parliamentary debates · final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of ......

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATESHOUSE OF COMMONS

OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

First Sitting

Tuesday 11 February 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

Programme motion agreed to.

Written evidence (Reporting to the House) motion agreed to.

Motion to sit in private agreed to.

Examination of witnesses.

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021

No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for thefinal version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy ofthe report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’sRoom, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 15 February 2020

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020

This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,

which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † SIR DAVID AMESS, GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)† Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Eustice, George (Minister of State, Department for

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)

(Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)

† Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)† Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con)† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead)

(Lab)† Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab)† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Martin Lines, Chair, Nature Friendly Farming Network (and farmer)

ffinlo Costain, Farmwel

Caroline Drummond MBE, Chief Executive, Linking Environment And Farming (LEAF)

Jack Ward, Chief Executive, British Growers Association

Thomas Lancaster, Principal Policy Officer, Agriculture, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

John Cross, Chair, Traceability Design User Group

Simon Hall, Managing Director, Livestock Information Ltd

Christopher Price, CEO, Rare Breeds Survival Trust

David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

1 211 FEBRUARY 2020Public Bill Committee Agriculture Bill



(Morning)

[SIR DAVID AMESS in the Chair]

Agriculture Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: Before we begin, I have a few preliminarypoints. Please switch off mobile phones. Tea and coffeeis not allowed; that is not me being pompous—theSpeaker does not allow tea or coffee in the CommitteeRooms. Until that changes, Lent has come early and itis definitely water only.

We will first consider the programme motion on theamendment paper. We will then consider a motion toenable the reporting of written evidence for publicationand then a motion to allow us to deliberate in privateabout our questions before the oral evidence session. Inview of the limited time available, I hope we can takethose matters without too much debate.

The Minister of State, Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at9.25 am on Tuesday 11 February) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 February;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 February;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 February;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 February;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 March;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 March;

(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 March;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordancewith the following Table:

Date Time Witness

Tuesday 11 February Until no later than10.30 am

Nature FriendlyFarming Network;Farmwel; LEAF;British GrowersAssociation

Tuesday 11 February Until no later than11.25 am

RSPB; RSPCA;Rare Breed SurvivalTrust; TraceabilityDesign User Group;LivestockInformation Ltd

Tuesday 11 February Until no later than2.30 pm

Ulster FarmersUnion; DAERA


NFU; NationalFederation ofYoung FarmersClubs


Cooperatives UK

Date Time Witness


Campaign toProtect RuralEngland; KingsCrops; HolkhamEstate


Country Land andBusinessAssociation; TenantFarmersAssociation

Thursday 13 February Until no later than12.15 pm

NFU Cymru;Farmers’ Union ofWales; WelshGovernment


Soil Association


NFU Scotland;Quality MeatScotland; ScottishGovernment


George Monbiot,The Guardian


Professor BillKeevil, Universityof Southampton


Unite; LandworkersAlliance


Sustain;Compassion inWorld Farming


Which?

(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committeeshall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 28;Schedule 1; Clause 29; Schedule 2; Clauses 30 to 34;Schedule 3; Clause 35; Schedule 4; Clauses 36 to 43;Schedule 5; Clauses 44 and 45; Schedule 6; Clauses 46to 49; Schedule 7; Clauses 50 to 54; new Clauses; newSchedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previouslyconcluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm onTuesday 10 March.

The programme motion was agreed by the ProgrammingSub-Committee yesterday. I hope we are all agreed onthe programme motion, and I look forward to hearingevidence from witnesses in the order set out.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidencereceived by the Committee shall be reported to the House forpublication.—(George Eustice.)

The Chair: Copies of written evidence that the Committeereceives will be made available in the Committee Room.Colleagues can get papers on that table over there. Thehelpful Clerks will indicate where they are; if Membersgo around, behind me or the witnesses, they can pick upthe papers.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidenceis to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until thewitnesses are admitted.—(George Eustice.)

9.27 am

The Committee deliberated in private.

3 4HOUSE OF COMMONSPublic Bill Committee Agriculture Bill

Examination of Witnesses

Jack Ward, Caroline Drummond, ffinlo Costain andMartin Lines gave evidence.

9.30 am

Q1 The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence fromthe Nature Friendly Farming Network, Farmwel, LinkingEnvironment and Farming, and the British GrowersAssociation. Starting with Jack Ward, could you allvery briefly introduce yourselves?

Jack Ward: My name is Jack Ward, and I am thechief executive of the British Growers Association,which predominantly operates in the fresh producesector—fresh fruit and fresh vegetables.

Caroline Drummond: I am Caroline Drummond, thechief executive of LEAF—Linking Environment andFarming—a farming environment charity promotingmore sustainable agriculture and a whole-farm approach,with demonstration farms, the LEAF marque and apublic outreach area. I am also married to a dairyfarmer.

ffinlo Costain: I am ffinlo Costain, the chief executiveof Farmwel, which was established to develop a reallypositive outlook on reform of the common agriculturalpolicy post Brexit. We work very closely with the FAI—Food Animal Initiative—farm in Oxford, which is oneof the world’s largest food sustainability consultancies.

Martin Lines: I am Martin Lines, an arable farmerfrom Cambridgeshire. I am the UK chair of the NatureFriendly Farming Network. We have farm membershipacross the UK, as well as public membership andorganisations that support the network.

The Chair: May I say to our witnesses, if you havenever previously appeared before a Committee, thatthere is nothing at all to be worried about? My colleaguesare very friendly. They are just trying to get informationfrom you to use during the Committee stage of ourproceedings. The session ends at 10.30 am, so it will govery quickly.

Q2 George Eustice: I want to start by asking whatyou consider to have been the main failures and limitationsof the existing direct payment scheme, the commonagricultural policy. Also, what are the main opportunitiesfor your own particular interests, based on a new policythat rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods?

ffinlo Costain: One of the key challenges with thecommon agricultural policy is that it has largely rewardedfarmers for owning land, and it has presided over anenormous disconnect between farmers, other people inthe countryside, and customers, and often the supplychain as well. The huge advantage of the new legislationis that, in changing the funding system to public fundsfor public goods, we will be able to deliver the changesthat we need—the farm animal welfare improvements,the sustainability improvements, the climate mitigation,and the biodiversity restoration, which has been sodegraded under the common agricultural policy.

Make no bones about it: we are facing a climate andnature emergency that is upon us now, not tomorrow. Itis critical that we get this right. For me, getting land useright is the golden ticket. Having the opportunity atthis time to reform land use—so that we can continue

producing good food and good nutrition, deliveringnational security in that way, which is critically important,as well as delivering climate mitigation, land adaptionto help with climate change, and biodiversity restoration—isabsolutely critical. The Bill comes at the perfect time,and it is well set up. There are some challenges within it,and some issues that I think we will address, but ingeneral terms it is very positive.

Martin Lines: As a farm owner and a tenant, underthe current system, with the single farm payment, I amencouraged to farm to the very edge of fields. Biodiversityand other bits of the landscape are not rewarded. As atenant, my landlord takes away most if not all of mysingle farm payment on top of the rent. If we move to apublic goods model, I actually get rewarded for thedelivery of services as a land manager—as a farmer—sowe would move into a system that better supportsactual farmers, rather than the ownership and managementof the landscape.

Caroline Drummond: One of the real challenges ofthe past system was the capability to drive ambitionfor farmers. It was a “Tell me what I’m doing” typeof approach, so going forward, we have a realopportunity to demonstrate leadership, vision and ambitionfor our farming sector. Ensuring that we get the rightgovernance is going to be really important. Thereneeds to be partnership and development of trustbetween Governments, from voluntary approaches thatare externally, independently verified such as farm assuranceschemes, right through to building on some of thesuccess stories of capability and innovation that wehave seen among some of the farmers who are alreadythriving and doing very well in this country.

