in Europe even after the period up to 2022 concludes.

This is important stuff and we need to get it right. Many stakeholders out in the community are following our business and want to make sure we do. I pay tribute to Greener UK and all the associated groups that are working to ensure that we are prepared for the end of the transition period. Like many of those groups, the Opposition are concerned that there is no longer a requirement for detailed criteria on the uniform application of conditions on by-products to

“ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health and facilitate the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources.”

Can the Minister confirm that the pesticides and persistent organic pollutants regimes will not be weaker from an environmental perspective post Brexit? What precise steps are the Government taking to ensure that?

A provision that has already been passed means that Great Britain will allow substances to continue to be approved for three years longer than the EU. I would be grateful for some reassurance that that provision has been fully appraised and explored. This is part of the whole transition process, so can the Minister explain what risks there might be of substances continuing to be approved for three years longer than they normally would? How will the Government assess those risks and what measures will they take to handle them?

The draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 will create a new power to take measures to control and trace waste contaminated by persistent organic pollutants in relation to Great Britain. This is a recent requirement under EU law and, as we have heard, the measures have not yet been developed, either here or in Europe. We have been told that any legislative changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will have to be made by 31 October 2023. When the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was asked about that deadline by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it explained that it was thinking about timescales that are not determined by the EU. Rather worryingly for the Opposition, it went on to indicate that the powers to create the control and tracing system would be used “only if needed”. Can the Minister indicate the circumstances in which a control and tracing system would not be needed?

As ClientEarth has already pointed out to the Minister, the draft regulations omit a current requirement under European law that when it is decided whether a specific substance is a by-product rather than waste, detailed criteria on the application of conditions on by-products shall

“ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health”.

When that was raised with the Department, it indicated to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that further regulations would be needed next year, and that would be the appropriate place to set out any such conditions and to consider whether to make the exercise of the power subject to the condition that ClientEarth identified. Once again, we are worried about language, particularly the word “whether”. It implies that an existing provision in the EU safeguards might not continue, so will the Minister assure us that there will be no watering down of that provision in the regulations that come forward next year? It is an important point that deserves clarity.

On regulatory and advisory expertise, Opposition Members are concerned that oversight of standards on pesticides and persistent organic pollutants will be less effective post Brexit. For example, the role of the European Chemicals Agency has been replaced by the Environment Agency and it is not clear whether the Environment Agency has equivalent expertise in the field. Will the Minister confirm that the Environment Agency will provide at least the same level of expertise as the European Chemicals Agency? Will she confirm any plans for additional funding, including in the forthcoming spending review, for the Environment Agency to carry out the role?

As I said, we will not divide the Committee by opposing the regulations, but we will hold Ministers to account for their promises and their answers today and in the coming days and weeks. Our departure from the European Union will see major change for all the people in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, and it will be a break-away from how things have been done for almost half a century. Of course, that means things will be challenging. We understand that, but there is no excuse for government by SI, or for the Government to pack the parliamentary calendar in such a way that they hope to shield themselves from scrutiny. I simply say to the Minister: be warned, we are watching.

[Victoria Prentis]

There is no rushing of the statutory instruments. It is perfectly normal to use them to make regulations. I am afraid I do not know why the SIs were not consolidated in the way the hon. Lady suggested. I am sure that the timetable was agreed by the usual channels in the normal way.

The SIs are highly technical and involve no policy changes, but I will endeavour to answer the hon. Lady’s questions. The use of pesticides is allowed only when a comprehensive scientific assessment shows that it will have no harmful effect on people. The assessment of risks is rigorous and authorisation is frequently refused. Pesticide users are required by law to take all reasonable precautions to protect human health and the environment and to apply the product only to the area they intend to treat. The Government’s review of the national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides will take an holistic approach, centred on integrated pest management, which is very much part of our policy making. We will consult on the updated NAP later this year.

The hon. Lady asked about the three-year change and why the statutory instrument delays the introduction of changes to the renewal dossiers until 2026. The answer is to provide a smooth transition between EU law and retained law so that the requirements that apply to active substances under retained law will be the same as those for the same substances when they are considered under the EU regime. The change in date is because some active substance approvals will expire in the first three years after the end of the transition period. We need to extend the date to allow proper time for evaluation of the substances under our new national regime.

Will we continue to report on progress and actions? Yes, of course we will submit reports as we are required to do as a party to the Stockholm convention. Our new waste-regulating power is needed because the revised EU regulation requires measures to be taken to ensure that POPs waste is controlled and traced in the same way as hazardous waste. Work on those measures is ongoing and will not completed before the end of this year, after which we will lose the European Communities Act powers, so we need to have our own to carry on that important and environmentally critical work.

There is no watering down of protections. We remain strongly committed to the effective and safe management of chemicals to protect the public and the environment. That will not change at the end of the transition period. We remain absolutely committed to the Stockholm convention and we will ensure that regulation of POPs continues to develop in line with scientific evidence as we get it.

On the Environment Agency, advice will be taken from Natural Resources Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development in Northern Ireland. They will undertake the new role given to the European Chemicals Agency in the new EU regulations. The Environment Agency’s expertise puts us in a strong position to make our own decisions after the end of the transition period. I feel that that answers the hon. Lady’s questions and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Persistent Organic pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Resolved, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Victoria Prentis.)

Food Supply: Covid-19

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the First Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, COVID-19 and food supply, HC 263, and the Government response, HC 841.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle. We launched our inquiry in April after the start of the coronavirus pandemic. It is good to see the Minister and the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)—and also the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), who is a great member of the Select Committee. We are a very select bunch this afternoon. What we lack in quantity, we make up in quality—there is no doubt about that. As long as we agree on that, things will be absolutely fine.

When lockdown measures to control the virus took effect and began to have a significant impact on the food supply, panic buying took place in supermarkets, and many businesses in the food sector were forced to close. The Committee therefore took evidence from businesses in the food supply chain, food aid organisations, charities, members of the general public, academics, and Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to inform our report.

I want to pay tribute at this stage to those working in the food supply industry, because they kept working through the pandemic—they kept our factories and processing plants going, the drivers got the supplies out, and the farmers produced the food throughout the pandemic. That showed the need to have good home production as well as making sure that imports get in. Although this is not part of the report, I say to the Minister that it is essential that we have a process for getting the lorries and food through our ports and docks as we leave the European Union. I am sure she is well aware of that.

Our report was published on 30 July, just before the summer recess, and we received a Government response on 10 October. Our report was wide-ranging and was intended to help the Government, particularly on how best to react to a second lockdown, which now, unfortunately, has come to pass. Fortunately, we have not seen the same levels of panic buying in supermarkets yet this time around, and we are better prepared to cope with the demand and surges.

I would like to put on record the fact that there never was any real shortage of food in the supermarkets. It is just that, naturally, once people believe they are going to be locked down, the first thing they think is, “Let’s go and stock up on the essentials.” Let us get the clear message out that the food is there and that we do not need to panic buy.

There are, however, several key issues to with food insecurity, which we addressed in our report, and it will continue to be an issue for the Government as a result of covid-19, especially with a further lockdown. One of them is food redistribution. When we launched our report back in the summer, we did so from the FareShare depot in Deptford, in east London. In our report, we praised the Government for the £5 million they provided to FareShare to redistribute food to the most vulnerable, and we asked whether that money could be extended over the next two years. Could the Minister refer to that when she replies to the debate?

As well as helping those who struggle to afford food as the effects of the pandemic continue, redistributing food would also reduce food waste at the farm gates. In my view, it is very much a win-win and a good use of taxpayers’ money and Government money. It buys a lot of good-quality food and delivers it directly to those who most need it.

We also recommended that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should evaluate the impact of the £63 million it provided to local authorities, assist those struggling to afford food, and consider whether further support is necessary, especially in this new lockdown. The second lockdown has started. Is DEFRA planning to provide any additional funding for the redistribution of food for those who most need it? I know that the Minister is keen for those in the most need to have food. I look forward to what she may have to say.

The Government have recommended that clinically extremely vulnerable people shield again during the current lockdown. It is not clear whether food parcels will be provided through a central scheme led by DEFRA, as they were during the first lockdown. Again, will the Minister confirm whether that will be the case?

During the first wave and the first lockdown, there were a number of issues with delivery slots for online shopping for some vulnerable people, who were unable to get priority booking. I hope, because of all the experience we have had, that that will not happen this time, but we have to be aware that the most vulnerable people who are getting their food online need to get that food. Has DEFRA assessed whether enough online delivery slots are now available, not just for people shielding, but for others who rely on them, such as people with disabilities? We took evidence from people with disabilities who found it quite difficult last time during the lockdown to get food. People advised to shield again are advised not to go to the shops and to shop online. We must ensure that they have support to access the food they need.

I also want to talk a little about free school meals and food vouchers. I know it is not the direct responsibility of the present Minister, but she is the Minister responsible for farming and food. While our report did not make recommendations on whether free school meal vouchers should be available during school holidays, it did look at how the system worked, with vouchers provided to redeem at supermarkets to get foods to the poorest families.

I know from my experience, and from my wife’s during her teaching career, that there is great need to get those vouchers out to vulnerable families. I know this was set up to provide meals while schools were closed, but it was also extended to school holidays. Children in poverty are particularly vulnerable to getting insufficient nutritious food during the school holidays, so I hope the Government are looking at what more can be done for the poorest and most vulnerable children in terms of food access at this time.

I accept that the Government have given more money in universal credit, but the benefit of food vouchers is that they allow people to buy the food directly. The Government would be wise, ahead of the long Christmas holidays, to look again at providing free school meals for children at Christmas, particularly with Marcus Rashford—who is, naturally, very sincere in wanting food to go to children—making a case for it.

In part one of the national food strategy, Henry Dimbleby made a number of recommendations to the Government on food security. As we know, Henry Dimbleby was put there by the previous Secretary of State for DEFRA. The report recommended expanding free school meals for children up to 16 in a household in receipt of universal credit, extending the holiday activities and food programme across the country, and expanding Healthy Start. It would be interesting to hear whether DEFRA and the Minister can say anything about what is happening to that food strategy and that report. Are the Government actively looking at those proposals now?

In our EFRA Committee report, we recommended that the Government consult on whether a right to food should be given a legislative footing. If a person is hungry, the right to food is so important. It takes only one look at me to see that I have probably not been hungry very much lately, but if a person is hungry, that is their main problem in life and it needs to be sorted. Though I make a joke about myself, I take the matter of food security and having enough food very seriously.

We also recommend that a Minister for food security be immediately appointed to deal with these issues. That was a very good part of our report—it had many good parts, but that was a particularly good part. I understand from the Government’s response to our report that Lord Gardiner is actually the Minister responsible for food security, so he might have been here today. I very much respect Lord Gardiner, but I think we actually need a Minister who is almost in the Cabinet if they are to be able to deliver a cross-Cabinet report on food security.

I pay tribute to the Minister for her great work in amending the Agriculture Bill yesterday; it is in a much better state than when it started, although it may need a few more tweaks before we are finished.

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

Never again.

[Neil Parish]

Never say never again, Minister, especially in Parliament and in politics. In particular, I am pleased that the Government now have to review food security every three years instead of every five years. However, I think the Agriculture Bill should be much more about food production and food security, as well as about delivering food to everybody—those that can afford it, and those that cannot.

We have an opportunity—it is probably slightly broader than our report—to look at the way we produce healthy food in this country through our agricultural policies, and then deliver that food into the market and to those who most need it. I have always believed that through the new Agriculture Bill, as we move away from the common agricultural policy, we can have more food, healthy food and vegetables—all the things we need in life. Can we not link these things much more? You will probably tell me off, Ms McDonagh, for going a little off the report.

In our EFRA Committee report, we found that the responsibility for food falls across several Government Departments, but there is a risk that food insecurity falls between the cracks, with no clear lead. DEFRA is responsible for food. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has helped to get food parcels out to vulnerable people, the Department for International Trade has a huge impact on our food supply through trade, and the Department for Education is responsible for school meals vouchers. Given the increased challenge of food security in the nation post covid-19, would it not be wise for the Government to ensure that one single Minister draws together policies across Departments, and even in Cabinet? I again emphasise that we need that food—not only what we produce in this country, but imports—to flow freely across the country.

Finally, our report found that the hospitality and food services sectors may take more than a year to recover from forced closures and that further financial difficulties are likely, and that was before this latest lockdown. What assessment has DEFRA made of how this lockdown will affect hospitality and food services businesses and their food and drink suppliers? It is a huge blow to those businesses. We understand why we need a second lockdown, because covid is spreading, and I am not at all against what the Government have had to do, but we have to consider the effect on all those businesses.

When the Government closed businesses back in March, there were huge problems up the supply chain. High-value beef did not have a market in restaurants, and coffee shops closed, which badly affected the milk sector, with many farmers reportedly having to pour milk down the drain. The Government moved to set up a dairy response fund, which was very welcome, and the industry was given more flexibility to take into the retail sector the milk that had been going to the restaurant sector, so the situation improved quite quickly, but we need to be very careful as we go forward. How are the Government going to support food and drink suppliers this time? Restaurants, pubs and bars are now having to close, so that will have an effect.

I am grateful to the Minister for being here today. I have put to her a number of questions from the report and some from me as well. We have today presented what I believe is a well-considered and thoughtful report. It is critical in parts, but it is also helpful to the Government. I look forward to the Government adopting absolutely everything in it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank all those who have worked so hard to keep the nation fed throughout this difficult year. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and his Committee for the work they have done on this excellent report. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) with whom I have discussed food security and insecurity before. I know he works very hard and is very knowledgeable in this sphere. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who I know will also continue to work with us on these difficult issues.

I will start with the Government’s preparations for the new restrictions that have come into place today. On Monday, the national shielding service system was switched on, allowing clinically extremely vulnerable individuals to register their need for support. That should get them a supermarket delivery slot within seven days as a maximum—so, with any luck, before that. I have done the gov.uk website click-through myself. The system is simple to use, and it can be done on behalf of an older person or someone who cannot access technology.

If that does not work for anyone or for anyone’s constituents, please get in touch with one of the charities that I shall list later, or local authorities which are able to provide direct access to online delivery slots. Having said that, there is good supply of online delivery slots at the moment, commercially. I keep checking that as well, and slots are available today, or they were when I checked earlier.

Today, too, there was further good news from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the coronavirus job retention scheme. That is worth checking, but I do not intend to go into any detail, because we have enough to do to go through the recommendations in this extensive report in order, which I will now do.

We welcome recommendations 1, 2 and 3. We have been in daily contact with retailers throughout the pandemic. They told us what was happening abroad before it started here. We in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—given that we supply a lot of food abroad, not least at the smarter end of the fisheries sector—were very aware of what was happening on the continent of Europe before the pandemic got bad here. We knew that the strains on demand experienced in March and April were inevitable as the numbers went up, but the supply chain response demonstrated real resilience.

[Neil Parish]

The point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was that when we had the previous epidemic, our imports and exports were all under single market regulations. Is the Minister absolutely certain that DEFRA and the Government are ready for the hauliers to be able to import and export food without delay? She mentioned fish, which got me to rise to my feet immediately, because fish by its very nature is perishable. We have to have the right certificates and enough people to issue them. We cannot delay the hauliers, so I seek that reassurance for the record, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

Yes. I am happy to go into immense detail with my hon. Friend, possibly not in this debate because, frankly, that is the subject of several hours of discussion in itself. I am absolutely certain that we are working very hard, that we have prepared for a no-deal scenario—as the Department has done several times already, and which we still hope will not be the case—and that we have daily meetings about the plans for 1 January.

I am not prepared to say, and would never say, that there will not be bumps along the way in the next few months. I am sure that there will be, and of course the pandemic is not helping the situation. I had a useful meeting with local authority leaders this morning, who are working on this very issue. I am also acutely conscious that the same workforce is dealing with the issues of both the pandemic and the end of the transition period. I will not say that there will be no bumps; I will say that we are as prepared as we possibly can be, but that it is challenging.

To go back to today’s lockdown, supermarkets have seen a clear uplift in sales because of the lockdown and in anticipation of it. We are monitoring the situation closely, and supermarkets say that they are confident of managing availability by using existing stocks and working with their suppliers. Evidence shows—I say this politely to the hon. Member for Cambridge—that messaging to consumers to highlight the resilience of the food supply comes best from supermarkets and those in the retail supply chain. I am prepared to accept that evidence.

It is also clear that as soon as the words beginning with “p” and “b” are mentioned in the media—I will not even say the words, and this is why we never talk about them—people act in a way that is not necessary, buying things that they do not need. We have a swear box in the office for those words. To reassure hon. Members, food supply is holding up very well. There are products on the shelves and nobody needs to buy anything they do not need to eat in the normal course of events.

On recommendation 4, exclusion orders are intended to be used in exceptional circumstances only. The Competition Act 1998 (Groceries) (Coronavirus) (Public Policy Exclusion) Order 2020, which provided a specific and temporary relaxation of elements of UK competition law, was very effective. We should give active consideration to whether it is needed again, and we are doing so. I accept what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about law generally being better scrutinised. When the House was sitting virtually, however, we did not have a virtual way to undertake scrutiny of statutory instruments, and that remains the case. I know that consideration is being given to that, but not everything is perfect in the course of a global pandemic. It was definitely worth introducing that exemption, and I am pleased that we did so.