Jack Ward: The fresh produce industry has not benefitedthat greatly from the CAP. We are about 170,000 hectares;we have an output of about £2 billion from that area,and the contribution from the basic payment scheme isabout £40 million. However, the contribution from theproducer organisation scheme, which is broadly equivalent,has been incredibly important. I think we would like tosee that continue in some shape or form.

In terms of opportunities, there is a terrific opportunityto increase the amount of fruit and veg that we currentlyproduce. In some sectors, such as tomatoes, we are verydependent on imports. We import eight out of 10 tomatoesthat we consume in the UK; we must be able to dobetter than that.

Q3 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Good morningto you; it is very nice to see a farmer from Cambridgeshirehere. The opening comments from the witnesses havebeen very positive and helpful, and I think we allwelcome the notion of public money being spent onenvironmental gain. However, a number of us are concernedabout the lack of detail in the Bill about environmentalland management schemes. I think we had expected apolicy paper from the Government, but I am not surewe have seen that yet. Do you share that concern?

ffinlo Costain: It is really important for Governmentto set a framework, but if there is a criticism of the waythat Europe and the common agricultural policy haveworked in the past, it is that it has been way tooprescriptive. That has meant that, to a large extent,farmers have learned to do what they are told, ratherthan to properly understand and integrate what theyare doing on their land.


My own view is that Government should become moregoal-centred. They need to set the right metrics and tounderstand what outcomes they are trying to achieve,but then they need to take a step back and allowfarmers to farm. Farmers understand their land, and ifthey have a funding model that supports environmentalexcellence and other public goods—restoration of soilhealth and so on—they can work out ways to do that. Iwould hate to see a situation where there is a continuingprescriptive approach, but it is focused on the environmentrather than on how to produce cattle, and we end upwith farmers still not really understanding what theyare doing and simply farming the subsidy.

We need ownership of change, and farmers can dothat. Farmers understand their land; they know theirland, and if we give them the freedom to work withinthat public goods model, they will deliver the outcomes.They will step up. They are a standing army out there,ready to do this, and they will step up and do it.

Martin Lines: I have concerns about what the ELMfor England would look like, the transition period, andhow the funding is going to work. We need more detailabout what the future will be, so that the farmers canstart changing and adapting now to the model of whatis coming. There is some concern, particularly aboutthe transition period. As we go into the new system andpayments under the current system tail off, what isgoing to bridge the lull in the middle, and how do we getfarmers to step across to the new system at speed?

Caroline Drummond: I agree. There needs to be thepolicy documentation, so we can identify what this isgoing to look like and how the knitting all joins up—thereare lots of balls of wool, but what are we trying to knitat the end of the day? Not much has been left out of theBill, which is really key, but we need to know how it willbe interpreted and how the ELMS projects will becarried out. There are a lot of them going on, and weneed to know how they will be brought together todemonstrate the delivery against metrics, outcomes and,ultimately, impact. Ultimately, the Government have todeliver against the global and national targets aroundthe sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement,and so on, but the farming sector has the opportunityto support us in demonstrating that we are helping onissues around climate change, biodiversity, soil improvementand those matters.

The Chair: Before bringing in Danny Kruger, Ishould have told new Members that, when they startquestioning—they do not have to do it every time—theyshould declare any financial interest they have in theseareas.

Q4 Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con): Certainly, I donot have any financial interests in the business of farming.Martin, I was interested in your point about the waythat, under the direct payments system, the landlordgets the benefit, not the tenant. Is that just your experience,or can you amplify that point and explain more howthat works? Are you confident that that will not bereplicated under the new regime? Does the Bill give youconfidence that the tenants will get the benefits frompublic money for public goods?

Martin Lines: For many of the tenancies, the priceper hectare per area went up, compared with the payment,so they see that as a benefit of owning the land. Many

landlords get the payment directly and the farmer hasto manage, which disconnects the reward from managingthe landscape, so the current system does not benefitthe farmer. It challenges cash flow, because as a tenant Iam paying rent for six to 12 months before I get it backunder the payments system, so there a problem withcash flow, particularly with late payments. There is a bigissue with the new system about payment timings. Thereare huge challenges under the new system.

Under the current system, we know that some landlordsare trying to get the stewardship payment, or parts of it,but under the new system, if you are delivering habitat,or pollen and nectar, bits and pieces, you are the farmerdoing the work. You should be getting the reward.There will be an increase in capital, and the landlordwill be rewarded for capital aspects and other thingsthat are delivered on the landscape.

The Bill should be about encouraging the whole-farmapproach of better farm land management and lookingat all aspects, not just food production—pollination,flood mitigation, soil health improvement and publicaccess. The farmer’s role is not just about food production;it is about providing goods and services. The definitionof a farmer is someone who manages land to delivergoods and services. One of those is food, but manyother things can be delivered, and if we move thesystem, we can be rewarded for those and create a bettersystem.

Q5 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Do youthink the Bill does enough to encourage the whole-farmapproach, or is there a danger that farmers might justpick and choose among the public goods and do someof the things that are easier, but carry on farming asnormal on the rest of the farm?

ffinlo Costain: I think you are quite right about thekey concern that I and other colleagues I have spokenwith have. There has to be a whole-farm approach. Ifpublic goods are being delivered, it has to be a combinationof public goods and we need baseline assessmentssupporting that around carbon and biodiversity thatare whole-farm. From our perspective, it would behorrible if we go through all this work and have all thisambition but end up with a sparing approach, where wehave one bit of land put off for sequestration with Sitkaspruce, creating the various challenges that that does,another bit for rewilding, and another bit for ever-moreintensive food production. It is critically important thatwe face the challenges of the whole-farm approach. Thebest and most efficient way to make progress is for everyhectare, as far as possible, to deliver good, nutritiousfood, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversityrestoration. A whole-farm approach is absolutely critical,and we would welcome an amendment that crystallisesthat and makes it clearer in the Bill.

Martin Lines: The only concern is with those who donot engage in the system and choose not to take publicgoods money. How are they going to be legislated foragainst the minimum standards?

Q6 Kerry McCarthy: Do you mean the baselineregulations?

Martin Lines: Under the current system we havecross-compliance. With those who choose not to engagein the system, because they want to push for productivity,


how is the system going to legislate for and regulate thebasic standards? Who is going to be the policeman forthe countryside, to raise standards and make sure theyare enforced? We have seen many problems already withsoil health degradation and other environmental issuesthat are not being addressed.

Q7 Kerry McCarthy: As I understand it, at the moment,farmers will get the basic payments for just having theland. If you check cross-compliance and they are notmeeting the standards, they will be penalised. Are yousaying that if you have a public goods approach, andpeople get rewarded only for the good stuff they do,there is not a way of penalising them or holding them toaccount if they are not meeting standards?

Martin Lines: We are not sure who is going to beholding them to account or what kind of standardsthere are. Nor do we know how those who choose notto engage in the system will be held to account, becauseyou cannot withhold a payment if they are not receivinga public goods payment. We need to make sure that thatstandards system is in place.

Caroline Drummond: I think there are some nuances,in terms of the “mays” and the “musts”—there shouldbe a bit more “must”in some areas. Whole-farm approachesare absolutely critical. I have been an advocate of thewhole-farm approach for the last 30 years, and I think itis absolutely key to making sure that soil management,climate change mitigation and biodiversity, and indeedlandscape and cluster-type approaches, are driven in.That is where the ELMS projects will be really vital. Alot of their design is based around land managementplans, which I imagine will be whole-farm. A lot of thethird tier is proposed to be around cluster groups andlandscape scale-type approaches. It goes back to thisquestion of farmers choosing not to be engaged at all,how do we account for that? How do we really drive andmatch the ELMS within the ambition of the Bill?

Jack Ward: While there is a lot of focus on publicmoney for public goods, making sure that UK agricultureis inherently profitable is hugely important, because noamount of public funding is going to supplement anoverall lack of profitability. If in five years’ time we havean inherently unprofitable farming industry for whateverreason, I just do not think there is going to be enoughpublic funding available to make good that shortfall.Alongside public money for public goods, we reallyhave to ensure that basic agriculture can wash its face.

The Chair: Mr Costain, and then we really must moveon.

ffinlo Costain: The issue of eligibility for public fundsis really critical. What Wales is planning is interesting. Itis planning that there will be a requirement for baselineassessments on carbon and biodiversity before farmersare even eligible for the public goods payment. That willtake place annually to continue that eligibility. That is areally positive approach, and it is important. Whole-farm,getting the eligibility, making sure of that baseline andcontinued monitoring of metrics are critical.

Q8 Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby)(Con): I declare an interest: I am a farmer in NorthYorkshire, where we have been since 1850, and a memberof the National Farmers Union and the Country Land

and Business Association. The question I want to ask iswhether you think the Bill will do enough to enable usto get the balance right and reward people for what theyare doing already—I am thinking particularly of someof the upland farmers on the North Yorkshire moorsand in the very marginal parts of our country. Mostpeople probably take the view that they should keepdoing exactly what they are doing, because that isexactly what we want. The flip side of that is incentivisingother farmers, perhaps in the east of the country, onsome of our more intensively farmed areas, to do moregreen things. Do you feel that there is enough in the Billto reassure those who are in those upland areas who areconcerned because the subsidies are basically what arekeeping them on the land, and the others—the BeeswaxDyson Farmings of this world—who can dance to thetune that the Minister is playing? I think Caroline mightbe the best person to start.

Caroline Drummond: I am not too sure. It is interestingthat there is a lot about livestock production in here, buta lot of that level of detail will have to come through thepolicy support, because upland farmers are under ahuge amount of pressure. There are discussions aroundthe meat challenges of Veganuary and climate changemitigation, but we should look at what they offer interms of tourism and capability to manage. For thosevery sensitive land areas, right through to some of thehigh-value peat areas, I think there will be the need toget some really good ELM projects to better understandhow we can support those farmers. Exeter University isdoing a lot of work in this area at the moment to findout how those farmers, as Jack just said, can actuallymake a profit at the end of the day. There are a lot ofsocial services, public goods, environmental goods, tourismand additionalities that these farmers offer on incrediblytight margins.

Martin Lines: I think there will be movement withpayments. As an arable farmer in Cambridgeshire on alarge field system, the productivity of my landscape isreally good. Most years it is quite a good, profitablesystem. If you are in the marginal areas—the uplands,in the west country where there is a smaller field-scalesystem—the public goods should be rewarding youmore. I will probably receive less public goods money,but that will be moved, hopefully, across to the uplandsand those cherished areas that cannot deliver moreproductivity, but need to be supported to deliver thepublic goods and with the landscape delivery stuff. Itshould be swings and roundabouts, but it should be fair.The detail is not in there and we need to see thattransition. It is going to be about the journey if wemove from one to the other and give farmers confidenceabout the future.

ffinlo Costain: I understand your point, Mr Goodwill.There is one farmer we work with in Northumberlandwith 1,000-odd acres on a sheep farm. When we haverun the metrics of looking at his carbon footprint withGWP*—global warming potential “star”—the newaccurate way of accounting for methane, which is verydifferent from the way methane was accounted for18 months ago and was recognised in the Committee onClimate Change land report just a couple of weeks ago,his farm impact is less than the average household offour, which is astonishing. We want to make sure thatfarm continues to get the funding as well.


We have proposed in the past that an acreage basisfor that continuing maintenance of excellence could bea way to go because we need to make sure—exactly asI think you are saying—that we do not just restorebiodiversity, we do not just mitigate climate change, butwe hold and maintain that excellence afterwards. I hopethat, within public goods applications, farmers will beable to make the case that they are continuing to deliverexcellence. All farms can be better managed. We neverachieve sustainability; it is a journey. However, if farmerscan make the case that they are delivering public goodsand continuing to deliver that—I would like to hearfrom Ministers on that—I hope they will continue to beeligible.

Jack Ward: From the fresh produce industry, in termsof sector, I think there is a lot of interest in what theELMS might offer. Just coming back to the earlierquestion: until we see the detail it is difficult to make ajudgment.

Q9 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):It is very encouraging to hear your enthusiasm forimproving the standards of the producers you represent.How concerned are those folks about cheaper importsundercutting produce through trade deals that might benegotiated in the future? Would you like to see somethingpreventing that in the Bill? Certainly, the farmers Ispeak to are increasingly concerned about that.

Martin Lines: If we do not have the rug taken fromunder our feet: we are told to produce to a standard, butif different standards are allowed to be imported, howcan we compete? Our costs are different. If the standardis positive across the platform, we can compete. It maybe a different price model, but we can compete with thatstandard. We should export our environmental footprint.We can bring in produce from around the world to thesame standard, so other people’s standards can increase.There is huge risk because if we are told to producegoods to a standard, then yes, there needs to be somethingin the Bill or an assessment of the amount of stuffallowed in that is below our standards. We already allowin a lot of products below our standards. We are notallowed to use neonicotinoid treatments or geneticallymodified processes in the UK, but we import hugequantities. So there needs to be that sort of balance. Iwould struggle to say none, but there needs to bebalance and fairness for the whole farming industry.

Caroline Drummond: It would be fair to say they areextremely concerned, and I think the majority of farmersare very concerned about not undercutting the capabilityand the investment that they have made. We are veryfortunate. We work with a lot of can-do farmers whohave made a huge investment in making sure they reachthe level of trying to be more sustainable; trying toensure that welfare standards are meeting and goingbeyond the regulation; and driving for new innovationand ways of improving and doing things. As Martin hassaid, offshoring the environmental and animal welfaredelivery and the learnings we have made from thosepractices that are just not acceptable—not only to ourfarmers but to our customers—is not good news. Thereis a double whammy because although many countriessay they do not support their farmers, they do in manydifferent ways. That will be through investments andfree advice. You just have to go on to the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture website to see the substantialamount of money that is going to support marketing,

drainage schemes, flood alleviation, irrigation and soon. We need to be very careful. There is that second hitof not only importing produce that potentially does notmeet the standards or requirements of our farmers, butin addition to that is also being supported throughdifferent ways.

Jack Ward: In the fresh produce industry, we alreadyimport from about 90 countries, so there is a fair degreeof free trade within fresh produce. I think the areas thatwould concern our growers are particularly aroundproduction systems that would be unlawful in the UK.That is particularly around crop protection and labourwelfare standards. Those are two very key areas for thesector.

ffinlo Costain: I think it is terribly important, exactlyas everybody else has said, but there are two sides to thisparticular coin. I understand, hear and welcome whatMinisters have said repeatedly, that standards will notbe lowered and that trade deals will not allow that tohappen but, in terms of farmer and public confidence,it needs to be written in the Bill. I think it is reallyimportant that it is there.

I think that partly because of the impact that it couldhave on food, but also because of the impact it has onthe industry that grows up around excellence: the marketing,the branding, the new technology, which Britain canbecome excellent and fantastic in. Associated with that—theother side of it—is what does brand GB look like? Whatare we exporting?

The opportunity here is to get something right inBritain, to do something excellent in terms of foodproduction and the environment, and to export thatknowledge and those brands and that technology aroundthe world. When I look at Ireland, with Origin Green, itis the only example that exists of a national scheme ofmetrics. In Ireland, it is only around carbon; it does notyet incorporate GWP*, so it is flawed. It does not includebiodiversity.

There is an opportunity for Britain when we get themetrics right, when we are collecting these at a nationallevel, which also, by the way, means that we can betterinform policy making in future, that this can underpinthe British brand. If we allow food in that is undercuttingour standards, it undermines our brand. It not onlyundermines our farmers, but the industry as a whole.

Caroline Drummond: We operate a global standardwith LEAF marque; 40% of UK fruit and veg is LEAFmarque certified. The fresh produce and the farmersthat we work with on a global scale are meeting thesame requirements demanded of our farmers in thiscountry.