We agree with recommendations 5 and 6. Click and collect boomed, and retailers worked really hard to increase availability. There were enormous increases in online delivery supply. Tesco is just one example, but other supermarkets are available. The number of its delivery slots went from 660,000—at that point, delivery was not a huge part of Tesco’s business—to 1.5 million, which is an immense job. Many other supermarkets increased their deliveries, too.

There was also a lot of really hard work locally. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned the Co-op, which did enormous work in my constituency just to do local deliveries to old people who had rung up. A volunteer or shop staff member would then drop off the shopping. An immense amount of work went into all that. The temporary relaxation of drivers’ hours rules also really helped—that was another win—and DEFRA waived the 5p carrier bag charge for online orders, which helped minimise contact between drivers and customers. That was another useful learning point.

On recommendation 7, we spent a considerable amount of time on the food and essential supplies to the vulnerable taskforce, which I was privileged to chair, targeting this specific group. Personally, I always refer to the vulnerable instead of putting people into different categories. We work closely with retailers, local authorities and charities to help them make connections and put in place a whole range of services for people who need them. They are still available. We have our own delivery slots, which are obviously provided by retailers but which local authorities and national charities, including the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Age UK and Scope, can access directly. Some 81% of local authorities can now do direct referrals for supermarket slots, and I thank the team who worked for our taskforce. They did all this very difficult work amazingly quickly. They built computer systems to help deliver it and worked with local authorities to ensure that the supplies and food delivery slots were there for those who needed them.

Recommendations 8 to 11, and probably a few others, focus on food security. In the first weeks of the pandemic, the taskforce’s focus was on ensuring that food got to people who were finding it physically difficult to access it because they were locked down in their houses. However, it became very clear—indeed, this was not a surprise to anyone—that there was a growing and substantial problem with economic access to food. We got a great deal of evidence from those who work on the frontline, and we continue to do so. It is very much a priority of our work going forward.

Food poverty is, of course, a part of wider poverty and is usually dealt with by the welfare system. The Government have put in place a great deal more welfare measures than have been available in the past, with £9 billion extra this financial year, benefiting 16 million extra households. It is important to remember that not everyone in food poverty has children. Indeed, the granular evidence we received daily from those who work on the frontline shows that probably about half of those in food poverty have children. Many of them are single people—they are not necessarily older—living on their own. When we have this discussion, it is important to recognise the different sorts of families.

[Neil Parish]

We are having a thoughtful conversation. It is interesting to hear the Minister say that probably less than half of those receiving benefits have children. Is there an argument that food should be targeted with vouchers, so that it gets to families with children? If the benefit is available to everyone, which is a good thing, those with children are not necessarily targeted. School vouchers target them and make sure that vulnerable children get food.

[Victoria Prentis]

This is a difficult and delicate area, but the point I am trying to make is that we need to address the needs of all those who are in food poverty. Obviously, children are particularly important but so are adults. If, sadly, we need to get welfare systems up and running later in the pandemic and to address the economic problems that might follow it, we will need to ensure that a holistic approach is taken to all those in food poverty. I will come to more detail in a moment. In terms of the welfare net, universal credit has been increased by £20 a week, and increases to local housing allowance rates have also been helpful to families. We also continue to spend over £95 billion a year on working-age benefits.

In the last few weeks I have had useful conversations with the Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society about the targeted support for which DEFRA made a bid in May and which local authorities dispersed. Some £63 million-worth of food and essential supplies was distributed to the people who local authorities knew were in most need, about half of whom have children. The Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society say that that money was helpful and very well spent. It is being assessed at the moment, not least by those two organisations and other frontline deliverers that communicate regularly with DEFRA.

In May, £16 million was provided directly by Government to food charities, such as FareShare. That was an unusual step for Government to take. Some of that £16 million went directly to the Waste and Resources Action Programme, as none of us likes to see good food go to waste. There is other funding available to WRAP, which is doing excellent work.

In respect of today’s lockdown, for which the hospitality sector did not, given the nature of the disease, have long to prepare—restaurants, for example, still have food that they had ordered—WRAP has today been sharing knowledge, at very short notice, on increasing redistribution. If businesses with multiple pallets of surplus food cannot find a recipient, they should contact WRAP, which will help facilitate connections with people who need it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) was a key part of my taskforce. We work closely together on the issue of children who access free school meals during term time. We know very well that Christmas is coming and we understand that there will be winter pressures. I am not able to make any announcements today, but I am confident that the right work is being done to prepare for winter.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I do not expect the Minister to make an announcement late on a Thursday afternoon, but if local authorities are going to be in a position to help, they need to get funding fairly soon. May I also say that the Member I was referring to earlier was my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck)?

[Victoria Prentis]

On recommendation 12, food boxes contained a basic selection of food and other essential items for those who were unable to leave home. They were a standardised package, designed to be suitable for the majority of people. They had been reviewed by a nutritionist. I know there were complaints, but I am very proud of the fact that 4.5 million boxes were delivered at short notice to people who needed them. It was not a long-term solution—a box of ingredients delivered by the Government is not how we want people to be able to feed themselves in the long term.  We are not planning currently to do it again for this lockdown because we have online delivery slots, the volunteer network—the GoodSAM volunteers who are prepared to go and shop for anybody—and the excellent local authority systems. We therefore think we have a good and robust system in place to deal with those who are shielding now. The message for those experiencing difficulties is: please do get in touch with the local authority.

On recommendations 13, 14 and 24, we remain committed to publishing a White Paper within six months of the publication of Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, which we still expect next spring.

[Neil Parish]

I think I am right to say we have been expecting the food report for a very long time. Although I welcome it coming in the spring, I thought it was due here before Christmas. The seasons seem to be getting prolonged.

[Victoria Prentis]

I think my hon. Friend is being rather impatient. He had the first part of the report in July, to which the Government are actively considering their response, and he will get the rest of it next year. Henry Dimbleby is in charge, and the Government will respond within six months of the final report. The report is a large piece of work, which was commissioned to help inform our food strategy and will include proper consideration of measures needed to tackle food insecurity. On the other report that we have promised to provide, the Agriculture Bill commits us to providing a food security report at least every three years. My hon. Friend and I discussed that matter at length in the Chamber and we came up with a sensible solution.

On recommendation 15, the work of the cross-Government taskforce was very valuable. I do see the value in working across Government. This matter continues to be under live consideration. I meet or communicate regularly on food issues with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). Whether or not we are a formal group meeting in person at the moment, we are very much in touch on these issues.

I turn to the food service sector and recommendation 16. We know how the closure of the hospitality and food service had a huge impact across the food supply chain. That was inevitable. That is why the Government stood up enormously our existing stakeholder forums with industry and developed new forums to facilitate close collaboration and know exactly what was going on. In DEFRA, we helped with specific funds for those sectors that were particularly struggling, such as dairy and fish. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced a wide-ranging package of measures available to businesses generally and across the food supply chain, including the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, which helped many businesses, and continues to do so, across the UK; the bounce back loan scheme, which has also been popular in the food sector; and the coronavirus job retention scheme, which provides for payments to be made from the Treasury to employers.

I turn to key workers in the food sector and recommendations 19 and 20. We are very grateful to all those whom we started to call food heroes during the course of the pandemic: people like Geoff Norris, the Asda delivery driver who shopped and delivered food to vulnerable customers in his own time to ensure that they had food, and Sharon McKendrick, the Morrisons store manager in Berwick who set up a food ordering phone line for local vulnerable people in her community as well as personally delivering a lot of it. There are many, many more. We have been able to honour some of them in various ways, but I would like to thank all of them—they know who they are.

[Ian Byrne]

In the evidence the Select Committee took, it was extremely comforting to see the link between industry and trade unions. We saw the benefits of talking to each other to get each other through this, using the expertise of the trade unions and industry. It was fantastic. One of the most heart-warming things was the link between them, not seeing each other as enemies but working collaboratively to get the nation through. Once we get past covid, hopefully we can build on those relationships and that collaboration. As we have touched on, we have many issues with sick pay and conditions, but the value of the workforce has now been seen by the entire country, and the Minister is right: they are heroes.

[Victoria Prentis]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman, which brings us nicely to processing plants and recommendation 21. The hon. Member for Cambridge made important points about an unheard workforce. The issue is obviously a real and pressing concern. We are working closely with Public Health England, the Health and Safety Executive, the joint biosecurity centre, the Department of Health and Social Care, and, of course, the Food Standards Agency. It is a very active problem for all of us in DEFRA at the moment. Anything that the hon. Gentleman hears can be passed on to me. I also work closely with Health Ministers. Our current understanding is that outbreaks are probably linked to a combination of working conditions, working culture, living conditions and shared transport. We are also working with our devolved Administration colleagues to seek consistency of approach across the UK. Statutory sick pay is just one part of our wider offer to support people. During this challenging period, we are taking every opportunity to ensure that people are supported to do the right thing and stay at home where necessary.

On recommendation 22, we anticipated many things in Government, but not the coronavirus. As recognised by the Committee, we muddled through in the food sector and adapted as best we could, but of course there are lessons to learn.

On recommendation 25, we are not complacent. We know we have a highly resilient food supply chain and a food industry that is experienced in dealing with disruption, but there is a great deal more to do. We have extensive engagement with industry, which includes very regular—sometimes daily, sometimes twice weekly—meetings with industry and in particular the food resilience industry forum, which meets twice weekly at the moment. We will build on that approach as we plan for the end of the transition period, on which work is very much going on with 56 days to go.

Through engagement with industry for EU exit planning and, of course, the pandemic response, we have significantly improved our knowledge of the supply chain this year, but we will continue to adapt and, I hope, manage the nation’s food supply as best we can. I am quietly quite proud of what the team has managed to do this year. I sincerely thank everyone who has worked so hard to feed the nation during the pandemic—from farmers, to those involved in the food supply chain—and I thank the team in DEFRA. It has not been perfect, but I think it has been okay and we have managed it. We have had a good debate. I welcome the report and look forward to working further with all of the hon. Members present on this very important topic.

Agriculture Bill

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Lords amendment 18B, and Government motion to disagree.

Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 16B and 18B.

[Victoria Prentis]

I should start by declaring my farming interests and the fact that I come from a farming family, but that is not the only reason hat I think this is one of the most exciting Bills before the House this year. This Bill matters to everyone who sees a great future for British farming as we leave the EU and the confines of the common agricultural policy. As we have seen from the huge amount of public interest in it, this Bill matters to everyone who is interested in what we eat and in where and how it is produced. Food standards are important, particularly as we forge new trade deals around the world.

This Bill has been much improved during its passage through this place, and I must thank Members on both sides of both Houses for their assistance, starting with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Gardiner and the Minister for the Environment, with whom I am working closely on future farming policy, and our marvellous Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), who is a strong voice for her farming community, as is Emma Pryor, our Spad. I should also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), Lord Grantchester and Lord Curry of Kirkharle.

I thank the many Members who voted for previous incarnations of the Bill, voicing their concerns privately to me and believing, rightly, that it would come right in the end. We must recognise that a large number of people outside Parliament have been involved in the debate on standards, including the National Farmers Union and the many members of the public who signed its petition, and many British farmers.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It would be remiss of us not to thank the Minister for the way that she has engaged in this process, listened to farmers and their representatives and got the Bill to such a good place. May I put on record my thanks to her?

[Victoria Prentis]

That is very kind. We should also thank the farmers, who are rightly proud of the food we produce.

It has proved very difficult to find the right form of legislative words to protect our standards. It is important that we comply with World Trade Organisation rules and that we do not impose impossible conditions on future trading partners. I feel that, following the gargantuan efforts of many people, we have got to a sensible compromise. My concern about amendment 16B is that it would cause problems for our negotiators and impose burdensome administrative measures on our trading partners. Demonstrating equivalence of standards is a complex and technical task that involves delving deeply into the cowsheds, chicken huts and legislatures of other nations. I feel that our amendment in lieu is a better way to achieve the goal.

We stood on a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we would not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. As I have said many times before, we need a range of tools to help us achieve that goal. The first tool is legislative. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 transferred all exiting EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, to the UK statute book. These include, as I have said several times before, a ban on chlorine washes for chicken and hormone-treated beef. Any changes would require new legislation to be brought before this Parliament, and I do not see any appetite for that.

The second tool is the regulatory body, the independent Food Standards Agency, and Food Standards Scotland. The third tool is consumer information. Earlier this year I committed to a serious and rapid examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK. We will consult on that at the end of the transition period, so very shortly.

The fourth tool is Parliament, which plays an important role in scrutinising our trade policy. The Government have provided a great deal of information to Parliament on our negotiations, including publishing our objectives and our scoping assessments before the start of talks, and we also work very closely with the relevant Select Committees. However, during the passage of the Bill it has made it clear that further parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals is desirable. That is why we have tabled an amendment requiring us to report to Parliament on the impact of new trade agreements on the maintenance of our food, animal welfare and environmental protection standards. This proposed new clause would add a duty on the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament before or alongside any free trade agreement laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 procedures. The Secretary of State for International Trade has said that the Government will find time for debate. If Parliament is not satisfied, it can delay ratification through the CRaG process.

Turning to Lords amendment 18B, the Government will in fact go further than is proposed. We are putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, with a provision to review it every three years. This will be done through a Government amendment to the Trade Bill, which has finished in Committee and is about be considered on Report in the House of Lords, where the amendment will be introduced. That will ensure that our trade policy is examined in detail by key experts. This House asked for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, and I am delighted to provide it.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Can I take the Minister back to amendment (a), because she moved on before I got to make my point? Subsection (5) of the proposed new clause provides that any report would have to be laid before Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers. Can she outline what would happen if those Ministers, or indeed Northern Ireland Ministers, disagreed with the content of the report?

[Victoria Prentis]

The whole purpose of the reporting mechanism is that it will not just be for Parliament, or indeed any of the devolved Administrations, to object to the report; it will be publicly available and, I suspect, widely scrutinised—we have all seen how interested the public are in these matters. In those circumstances, I am quite sure that we would find a way of discussing the matter in this place, so that the views of the Commons could be tested in the normal manner. Were that situation to arise, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would find a way of making his views and those of his constituents clear.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I will not, because many Members wish to speak and I have been asked to be as quick as possible.

We are putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing. The House asked for scrutiny of trade deals, and I am pleased to provide it. Parliament will have the reports from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and it will have time to study the texts and specialist Committees in both Houses to examine them in more detail. It will be the lawful duty of Ministers to present both Houses, and indeed the devolved Administrations, with the evidence they need to scrutinise future trade agreements.

I believe that the Government amendment provides a comprehensive solution that really gets to the heart of this important issue. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendments 16B and 18B and to accept the Government’s amendment in lieu.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I warn Members that there will be an immediate limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. We obviously have very little time and many people wish to speak, so the shorter the better. I remind Members that brevity is the soul of wit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Goodness—two minutes! I will just rush though this. The Lords were absolutely right to try to strengthen the Bill. They are listening to British farmers and British people, and this House should, too. My constituency of Bath is home to one of the first farmers’ markets in the UK, where local producers sell directly to local people who can be reassured that they are buying quality food produced to high standards. Our city’s UNESCO world heritage status is strongly linked to our green surroundings, and our fields, hedges and trees are all symbols of our agricultural heritage. Many towns and cities across the UK are the same. They are home to small family-owned farms that are run by people who want to farm and who know farming.

I have watched this Government slowly renege on their promises to British farmers, telling them to compete internationally or die. Are we to subsidise them to run their farms as public parks for the recreational benefit of city dwellers? Can the Government not understand why this is causing a great deal of anger? One million people signed the NFU’s petition to protect the British food standards, and this issue is not going away. The Government say that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will have teeth and that there is therefore no need to enshrine British food standards in law, but teeth for whom? Concerns about chlorinated chicken and hormone-produced beef have been dismissed as alarmism, and attempts to protect British food standards have been brushed off as protectionism disguised as self-sufficiency. The Government are not the people who will stand up for British farmers; we on this side are. Instead, they will force farmers to lower their standards in order to compete. That is not good enough, and we will support the Lords amendments.

[Victoria Prentis]

The Bill has been much improved by more than 100 hours of debate, and I do not mean to give it much more. On the trade and agriculture amendments to the Trade Bill, we will work closely with DIT throughout the drafting of this amendment, and we will together agree the final version. Union reps have been involved in TAC roundtables, and I am happy to ask DIT to explore what more can be done. I do not know who the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) thinks NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru and the Ulster Farmers Union represent if it is not farmers from the devolved Administrations. All those bodies are represented on the Trade and Agriculture Commission at the moment.

The report that we promised today would be laid before Parliament, and it would be public. If standards in a future trade agreement were lower than ours, there would rightly be a public outcry. We would expect the Government to give time for debate, whether as an Opposition day or otherwise. The situation in the last Parliament has undoubtedly left us scarred, but it was, thank goodness, very unusual. It would be extraordinary, in the circumstances of the Government laying such a report, to refuse all requests to provide time. I have had a meeting with Clerks from both ends of this building to discuss that and they confirmed that that was the case.

Draft Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

The two statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 5 October, are closely related and apply to retained EU law relating to the common agricultural policy. Hon. Members may well be aware that the common agricultural policy has three strands: direct payments, rural development and marketing measures. Both instruments amend EU marketing regulations relating to the fruit and vegetables and the processed fruit and vegetables sectors and to the producer organisation aid scheme. The payments regulations also amend a number of other areas of the common agricultural policy.