The Chair: We are now halfway through the evidencesession. I have lots of colleagues who want to askquestions and I want to ensure that they are all called.

Q10 Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con): Irefer Members to the Register of Members’ FinancialInterests for my interest as a very small farmer. I havea question for Mr Lines. You mentioned that tenantsshould get the payment. Can I ask you two things? Areyou advocating a change in business farm tenancyarrangements and land tenure? Or are you really sayingthat money from the Government should go to theperson who physically farms, rather than the landowner,or a mixture of both? Would you please clarify?


Martin Lines: It would be a mixture of both. Manyof the tenancies that are currently written are too short,with many of three to five years, because of the uncertaintyahead. They would be rewritten and reframed. Theperson doing the job— the work, the delivery of thosepublic goods—should receive the income.

If it is about land, natural capital and somethinginfrastructure-wise of trees, the landowner may getsome of that. If it is about the delivery of habitat andflood mitigation, so that you are losing crop yield orchange of land use, the tenant can manage some ofthat. It will be a redefining, but I think the industry willcope with it. We just need the timeframe for how wedeliver it.

Q11 Daniel Zeichner: I would like to return to thevexed issue of imports to potentially lower standards.ffinlo, you mentioned some of the potential impacts. Iwould like everyone to comment on the potentialenvironmental impact, given that people are so positiveabout the potential here. If we do find ourselves beingundercut by lower-standard imports, what would be theeffect on the environmental aims in the Bill?

Caroline Drummond: I think potentially farmers willwalk away from supporting them ultimately, if themarketplace is not delivering against the requirementsexpected of the imported produce and farmers areincreasingly required to deliver against goods that arecosting them from a business perspective. That is oneof the big dangers. A bigger issue is offshoring, andthe fact that we have nine years to deliver against thesustainable development goals. We have the Parisagreements. We have a fantastic opportunity with theconference of the parties talks on climate changebeing held in this country later this year to herald ourambitions for delivering and demonstrating leadershipin environmental delivery and in climate change mitigationdelivery.

We might think we can compete on a global level interms of a huge productivity market, but actually weare just small producers on a global scale. Our realopportunity lies in being the best at what we do. Wealready have such a good background: despite all thecriticism that farmers get for delivering or not deliveringagainst the environment, they have been hugely committedsince 2001, after foot and mouth, through entry levelstewardship and higher level stewardship agreements,to deliver vast changes and improvements, with strongownership in how farmers are farming in this country.It would be a real shame to lose that. The Bill is anopportunity to build on that backbone and to place ourfarmers in a position whereby we continue to be worldleading, but with more focused ambition and strongclarity on what we deliver from an environmentalperspective.

Jack Ward: In terms of delivering environmentaloutcomes, we are looking at a balance between a farmeror grower’s own investment and public money. If youstart to cut away at the farmer’s ability to invest as anindividual, you lose an important part of the fundingthat will deliver the overall environmental improvementsthat you are looking for.

ffinlo Costain: I think the future for UK farmers hasto be in quality. Volume production will increasinglybecome a mug’s game. I would not advise farmers to go

into it. It should be about environmental excellence,animal welfare excellence and sustainability excellence.The danger is that if it comes into the country, somecustomers—perhaps quite a lot of customers—will buyit. That is where the undermining happens: it underminesour ability to develop that comprehensive basis forenvironmental excellence, and it will challenge emergingsupply chains in particular. Part of our big challengeover the next 10 years is to shorten supply chains andto make sure that farmers are better able to claimdecent farm-gate prices by selling direct or throughmany fewer cogs before they reach the customer. Iworry about those smaller and emerging supply chainsbeing undermined.

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): How doyou assess that the security of food supply will beimproved by the Bill? What do you see as the UK’sgreatest threat to food security?

Martin Lines: Food security can only come fromhealthy soil and a healthy environment. If we over-producefrom our soils, we degrade them and there will be nofood security for future generations. We need a balanceof how we manage our landscape and how much we canproduce from that balanced landscape. We can thenconsider what products we need to import, and whetherwe need to do other things or change diets or changetjhe system. There needs to be an assessment of howour landscape looks, with a joined-up approach tolandscape productivity.

ffinlo Costain: Traditionally, food security has beenabout volume and about being able to feed everybody.That has led us to the challenges we now face, whichMartin just referred to. Food security comes from beingable to produce good, nutritious, diverse and seasonallyavailable food. That means we need to restore soil, havegood water management, and good community dynamics,with complexity returned to our swards and landscapeswhere nature works with farmers to produce that food.

Looking forward 40 years to how society could breakdown as a result of climate change and biodiversity loss,food is the critical factor. If you look around the worldat conflicts, including Syria, food is the critical factorthat creates conflict. The way that we deliver nationalsecurity is not by producing volume, but by ensuringthat every hectare of our land can produce really goodfood, and by maintaining the rural economies and theability of farmers to farm that land. That is why it iscritical that we do not go down the route of sequestrationhere, wilding there, and food here. We need to be able tobuild broad diversity so that we have national foodsecurity in the future.

Caroline Drummond: There is often a lot of confusionaround food security. There is the issue of our capabilityto grow, and having the infrastructure to support farmerswith seed, fertiliser, tractor tyres, and investment in thatarea. There is the issue of what we actually mean byself-sufficiency, how we build our targets, and whetherwe are ambitious enough. There is food safety. We havesome concerns about imported produce in terms offood safety challenges. That has been well heralded.There is also the issue of food defence—our capabilityto trade confidently, and to have the opportunity toreceive food where we do not have self-sufficiency orsufficient produce.


It is a highly complex area. I think it is one area in theBill where we would report every five years. Perhapsthat could be amended to reporting every year, becauseit is so important.

Jack Ward: In the fresh produce industry, we are verydependent on imports to meet our needs. Arguably, it isthe one area of food production where we want toincrease consumption. Ultimately, the ability to increaseour food security is down to grower confidence, and awillingness by growers to keep investing, and the returnsthat they can generate from that activity. The last sixmonths have not done great things for grower confidence.

Q12 Daniel Zeichner: I would like to go back to thequestion of food security, and to some of the pointsthat people have made. I am very concerned by some ofwhat I am hearing, because it seems to me that there is adanger of a two-tier system emerging. A very high-quality,high-value system is, to ffinlo’s point, not about chasingvolume. Is there not a potential problem ahead for us ifwe are not careful, in that we will not produce nearly asmuch of our own food as we would like? Going backto my earlier question, that also has environmentalconsequences. It goes back to a point that I think Jackmade at the beginning: the sector needs to be profitableto keep people working. Is there a real danger here?

Martin Lines: If I am producing wheat, I can increasemy yield by putting more products on, but that has ahigher environmental risk, because a lot of those nitratesand products will leave the soil, because the crop hasnot used them in some years. If we hit the sweet spotwith the productivity of our landscape, we can producewhat the landscape can cope with, and push it someyears, when needed, as well as ease off. It is aboutfinding the balance point. We know from many livestockfarmers that reducing livestock numbers actually makesthem healthier, better animals, and they produce quickerbecause there are fewer there and the grass is better.

We have focused for so long just on yield and output,not profitability. Reducing my overall output gives memore profit at the end of the day. It is a funny way tolook at how it works, but you end up spending morethan you get in return. You chase the extra yield byspending more money. We need to find the place wherewe deliver as much as we can. Sometimes we can pushthat if we need to—if there are weather challenges, orother issues—but we should not be out there just topush it, doing environmental damage as a consequenceof my farming operations.

ffinlo Costain: The most intensive food systems areenvironmentally damaging. They are damaging in termsof farm animal welfare, and often just in terms of thejobs that are provided for people, which are not pleasant.The death knell needs to be rung for those sorts offarms.

There is an assumption that with environmentalexcellence, because of our association with going frommainstream to organic, comes a reduction in yield.There does not need to be a reduction. There are somany examples, here and around the world—Martinbeing one—of regenerative agriculture, which is givingenvironmental excellence and social excellence. Farmanimal welfare is not an issue on his farm, but elsewherethere are regenerative beef and cattle systems whereyield is being maintained in terms of mainstream amounts,and even increased.

There is an assumption that high environmentalstandards mean a reduction in yield; that is not necessarilythe case. It is not just about looking at volume; it isabout looking at a whole range of different changes. Weneed a dietary shift in Britain. That does not mean nomeat and dairy, but it probably does mean a bit lessmeat and dairy as we go forward, and a bit more fruitand vegetables. We can deliver that, with agroforestryapproaches and regenerative approaches. We can morethan sufficiently provide food for the people of thiscountry—I have no doubt about that—but it will meanchanges in diet, and a little bit of change in the way thatwe farm, at the same time as focusing on multipleoutcomes, rather than simply the outcome of producinglots of food. It is food, climate and biodiversity.

Caroline Drummond: We have a tremendous amountof evidence and case studies to demonstrate the importanceof integrated farm management practices and how farmershave increasingly adopted them, in terms of economicviability, good performance and optimising the capabilityof the land. That is a really strong driver. One of the bigkeys will be how we link the Agriculture Bill with theEnvironment Bill and the national food strategy—thisis such an opportunity for really trying to work outwhat it is that we want to develop and to balance and tobuild in what we grow, how we grow it and how weimprove the health of our nation as well.

Q13 Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con): My questionrelates to employment numbers in the farming sector.Will we see people entering the sector that otherwisewould not, as a result of the Bill? What will we see interms of demographics, and what will we see in terms ofthe skillset of people working in the sector?

ffinlo Costain: My hope is that we would see growthin all of those areas. In order to have farming excellencewe need to have working farms. In the future, there maybe fewer farmers spending their days on tractors, butthere will be more farmers doing more high-value jobsand more marketing within the countryside. If we lookat cattle and shortening supply chains, we ought to besupporting—we can through the Bill—new infrastructure,such as local abattoirs and co-operatively owned abattoirs.That creates new jobs and infrastructure within thecountryside, which can then be sold with the marketingand branding jobs that go along with that. I want to seegood-quality jobs, not just jobs, and there is the opportunityhere, if we get it right, to create good-quality jobs, andmore of them.

Caroline Drummond: Maybe I missed it, but I do notknow whether the Bill itself would be the driver formore people to say, “Yay, I want to go into agriculture.”There is an opportunity to go into agriculture, withexciting innovations and technology, and the fact thatwe touch each of the five senses, which no other industrydoes. We do a lot of education programmes at LEAF.We run Open Farm Sunday. From that point of view, itis about getting more people more connected with theirfood. Some of the supporting information around thingslike the national food strategy and the 25-year environmentplan have to help to support and drive enthusiasm—haveto help to inspire a younger generation to recognise thatthe food sector, the farming sector and its associatedindustries are really fantastic. We have fewer youngpeople coming through and we just have to compete alittle bit harder than every other industry.


Jack Ward: There will be more competition for labour,and trying to attract people into the industry will bemore difficult. Certainly, within our sector there willbe a big drive towards automation to take labour out ofthe equation, because it will be harder to come by. Asearlier speakers have alluded to, as a consequence wewill see higher-value jobs. We will see more technologistsand more people designing and managing systems, ratherthan doing some of the manual work that we have seenthem do over the past 25 years.

The Chair: We have 15 minutes left and at least fivecolleagues want to ask questions. I call Kerry McCarthy.

Q14 Kerry McCarthy: May I just ask about theclimate change angle? The NFU has said that it wantsto reach net zero farming by 2040. There is no target inthe Bill. My concern is that farmers do not really have aroad map for reaching that target—we are relying onindividual farmers to perhaps pick up on the publicgood element that is mentioned. Could the Bill bestronger in terms of the net zero commitment?

ffinlo Costain: The first thing that needs to happen isthat the metrics need to be right. At the moment, theGovernment are still wedded to GWP100—global warmingpotential over 100 years—which is focused on emissions,rather than warming from emissions. That is critical,because it really changes the role of cattle and sheep.

Oxford Martin brought out science by Professor MylesAllen, who was an author on the IPCC’s 1.5° C report.We now have an accurate metric for accounting formethane, and it changes things. By and large, the warmingimpact of cattle and sheep farms will be about 75% downin terms of methane. If we focus on emissions, it drivesvery different actions. If we focus on warming, we seethat cattle and sheep on grazing land that is really wellmanaged, ideally in a regenerative way, can contributeto the climate mitigation, climate adaptation andbiodiversity that we are all talking about.

Before we start talking about hard targets, we need tomake sure that those metrics are there, because at themoment, farmers are being undermined because theydo not trust the metrics. That is critical. The Governmentclearly have ambitions and goals for net zero elsewhere.Farmers are working towards their own goals. We areworking with farmers in Northumberland who controlmost of the national park there. They are committed tonet zero by 2030. We can deliver it rapidly when we getthe metrics right.

Q15 Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): It isnot a financial interest, but I should declare an interestas a former employee of the National Farmers Union.What does the Bill do for the regulatory environment inthe United Kingdom? What is your assessment of howthe Bill will affect that? Are you concerned about therisk of any regulatory divergence between the devolvednations?

Martin Lines: Yes, there is a risk. It is not clear howthat regulatory authority and the baseline will work,who will police it, and how that will be transferredacross the four nations. If you are farming either side ofa border, will you have two different standards? Howwill you compete with those together?

A lot of what is in the Bill is focused on England. Weare waiting for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotlandto develop their plans. It is about how we link it together,not race away with just England, because if you arefarming both sides of the border, move from one side tothe other, or move products from one side to the other,you will have real complications. We do not see thatjourney of who is going to manage that regulatoryauthority and baseline.

Jack Ward: If I may chip in on producer organisations,it would be helpful if we could have commonalitywithin producer organisations, and not have one systemin Scotland, another in Northern Ireland and anotherin England.

ffinlo Costain: This touches on non-regression fromEU rules, which is really important. I would feel morecomfortable if it were stated that there was going to benon-regression on standards.

Regulations are a safety net; they are there so thatnobody goes below them. I want farmers to go abovethem, to tell customers about how they are goingabove them and delivering, and to brand around that.Theoretically, it should not be an issue, if farmers aregoing above, stepping beyond, managing to deliver whatKerry was talking about with net zero at an earlierstage, and telling customers about that. The fact thatthere is a safety net there, and that there may be a bit ofdivergence between different nations, is less importantthan the fact that people are going beyond it and theyare making money because they are telling customersabout it and customers are buying it.

Caroline Drummond: Ultimately, there is the opportunityto create a new governance, in terms of how theGovernment work with the industry and non-governmentalorganisations through to farmers and landowners. Someof the reporting that came out of Dame Glenys Stacey’sreport demonstrated that there may be new ways for usto make it move forwards effectively.

Q16 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead)(Lab): The main clause of the Bill provides Ministerswith the power to make payments to farmers, which ismost likely to be allocated on the basis of environmentalimprovements, not how land is farmed. The Bill doesnot give any clear guidance on how environmentalimprovements will be measured. Do you have any thoughtson that?

Caroline Drummond: Potentially, that all goes back tothe metrics, and what we are looking to ultimatelydeliver. The Environment Bill has set out some of therequirements in that area, although that obviously goesbeyond farming as well. The 25-year environment planalso covers that area. We have seen, through things likethe sustainable development goals and all our globalcommitments, that there are some really good opportunitiesto align our ambition here in the UK with deliveringagainst some of those areas. It all depends on howELMS are going to be managed and developed, but thisis where some good environmental performance metricsand targets are starting to come through—hopefullyfrom some of the targets that farmers are setting andworking with Government on in a particular area.

ffinlo Costain: There are two aspects to your question.The first is what those measures are. As many Membershere and Ministers know, we have been working very


closely with Government, particularly on the farm animalwelfare metrics and how those relate to the environment.That is critical; what those metrics are is really important,and Government needs to start collecting those.