As hon. Members are aware, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has the largest SI programme in Government. In recognition of that, it has identified instruments whose delivery has been deemed essential to prevent significant disruption at the end of the transition period and has rolled several of them up together, which is why there are items dealt with collectively in the instruments before us that in normal times would perhaps be dealt with individually.

The draft instruments make technical amendments that will enable regulation to continue to operate effectively. They do not introduce new policy; they preserve the regime for supporting rural development and marketing measures beneficiaries. The instruments do not enable that in relation to direct payments, for reasons that I shall set out shortly. Although one of the instruments is reserved, we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations in producing both instruments, and where necessary the DAs have given their consent.

The payments SI contains provisions for different aspects of CAP rules. First, following the ratification of the withdrawal agreement, it updates a number of DEFRA EU exit SIs made at the end of last year. To avoid duplication, ambiguity or contradiction in the future, it is necessary to remove the direct payment provisions in our 2019 SIs and to clarify that those SIs relate only to marketing measures and rural development. No policy changes are made through these amendments; they just minimise any ambiguity in the rules that might occur if all regulation continued.

Secondly, the instrument makes amendments to reflect other aspects of the withdrawal agreement that relate to the Northern Ireland protocol and article 138 of the agreement. The protocol-related provisions will clarify where Northern Ireland will apply EU rules, while creating no new trading barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Thirdly, the instrument makes provision to ensure that public intervention and private storage aid can continue functioning in much the same way. At present, this is an administrative process under which the Commission makes technical decisions affecting tendering for intervention schemes and, in a short space of time, publishes its decisions using implementing Acts. The purpose of the changes that we hope to make is to allow the appropriate authorities to act in a similar and timely way.

Fourthly, the instrument makes amendments relating to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector. It also makes amendments to EU regulation 2017/1185 to ensure that DEFRA and the DAs can continue to obtain certain production and price data from economic operators.

Finally, the instrument takes the opportunity to update other aspects of retained EU law to reflect amendments made by the EU in 2019 and 2020 after our earlier SIs were made at the end of last year. These amendments are mostly technical and are intended to avoid ambiguity in the regulations. We are also taking the opportunity to correct some small errors in the earlier EU exit SIs, such as references to the Commission that should have been amended to read “the appropriate authority”. Again, no policy changes are made by these amendments.

The draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 amend provisions of retained EU legislation relating to the CMO in the reserved areas of regulation of anti-competitive practices and agreements, international relations, import and export controls, and intellectual property. These amendments are to ensure that, at the end of the transition period, functions currently carried out by the European Commission or by member states in those reserved areas can be carried out by the Secretary of State.

The instrument amends six retained EU regulations and one domestic SI in the areas of producer co-operation; producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector; and wine, with respect to protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional terms. It also revokes implementing Acts adopted by the Commission that set out its decisions concerning the protection of particular designations of origin, GIs and traditional terms. Those implementing Acts are not needed after exit because the effect of those decisions—what appears in the protected designations of origin or protected GIs register—is all that is required to ensure continuity. Removing the implementing Acts simply tidies up our statute book.

I turn first to the provisions concerning producer organisations. Once recognised as a producer organisation, producers in the fruit and vegetable sector can apply for match funding under the fruit and vegetable aid scheme, which allows producer organisations to take members from across the EU. At the end of the transition period, the aid scheme will become a domestic scheme in respect of new programmes. It will still be possible for members of a producer organisation to be based outside the UK, but for operational programmes started after the end of the transition period, aid will no longer be paid in respect of land that is not located in the UK.

The instrument amends the retained EU law and ensures that functions relating to the recognition of producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector can continue to be exercised by the Secretary of State. By virtue of article 138 of the withdrawal agreement, EU law will continue to apply to producer organisations’ ongoing programmes after 31 December until they come to an end, which could be at any time between December 2021 and December 2024.

Retained EU regulations 880/2012 and 2016/232 relate to producer co-operation. They build on the rules for recognition of producer organisations and contractual negotiations in the CMO, which are covered in an EU exit SI already considered and approved by this House in March 2019. The amendments made by the draft instrument omit provisions on transnational producer organisations and update a reference to another regulation, just to tidy things up once again.

I turn now to the provisions that relate to wine. Changes are needed to ensure that arrangements for the protection of wine designations of origin, GIs and traditional terms operate effectively and that GB is able to process applications in respect of domestic protected designations of origin, GIs and traditional terms, and those from third countries, which of course includes the EU. We also need to ensure that the UK is compliant with World Trade Organisation rules.

The amendments in the instrument will ensure that the arrangements for wine continue to function after we leave the EU. They will give the Secretary of State the power to approve a protected designation, a protected GI or a traditional term, and powers to register one of the above if the UK has agreed to protect it as part of an international trade agreement. Finally, they will allow the Secretary of State to deal with UK applications that have been submitted to the EU, but on which a decision is still pending at the end of the transition period, as if they had been submitted under the new GB scheme—in respect of wine, we have a protected designation of origin application for Sussex that falls into that category. The amendments made by the instrument will enable the Secretary of State to make administrative decisions without the need to make legislation after the end of this year.

The draft statutory instruments provide important and necessary continuity and clarity for stakeholders and beneficiaries. They will help to ensure that farmers, scheme participants and land managers have a clear legal framework with minimal ambiguity, and they will help our domestic wine industry to protect its growing international reputation. I urge hon. Members to agree to the amendments proposed in the regulations. I commend both instruments to the Committee.

[The Chair]

The debate can last until 6 o’clock.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I cannot tell you with what joy I heard that DEFRA has the largest programme of SIs in Government. I am sure that everyone is looking forward to the blizzard of SIs that is likely to descend on us.

I have to say that I found the Minister’s explanations helpful; I suspect that, like me, she spent much of the recess reading the detailed trail that leads to these statutory instruments. The question for Members is how we can be absolutely sure about what they do and whether it is actually the case that nothing much is changing. Obviously, we trust the Government entirely, but there may be more to this than meets the eye. It strikes me that it is like a palimpsest: there are now layers and layers, and as we peel them back we find some quite interesting things—sometimes some odd contradictions, and sometimes things that are not immediately explicable. As on previous occasions, I suspect that some of my questions are not instantly answerable, and I would be happy for the Minister to write to me about some of them. However, there will be people to whom these things matter very directly, and clarity is important.

As a relatively new Member of Parliament, although five years seems like a lifetime here, I have to say that this is an odd process: we have a lot of very detailed legal explanations, but every now and then quite important things go through the process—or not—that have an effect on the real world. I have mentioned this in passing to the Minister before, but back in the summer, when there were competition issues affecting the food chain, there were SIs that were never discussed in this place. I raise that only because, sadly, we may well face the same situation again. I gently encourage the Government to discuss some of those matters, because at the time we were told that the lack of discussion had led to an impact, or a lack of impact, in the real world.

The payments SI is a kind of omnibus piece of legislation, with many bits and pieces in it. The farming sector needs clarity on a range of issues at the moment; it is a long time since formal advice was issued to the sector on what it faces in the new year, which is now some 58 days away. Could the Minister clarify when we will get advice on some of those big things, such as the sustainable farming initiative or bridging payments through to next year?

Paragraph 2.3 of the explanatory memorandum refers to some 16 previous statutory instruments, some of which were discussed at length in Committee sittings like this one. It is quite intriguing to go back in time and re-read the previous debates. It is a bit like a detective novel, really—I find myself wondering who the villain was, whether there was a villain, who did it and whether it was ever resolved.

The first five SIs were discussed on 25 March 2019, when we were just a few days away from a potential no-deal crash-out from the European Union. Those measures were being put in place quickly at that time to try to deal with such an eventuality. The then Minister explained in particular the impact on the pillar 1 and pillar 2 CAP payments, which are hugely significant to many people.

We then moved on. In fact, this was when the current Minister and I started to discuss these things. Back in January this year, we had the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 and a whole range of SIs that followed on from that. Therefore, we are now, in effect, on our third wave of SIs, and some of them of course refer back to the previous one and the previous one.

I hope that everyone is still with us, because this is not particularly simple or straightforward. Of course, it is tempting to make the obvious point that it is not quite as simple as some people suggested this time last year—but perhaps that is unfair. But there is a joke in here somewhere, because if we get to paragraph 9.1 of the explanatory memorandum—I do have sympathy for the civil servants—it tells us that DEFRA

“does not intend to consolidate the relevant legislation at this time.”

Well, good luck to whoever has to consolidate the relevant legislation; I think that that would be quite a task.

Let us now go back to March of last year—paragraph 7.6 in the explanatory notes refers to this. I think that we do need to look at some of the details, and of course if we turn to the instrument itself, we see that it has 48 pages of detailed amendments. Many of them are indeed just minor changes—for example, to ensure that the “relevant authority” is no longer the Commission and so on—but not all of them are. I have to confess that even having read them at some length, I am still not sure what some of them mean, and there are a few that I would really like the Minister to explain to us.

In part 3, there are mentions of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and the rural development funds. I am not entirely sure what regulations 11 to 13 actually do, and that is important, because, certainly in relation to pillar 2, there are real concerns outside the House. I was talking to the Welsh Government at the end of last week, and they certainly had many concerns. The Minister will know—I have teased her before on this—that Wales modulates it to the full extent and does a lot of good things with the pillar 2 funds.

In the previous discussion about SI 2019/764 on 21 March 2019, the then Minister brought this to life a bit, because he said:

“The draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the EU regulation that provides the general rules and structures that govern support for rural development, provide payments to be made to agreement holders and lay down rules on programming, networking, management, monitoring and evaluation. That includes the countryside stewardship and environmental stewardship schemes, which improve the environment; the countryside productivity fund, which supports productivity improvements in farm and forestry businesses; and the growth programme, which supports rural business development, food processing, tourism and broadband.”—[Official Report, Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 March 2019; c. 4.]

When it is put like that, it suddenly does not sound quite so dry, because we suddenly see that there are an awful lot of things going on out there that are directly affected by that.

At the same time, my predecessor, David Drew, said:

“I am glad that the Minister mentioned that this is about £430 million for existing programmes. My concern is what will happen at the end of 2020”—

he was very prescient. He continued:

“There is no clarity at all from the Government on their rural policy, because it does not really have one, despite needing a rural strategy. What will the Government do then?”—[Official Report, Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 March 2019; c. 5.]

I think that that question is as valid today as it was then, because the issues about the shared prosperity fund and the discussions about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill do not lead us to a clear position some 58 days from the key point. Of course, many rural organisations, including the Rural Services Network, have been pressing for some time for a proper rural strategy to deal with all this, but that is missing at the moment.

At paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 in the accompanying notes, there is talk of public intervention and storage. I listened closely to the Minister’s comments on this. I appreciate that this Government have never been as keen on these interventions as some of our European neighbours, but I want to be clear on what is actually done in that case—what being

“carried out administratively…rather than by regulations”

actually means. Certainly in the past, these things have been quite controversial. Often, there has been a kind of political influence on decisions as to whether to open up these schemes. I appreciate that in general—this was in the Agriculture Bill—the Government do not see this as a way forward for the future. But it could hardly be said that we are not at a time of potential market volatility —let us put it like that—and this would be exactly the kind of time when one might imagine that it would be useful to have access to some of these kinds of scheme. I am not sure that it can just be done administratively. It might require political judgment and decisions, so I would be interested to have some clarity on that.

The producer organisations model is one that has always been pursued to a much greater extent in other European countries than in the UK, but we have some. I just wanted to make a general comment about the explanatory notes. They are dry stuff, but to understand at all how important this issue might be, we need to know how many organisations there are, and what they are, but despite digging around, it was difficult to find some of that information.

Moving on from producer organisations to transnational producer groups, the questions I found I was asking myself were, who are they, what do they do and how big are they? I came to the conclusion that we may have only one such producer organisation in the UK, which might or might not be Dairy Crest.

[Victoria Prentis]

indicated dissent.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister is shaking her head, so I may be wrong about that. Perhaps she will tell me what the other milk producer organisations are. A consultation is going on at the moment, on a quite delicate set of issues to do with mandatory contracts, or not, and some of the points I have raised could be relevant to that. I found it puzzling—this is where it gets very detailed—that article 149(2)(c) of regulation 1308/2013 has been introduced and seems to set a limit of one third of the raw milk production to be taken into account in establishing one of the organisations in question. I do not understand why that is, or whether it is significant, but I would be interested to know the reason.

I dug out a DEFRA report that tells us that there were 32 fruit and vegetable producer organisations in 2017. I do not know how many there are now. What also struck me, in passing, was that measures in the Agriculture Bill seemed to take us into a new environment. I wondered whether we would be back here in a few weeks’ time having a similar discussion about SIs that might follow from that Bill.

We are told that those fruit and vegetable producer organisations must have at least five members. I am not clear whether that is a change from the past or whether it is bigger or smaller. The minimum value those organisations have to sustain has now become quite a simple calculation, whereas it was very complicated before. Again, I am not sure why there has been a change, and what the impact might be on any current organisations in this country. Perhaps the Minister could explain that.

The subject of wine made my team’s eyes light up, but I had to tell them that it was not quite as exciting as they thought, although geographical indications are certainly important for our producers. It struck me on the basis of last year’s discussion that there seem to have been changes with respect to the right to appeal if an application is turned down, and I am not sure what has changed to result in that. There seem to have been some subtle changes to amendments to article 115 in relation to the appeals and publication process and the introduction of an appeal to the first-tier tribunal. Again, I am not entirely clear why that has happened, and what has changed.

Finally, there used to be a part 3, which dealt with EU regulation 543/2011. It seems to have disappeared completely this year, but it was there last year. There may be perfectly clear explanations for all that, but it would be useful to know, and I am grateful for the opportunity to quiz the Minister on those points.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am absolutely sure that the regulations are necessary. I am also absolutely sure that they are not bringing about a great deal of change in policy terms, and that the hon. Member for Cambridge, keen as he is on detective stories, will not find any victims this afternoon. Law is multi-layered, and that is one of the pleasures of engaging with it.

The hon. Gentleman wants me to be drawn into the new policies for the farming sector. He will not have long to wait. The Secretary of State plans to make a major announcement later this month, and of course we hope that the Agriculture Bill will receive Royal Assent shortly, once it has passed its remaining stages.

The hon. Gentleman asked a large number of technical questions, for some of which I have the answers to hand; for others, if he wishes to press them further, it might be helpful for officials in DEFRA to give him a teach-in on producer organisations—I enjoyed such a teach-in earlier this year. Of course, he would be most welcome to avail himself of that if he wished to.

On the hon. Gentleman’s technical questions, the private storage process is a technical one. EU practice at the moment is for the Commission to invite tenders, to consider them and to publish its decision. Decisions are taken according to guidance, which is made available to the industry in advance. At the moment, there is no domestic equivalent to that process, so the draft statutory instrument is to ensure that at the end of the transition period we are able to set up a similar system, which would allow intervention to continue to operate smoothly, minimising disruption to stakeholders. Unfortunately, because of the pandemic, that might be necessary sooner than we had hoped. We will continue to monitor the situation. Once a decision is taken, all of that is published on gov.uk and may be scrutinised by anyone who needs to do so.

On the dairy question, there is one dairy producer organisation, Dairy Crest, as the hon. Gentleman said. There are 34 other producer organisations in the UK, which are all in the fruit or veg sector. About four of them, I believe, are transnational in some way, though not necessarily much of them, proportionately. And no, there is no change in the minimum membership.

That probably deals with most of the hon. Gentleman’s questions—apart from on wine. How could I forget that? The new guidance on wine is set out clearly on the gov.uk website, and I politely refer him there. The guidance has changed in the past few weeks, but it is well and clearly set out.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am an avid reader of DEFRA publications every day, and I noticed the wine guidance coming out—at the end of last week, I think. Was that prefiguring the decision today?

[Victoria Prentis]

No, not at all. That merely set out the policy intention for the future, which is to assist people who import. If we make the regulations this afternoon, there will be an update to the gov.uk website. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that there in due course but, if not, I will be happy to share it with him.

The two draft SIs make necessary and appropriate amendments to retained EU legislation to ensure that there is a smooth transition from the CAP to our new domestic regime and that the functions carried out by the Commission or member states in reserved areas may be carried out in future by our own Secretary of State. The amendments make changes to ensure that the policy regimes set out continue to operate with the minimum of disruption and ambiguity for stakeholders after we have left the EU, and to allow the UK Government to operate and/or to make any necessary technical changes in each policy regime. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Ansell]

I will give way to the Minister.

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

I, too, am very fond of the Purr Minister competition, which is run by Battersea, which I had the privilege of visiting several years ago, when Midnight, who I certainly do not own, but do have the privilege of looking after, was elected as Purr Minister. The competition is very fierce, and I know there are several cats available this year, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Caroline Ansell]

In this fast-moving situation, I am pleased that this seeming injustice and omission has been so roundly satisfied, and I wish the very best to Members’ cats everywhere and give a huge apology to my own for failing to put them forward.

I confess I have not always been a cat lover. In fact, quite the opposite. In times past they would seek me out, smelling the fear, but all that changed with one tiny rescue kitten from Cats Protection. It all started in a surgery recovery room not far from here, when my little boy, who was then five—he may not thank me for telling the story, but he did say it would be okay—had just come through brain surgery and was coming round. I sat by his bedside and he looked to all intents and purposes like a little marionette. He had leads and cannulas coming from every part and a brain drain. He could have asked me for anything and I would have moved the world for him. He asked for a little black boy kitten. Thus began my story. I duly took him to Cats Protection in Hailsham in the next-door constituency, where a little girl tortoiseshell kitten chose us, only for us to find that she came with a sister, and both came home.

I tell that story because every day that followed, this little kitten, just like Nana from “Peter Pan”, would pad up the stairs after my little boy, curl into a ball at the bottom of his bed, wait until he had fallen asleep and then pad back down. When people say animals are sentient, absolutely they are, but they are more than that. This little kitten, faithful and true, tirelessly devoted, hugely loyal to my boy and very protective, helped him to recover. My cat story changed.

It is not just in health terms that animals enrich our lives, but they do. Whether they are seizure alert dogs, whether they simply reduce stress, anxiety and depression, whether they provide people with a connection to their community and the natural world, or whether around security and safety, animals enrich our lives. Today’s Bill is an opportunity for us to recognise all of that and to step into that legal and moral responsibility, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset so eloquently described, to show how we care.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is great, after a rather fractious week in the Chamber, that peace and love have broken out on Friday. I think everybody here would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for introducing this immensely important Bill and for the commitment he has shown to bringing in more stringent sentences for animal cruelty. It is right that we should also thank the former Member for Redcar, who was instrumental in the Bill’s initial stages and worked hard on it, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who helped with the production and passage through the House of Finn’s law. I, too, was privileged to meet Finn. I spoke several times in favour of Finn’s law from the Back Benches, and he is a mascot for why this Bill is necessary.

This Bill has the full support of the Government, and we will do all we can to support its swift passage without amendment through the Commons and the Lords as soon as possible. During the debate, we have heard some really horrible examples of animal cruelty, and we have also heard that judges have said in many cases that they would have given longer sentences had that been possible under the law. The Bill gives the courts freedom to do just that, and it introduces one of the highest punishments for animal cruelty in the world.

I would not be doing my job if I did not mention the furry friends we have heard about today, some of whom are loved and happy, some of whom have been rescued and some of whom, sadly, were abused and died. I should mention Lola of Castle Point, the twice-rescued dog belonging to the Government Whip on Fridays; I know that her owner would have loved to mention her. We should talk about Poppy in particular. I fear that this may become Poppy’s law, as well as Finn’s law part two; I can see Poppy’s name all over this legislation.

We have heard about Teddy from Bristol East; Wilberforce from Tiverton and Honiton; Mimi, Olly, Piper and, I am particularly proud to say, the ferrets from Workington; Snoop, who was so cruelly abused in Stoke-on-Trent; Willow, Lola and the rest of the menagerie from Carshalton and Wallington; Harold, Trevor and Lucy from Ipswich; a tortoiseshell kitten from Eastbourne who is very important; Midge the donkey, who my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) talked about passionately; Spider and Willow from Dudley South, and Bella, who hangs around Committee Corridor; Hound, who is still loved and remembered by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton); Brian the female cat from Cambridge; a springer spaniel from Montgomeryshire, and a cocker spaniel and Cockapoo from Warrington South—I am not getting involved in the debate on which is better; Kipper from Truro and Falmouth, who obviously belongs to a Cornish fishwife; Benny the kitten from Nottingham, who was horribly abused; Maya from Bury South; Smiler from Keighley; and Roux and Ada, who, appropriately enough, belong to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans).

We really are a nation of animal lovers. Many of us—44%—keep a pet. This subject clearly touches hearts and minds not only in this House but across all our constituencies. I will whizz through some of the points made in the debate. If I do not answer a Member’s specific question, it is not because I do not want to; it is just in the interests of time, and Members are welcome to contact me later, if necessary.

On live animal exports, we have a manifesto commitment to end long journeys to slaughter and fattening, I say to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I am pleased to say that we will launch a public consultation later this year. That is a real gain, and I am thrilled by that. On pre-stunned slaughter, the Government encourage the highest standards and would certainly prefer animals to be stunned prior to slaughter, but we accept the right of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat killed in accordance with their beliefs. We will work further on that, and I look forward to taking that forward with Members across the House. It is a difficult and sensitive area.

The EFRA Committee suggested that we should split sentencing from sentience, which is why that has come about. Of course animals are sentient—I cannot say that frequently enough—and that certainly will not change at the end of December. They will continue to be sentient, and in due course, we will find a way of putting that into law. I hesitate to say that DEFRA is “hogging” the Order Paper at the moment, but last week saw consideration of both the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills—it could be described as the “loaves and fishes week” or the “surf and turf week”. Our Department has had a great deal of legislative time recently, and I, of course, think that Parliament should be legislating on these issues. I smiled when the hon. Member for Bristol East asked about the animal welfare Bill to come, because I very much hope to have good news for her on that shortly.

A number of Members talked about how abusers of animals go on to hurt humans. That is undoubtedly true, and it is something I know from my previous life as well. A number of hon. Members talked about whether this piece of legislation would increase the spend necessary in prisons. We feel, having assessed this, that it would probably not increase vastly the number of people who go to prison for animal cruelty offences, but it will certainly increase the length of time that they could spend there. The hope is, of course, that longer sentences will deter other criminals—we feel that very strongly.

I think we have covered pet theft thoroughly this week—my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) had an excellent debate—and I am pleased to say that I have spoken to the Lord Chancellor since then, and we have a bit of a plan, as my hon. Friend outlined. On microchipping for cats, we have done a call for evidence. We will shortly publish the responses and we will then consult on the issue, which I have previously campaigned on. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) asked whether feral dogs and cats would be covered by this legislation. Yes, normally, domesticated animals such as dogs and cats are covered, whether or not they are currently under control, so that is useful.

I am very proud that this Government are taking steps further to elevate our reputation for animal welfare in this country. In 2018, we modernised the regulation of dog breeding, pet sales, animal boarding, horse riding and performing animals legislation. On 26 February this year, we published a new welfare code for pigs and, as a former pig keeper, I was very proud of that. In April, we introduced a ban on the commercial third- party sales of puppies and kittens in England, and the Government launched a national communications campaign to help people to make more informed choices when sourcing a new pet. The Government have made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses, a requirement that goes well beyond any EU rule.

We are planning further improvements to animal welfare in a number of other areas. We have begun steps to ban primates as pets, and we will certainly make good on our manifesto commitments to introduce compulsory microchipping for cats and on excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening. Our farming policy, about which we have spoken at length in this Chamber, also includes supporting a range of farm animal welfare enhancements, and I stress that that is a way of reaching a large number of animals and should really help with animal welfare.

I appreciate that many Members wanted to get on with this Bill much earlier. I say gently that it has experienced delays during its time in Parliament but none of that is due to a change in motivation on behalf of the Government or our priorities. It was due for Second Reading this time last year, but Parliament was prorogued. The Bill was then scheduled for Second Reading in the summer, but it was then a victim of the coronavirus, and today has been one of the very first opportunities available to us.

As with any primary legislation, I cannot absolutely promise that it will get the necessary legislative slot in the next few weeks, but I give every commitment I have to do what is in the Government’s power to ensure that it gets before a Committee as soon as we possibly can. The EFRA Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), said that I could talk to Government lawyers—well, I know a few of those and I will certainly do my best to ensure that this goes through.

I am very glad, and so are the animals that, I fear, are waiting for me on the sofa at home—though I do hope that Gerald the pet lamb is not actually on the sofa—that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset found Poppy and that she inspired his choice of Bill.

Annual Fisheries Negotiations 2020: UK Priorities and Objectives

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2020 Written Statements

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

The UK is now entering into a period of annual fisheries negotiations to agree fishing opportunities and access to waters for the 2021 fishing year. We will be doing that as an independent coastal state for the first time in over 40 years. It is an important milestone as we leave the common fisheries policy, and one which warrants this update to the House.

Our aim across all annual fisheries negotiations will be to work closely with our counterparts in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments to secure the best outcomes for the whole of the UK fishing industry and for our marine environment.

We will be participating in a range of annual fisheries negotiations. The UK will be taking its seat at the coastal states negotiations for key pelagic species; participating in multilateral organisations like the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which we have already joined along with the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and conducting our own bilateral negotiations to set 2021 opportunities and agree access to waters for next year with partners like Norway, the Faroe Islands, and the EU.

With Norway and the Faroe Islands, we have already agreed new fisheries frameworks to underpin bilateral negotiations and the former has already been signed and laid before the House. We are seeking to negotiate a fisheries framework agreement with the EU. This is proving a difficult negotiation and the UK and EU positions are very far apart, principally because the EU has not yet accepted the implications of our future status as an independent coastal state. Negotiations are continuing and updates will be shared with the House as available.

In all fisheries negotiations we will ensure that our actions are founded on the best available scientific advice. We will aim to deliver sustainability improvements —safeguarding our natural marine assets for future generations. Our landmark Fisheries Bill enshrines in legislation the Government’s commitment to sustainable fishing, and it is right that we make this a cornerstone of our negotiating positions.

Through the negotiations we will look to support our vital UK fishing industry, not only through securing additional quotas but also by continuing to support the elimination of illegal and harmful discarding. Again, our UK-wide approach will ensure we consider the needs of the fishing industries of all devolved nations, and the Crown dependencies, in negotiations.

Finally, and underpinning all our negotiations, we will be seeking to maximise the benefits of our new status as an independent coastal state. We will decide who can access UK waters to fish and on what terms; and we will negotiate access for UK fleets to fish in other countries’ waters on terms that suit us. Through friendly co-operation as sovereign equals, we will improve management of shared fish stocks with benefits for the wider marine environment and the long-term future of the UK fishing industry.

[HCWS541]

Right to Food in Legislation

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing such an important debate. I, too, enjoyed our chat about food charities before the debate, and our previous conversations in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I look forward to working with him over the coming winter, which we all know will be a challenging time.

The last few months have highlighted to everybody the importance of access to food. I put on record my thanks to all those who have kept the nation fed at this difficult time, including the people who work for Fans Supporting Foodbanks, such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who was too modest about the work that he has done for that charity. I would like to thank the community fridges in my area, particularly the one run from Banbury mosque, which has done sterling work to feed Banbury during the pandemic. Later I will touch on FareShare, which has a depot in my constituency, and with which I have been pleased to work closely in my ministerial role.

I was privileged to chair a cross-Whitehall ministerial taskforce—I wish it had not been necessary, but I was pleased to be involved—that was set up to ensure that food and essential supplies reached the vulnerable during the pandemic. We worked with industry to smooth the way wherever we could, including relaxing competition laws and drivers’ hours. We worked on access issues. At the beginning, that was very much physical access issues for people who were stuck at home, but we then moved to focus more on economic access to food.

The continuation of the taskforce is one of the recommendations listed in Henry Dimbleby’s interim report, published in July this year. We are taking his recommendations very seriously. We have made a firm commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of his final report, which is due next spring.

As part of our wider commitment to regular reporting on food, we have a duty under clause 19 of the Agriculture Bill—if and when it receives Royal Assent, which I hope will be soon—that commits the Government to lay before Parliament a regular report containing an analysis of statistical data relating to food security, in the widest sense, in the UK.

We listened to concerns raised, particularly from the House of Lords, regarding the frequency of the food security report, so we have reduced the minimum frequency of reporting from five to three years, but I stress that is a minimum. In times of real pressure on the national food supply, it may well be appropriate to report much more often. That is why I was so glad to have Henry Dimbleby’s interim report in July, which touched on the beginning of the pandemic. The food security report is different and extra to Henry Dimbleby’s work on the national food strategy, but both are useful to all of us who are interested in this sphere, as we take this work forward.

We all know that this is a very difficult time for people across the country. Many households have felt a real financial impact from coronavirus. That is why we, as a Government, have taken steps to ease the burden where we can through targeted support, which includes income protection schemes, mortgage holidays and additional support for renters. We have also injected further spending into the welfare system, and approximately £9 billion of extra support has gone to people’s incomes throughout the pandemic where possible.

During the pandemic we have worked across Government to try to concentrate our effort, as the hon. Gentleman asked, on people struggling to access and afford food. In March we started the shielding scheme and supported the 2.2 million people in England identified by the NHS as particularly vulnerable. Through our wholesaler partners, Brakes and Bidfood, 4.5 million boxes of essential food were delivered to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has always worked closely with the third sector to identify individuals who might need support to get essential food supplies. We talk regularly to volunteer groups, food bank organisations and other redistribution charities, including FareShare, with which we have worked particularly closely this year. In May it was an early recipient of a large sum of Government money to help it to help the people it provides food to. We remain in regular contact with FareShare and others across civil society to ensure that there is sufficient support for those who need it.

We know the difficulties that some families currently face in accessing food and we continue to take steps to support them. We know that a large number of vulnerable people rely on their friends, family and other community organisations. Where that is not possible, we continue to work with major third sector organisations to refer vulnerable people to a variety of tailored services, including facilitating access to priority supermarket delivery slots. I was pleased that in June we could announce an additional £63 million-worth of food for local authorities in England that could be targeted at the vulnerable—at a local level, local authorities know who is struggling—so that they could access food and other essentials. I had a very useful meeting less than two weeks ago with the Trussell Trust and with the Children’s Society, and they felt that that targeted fund was particularly useful and was reaching those who needed it most. There is still money available in the fund—possibly not in all areas, but in many of the areas where that money has gone. I understand that money is still going out from that fund and that it can continue to do so until the end of this month.

[Rachael Maskell]

I really appreciate what the Minister is saying. We are on the cusp of seeing mass job losses, which is terrifying. The demand for food security will escalate sharply, so what additional support will be put in place for local authorities? I agree that they know best where the need is. Where will the additional support come from?

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Lady, who I am proud to call a friend, for that intervention. I would very much like to continue to work with her to identify particular areas of need. Work is going on across Government at the moment. The Secretary of State took part in a cross-Government roundtable on food yesterday. Many of us will be in the Chamber later to hear what Members from across the House have to say about access to food. I think we all recognise the scale of the problem. We need to continue to check that our figures are right and that we know what is happening on the ground. It is important that we continue the work that we started this year.

I want to turn to the work being done by Marcus Rashford, who was referenced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. I welcome the establishment of the new child food poverty taskforce. The Government will carefully consider its recommendations as we approach the next spending review. I will not talk further about free school meals now because I know that debate will take place in the Chamber this afternoon.

[Beth Winter]

The Welsh Government have announced that they will extend free school meals during school holidays until spring 2021, which will cost £11 million. We do not have the resources, but we are finding them because there is a desperate need for this. Surely it is now time for the UK Government to follow the Welsh Government’s lead and do the same.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I enjoy working with Lesley Griffiths, the Welsh Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, on food security issues—she was a valued member of my taskforce. I am sure that we will discuss that specific issue in the main Chamber this afternoon, but I look forward to having further conversations with Lesley Griffiths and others about what we do as four nations moving forward in this area.

The work that Marcus Rashford is doing to look into the current UK food system links in with the Government’s commitment to develop a food strategy that will support the development of a food system that is sustainable, resilient and affordable, and that we hope in time will support people to live healthy lives, and protect animal health and welfare as well.

In closing, I will further emphasise that the Government are committed to doing everything we can to support the most vulnerable to gain access to food, by having a robust welfare system that provides a safety net where needed, and by having policy interventions in place that can be implemented where needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Pet Theft

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who cannot be with us today—I know she has worked hard in this area—and all the campaigners who have worked so hard to bring us to where we are today. We should all recognise that there is a lot of heartbreak behind the debate, in addition to the happy memories that we have with our animals.

The Government understand how important pets are to the families who care for them, and we understand that this has nothing to do with their monetary values. I am the carer—I never say “owner”—of Midnight, who did not have an unbeatable start in life round the back of the local chicken factory. He was a feral stray, and he and his brother fit on my palm when they arrived. I am proud to say that he became the purr-minister several years ago; indeed, he is campaigning at the moment for his re-election. It is clear that Midnight has no monetary value whatever, but his value to me, my husband and my children is priceless.

We have heard in the debate about a number of animals who are just like Midnight. We have heard about Trigger, Milly and Louis, Ruby and Beetle, Cromwell and Bertie, Fred, Archie, Clemmie, Poppy and Ebony, Winston, Cleo, Rossy and many more. Of course these animals are precious to their owners, as all our animals are. It is a horrible thing when an animal goes missing, but it is particularly unpleasant if the owner thinks that the animal is still alive and suffering somewhere.

Before I set out the Government’s position on pet theft, I will first set out a few high-level points on the Government’s position on animal welfare. Last December, we stood on a particularly strong manifesto for animal welfare, which included commitments to introduce tougher sentences for animal cruelty, to crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, to bring in new laws on animal sentience, to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening, to ban the keeping of primates as pets, and to introduce cat microchipping, which is an issue that I campaigned on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for cats—which, obviously, Midnight made me join. Those measures will build on what has already been achieved. I heard what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said—that it might be sensible to bring such issues together in one Bill—and I hope to have some news for him in that regard before too long.

In terms of Government achievements in this area, in 2018 we replaced old laws on the regulation of pet selling, dog breeding, animal boarding, riding schools and exhibiting animals. The regulations have strict statutory minimum welfare standards that are enforced by local authorities. I am very excited about the private Member’s Bill this Friday, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. This Bill, if passed—I very much hope it will be, and the Government are 100% committed behind it—will increase the maximum custodial penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years.