Then there is the question of the mechanisms—whocollects those metrics, and how. From that perspective,Government could work much more closely with assuranceschemes to make sure that the metrics that they arecollecting are good proxies for what Government wants,and that the new metrics that the Government arelooking at are then embedded within those assuranceschemes, so that assurance schemes that are alreadygoing on farm can do that metrics collection. Thenfarmers can sign to say that they are happy for some ofthose metrics to be self-reported. For example, RSPCAAssured may be collecting 500 metrics, perhaps in termsof pigs or sheep, but Government does not want all ofthose. There are perhaps 15 key ones that Governmentwants, and farmers need to tick a box to say that theyare happy for those to be self-reported, perhaps throughthe assurance schemes. So there is what the metrics are,and the mechanisms for collection.

Caroline Drummond: We have already earned recognitionwith the Environment Agency, Red Tractor and LEAFMarque, in terms of helping support that relationship.

Q17 Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con): I represent a ruralconstituency with a lot of dairy and arable, and some ofthe biggest fruit producers in the west midlands. Quite alot of farmers have said to me that they are currentlyenrolled in things like countryside stewardship schemes,and they are going to transition over. Caroline, youmentioned the ELMS scheme. Does this Bill do enoughto help them transition over to the new schemes? Are wedoing enough to support farmers in the longer term?For example, I have people signing county farm tenancyagreements, which are for 10 years, but we have guaranteedpayment for only five years over this parliamentaryterm. Are we doing enough to support them in thelonger term?

Martin Lines: We need guaranteed long-term fundingor the ambition to deliver it. On a five-year rolling plan,I am planning eight or 10-year rotations in farm planning.If you are taking on tenancies for longer than that, thebusiness risk is huge. It is about that long-term development.In the transition that we are going to have from onesystem to the other, we need to be clear and transparentabout how that will fit and how we can move. It hasbecome clearer that if we can enter into a stewardshipagreement now, we will be able to move into the ELMSwhen it becomes available, before the end of the period.It is about how we are flexible within those schemes.The current system has been delayed payments, with anightmare bureaucracy. It has over-measured and over-regulated, and there has been no trust in the farmer todeliver. We need to build that into the new scheme, andbuild trust with farmers to work to that system.

ffinlo Costain: Countryside stewardship has been veryinput-focused. Often farmers have done something becausethere is a box to tick—because they are getting paidfor x, rather than because it necessarily delivers theoutcome. I think that is what Martin was alluding to. Itis not the most successful scheme. There is this five-yeartransition, where the basic payments are going out. Inthat time, it is for farmers to step up and understandhow to deliver these outcomes, and to develop, either

individually or across landscapes, proposals that deliverthose public goods. So long as we are focused onoutcomes rather than inputs, we will make progress.Farmers should be absolutely at the forefront of that.

Caroline Drummond: A little bit more security andclarity in the timescale is really important. Obviously,farmers do not make decisions today for tomorrow;many decisions are made three or four years in advance.Many crops are grown for nine or 10 months—forlivestock, it is a longer time span—before you get anylevel of return. That timescale is at the moment not100% clear, because decisions could be made at the verylast minute. That is a big concern.

We must not forget that although a lot of the stewardshiphas not been ideal, for every pound that farmers getfrom support mechanisms they are delivering so muchmore from an environmental perspective, because it isgood for their business and because, obviously, theyfundamentally believe it. We do need to build confidencethat the system will work, and that farmers really wantto adopt it. We are involved in some of the trials for theELMS project, and it is really encouraging to see farmersvery much embracing it and saying, “Yeah, we want tobe involved.”

ffinlo Costain: I said earlier that land use—the waywe farm—is the golden ticket for getting us out of thechallenges we face and continuing to support foodproduction. I want to give you a couple of statistics.Funding for agriculture is £3.1 billion, but that is tiny interms of Government expenditure. For every citizen inBritain, we are paying less than £1 per week to farmers forall the good work they do, which we have been talkingabout. Compare that with £42 per citizen per week forthe NHS. Just administrating central Government is£3.57 a week per citizen, so farming is getting very little.

In terms of managing the transition and making surethat farmers can deliver, somebody has to say it: farmersshould be getting more because they are doing such agood job. In the future we will be expecting so muchmore, and I would like the budget to increase.

Q18 Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab): Iwant to come back to the point about bringing sustainablefood production closer to people’s lives. What measurescould be added to the Bill to encourage local communityschemes to reduce food poverty and improve goodnutrition?

Jack Ward: I think the two are largely unrelated. Oneis an income issue, and there is a separate farming issue.Conflating the two is a problem because the food weproduce is often not leaving the farm at a sustainableprice, and the opportunity to drive that price down isvery limited.

Martin Lines: We need clear transparency within thesupply chains, and parts of the Bill address that. Who isgetting the benefit out of the produce? Farmers areselling at a gate price that is way lower than the retailprice, so who benefits? How can we join up the supplychains to shorten them and give farmers the opportunityto market more directly? There will be lots of excitingtechnologies and systems that may be able to do that,but it is about incentivising that opportunity.

ffinlo Costain: I think you have highlighted a realchallenge, and I am not quite sure how we address itwithin the Bill. We do not want to see farmers in Britain


uniformly producing high-quality produce that just fuelsmiddle-class meals and those of affluent people. Weneed to recognise that an awful lot of people live inpoverty or relatively close to poverty, and we need to beable to feed those people as well. But I do not think thatwe do that just by continuing with the model that wecurrently have, which involves ever more intensive volumeproduction and low-nutrition food. We need good food.That is about the supply chain. As Martin said, it isabout how we connect people who are living in moredisadvantaged areas, with food. Often, if you are buyingdirectly—if you are buying food and making mealsyourself—it is a hell of a lot cheaper than living on PotNoodle or whatever else.

Caroline Drummond: One of the scary facts is that50.8% of the food we eat in this country is ultra-processed;in France, it is 14%. We do not know about the sustainabilityof highly processed food, and we often do not know itscountry of origin. This is where the national foodstrategy is such a core part of trying to understand whatour ambition is for the health and the connection ofwhat we grow. It is out of kilter at the moment and in avery difficult place.

Going back to Jack’s comment, the Bill is abouttrying to drive the ambition for a highly productive,responsible and sustainable farming system. We need tobe very careful. There is often confusion. Poverty is asocial issue, rather than necessarily an issue that farmerscan respond to, and we need to be very careful that, asan industry, we are not subsidising the social challengeof poverty.

Q19 Nadia Whittome: Perhaps I was being confusingby mentioning two things in my question. What can theBill do to encourage local community food schemes totackle food poverty and improve good nutrition?

ffinlo Costain: Funding of infrastructure, which ispartly in the Bill. It is perhaps about broadening thedefinition of “infrastructure”. In the same way thatpeople ought to be able to apply for funding to put upthe local abattoir that will make a big difference to thefarmers, the land that they are presenting, the pricesthat they are getting and their ability to sell directly tothe public locally, you are perhaps right to say that thereneeds to be support for those sorts of schemes as well.

Caroline Drummond: Interestingly, food productivityis mentioned in here. One would hope that that is goingto be the link in terms of trying to define what thenational food strategy looks like, because—

The Chair: Order. I am afraid that brings us to theend of this session, but on behalf of the Committee,many thanks to our witnesses. You gave us invaluableinformation. Thank you very much indeed.


Thomas Lancaster, John Cross, Simon Hall, ChristopherPrice and David Bowles gave evidence.

10.31 am

Q20 The Chair: Welcome, witnesses. We have five ofyou, so this is going to be challenging to say the least.We will hear evidence from the Royal Society for theProtection of Birds, the Royal Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals, the Rare Breeds Survival Trust,the Traceability Design User Group and LivestockInformation Ltd. Would you please briefly introduceyourself ?

Thomas Lancaster: My name is Tom Lancaster. I amthe acting head of land, seas and climate policy at theRSPB, so I oversee our work on the Agriculture Bill,but also lots of our work on forestry, climate change,marine policy and similar issues.