Microchipping has been rightly brought up by a number of hon. Members, and it certainly helps in the sphere of pet theft and in returning animals to their rightful place. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, who made specific points on dog microchipping, a review will begin shortly into the effects of the law that was brought in on the microchipping of dogs. Their points are well are well made—I will pass them on, but they will have been heard today and I am happy to follow that up specifically.

Earlier this year, there was a call for evidence on whether to bring in compulsory microchipping for cats. The responses to that call for evidence were overwhelmingly in favour of doing so. We will be publishing a summary of responses shortly, and I anticipate that we will consult on the issue very soon.

Moving on to pet theft, it is already an offence under the Theft Act 1968 and significant penalties are already possible; the difficulty is that, as so many hon. Members across the House have said, those penalties are not always used to the maximum. As we have heard, the maximum penalty is up to seven years’ imprisonment, which could go even higher if the theft occurred, as sadly they sometimes do, as part of an aggravated burglary or robbery. One difficulty is that we have limited data available to us about exactly what is happening on the ground.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing that has been touched on and that I am aware of is puppy smuggling and the transfer of dogs between Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland, because it is quite clear that trafficking goes on there. The police have stopped some vehicles at the port of Stranraer and have caught people with them. Has there been any contact with the Republic of Ireland? We need to have that regionally as well.

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that very often pet theft is carried out by criminal gangs, who use every opportunity to evade justice.

If someone causes an animal to suffer in the course of stealing it from its owner, we have recourse to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and we very much hope we will have stronger sentencing powers under that Act shortly, if we are able to move forward with the private Member’s Bill. Sentencing, of course, remains a matter for the courts, and when deciding what sentence to impose the courts should take into account the circumstances of the offence and any mitigating and aggravating factors, in line with the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

In 2016, the Sentencing Council updated its guidelines in relation to sentencing for theft, and DEFRA fed into that review. The new guidelines set out that emotional distress and non-monetary value are factors to be taken into consideration when passing sentence, so the impact on the victim is now very much something that a court can and should take into account. I know that the Lord Chancellor met my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich to discuss this very issue only last week. I welcome the engagement that has come about as a result of these petitions and this debate, and I look forward to playing my own part in that discussion.

We do not currently think that the creation of a specific offence for pet theft, with a two-year custodial penalty, would really help much. We think the way to go is to continue the discussions that I know my hon. Friend is already undertaking on sentencing guidelines. To that end, the Government are very willing to work with interested parties, including the police and animal welfare organisations. We are keen to act in this area, and I look forward to taking that forward with Members from across the House.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clauses 9 and 10.

New clause 1—Sea Fish Industry Authority: powers in relation to parts of UK—

‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2(1) (duties of the Authority)—

(a) after the third “of”, insert “(amongst other things)”,

(b) delete the words “as a whole”.

(3) After section 3 (powers of the Authority), insert—

“3A Exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.

The Authority may exercise its functions separately and differently in relation to—

(a) the sea fish industry in different parts of the United Kingdom,

(b) sea fish and sea fish products landed in different parts of the United Kingdom,

(c) sea fish and sea fish products trans-shipped in different parts of the sea within British fishery limits adjacent to different parts of the United Kingdom.”.’

The primary purpose of this new clause is to give the Sea Fish Industry Authority greater flexibility to exercise its functions separately and differently in different parts of the UK. It inserts a new clause into subsection 3, which will enable the Authority to do this.

New clause 2—Sea Fish Industry Authority: delegation of functions—

‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 3A (exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.), insert—

“3B Delegation of functions

(1) The Authority may authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf such of its functions and to such extent as it may determine.

(2) The Authority may give to any person authorised under this section to exercise any of its functions—

(a) financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or guarantee),

(b) other assistance including assistance by way of the provision of property, staff or services, for the purposes of those functions.”

(3) The giving of authority under this section to exercise a function does not—

(a) affect the Authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function, or

(b) prevent the Authority from exercising the function itself.”.’

This new clause inserts a new clause which will allow the Authority to authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf any of its functions to the extent determined by the Authority. It will also allow the Authority to give any such person financial and other assistance to do so.

New clause 3—Sea Fish Industry Authority: accounts and reports—

‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 11 (accounts and reports)—

(a) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) The statement of accounts must specify the total amount of income received in the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone.”,

(b) after subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—

(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,

(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.’

This new clause is intended to ensure that the Authority reports how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.

New clause 4—Sea Fish Industry Authority: plan relating to allocation of Scottish levies—

‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 11 (accounts and reports), insert—

“11A Plan relating to allocation of Scottish levies

(1) Before the start of each financial year, the Authority must—

(a) prepare a plan setting out—

(i) an estimate of the total amount of income that the Authority expects to receive during the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone (“Scottish levies”), and

(ii) a description of how the Authority proposes to apply that income in the course of exercising its functions, and

(b) refer the plan to the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1 (“the Scottish committee”) for approval of the Authority’s proposal mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii).

(2) If, as a result of relevant regulations, the Authority estimates that the total amount of income that it expects to receive from Scottish levies during a financial year is greater than the total amount of income that it received from Scottish levies during the previous financial year, the Authority’s plan prepared under subsection (1) for the financial year must include a statement describing how the Authority proposes in particular to apply the additional income from Scottish levies in the course of exercising its functions.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) “relevant regulations”, in relation to a financial year, means—

(i) regulations made by the Authority under section 4(2) during the previous financial year, and

(ii) regulations which the Authority expects to make, and to be confirmed by the Scottish Ministers, under section 4(2) during the financial year,

(b) the total amount of income received by the Authority from Scottish levies during a previous financial year is the total amount of such income as recorded in the Authority’s accounts kept under section 11(1) in respect of that year.

(4) The Authority—

(a) must publish a plan prepared under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the Scottish committee’s approval as mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and

(b) may publish the plan in such manner as it considers appropriate.

(5) The Authority must, as soon as reasonably practicable after publishing a plan under subsection (4)—

(a) send a copy of the plan to the Scottish Ministers, and

(b) lay the plan before the Scottish Parliament.

(6) The Authority must have regard to each relevant plan—

(a) in the exercise of its functions, and

(b) in particular, in authorising any other person under section 3B to exercise any of its functions on its behalf.

(7) A person who is authorised by the Authority under section 3B to exercise any of the Authority’s functions must have regard to each relevant plan in the exercise of those functions.

(8) In subsections (6) and (7), “relevant plan”, in relation to the exercise of a function, means—

(a) the latest plan published under subsection (4), and

(b) any earlier plan published under that subsection in so far as it contains a proposal mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(ii) (or, as the case may be, in subsection (2)) to apply income during the financial year in which the function is being exercised.”.’

The primary purpose of this new clause is to ensure the Authority sets out an annual plan that outlines how it intends to apply the levy income it expects to receive. This plan must make comparison to the levy income of the previous year and where the levy income is expected to be higher detail how the Authority proposes to apply the additional income from Scottish levies.

New clause 5—Sea Fish Industry Authority: committee for Scotland—

‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) In schedule 1 (the Sea Fish Industry Authority), in paragraph 16—

(a) before sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(A1) The Authority must appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.

(A2) The committee is to consist of or include persons who are not members of the Authority.

(A3) The Authority must consult the committee on the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.”,

(b) in sub-paragraph (1), before “committees” insert “other”,

(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “such committees” substitute “committees appointed under this paragraph”.’

This new clause’s new provisions require the Authority to appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland. They additionally require the consultation of this committee on the exercise of the Authority’s functions in relations to Scotland.

New clause 6—Sea Fish Industry Levies: powers in relation to Scotland and the Scottish Zone—

‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4 (levies)—

(a) in subsection (2), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,

(b) in subsection (7), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,

(c) after subsection (8) insert—

“(8A) In this section, ‘appropriate Ministerial authority’ means—

(a) in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone, the Scottish Ministers,

(b) in any other case, the Ministers.”,

(d) in subsection (9), after “order” in both places where it occurs insert “of the Ministers”,

(e) after subsection (9) insert—

“(9A) Any order of the Scottish Ministers—

(a) under subsection (2) is subject to the negative procedure,

(b) under subsection (7) is subject to the affirmative procedure.

(9B) Before laying a draft Scottish statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (7) before the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Ministers must consult—

(a) the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1, and

(b) such other persons as they consider appropriate.”.

(3) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of “the Ministers”, in paragraph (c), after “with” insert “(except in the case of an order under section 4(2) or (7))”.

(4) In schedule 2 (Sea Fish Industry Levies)—

(a) for “Ministers” in each place where it occurs substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,

(b) after paragraph 3 insert—

“4 The Scottish Ministers must, before making an order confirming any regulations, consult—

(a) the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1, and

(b) such other persons as they consider appropriate.

5 In this schedule, ‘appropriate Ministerial authority’ has the same meaning as in section 4 of this Act.”.’

The primary purpose of this new clause is to devolve, to the Scottish Ministers, the control of the Scottish aspects of levies imposed by the Authority. Currently, levies imposed by the Authority require confirmation by the relevant Ministers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers. The new clause intends to ensure that levies imposed in relation to Scotland require confirmation by Scottish Ministers.

New clause 7—Sea Fish Industry Levies: definitions relating to Scotland and the Scottish Zone—

‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1), after the definition of “the Ministers” insert—

“‘Scotland’ and ‘the Scottish zone’ have the same meanings as in the Scotland Act 1998 (see section 126(1) and (2) of that Act);”.’

This new clause inserts a new clause which makes consequential new clause to section 14 (interpretation of Part 1) of the 1981 Act by inserting definitions of “Scotland” and “the Scottish zone”.

New clause 11—Safety Regulation Within the Exclusive Economic Zone—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation, develop a regulatory regime for fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone with regard to—

(a) adherence to the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels 1993 and Cape Town Agreement of 2012

(b) regulation of safety of navigation by fishing vessels within the EEZ

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the regulatory regime shall be agreed with devolved administrations, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall come into force no later than 31 December 2022.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) “regulation of safety of navigation” shall include, but not be limited to, regulation of acts by a person in charge of a fishing boat which causes or attempts to cause a collision or risk of collision with another vessel within the EEZ

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a “person in charge of a fishing boat” shall include the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of that vessel.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under regulations made under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years,

(b) a fine, or

(c) both.’

The purpose of this new clause is to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations governing the safety of fishing vessels working within the EEZ in accordance with existing treaty obligations.

New clause 12—Safety of Fishing Vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone—

‘(1) A person in charge of a fishing boat commits an offence if that person uses the vessel to—

(a) harass or impede another vessel within the EEZ, or

(b) endanger the safety of another vessel and/or those crewing it within the EEZ.

(2) For the purposes of this section (1), a “person in charge of a fishing boat” shall include the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of that vessel.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) shall be responsible for—

(a) monitoring the conduct of vessels within the EEZ, and

(b) passing information to a prosecuting authority.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(c) imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years,

(d) a fine, or

(e) both.

(5) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may award compensation for loss of earnings or damage to property caused as a consequence of the offence.

(6) Where a fisheries protection officer, an official of the Maritime Coastguard Agency or a Police Constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed under this section, he shall have power to detain in port any vessel or equipment used in the commission of that offence.

(7) Any property detained under subsection (6) shall not be held for longer than seven days unless authority to extend that period is granted by

(f) a Sheriff in the Sheriff Court in Scotland; or

(g) a judge in the Crown Court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

(8) Any property held under subsections (6) or (7) shall be liable to forfeiture at the conclusion of any criminal proceedings brought under this section.’

The purpose of this new clause is to give the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) appropriate powers to enforce safety within the limits of the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone. A person guilty of an offence shall be liable to criminal prosecution and civil proceedings for damage, loss of earnings and injury.

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The “sustainability objective” is that—

(a) fish and aquaculture activities do not compromise environmental sustainability in either the short or the long term, and

(a) subject to subsection (a) fishing fleets must—

(i) be managed to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and

(ii) have fishing capacity that is economically viable and does not overexploit marine stocks.

(2A) The sustainability objective is the prime objective.’

This amendment makes the sustainability objective the prime fisheries objective and alters the definition of the “sustainability objective” to make other objectives subject to environmental sustainability in the short and long term.

Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “the” insert “short and”.

This amendment would change the ‘sustainability objective’ to require that fish and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in both the short and long term.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

‘(b) seafood landings into United Kingdom ports are increased and maximised; and

(c) that an average of not less than 65% of seafood caught in English waters, across all relevant species, should be landed in English ports.’

This amendment would amend the “national benefit objective” to include a commitment to increase seafood landings into the United Kingdom and create a specific target for English ports.

Government amendments 4 to 11, 36 and 12 to 24.

Amendment 3, in schedule 3, page 53, line 24, at end insert—

‘Prohibition on fishing boats greater than 100 metres in length in English waters

1A (1) Any sea fishing licence issued by the sea fish licensing authority for England must include a condition prohibiting the use of a fishing boat greater than 100 metres in length in any of the protected areas specified in subsection (2).

(2) The protected areas to which the prohibition in subsection (1) applies are marine conservation zones and marine protected areas as defined in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add to the list of protected areas in subsection (2).’

This amendment would include in the sea fishing licence conditions a prohibition on using a fishing boat longer than 100 metres in protected areas in English waters.

Government amendments 25 to 35 and 37 to 56.

[Victoria Prentis]

This Bill marks a really important step forward as we leave the inflexibilities of the common fisheries policy. It puts in place the framework necessary for the UK to operate as a responsible, independent coastal state. It allows us to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries to provide benefits for future generations.

The Bill’s fisheries objectives place sustainability front and centre. Six out of the eight objectives relate to protecting the environment. It is critical that we are able to balance those objectives as we need to. Additional quota we receive following the negotiations will be allocated in a new way, and I am pleased that two consultations on quota distribution were published today. That makes good our commitment in the 2018 White Paper, of which my Secretary of State is particularly proud, having put a lot of work into it himself.

This Bill is the product of collaborative and constructive working across all four Administrations of our nation and I am pleased that all the devolved legislatures have consented to the Bill. It was, unfortunately, however, important to wait until we had that consent before we brought forward further amendments on their behalf and that is why I am slightly embarrassed to say that the Order Paper is full of very technical Government amendments. Many are amendments that the devolved Administrations could have made themselves, but given the pressures on all the parliamentary timetables in the run-up to the end of the transition period, we felt that in a spirit of co-operation we should, if possible, make these changes for them.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I understand the position with regard to the devolved Administrations, but I do not understand the position with regard to Government amendment 36 and the Channel islands. Why has that been brought to the House at this stage in proceedings?

[Victoria Prentis]

I will, if I may, come to that very shortly. It is an important point and one that I personally am very interested in, having been on the Select Committee on Justice and written a report on that very subject.

The most substantive changes in the amendments cover provisions that make clear the ability of the devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation to delegate functions between each other, the extension of schedule 10 marine conservation powers to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and amendments to Northern Irish and Scottish statutory instruments to bring them in line with UK and Welsh SIs under schedule 2. The final amendments are needed to implement the international treaty with the Faroe islands.

Government amendment 36 includes a permissive extent clause that will allow the UK Government to legislate for the Crown dependencies to ensure compliance with our international obligations. That follows a great deal of discussion with the Crown dependencies and I recognise that they take their international obligations seriously. This is a subject I personally have long been very interested in and I have discussed the matter with the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), as well as other Members across the House.

I reassure Members and, indeed, the Crown dependencies, that activation of the permissive extent clause would only ever be used as a last resort and I am looking forward to continuing discussions with the Crown dependencies on that in the next few days and weeks.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I would be delighted to give way to my former Chair.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend does know this, because she was a great servant of the Justice Committee when she was a member: it is not just a question of continuing discussions. As things stand, the Governments and legislatures of both Jersey and Guernsey object. It is not just that they do not think a permissive extent clause is necessary; they object to its inclusion in the Bill. It is truly unprecedented for the Government to insist upon a permissive extent clause without the agreement of the relevant Crown dependencies. Why, even in an emergency, go down this rather provocative step? Why not wait until such time as an emergency arises and let them legislate, as they have indicated they would?

[Victoria Prentis]

I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Justice Committee, on which I was very proud to serve for so many years. He and I have discussed this very issue before. The Government feel that it is important, given that these are significant matters of international law, that we retain the ability to legislate for the Crown dependencies if they do not show the inclination to do so when needed. We very much doubt that this will be necessary. I am sorry that they are upset by this stand, but I do feel that it is the right thing to do in the circumstances at the moment.

Government amendment 55 repeals provisions of retained EU law concerned with the catching of cod in the North sea, which, as drafted, do not achieve what they were put in place to do.

Seafish is a fantastic UK-wide organisation that promotes the efficiency of the UK seafood industry.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Many fishermen, including those in Hastings and Rye who manage the under-10 metre fishing fleet, voted to leave the EU to regain total control over our territorial waters. They are seeking clarity and reassurance on clause 12, and that no foreign vessels will be permitted to fish or be granted licences to fish in the 12 nautical miles off the UK coast. Can the Minister give that reassurance and clarity?

[Victoria Prentis]

I would be delighted to. The Government have been clear throughout that access to the UK’s territorial seas is out of scope for any fisheries framework agreement with the EU. Any access negotiated with the EU will cover only the UK’s exclusive economic zone, and not the 0 to 12-mile zone. That remains the case.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I have had a fair bit of correspondence with the Minister’s Department and I wonder if she will look again at funding for the enforcement vessel. The reply I had from her states was that no funding is available for the enforcement vessel, but surely if she wants to support her hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) in taking back control of our waters, we must ensure that that is enforced.

[Victoria Prentis]

Enforcement is very important and I will look out for the hon. Lady’s correspondence and ensure she gets a full reply. In our view we have sufficient vessels to control our waters. We cannot reduce risk levels to zero. The size of our EEZ, the potential number of EU and third-country vessels that fish in our waters, and the potential lack of electronic data, mean that this is not feasible. However, we are confident that sufficient capacity is in place to prevent illegal fishing. We take this matter extremely seriously and I would be delighted to work further with her on that.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

If I may I will make a little progress because I know my hon. Friend is speaking later.

Seafish is a fantastic UK-wide organisation that promotes the efficiency of the UK’s seafood industry, and neither I nor—importantly—my counterparts in Wales or Northern Ireland support the amendments on Seafish. Seafish has provided excellent support and information to all the Administrations regarding the impact of the covid pandemic on the seafood supply chain. Seafish delivers the hugely popular national fish and chip shop of the year awards, which this year was won by The Cod’s Scallops—what a name—in Wollaton in Nottinghamshire.

Seafish is able to tailor its work to different priorities. For example, it works to trial new types of sustainable fishing gear for the Scottish fishing industry. It has established and run the well-respected Northern Ireland fishing industry safety group and supported the industries to establish the Aquaculture Industry Wales group. Seafish supports the fishing industry across the UK, regardless of how much each Administration contributes. However much the Scottish Government may protest and dispute it, the Scottish industry receives far more than its fair share in monetary terms of support from Seafish. The amendments pre-empt the findings of a review of Seafish and do not address the impact there would be on the valuable services that it provides for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I remain unconvinced of the need for these amendments.

Amendment 2 seeks to make environmental sustainability the Bill’s prime objective. This version of the Bill has significantly more focus on sustainability than its predecessor, and its objectives are unquestionably much stronger than those of the common fisheries policy. Unlike the CFP, and importantly, those objectives are legally binding on the fisheries administrations through the joint fisheries statement. We have also added the vital and world-leading climate change objective, which has been well received by non-governmental organisations. The bycatch objective addresses the root cause of discarding, rather than just focusing on the symptoms, as the CFP’s discard objective did.

The Government have a proud record on the marine environment. The global target is to protect 10% of marine and coastal areas by 2020; we have exceeded that. Some 25% of UK waters are currently protected, and we are pushing internationally for new global targets to protect at least 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030. It is no accident that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is present listening to the debate. Her side of the Department and mine work extremely closely to ensure that environmental sustainability is at the heart of everything we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of our fears, which perhaps the Minister can allay, relates to amendment 42. Wales and Scotland have complete control of those decisions through their devolved Administrations; Northern Ireland does not. Northern Ireland will be guided by the Secretary of State, who will make those decisions. I understand that the Government may consider making the Northern Ireland Assembly at some stage accountable for that issue, which means that they will have control. Is that the intention of the Government, and of the Minister?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am afraid it is too early to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I look forward to future discussions with him about that. Some of tonight’s amendments do relate to Northern Ireland, but I do not think that he will be surprised by any of them.

I am concerned that those who support the sustainability amendment are losing sight of the importance of the precautionary objective, which will ensure that we maintain and rebuild healthy fish stocks, and indeed the ecosystem objective, which is critical to allow us to take a joined-up approach to protecting our precious marine environment. Those objectives will together help to deliver for sustainable fishing much more than were we to have only the sustainability objective. I am concerned that those who support the amendment would see the other objectives deprioritised.

I am keen to be able to balance environmental, social and economic needs. I am worried that if the amendment is passed, it would mean that, for example, infra- structure projects in ports that might cause a short-term environmental detriment could not be built, which would in turn deprive coastal communities of future economic benefits. Another example is the issue of choke—when one fish quota is set so low that all other fishing in a mixed fishery is effectively prohibited. Over the past two years, if we had not been able to agree with the EU a small quota above scientific advice for cod in the Celtic sea, for example, the choke issue would have led to the closure of many valuable fisheries in the south-west that aim at other species, some of which are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.

With coastal communities in mind, let us move to amendment 1. As we have said, we must have the flexibility to support the social and economic wellbeing of our coastal communities. Again delivering on a commitment in our White Paper, I am really pleased to announce that the Government have launched a consultation on proposals to strengthen the economic link licence condition for English-registered vessels.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

A Labour party policy.

[Victoria Prentis]

It may well be a Labour party policy now, but it was in our 2018 White Paper. The economic link is the route through which we ensure that there is a benefit to the UK from quota fished by UK boats. I am glad to see consensus across the House on this issue; it is clearly a sensible policy. Our consultation proposes a more sophisticated approach than amendment 1 would deliver, and one that I believe will bring higher value benefits to the UK and its coastal communities.

The consultation proposes increasing the landing requirement to 70% for quota species, strengthening the quota donation requirement, or using a combination of the two to meet the economic link requirement. Quota donation directly benefits the under-10-metre fleet, and that brings great benefits to their local ports and communities. Under amendment 1, our vessels would lose the flexibility to land where it is most suitable for their business. That might not always been an English port. Fishermen want to land where they can get the best prices, where it is most convenient or where there is the most appropriate port infrastructure. For example, the Voyager, which is registered in Northern Ireland, is too big to land in any Northern Irish ports and must instead land into Ireland.

Turning to amendment 3, I know that my colleagues and their constituents—indeed, all our constituents—feel strongly about supertrawlers. There is only one UK- registered vessel in the category of over 100 metres in length, but I recognise that there are considerable concerns, for example, about the Lithuanian registered vessel, the Margiris. The Fisheries Bill provides powers to attach conditions, such as the areas that can be fished and the type of fishing gear that can be used, to fishing vessel licences. Foreign vessels permitted to fish in UK waters will have to follow UK rules—including, of course, our conditions. When vessels do not comply with the conditions of their licences, action can be taken to restrict or prohibit their future activities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was under the impression that supertrawlers were registered and agreed by our own Ministry at the moment; I did not realise that they were not. The Minister implies that they are not.

[Victoria Prentis]

Part of the problem is that there is no officially agreed definition of a supertrawler, but it is fair to say that we have one UK-registered vessel that is over 100 metres in length.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Is it not the reality that many of the issues that the Minister is talking about now will ultimately be decided during the trade negotiations with the European Union?

[Victoria Prentis]

No, I do not think that is the case. When we pass the Fisheries Bill, as I very much hope we will do shortly, there will be no question but that we will be able to impose licence conditions at the end of the transition period.

Pelagic fishing is the main method used by vessels that are over 100 metres in length. This takes place within a water column, and so is unlikely to affect the seabed features, such as reefs and sediment habitats, that most marine protected areas are set up to conserve. Prohibiting these vessels will not protect MPAs from fishing activities such as bottom-trawling, which we know damage them. As such, I am concerned that this amendment would not deal with the most important issues concerning MPAs. Instead, we should focus on preventing damage from the types of fishing that we know effect MPAs, which involve the trawling of nets on the seabed. More than 90 inshore MPAs are now protected from destructive fishing methods.

To date, the common fisheries policy has restricted our ability to implement fisheries management measures in offshore MPAs. To do that, we have required the consent of all the EU member states who fish there. Once we get to the end of this year, we will be free of that restriction and we plan to use the powers in the Bill to put measures in place very quickly. The House will welcome the fact that the Marine Management Organisation will shortly be launching a call for evidence on its assessment of the management measures needed in one inshore and four offshore MPAs. This is the start of engagement in advance of our new policies being put in place early next year. It is important that we develop these policies in conjunction with the industry. Fishermen want to work in partnership with us on this, as was demonstrated by the fishermen who raised concerns about the scallop fishery on the Dogger Bank, which we were then able to close.

Turning to new clauses 11 and 12, on safety, we all recognise that fishing remains a dangerous occupation. We are agreed that it is important that all fishermen have a fair and safe working environment. I would like once again to pay tribute to all those who work at sea and who are at sea now, and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important matter again today. And of course I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has worked so hard in this area, and to the other Members who have, too.

The Government strongly condemn any aggressive actions taken at sea that make safety worse, particularly when this is done deliberately. We have had appalling instances off Shetland, which I think we may be hearing about later, with German-Spanish gillnetters, and in the Baie de Seine with French vessels very recently, over the weekend. Videos of those incidents are truly horrifying, and the fact that there have not been real injuries recently is, quite frankly, a miracle.

I know this is a probing amendment, but I would say that the UK already has the powers to prevent unacceptable or dangerous practices within our territorial waters that cover all UK vessels anywhere in the world. We, like other coastal states, rely on flag states being responsible for the conduct of their vessels in our EEZ. We will explore what further action can be taken with the Marine and Coastguard Agency, the Department for Transport and other interested parties. We will continue to raise issues with the flag state of any vessels concerned, as the MCA did with the German Government in June after the incident in the Shetlands.

[Mr Carmichael]

The question is not about territorial waters; it is about operation within the exclusive economic zone, from 12 miles to 200 miles. The incidents off Shetland demonstrate beyond peradventure that there is no meaningful protection for our fishermen in those areas. Yes, the Minister is right that fishing is a dangerous industry, but it should not be made more dangerous by the sort of recklessness that we keep seeing, and if the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has no powers to enforce that, it is only going to get worse. And by the way, it is not a probing amendment.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification and I look forward to working further with him on the important issue of safety. The MCA raised the particular issue that affected his constituency in June with the German Government and will continue to do so as hard as possible. We have also raised concerns with the French Government following the incidents in the Baie de Seine—perfectly lawful fishing activity by, I think, Scottish vessels—that took place on Sunday night.

In conclusion, this is a good Bill that learns the lessons of the common fisheries policy, and I know that that is recognised across this House. It puts in place a framework to develop sustainable fisheries, which will benefit the nation as a whole as we become an independent coastal state.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I begin by paying tribute to the six fishers who went to work last year and tragically did not return home.

For the Opposition, today’s debate is focused on two simple questions. First, how committed are this Conservative Government to sustainable fishing, and secondly, do this Government really care about jobs in coastal communities? I believe Labour’s amendments to this Bill make it stronger. Amendment 1 increases seafood landings into UK ports and calls for the majority of fish caught in English waters to be landed in English ports. Amendment 2 makes the sustainability objective the prime objective of the Bill and means that environmental sustainability will be considered in the short and the long term. Amendment 3 bans supertrawlers from vulnerable marine habitats and conservation zones.

Our amendments close the gap between what the Conservatives have promised to do and this Bill, because right now the Fisheries Bill does not make good on the Government’s commitments to fishers, coastal communities or voters concerned about the environment. Today, the Government have announced three consultations into how to split additional quota from EU negotiations, the allocation of quotas for new entrants to the sector and attaching licensing additions to vessels so that British fish is landed in British ports. Those are matters that have been repeatedly voted against in the Bill Committee. We do, of course, welcome their apparent adoption of Labour policy today, but consulting on something is not the same as taking action. We want the Government to make good on their promises to voters, not simply to pay lip service by announcing consultations on the day this Bill is considered on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

The short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman is right. It is not the right way to do this and we should think again. That is why I ask the Minister to reflect between now and the Bill going back to the other place. In the end we came to a pragmatic compromise on the UK internal markets Bill, and we set in place certain processes, triggers and thresholds for the exercise of that power, should it be needed in emergencies. I urge the Government, between now and the Bill returning to the other place, to think hard about doing something similar, so that we do not get into a situation where our friends in the Crown dependencies find themselves obliged perhaps to seek legal redress against our own Government and, if need be, to invoke their internal arrangements in relation to a legislative referral procedure. As the Minister knows, that can be embarked on and is not the ideal way to deal with this matter.

The concern is simply that the principle of consent is thoroughly enshrined in our relationship with the Crown dependencies. The Government have always sought to adhere to that, and the Minister and I know that we have always advocated that in this House. I do not yet see the grounds for introducing this provision, other than the possibility that it might be needed at some point—again, that sounds familiar in respect of the UK internal markets Bill. Let us find another solution in much the same way, where we consult with the Crown dependencies.

Without any consultation, it seems a needless provocation to attempt to place in the Bill, at a late stage, a provision that I hope will never be needed, but that goes against the express wishes of the legislatures of two parts of the British family. One of those legislatures had a general election only last week, and it now has a new legislature and set of Ministers, with a mandate to maintain their constitutional position. I urge the Minister to use her good influence and wise lawyerly skills to cause her colleagues to draw back a little, put some safeguards in the measure, continue talking to our friends in the Crown dependencies and find a means of accommodating the legitimate concerns of both sides, without taking what might be termed a draconian step.

[Victoria Prentis]

Well, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), told us to eat more fish. That should not be difficult with Arbroath smokies, Strangford prawns and buying local in Totnes. Even Wokingham is very keen to eat lots and lots more British fish. Chislehurst has a fish union and Holyhead is willing to sell it shellfish—it’ll be great.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said that she was concerned that we would not actually act—that we would just consult. I reassure her that consulting is a precursor to action. We will consult on the economic link for four weeks. We will announce our new policy by the end of the year. We will give the industry a year to adapt and the changes will come in in 2022.

The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who is no longer in his place, was concerned about coastal communities. I can tell him that we have invested £228 million through the coastal communities fund, supporting projects that should create 20,000 new jobs very shortly.

Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Many of the amendments to which she takes objection are at the behest of the Scottish Government. I say politely that new clause 3 is really not necessary. Seafish already publishes the information that is sought within it and lays its annual reports and accounts before this Parliament, and that information is widely available.

There were some emotional speeches, and rightly so, including from my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has spent 40 years campaigning for this historic moment, but is she stuck in the past? She is not. Yesterday, she launched an electric boat, which shows that there is a future for this exciting industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) again spoke with experience and passion. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) had a horrible experience during the debate and we send our love to her. Her defence of fishing made her grandfather and Yorkshire proud. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) also spoke emotionally. I encourage him to join in with our consultation process thoroughly.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) that clause 6(2)(c) gives him the flexibility that he seeks and I am looking forward to going fishing with him soon—if he ever asks me. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) stood up very, very soundly for the Scottish fishing industry and reminded us carefully that the Scottish Parliament has consented to this legislation. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised the very serious matter of the case that happened off Shetland. The correspondence to which he referred is part of the MCA correspondence, so I am not able to give him that, but what I would like to offer is to arrange a meeting between him, the MCA and the DFT to discuss this very important matter.

On the speech by hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), DAERA asked for wider powers on conservation beyond the scope of this Bill. We are exploring the options for other appropriate routes if DAERA wants to continue to take that forward in the future—I am happy to take this offline with her. The hon. Members for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith) were concerned about the speed of lorry movements with fish and seafish on them. Seafood and day-old chicks do need priority care and access through the short straits and that is something that the Government recognise.

It was lovely to hear from the Cornish fishwife, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who gave us some real-life experience and made important points about labelling. I would not mind going on the trawler vessel with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) if he were to ask me. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) supported marine protected areas and I was glad that I could answer his concerns on super-trawlers. To my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I can say that the REAF report contains some interesting ideas that the Government will consider as part of our ongoing work on inshore fisheries. 

At the end of this year, foreign vessels will not be able to pulse trawl.

On the PEC, I will continue to consult with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and with the Lord Chancellor, to whom I have also spoken on this issue. I reassure the House that I will speak again to those in the Crown dependencies who are concerned by this step, which is not one I take at all lightly, but I have been persuaded that there is no other option. We are not intending to use the provision, but I think it is correct to have it in the Bill.

I thank all those who have scrutinised the Bill at both ends of this place. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Gardiner. May his lines always be tight. Before today, we had spent 51 hours debating just this second version of the Bill, so I think it is fair to say that it has been well and thoroughly scrutinised. Thanks are also due to Lucy Cheeseman and Giulia Grierson, who are in the Box tonight, to parliamentary counsel, DEFRA officials and, indeed, all those from the devolved Administrations who have worked so hard on this Bill.

The Bill sets in stone our commitment to improving the health of our seas. It gives our fishermen the better future they need, and it is an opportunity to seize a once-in-a-generation chance to take back control of our natural resources and make sure we pass on healthier seas, which are abundant with life. The Fisheries Bill gives us the power we need to protect our fish stocks and help our seafood sector. It sets a gold standard for sustainability, and it allows us to bring fishing home. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated

(1) No prohibition, restriction or obligation relating to sea fishing imposed by any enactment applies to—

(a) anything done or not done by or in relation to a foreign fishing boat at a time at which the fishing boat is in waters lying within the Special Area and is exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated, or

(b) anything done or not done in relation to sea fish that were caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area at a time at which the fishing boat was exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated.

(2) For the purposes of this section a foreign fishing boat is “exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated” if—

(a) there is in force a licence issued by or on behalf of the Government of the Faroe Islands authorising it to fish in waters lying (to any extent) within the Special Area, and

(b) the fishing boat is not on a list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this subsection.

(3) In this section—

(a) “enactment” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and includes an enactment contained in or made under this Act;

(b) “the Special Area” means the Special Area, as defined in Article 4 of, and Schedule C to, the Faroe Islands Treaty;

(c) “the Faroe Islands Treaty” means the agreement between—

(i) the Government of the United Kingdom, and

(ii) the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Government of the Faroe Islands,

relating to the maritime delimitation in the area between the Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom, entered into on 18 May 1999.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause exempts foreign fishing boats from UK regulation where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. It also gives the Scottish Ministers power to remove this exemption from particular foreign fishing boats by putting them on a published list. These changes are in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Interpretation of Welsh legislation

(1) In the Interpretation Act 1978, section 23B (application of Interpretation Act 1978 to Welsh legislation), as substituted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4), is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In subsection (6), for “and “Wales”” substitute “, “Welsh zone” and (subject to subsection (7)) “Wales””.