Simon Hall: I am Simon Hall. I am the managingdirector of Livestock Information Ltd, which is a verynew company, set up on 1 October, with a remit todesign and implement a new multi-species livestocktraceability service in England, but also to potentiallyprovide some UK capabilities. Just so you know mybackground, I am on secondment into this role fromDEFRA, so I am substantively a civil servant, but onsecondment for the next two years to deliver thisprogramme.

John Cross: I am John Cross. My roots are in farming,and I still have a farming business. For the past threeyears, I have chaired a pan-industry and Governmentdesign working group that has worked with Simon toco-create the new traceability system that will be deliveredby LI Ltd. For the sake of openness, I should say that Ihave just been appointed as chair of that company, soI will be working with Simon, who is the managingdirector.

Christopher Price: My name is Christopher Price. Iam chief executive of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust,an organisation that exists to promote and conserve theuse of native breed livestock.

David Bowles: I am David Bowles. I am the assistantdirector of public affairs at the RSPCA. The RSPCAwrites the standards for RSPCA Assured, which is theUK’s only higher welfare assurance scheme.

The Chair: I know that at least one of you hasgiven evidence to these sessions before—maybe two orthree of you—but please enjoy the session, which runsuntil 11.25 am.

Q21 George Eustice: The Bill explicitly recognisesanimal health and welfare and native breeds as a publicgood. In recent years, we have seen a specialisation inarable in some parts of the country and a concentrationof livestock in others. Some say that we need to getlivestock back on the lowlands, so that we have morepermanent pasture, more crop rotation, more organicmatter in the soil and so on. I wonder whether those ofyou who feel able might comment on the benefits oflivestock in our land management and in the farmingsystem.

Christopher Price: I speak particularly on behalf ofnative breeds, rather than livestock generally, but Ithink that promoting our native breeds is hugely important.Dealing with economics first of all, you have pointed tothe uplands as an area where it is harder to grow cropsand where people therefore keep livestock, but that doesnot rule out having livestock elsewhere. If we have theright sort of livestock, grazed at the right density and inthe right place, we are providing environmental benefitsbecause we are creating the sorts of habitats we want.We are keeping down import costs—that helps theclimate—which reduce farm incomes. There is a business


and an environmental side to livestock, which are animportant landscape feature as well. There is somethingexciting about seeing interesting animals wanderingaround our farms. It all helps towards tourism, and asense of place and location. There are huge argumentsto support increased livestock use.

John Cross: I speak as a mixed arable and livestockfarmer, as opposed to my involvement with LivestockInformation. There is absolutely no doubt that thecombination of livestock on arable land has a profoundeffect. It is something that I would encourage the wholeindustry to look at, because as soon as you start toimprove the organic matter levels, the vibrancy and thelife within the soil, you realise the benefits that comewith drought resistance and inherent fertility. In particular,if you involve a blend of, say, pigs and ruminants onarable land, you also have a profound effect on thebirdlife that then decides to come to live on that farm. Itis something that I believe in passionately, and it works,but certainly—as I heard referred to in the earliersession this morning—you have to be mindful of stockingdensities. In particular, it is a matter of making gooduse of grazing legumes, which we are pioneering. It is avaluable mission that the Bill mentions, because weneed more organic matter in arable land.

David Bowles: Just picking up on that point, I havebeen working on CAP issues for 20 years, and this is thefirst time that we have had the opportunity to getanimal welfare into the new farm support system. Wehave only ever had one animal welfare scheme in thelast 20 years, which was in Scotland, so it is reallyimportant that we start to get animal welfare paymentsinto the system and, particularly on the stocking point,make sure that farmers are paid to go higher than thewelfare standards they have at the moment. I think youwill get win-win situations, with benefits to animalwelfare, benefits to the environment, benefits to rarebreeds, et cetera.

Thomas Lancaster: The RSPB is a big landowner andfarmer—we have 30,000 livestock across our estate. In alot of cases, those livestock are essential to the publicgoods that we deliver, particularly the high nature valuefarming systems that, again, have been a key feature ofmany CAP schemes in the past. We want to see futureschemes in England supporting those high nature valuefarming systems. Extensive livestock production will bea key feature of those systems in future and is importantin supporting species such as curlew and other breedingwaders, or habitats such as upland hay meadows.

John’s point about densities is absolutely right, becauseovergrazing is a major problem for a lot of our designatedsites and habitats. The opportunity we have in theAgriculture Bill, and with environmental land managementschemes specifically, is to support farmers to find thatoptimum balance, which Martin Lines talked about alot in the previous session and which can go handin hand with a more profitable livestock farming systemas well.

Q22 George Eustice: I have just a couple of furtherpoints. Mr Bowles, you are right, this is the first timethat a country has put as much ambition into rewardinghigh animal welfare outcomes as we do in the Bill. Yourorganisation runs the RSPCA Assured scheme. Whatlessons can we learn from that about having a payment-for-public-goods model for farmers who go above andbeyond the regulatory baseline? Also, if I may, a question

for Mr Hall: in terms of livestock traceability, are theremarket opportunities for us in having that higher healthand higher welfare supply chain, which can be demonstratedthrough the project that you are working on?

David Bowles: There are huge opportunities. We haveonly ever had one scheme in the UK, but we have hadsomething like 52 schemes over the 28 EU memberstates. The RSPCA Assured scheme is very successful incertain areas, such as laying hens, where we probablyhave 55% of production, but it is very unsuccessful inother areas, such as sheep, beef, dairy and even chickens,which are all sectors where we have under 5% and insome areas under 1%. The market is therefore notdelivering the higher welfare assurance schemes that wewant in that particular market.

That is the exciting thing about the Bill, because itwill provide the opportunity to give farmers a leg upthrough, for example, one-off capital grants, and thenprovide them with payments to ensure that, where themarket does not deliver, they can deliver those higherwelfare schemes. The RSPCA is very happy that the Billprovides for that two-step process. We think there arevery exciting times here for farmers, particularly inthose areas where we have not traditionally gone intohigher welfare schemes. For instance, at the moment,0% of ducks in the UK have access to full-body water.The expression “taking a duck to water” does not existfor UK duck farming. That is a tragedy, not just forducks, but for UK farming.

Simon Hall: There are undoubtedly opportunities inthe marketplace if we can evidence welfare standards,provenance, and so on. The Livestock Informationprogramme will put in place a new multi-species traceabilityservice that brings together data based on animals,keepership—the people who have been responsible forthe animal throughout its life—and location, the farmwhere it is based. The whole proposition of the programmethat we are delivering is about using that data not onlyto better inform Government responses to animal diseasecontrol and ensuring food safety, but to enable theindustry to take advantage of that data to evidence itsstandards and demonstrate to its consumers, domesticallyor internationally, the standards to that livestock isproduced, the provenance of the animals and so on inreal data. Working in partnership with Governmentand industry, there is an opportunity to set out our stallin a world-leading manner.

Christopher Price: To build on what has been said, animportant aspect of the Livestock Information service—ifit goes as far as I hope it does—is that it will give greaterrecognition to individual breeds. It will make it clearthat what you are buying is a saddleback or whatever.At the moment, it is very difficult for the consumer toknow that what he or she is buying is what the butcheror supermarket purports it to be, or to know when theyuse nebulous language to imply that it has a particularprovenance. If we can get to a system whereby peopleare promoting particular breeds associated with a particulararea, we will do well to create a much stronger sense ofplace and local identity, which will help with creatingnew markets.

Q23 Daniel Zeichner: I think at least three of thewitnesses are part of organisations that were signatoriesto the letter to the Prime Minister at the end of lastmonth warning about the potential risks of lower standards


for imported food. Will those three witnesses, and perhapsothers, comment briefly on what you think will be theeffect of allowing imports of food produced to lowerenvironmental welfare and health standards on consumers,producers and the environment?