(3) After subsection (6) insert—

“(7) In relation to a provision that—

(a) relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, and

(b) is contained in an instrument made after section43 of the Fisheries Act 2020 comes into force,

“Wales” includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea.”

(4) The Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (8).

(5) In section 1(3)(d) (duty to keep accessibility of Welsh law under review)—

(a) in the English language text, omit “applies in relation to Wales and relates to subject matter which”;

(b) in the Welsh language text, omit “y mae’n gymwys o ran Cymru ac y mae’n ymwneud â phwnc”.

(6) In section 3 (legislation to which Part 2 of the Act applies), after subsection (3)—

(a) in the English language text, insert—

“(4) In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health and is made after section 45 of the Fisheries Act 2020 (c. 00) comes into force, the reference in subsection (2)(b)(iii) to Wales includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;

(b) in the Welsh language text, insert—

“(4) Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod ac a wneir ar ôl i adran 45 o Ddeddf Pysgodfeydd 2020 (p. 00) ddod i rym, mae’r cyfeiriad yn is-adran (2)(b)(iii) at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.”

(7) After section 40—

(a) in the English language text insert—

“40A Application of this Part in relation to the Welsh zone

In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, references in this Part to Wales include the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;

(b) in the Welsh language text insert—

“40A Cymhwyso’r Rhan hon mewn perthynas â pharth Cymru

Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod, mae cyfeiriadau yn y Rhan hon at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.””

(8) In Schedule 1, in the Table—

(a) in the English language text, after the entry for “Welsh tribunal (tribiwnlys Cymreig)” insert—

Agriculture Bill

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

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

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 2 to 8.

Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 10.

Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 13 to 15.

Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 18.

Lords amendment 19 to 46.

[Victoria Prentis]

I should begin by declaring my interests; my family have farmed near Banbury for many years.

This Bill represents a decisive break with the common agricultural policy, as we move to a system that will deliver both for farmers and for the precious environment for which they care. I was delighted to see the Bill pass its Third Reading in the other place, led by my wonderful colleague Lord Gardiner of Kimble. It has now enjoyed over 100 hours of parliamentary debate in its current incarnation, and, of course, had already passed its Committee stage in 2018. Rarely has a Bill been so scrutinised. Although there remain areas of disagreement, it is heartening to hear the loud support for British farming from all parties at both ends of this place. I will speak to each amendment in turn.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I spoke to her before we came into the Chamber.

Last week I had a Zoom meeting with Lakeland Dairies, which is one of the major agrifood businesses in my constituency. The company is keen to understand the complexities of east-west and west-east movement, as well as north-south movement—from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland—for its products, which are milk products in liquid form. It is really important to have clarity on this complex issue. I have asked the Secretary of State for a meeting, because he has had various meetings with me in the past. I just want to ensure that we have a meeting with him so that we understand the process before we move forward.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Secretary of State has met him about Lakeland Dairies in the past, and I am sure he will be delighted to do so again. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is a very complex issue.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

If I may, I will make a tiny bit of progress, otherwise we really will be here for another 100 hours.

The purpose behind Lords amendment 1 is to demonstrate the connections between this Bill and the Environment Bill. I am pleased to say that these connections very much exist already. Environmental improvement plans will already definitely be taken into account when determining the strategic priorities that sit within the multi-annual financial assistance plans in clause 4.

It is lovely to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), in her place. She and I work very closely together. Ours is a very united Department, and we view farmers and environmentalists as often very much one and the same. Our future farming policies will be a key mechanism for delivering the goals set out in the 25-year environment plan, but we can take the steps we need to improve biodiversity only if the majority of farmers are firmly on side.

On Lords amendment 9, I would like to reassure the House that work is already taking place in this sphere. We have already commissioned an independent review of the food sector, led by Henry Dimbleby, and his interim report was released in July. We take his recommendations very seriously. We have made a firm commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of his final report, which is expected next spring. This could well lead to a report sooner than is actually proposed in the amendment.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Minister realise why some of us would be a little bit sceptical about her reassurances on timescales, given that the Environment Bill has gone missing for the last 200 days? Why should we believe her when she tells us that this is going to come forward shortly? Why not just accept this amendment? It is going in the same direction as she says she wants to go, so she should just accept it, and it would make it a lot easier.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am currently on amendment 9. I wonder if the hon. Lady was talking about the previous amendment; I am not sure. Nevertheless, I am delighted to say that enjoying at the moment I am what my predecessor referred to as my loaves and fishes week: I have agriculture today and fish tomorrow. I would say that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs legislation is very much front and centre in the business of the House this week. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is looking forward very keenly to bringing forward the Environment Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will have further news on that shortly.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On the subject of loaves, can I bring a message from the county of Lincolnshire, which produces 2 billion of them a year? It is the bread basket of England. This is a general point, but I was talking to farmers and I think they just want to be reassured on this point. They are the most efficient farmers in the country, and they want to be assured that when we do free trade deals, our competitors under these deals will be working under the same regulations as our farmers. That is all they want, and that was the whole point of the Lord Curry amendment about a Trade and Agriculture Commission with teeth. If the Minister can just give that commitment, they will be reassured.

[Victoria Prentis]

My right hon. Friend will be very pleased, when I come on to that section of my speech, to hear the reassurances that I hope I will be able to give him.

Back to amendment 9, and I think the report we have promised within six months of Henry Dimbleby’s report will in fact come sooner than is set out in this amendment.

The response to the pandemic has demonstrated again and again the resilience of our UK food supply chain, and I am really pleased with how well Government and industry have worked together. I would like to thank everyone in the food industry—from our farmers to those in retail and everybody in between—for responding so quickly and efficiently to some very challenging conditions.

It was a real privilege to chair the cross-Whitehall ministerial taskforce, which tried to ensure that food and other essential supplies reached the vulnerable. We worked with industry to smooth the way wherever possible, including relaxing competition laws and drivers’ hours. We have also worked with retailers to massively increase the number of online delivery slots. We are all too aware that many find themselves in food poverty for the first time. As the taskforce, we were able to secure £16 million, which we gave to frontline charities that are directly helping get food to those in need, and we allocated £63 million to local authorities so that they can provide direct support to people who cannot afford food.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently did a covid report, and the £63 million and the £16 million were really important in getting food out to those in society who need it most. May I have an assurance that if it is needed again, we will move very quickly to get it there? Unfortunately, after covid there will be a higher number of unemployed and great pressure on food and food security.

[Victoria Prentis]

I met the Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society last week to discuss how effective that local authority grant was. I know that my hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this space, has also taken evidence to that effect. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks right now, but I assure him that I will make sure that those comments are fed through and, if the need is there, that that is seen as one of the options available and a very direct way of getting money to those who are in food poverty. The Trussell Trust is itself preparing a report on how effective that grant has been.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

All the indicators are that food poverty is on the rise, so I ask the Minister, as I asked the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary: why will Ministers not extend the food voucher holiday hunger scheme to the half-term and Christmas holidays?

[Victoria Prentis]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter for some time. He has heard what the Department for Education has to say about that. The scheme that I am discussing is the £63 million scheme, which of course did not go just to families with children, although they were heavily represented among the recipients of that scheme. We will pass on those comments and those of the Trussell Trust and, of course, the EFRA Committee when considering how we tackle food poverty directly over the course of this winter. We all know that this is going to be a difficult time for many.

Returning to the Bill, we already have powers in what was originally clause 17, which commits the Government to

“lay before Parliament a report containing an analysis of statistical data relating to food security”

in the UK. We listened to the concerns raised regarding the frequency of the food security report and, through Lords amendments 5 to 8, reduced the minimum frequency of reporting from five years to three years. Of course, we can still report more often than that, and in times of strain on food supply that might well be appropriate.

Turning to Lords amendment 11, I recognise the positive intentions behind the amendment, but I am afraid I take issue with the drafting. The Government are committed to reducing the risks from pesticide use. We have already tightened the standards for authorisation and withdrawn many pesticides from the organophosphate and carbamate classes. Integrated pest management will be a critical part of future farming policy. Under our existing legislation, the use of pesticides is allowed only where a scientific assessment shows that it will have no effect on human health, including that of vulnerable groups.

The amendment, although undoubtedly well intentioned, is far too broad. It extends to any pesticide and any building, and would include pesticides that are important for productivity but pose no danger whatsoever to health. Even worse, it also extends to any open space used for work, which on my reading would prohibit the use of pesticides in fields entirely. I encourage hon. Members to read the amendment carefully before supporting it.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister will know that Lords amendment 11 is based on one that I tabled, which the Lords supported. I think she misrepresents the amendment. It is perfectly clear that it would be possible for the Government to bring forward regulations to specify exactly the minimum distances. It is no coincidence that Lord Randall himself has said how important it is that this amendment is passed to protect human health. That is what we need to do. The Government could go away and design the regulations, but this is the overarching amendment to achieve that.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am afraid I do disagree with the hon. Lady’s reading of the amendment. My case would be that we already have regulation in place to protect human health from risks, including those in the vulnerable sectors of society, which I mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I will not just at the moment, but I will later.

I am afraid to say that, despite the considerable thought that has gone into the amendments, we have not yet found a magic form of words that will address all the concerns and avoid undesirable side effects. In asking the House to reject the amendments, I will set out the set of solutions, both legislative and non-legislative, that I hope will allay the fears that Members have expressed. In my view, this range of measures, and constant vigilance on the part of Government and, indeed, consumers, are of more use than warm words in primary legislation.

I will start by reiterating that, alongside my colleagues on this side of the House, I stood on a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. As I have said many times, our current import standards are enshrined in existing legislation.

They include a ban on importing beef produced using artificial growth hormones and poultry that has been washed with chlorine. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 carries across those existing standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health and food safety. Any changes to that legislation would need to be brought before Parliament.

It falls to our independent food regulators, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations. The FSA’s risk analysis process is rigorous, completely independent of Government and based on robust scientific evidence, along with other legitimate factors such as wider consumer interests and the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I want to be very clear: the concerns that people have about the Bill and the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment are not about the quality of food. We understand that the product is not a danger. What we are concerned about is the production and the impact on the producer. If we undermine animal welfare and environmental standards, we may well have quality food to eat but we will damage our farmers and the integrity of our farming industry in the process.

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman is partly right. Many of the concerns expressed, perhaps more wildly, in the tabloid press—possibly not by the farming sector—are indeed about the safety of food. I seek to reassure everybody that those regulations are in place, and there is no danger to safety or to the existing standards that we enjoy, and have enjoyed for many years as members of the EU. When we come on to the next argument, which we could perhaps characterise as a more protectionist argument, we need to balance the competing factors of trade deals that we already have, continuity trade agreements and trade deals that we want to enter into in the future, and work out how we scrutinise those trade deals to ensure that our farmers are getting a fair deal. I will go on to set out some of the ways that we hope to do that.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

In the letter that my hon. Friend sent to all MPs on 6 October last week, she wrote that accepting the amendments

“would make it very difficult to secure any new trade deals.”

That is the bit that makes people suspicious. I do not doubt for one second her sincerity. I have known her for years and she is a Minister of the utmost integrity, and I do not doubt anybody in her Department either, but is the view that she has expressed at the Dispatch Box today shared in heart and mind across the whole of Government, including the Department for International Trade?

[Victoria Prentis]

Yes, those in the Department for International Trade stood on the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I were also proud to stand on. We are absolutely committed to high standards.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

rose—

[Victoria Prentis]

I promised to give way to my hon. Friend, and I forgot.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend has helpfully set out the very high standards that any imports will be required to meet coming into this country. Therefore, is there any reason why this House should not be given proper opportunity to scrutinise any free trade agreements before they are signed, so that we can ensure that those agreements do not enable produce to come into this country that is lower than those standards?

[Victoria Prentis]

If my hon. Friend can contain himself, I will get on very shortly to a long section of my speech that details how Parliament will be able to scrutinise future trade agreements. It is important, and I think that we do do that, but I will set that out very shortly.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Just to refer back to the letter that the Minister sent last week, the Government’s response to the Lords amendments is that they would create a vast set of conditions that do not apply to current EU trade deals. Will she explain that a bit further, please?

[Victoria Prentis]

Yes, I will be getting on to that in a minute, too. Members will see that Lords amendment 16 has a large number of conditions that, were it to pass, would apply to continuity—so, rollover agreements—and to any new agreement that we signed. One of my concerns, just to give the hon. Gentleman an example, is that the amendment would require other countries to abide by exactly the regulations that we have in this country. Those might not be appropriate because of climate, for example, or the way a country is physically. Our hedgerow regulation, for example, would look fairly odd in parts of Africa, but that is just one example.

I will make a bit of progress. We have high standards in this country, of which we are justly proud, and there is no way the Government will reduce those standards. Our clear policy, in fact, is to increase them, particularly in the area of animal welfare, and I hope to be telling the House a lot more about that next year.

It is important that our future trade agreements uphold those high standards. We can ensure that with a range of safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny being one of them. My right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has today confirmed in a written ministerial statement to the House that there will be a full scrutiny process for the Japan deal and all other agreements that we strike. When it is agreed in principle, a copy of the deal will be issued to the International Trade Committee. It can then report on that, and I know that it will scrutinise the deal carefully.

The Government are committed to transparency and to aiding scrutiny. That includes publishing objectives and initial economic assessments before the start of any trade talks, which has been done to date. We have also provided regular progress updates to Parliament. For example, we recently provided updates on the conclusion of negotiation rounds with the US and Australia, and we are engaging closely with the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee in the other place. That includes sharing future trade agreements before they are laid in Parliament through the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Today, the Secretary of State set out how that is happening for the Japan deal.

We will always endeavour to ensure the Committees have at least 10 sitting days to read through the deals or potential deals on a confidential basis. We are also sharing a full impact assessment, which covers the economic impacts along with the social, environmental and animal welfare aspects of any deal, and that impact assessment has been independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee.

Finally, at the end of negotiations, we are committed to ensuring that the final agreement text is laid in Parliament for 21 sitting days under the CRaG procedure, which will ensure that the House has sufficient time to scrutinise the detail of any deal. I know that there has been some debate in both Houses on the effectiveness of CRaG, but it is the established procedure under our constitution. Our overall approach to scrutiny goes beyond many comparable parliamentary democracies.

Further important scrutiny is provided by a range of expert groups that advise the Government on trade policy. They include the Department for International Trade’s agrifood trade advisory group, which was renewed in July and includes more than 30 representatives from the food industry—I nearly said “heavyweight” representatives, but I would not want that to be misinterpreted. DEFRA also continues to run various supply chain advisory groups such as the arable group, the livestock group and the food and drink panel. They provide expert advice as we negotiate, which is fed directly in to those negotiating.

We also listened carefully to powerful points made by Members of this House and the National Farmers Union, which is why we established the Trade and Agriculture Commission in July. The commission is working hard. It has met six times and set up three working groups covering consumers, competitiveness and standards, bringing more than 30 additional representatives to help with its work. Recently, the commission launched a call for evidence to 200 relevant parties, which asked several questions, including on how standards can best be upheld while securing the benefits of trade. Its report will come before Parliament later this term to be debated.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I hope I am not jumping the gun, but will the Minister look to extend the purview of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to longer than six months? It should be a permanent body that is established to scrutinise our trade deals.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am afraid that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not within my gift; it is a matter for the Department for International Trade whether the work and life of that commission is extended. Further to the point of order made earlier about our inability to discuss Lords amendment 18 this evening, there is no need for any amendment to the Bill in order to set up or continue the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It was done without any need for legislation, and it will be perfectly possible and proper for Members to talk to the Secretary of State for International Trade if they wish the commission to continue.

The commission was set up with a fixed term and a tight scope, which was a deliberate decision, to avoid duplication of the work of the agencies and other groups that I have just set out. It was set up in order to feed directly into our trade negotiations with the US, Australia and New Zealand. We remain open to listening to any concerns about the operation of the commission and will continue to co-operate with DIT to ensure that it meets expectations.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking laudably about the Trade and Agriculture Commission but then somewhat passing the responsibility to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not with us today. What assurances can she give us that her voice will count in those discussions about the Trade and Agriculture Commission? That body is central to the Bill we are discussing, yet the Secretary of State is not here to answer questions.

[Victoria Prentis]

I must politely disagree. I do not think that there needs to be any amendment to the Bill in order to continue the great work that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is undertaking. It was set up without the benefit of legislation; it does not need that. I have just set out why it was set up in a time-limited way, in order to produce a report that will be debated in the House this term, which is useful, as it will feed into the negotiations. It was set up with that timescale in mind. Whether we want to set it up for future trade agreements is something to discuss another day, but I do not agree that it has anything at all to do with the Bill.

[Neil Parish]

I accept that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not my hon. Friend’s responsibility. However, on amendments 12 and 16, if the Government could come forward with a proposal to extend its life or to set up a smaller commission to deal with individual trade deals, they would see off any possible rebellions tonight.

[Victoria Prentis]

Oh dear. I remain very fond of my hon. Friend, who continues to tempt me, Madam Deputy Speaker, down routes that we really do not need to go down in discussing this legislation—indeed, we are all busily debating amendment 18 as if it were before us.

To return to what we are meant to be talking about, if amendments 12 and 16 remained in the Bill, they could create a long list of new conditions that imports under trade agreements would have to meet. Such conditions do not exist under any agreement that the UK or the EU have to date, and they could also apply to trade already taking place, which we very much hope will be the subject of roll-over deals.

We will drive a hard bargain for access to our market, and existing import conditions will need to be respected. However, trading partners would be extremely unlikely to agree to all the potential new requirements in the amendments. The amendments are also not totally clear on what we would be asking of our partners. For example, what is relevant to protect the environment in the UK will surely not be what is relevant to other countries with different climates or conditions. From rules on nitrates to rules on hedgerows, our standards are sometimes bound to differ from those abroad.

Given that uncertainty, I am concerned that the amendments could jeopardise the 19 currently unsigned agreements that we are seeking to roll over. Trade, of course, already takes place under those agreements, with existing import requirements met. Unpicking those and demanding the numerous extra conditions in the amendments could upset the current deals if partners refused and walked away. In the worst-case scenario, that could affect whisky exports to Canada, worth £96 million, potato exports to Egypt, worth £30 million, and milk powder exports to Algeria, worth £21 million.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I think the hon. Lady said a moment ago that the problem with the amendments was that they would impose conditions that the EU has not sought to apply to any existing trade agreements, but is that actually the case? Is it not true that the free trade agreement between the EU and Chile in 2003 explicitly included a reference to animal welfare—the point made a moment ago—and that when the EU negotiated a trade deal with the Mercosur countries last year, it made the reduction of tariffs on egg products conditional for the first time on the countries concerned, namely Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, keeping their hens in line with EU animal welfare standards? If the EU can do that, why are the Government resisting us doing that when we take back control?

[Victoria Prentis]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the EU has been able to put welfare standards of various kinds and levels in different trade agreements over the years. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, as long as it is done in compliance with international law. The point I was trying to make—I apologise if I did not make it sufficiently clear—is that it would be unwise, particularly in the agreements we are seeking to roll over in very short form, to add a set of conditions that, to my reading at least, are not entirely clear and that are broadly drafted. It would be difficult to agree with the partners with whom we already trade as part of these continuity agreements a whole new set of conditions and, indeed, a method of assessing those conditions in very short order. That might well put them off agreeing a deal with us. That is my concern.

In summary, the tools we have to ensure high standards are, as I have tried to set out, many and varied. They are strong enough to protect standards, even under pressure. We have existing regulation under retained EU law, which is watched carefully and controlled by the Food Standards Agency. Parliament can scrutinise new trade deals, as indeed the Select Committee on International Trade is about to do for the Japan deal. Other experts, including those on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, can advise us on trade policy. Last, but by no means least, we have the buying power of the British consumer, who is increasingly committed to high standards of animal welfare.

We will carry out a serious examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK market. We will start to consult on that before the end of this year. That combination of measures will protect producers of high-welfare British food, while allowing us to import when we wish.

Turning to amendment 17 on emissions reduction targets—

[Steve Brine]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I have turned, I fear.

Amendment 17 is another well-intentioned amendment, but it would add an unnecessary layer of complication. The Secretary of State is already required to have regard to the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero under the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government have also introduced carbon budgets, which cap emissions over successive five-year periods. If we are to achieve the UK’s net zero target, emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors. Not setting sector-specific targets allows us to meet our climate change commitments in the best and speediest way. Agriculture has an important role to play in reducing emissions, but we must recognise that planting trees and restoring peatland will take a very long time—probably not my lifetime—to deliver the best results.

We will continue to work closely on that issue with the NFU and others, including the greenhouse gas action plan partners.

[Caroline Lucas]

Given that emissions from agriculture have not decreased—they have remained static for years—there is every good reason to focus on the role of agriculture in driving climate change. It is not just a question of planting trees, which, as the Minister says, takes a long time. She could start by not burning the peatlands, which is leading to more and more climate change right now. That is the kind of immediate measure that could be in the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am sorry if I did not explain myself clearly enough. Of course we are committed to reducing emissions from agriculture, which produces about 10% of emissions, as the hon. Lady knows. It is important to work on that. I commend the NFU, which has set an ambitious target for doing just that. Many measures will be set out in the Environment Bill, which will come before the House shortly. Of course, the Agriculture Bill will be a key part of delivering net zero, as our future farming schemes are a powerful vehicle for achieving that goal.

[Richard Fuller]

Perhaps the counter-argument to that of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is that farming needs long-term stability and sense. Governments sometimes change, but this target will remain. How does my hon. Friend balance the requirement for the dexterity that she has described in the Environment Bill with the overarching target, which could provide some stability as we achieve some of the goals that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has asked us to achieve?

[Victoria Prentis]

That is exactly what I am trying to do. I am seeking a balance between a laudable aim that we are all signed up to and not setting sector-specific targets, for which amendment 17 provides. I do not think that would be helpful. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that we need to do everything we can in the agricultural sphere to work on this important issue.

I will now deal with the Government amendments. Amendment 2 requires all new multi-annual financial assistance plans introduced after the end of the agriculture transition period to be published 12 months before coming into effect. The first multi-annual financial assistance plan, which covers the seven-year agricultural transition, will be published by the end of this year. All subsequent plans will be published at least 12 months ahead of their coming into effect. Those in the other place felt strongly that building in time between the publication of multi-annual financial assistance plans and their coming into effect would allow farmers to prepare for them and adapt to any potential changes. The Government agree and are pleased to propose that amendment.

Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 change the frequency of reporting on food security—to which I spoke briefly earlier—by requiring reports to be published at least every three years. The first report will be published before Parliament rises for Christmas next year, 2021. This report will include an analysis of statistical data relating to the impact of coronavirus on food security in the United Kingdom.

Amendments 10, 13, 14 and 20 to 29 were requested by the devolved Administrations and reflect the positive working relationship that we have with our counterparts there. I am pleased that each of the devolved legislatures has given legislative consent to the Bill.

Amendments 10, 13 and 14 require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the DAs before making regulations within their competence under clauses 32 or 37. Amendments 20 to 29 give the DAs the power to make supplementary and consequential provisions in all areas of the Bill for which a legislative consent motion was sought. Amendment 15 removes the provisions in clauses 42(4) and 42(5), as devolved Ministers have assured us that they are not required in law.

Amendments 3, 4, 19, 30, 31, 45 and 46 are technical amendments that ensure that clauses 14, 15 and 16, as well as their equivalent provisions in the schedules for Wales and Northern Ireland, will operate as intended. The clauses rely on a body of retained EU law being created at the end of the transition period. We have recently been advised that that may be necessary to allow us to continue to fund existing common agricultural policy legacy schemes.

Finally, amendments 32 to 44 enable legislative powers created by the Bill to be exercised on or after the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. This will enable us to act quickly to ensure that there is no gap in the powers required to operate existing schemes and to provide financial assistance to farmers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am sure that colleagues will be aware that this debate must finish at 9 o’clock and there are still two Front-Bench contributions to come. I will therefore set an immediate limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, although I fear that may have to go down if we are to have any chance of getting everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I agree. At least British Ministers will not have to utter the phrase, “It won’t get through Parliament,” because Parliament has, sadly, voted itself out of having a say, making it one of the few Parliaments in the world that will not have a say on any trade deals with Britain.

Let me address briefly some of the reasons the Minister gave for not supporting the amendments, because it is important that we consider the arguments. Last week I heard the International Trade Secretary say that if we have high standards, that would risk having a crippling effect on agricultural exports from developing countries such as Kenya. I know that Members are concerned about that, but the problem is that it is not right. At the moment, thanks to our membership of the EU, the Government have nine trade deals with sub-Saharan African countries, and so far not a single one of them has been rolled over. We risk losing those trade deals with sub-Saharan Africa if we do not renew them by 31 December. If we care about our agricultural exports, that should be the priority. The Minister also knows that the Government should have a better plan for improving the post-Brexit UK version of the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences, which sets lower tariffs for developing countries in exchange for meaningful protection of human rights, labour rights and the environment.

What else is used as an excuse for the Government not putting their promise into law? The Minister mentioned labelling. I have spoken proudly from this Dispatch Box about the need to buy local. I want consumers to look out for the red tractor and other local accreditations when they are making purchasing decisions. But let us be real: an extra label will not stop lower-quality food being sold in Britain. It offers a meagre apology on the packaging, but only where there is packaging. Ministers know that 50% of our agricultural production does not go into retail. It goes into food service—to cafés and restaurants, food processing and the like—where the origin of the ingredients is, at best, hidden. That is precisely where chlorinated chicken would be sold and eaten first. It would go to big caterers and into mass production—places where consumers cannot tell where their food has come from or know the standards it is produced to. It would go into hospital food and into meals for our armed forces and our schools. The Government claim that the amendment is unnecessary because standards are included in the withdrawal Act, as we have just heard. However, the EU’s import restrictions apply only to products banned on the basis of safety and, as was mentioned earlier, they do not deal with animal welfare or environmental protections, which is what this amendment seeks to do.

There is one more excuse, which has not been spoken about so far, that is absolutely key to the Government’s future trade strategy, and it is about taxes. Could not Ministers just tax these products a wee bit more with an extra couple of pence on tariffs and let the market decide? This is something I have heard and read about in Tory-leaning media, but let me be clear with Ministers, because all those in this place know what the Treasury and the Department for International Trade are planning. Charging a few extra pence on lower-standard food import tariffs while public anger is at its highest will give Ministers a convenient soundbite to offer a nation ill at ease with the Government’s policy. They will then be able to drop those tariffs through secondary legislation when the anger dies down. The end result will be that we still have chlorinated chicken and food produced to lower standards on sale, whether it is for a few pence more or a few pence less. That will not stop those products being sold in the United Kingdom. It will authorise and legitimise it, and it will sign the death warrant for farm businesses the nation over. That is why we want these standards put into law.

In the midst of a climate and ecological emergency, it is imperative that we have a clear road map for agriculture to reach net zero. The NFU has done a good job in its work so far, and I want to thank farmers for the efforts they are making to cut carbon emissions, which are a sizeable chunk of UK emissions. That is why we back efforts to have clear, sector-specific plans that farmers can follow, and we also back efforts including the amendment tabled by Lord Whitty in the other place on pesticides. That matters because of the impact not only on the environment but on human health.

I fear that, in seeking to disagree with these amendments tonight, the Government might be trying to hint at the Salisbury convention, which is that the other place should not interfere with manifesto commitments. However, the Lords are doing something different from that: they are doing a reverse Salisbury. They are asking the Government to stick to their manifesto commitments. In such circumstances, the Salisbury principle does not apply, and the Lords should ask the Commons to reconsider these amendments on food safety and on the Trade and Agriculture Commission again—and again, if necessary. Every time this House votes on these amendments, more and more farmers will be looking at the voting list to see which Members support the farmers and which have chosen not to. We cannot take any votes for granted, and I warn Conservative Members against doing so.

Just last week the Leader of the Opposition and I visited the farm of the NFU president, Minette Batters, in Wiltshire. That was our second meeting with the NFU president in a month, but the Prime Minister still refuses to meet her. I would be grateful if the Minister could pull a few strings to get the PM to meet farmers to talk about this issue.

[Victoria Prentis]

I believe that the president of the NFU will be visiting Downing Street later this week.

[Luke Pollard]

Where the Leader of the Opposition leads, the Government follow. I am grateful for that. That visit to Wiltshire was not in vain, I see—[Interruption.]

What kind of country do we want to be? [Interruption.] I do not think that a country whose MPs shout at each other in a debate like this is a country that is good—[Interruption.] I have not heard that from this side and I encourage those on the Conservative side to recognise that as well. There are people watching this debate in farming communities up and down the country. They are tuning into BBC Parliament and parliamentlive.tv for the first ever time, and they should see parliamentarians performing at our best in this debate.

I want Britain to be a nation of quality—[Interruption.] Let me start that again, because the people at home might not have heard me over the chuntering. I want Britain to be a nation of quality, of high standards, of ethical treatment of animals and of stewardship of our landscapes; a custodian of high environmental standards; and a nation that challenges other nations to compete with us fiercely but to do so on a level playing field. I want Britain to be a beacon country with our values proudly on show, not just in soundbites and manifestos, but in our laws, trade deals and behaviours. That is what the amendments on food standards seek to achieve. It is a moral compass that this Agriculture Bill desperately needs.a It is because of that, and because Labour backs our farmers, that we have voted at every opportunity against the Bill, which singularly fails to protect our farmers from being undercut by food produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards abroad. Our farmers are not afraid of competition but, when we maintain high standards for them but allow potentially food produced at lower standards to be imported, that is unfair. It is not a level playing field. That food would be illegal for British farmers to produce here, but somehow it would be okay to have it through the back door. That cannot be allowed and that is why our food standards must be put into law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Unlike many Members here, I have just one small farm in my constituency, but a large number of constituents have written to me expressing great concern about the implications of the Agriculture Bill, particularly if the Lords amendments are not incorporated. My constituents expect Parliament to scrutinise the detail of all trade deals, but Parliament is yet again to be cut out of full scrutiny and agreement on trade deals—a trend that is becoming something of a habit for this Government.

After listening to some Government Members, I really do wonder about their understanding of the dynamics of trade deals. Many of my constituents fear that the Bill and the Government’s approach to trade will open up our consumers to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-impregnated beef and so on. The Minister said at the start of the debate that we should not worry about standards falling because British consumers will choose good-quality food, but as consumers we do not see the labels for much of our food, because almost half the food we eat is made up of processed ingredients or is catered and therefore hidden from consumer vision. As many Members have said, cheap imported foods with standards lower than the EU’s threaten the viability of many British farmers.

If the Government actually believed in the climate and environmental emergency that this Parliament declared a year ago, the Bill would set a clearer path for our farmers to reach net zero. Why do the Government not accept Labour’s amendment 17, which would set interim net zero targets for the agricultural sector?

If we do a trade deal with the US that has no conditions on animal welfare, our farmers will be at risk, because they will have to compete with low-cost agricultural mega-corporations, such as those US pork farmers still using sow stalls. To prevent the cruelty of practices such as sow stalls, we need a law which says that, in all trade deals, any imports must meet the same standards of animal welfare that British farmers are required to meet. Britain has historically often led the world on food standards, but sadly, this Bill means that our food quality is at risk, our farmers’ future is at risk, our environment and our climate are at risk, and the welfare of farmed animals are at risk. I support the Lords amendments.

[Victoria Prentis]

We have had a treat this evening—we have had Cotswold lamb, mince and tatties, Aberdeenshire beef, and berries and all sorts of other things. I, for one, have particularly enjoyed hearing farming voices this evening. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who is basically in favour of the Bill. He was able to explain clearly how it would help the farmers of the future. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who very much enjoyed growing up with fields green with grass. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who both spoke in quite quiet, but experienced, passionate farming voices about how the trade of the future was going to help others in the industry.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and we had perhaps the quote of the evening from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who said that farming is not a religion; it is a business. I would like to reassure him that I see a bright future for British farming under our new agricultural policies. Productive, environmentally sustainable food production—that is what we are going to support, and businesses.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and I am looking forward to a glittering career for him at Harper Adams. I think we will all benefit from what he learns there. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). I was pleased to speak to him a great deal about gene editing earlier in the year and I am glad that we will be consulting on that. These were experienced farming voices, passionate about trade.

There have been other speeches of note, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who was proud to say that he does not earn a pair of wellies but he cares about standards, and about trade. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who has served on the Agriculture Committee, and who spoke thoughtfully about the cost of production and the work that she had done to take the Secretary of State for International Trade to her constituency to speak to her farmers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) is right: the fear-mongering must stop tonight. We are not going to be importing chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef. That is the law of this land. [Interruption.] There is no question of “Not yet”. This Government are not going to change it under any circumstances. We have said very clearly that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards.

We have a range of tools to protect us. We have the existing regulation. We have parliamentary scrutiny, which I detailed earlier, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I, for one, think is significant. We have other experts feeding in, including the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which many Members have spoken about. It was designed to be helpful, to feed into the trade negotiations we are conducting at the moment. There is nothing to stop it being stood up again if it was felt that that would be helpful. There is absolutely no need to put this in the Bill. I am very happy to take as an action from tonight that I will discuss this with the Secretary of State for International Trade. Given what she said in her written ministerial statement to the House today, I am not anticipating that she will be surprised by that conversation, but I undertake to conduct it.

I also think that consumer labelling is important, while understanding that, of course, a lot of products are not directly labelled at the point of consumption. I think, however, that our consumers are canny and that they can make many of their own decisions. We also heard one other tool discussed this evening in favour of differing tariffs—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk and for The Cotswolds both spoke about that—and that is something that we should perhaps think about in future.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that children play mummies and daddies or going to the shops. They tend to ape what the adults around them do. Well, my sisters and I played going to NFU meetings, because that was what the adults around us did. I welcome the work that the NFU has done to get consumers talking about standards, but we do not need primary legislation to have a Trade and Agriculture Commission. Amendment 16 does not enshrine these standards in law; rather, it obliges the Government to impose a wide and, in my view, slightly ill-defined set of conditions on new and roll-over FTAs. And if Labour Members truly are champions of farming, they should not support amendment 11, which bans the use of any pesticide in any field.

This Bill is great. The future of agriculture in this country is great. I commend it to the House.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.