David Bowles: For the RSPCA, this is probably thebiggest omission in the Bill. The Government haveresisted putting anything in the Bill that says that wewill not import produce or food to lower standards thanthose of the UK. I cannot see why they have resistedthat. The Secretary of State said, “Trust me, because it’sin the manifesto.” Frankly, I do not think that is goodenough. Last year the Government tabled their ownamendment to the Trade Bill that said exactly that. Ihope they do the same here, because if they do not, theywill leave British farmers who are producing to thosehigher welfare standards open to US imports.

For instance, 55% of the pork meat and bacon thatwe eat is imported. Virtually all that comes from theEU. If you start importing that from the USA, wherethey still have sow stalls, where they still give their pigsractopamine, which is an illegal drug in UK pig farming,you are opening up to cheaper imports coming in,particularly if you do not have consumer informationand labelling. I am pleased that labelling is in theAgriculture Bill, but this needs to be part of a matrix.You need to have the same standards for food comingin. The RSPCA is not afraid of higher welfare foodcoming in. What we are afraid of is food coming in thatis illegal to produce in the UK.

Christopher Price: I agree with everything that hasbeen said, but I think we need to be careful aboutputting too much trust in labelling. I cannot see thatpeople are going to make many purchasing decisions onthe basis of labelling. Something like less than 5% ofdecisions nowadays are based on labelling, which includesall the various organic and assurance schemes. This hasto be dealt with by legislation and regulation. Youcannot leave it to consumer good will in the supermarket.

Thomas Lancaster: I agree with all that. We workedvery closely with the NFU to co-ordinate that letter. Weview assurance around import standards as a foundationalelement of the whole future farming policy and as reallyimportant to farmers’ ability to invest in public goodsschemes with confidence.

The letter not only touched on a defensive ask, butpushed a more aspirational agenda around a role for theUK to set out a world-leading trade policy that takesaccount of societal demands such as climate change,biodiversity and all those sorts of issues, which are notreflected in modern international trade policy, and certainlynot at the World Trade Organisation.

This is often reported as: “We want protection.”Actually, as David said, we want to be able to competeon common standards. No UK farmers are calling forprotectionism for its own sake, but there is an opportunityto call for a more sustainable trade policy that has a bitmore imagination regarding how we can fight the climateand environment emergency, while embarking upon anew international trade policy, as we now will.

John Cross: It has been very well addressed already,but briefly, if society is sincere about animal welfareand is aspirational—which it should be—then it shouldnot look for one set of standards domestically and, to a

certain extent, export its conscience and accept lowerstandards from elsewhere. You should be consistent inyour attitude to animals.

Q24 Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con): Should somefinancial assistance be provided for animal welfare activitiesthat go beyond, for example, the legal minimal requirementsand normal good practice? If so, what types of activitiescould that include?

David Bowles: Yes; the RSPCA, as I said earlier, isdelighted that for the first time we have the opportunityto provide financial assistance to farmers. One of thethings that is missing from the Bill—it says it in theexplanatory notes, but it is not explicit—is that financialassistance should be given only to those above baselinestandards. We had a system where farmers could havebeen paid even if they were doing things that wereillegal. I do not want to replicate that in the new farmsupport system.

There are a lot of things that we would like theGovernment to introduce to give farmers a leg up—forinstance, providing brushes for cattle, hoof-trimmingfor cattle to reduce lameness, rubber matting for cattleto give farmers a leg up to farm at higher welfarestandards, and then giving them the opportunity to getmoney that is not provided by the marketplace, which isthe difference between farming at higher welfare andwhat the marketplace delivers.

There is a whole range and suite of issues that couldbe gathered. The RSPCA is delighted that the Governmentare looking at them seriously, and we hope that somecan be trialled in the next year.

Christopher Price: There are two aspects to yourquestion. The first is whether we have got the regulationsright in the first place. Although we might have the rightstandards, I think that most people on our side of thetable would hope that Dame Glenys Stacey’s report isimplemented, if not in full, then to a large extent. Itmight be useful to expand a bit on that in a moment.

In terms of paying for meeting regulatory standardsper se, I think this is something that applies throughout.Farming will go through the most immense structuralchange over the next four or five years, as we move to anunsubsidised, more market-facing world. There will bean incredible variety of costs for people as a result. I donot think that there is anything untoward about theGovernment helping people to make that transitionover the short term. I am talking about significantshort-term capital expenditure on the Government’spart, to get the industry match-fit—not only in terms ofwelfare, but in terms of having the right business processesand practices in place. After that, you can say, “Nowyou’re on your own. We’ve helped you to get up to thestandard that we expected of you. Now it’s for themarket to support you going forward.”

Q25 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): The Billcontains a lot of powers rather than duties. To mymind, a duty means that the Secretary of State is moreaccountable. Do you think that the Bill should containa duty for the Secretary of State to support all thepublic goods identified?

Christopher Price: Most legislation nowadays givespowers not duties. There is nothing unusual about theAgriculture Bill in that regard. The Bill is about the tool


used to implement the policy; it is not the policy initself. It would be useful to have the Government’spolicy, to know what they are going to try to implement.

Having said all that, we are talking about some reallyquite complicated stuff. Food production, which isfundamental to our existence, is all based on naturalprocesses that are really complicated. We are goingthrough huge structural changes and as a country wehave not been great at managing structural change.Bearing all that in mind, it is important that Governmenthave a full range of tools to do as they see fit, inconsultation with stakeholders. I would hate the ideathat, for reasons of legislative propriety or whatever, weended up constraining Government so much that theycould not do things that, in a few months’ time, wemight decide are absolutely essential.

Thomas Lancaster: We are very sympathetic to havingmore duties to balance the range of powers. A reportfrom the Delegated Powers and Regulatory ReformCommittee the last time the Bill was in Parliament wasquite scathing on that point. Clauses 4 to 6 are apositive step in setting out strategic objectives and theycome with a range of duties on Ministers to havemulti-annual financial plans, set objectives for thoseand have regard to those objectives when setting thebudget for those plans. That is a big step forward in thisBill on the duties-not-powers point.

We would like to see a duty in the Bill to have anenvironment and land management scheme. At themoment, it is a legal requirement under CAP-fundedrural development programmes to have an agri-environmentscheme—you cannot not have one anywhere across theUK. We want to see that duty replicated in the Bill.

It would be interesting to look at other areas in theBill as well. There are lots of powers in the Bill aroundfair dealing provisions and supply chain transparency,but there are no duties on Ministers to use those toimprove supply chain transparency. That is anotherarea where you could include a duty to clarify howthose powers were going to be used and that they weregoing to be used.

David Bowles: Clause 1(1) says:

“The Secretary of State may give”—

and then it lists the public goods. We would like to see a“must”, and the RSPCA would like to see that too. TheSecretary of State would still be applying the letter ofthe law if £1 went to animal welfare in the next five-yearperiod. We would like to see some minimum paymentsunder those particular public goods.

Q26 Fay Jones: The Bill amends the red meat levysystem, in that it irons out an imbalance that has oftenpenalised Welsh and Scottish farmers. Do you thinkthat is sufficient, or should the Bill contain furtherreforms around the red meat levy?

John Cross: I had quite a lengthy history in the levysector. The complexity around this issue is really quitedeep, because it depends on where the benefit of thelevy investment is secured, where the products derivedfrom the industry are consumed and where the supportedsupply chains sit. As for the desire to capture andformalise a more even-handed distribution back to thedevolved regions: from what I have seen of it, it does doenough. We live in a very complex domestic market;50% of Scottish beef production is consumed within

the M25. That illustrates how complex the mix is. Thered meat levy is designed—yes, funded by farmers andprocessors—to make the best of a supply chain and todeliver business enhancement throughout for the goodof consumers and producers. It is quite a complex issueand it is not just as simple as three separate lots ofindustry all wanting to do their own thing in isolation,because they are all interdependent.

Q27 Deidre Brock: This question is specifically forMr Hall and Mr Cross, just about your organisations.Can you tell us, please, how you reformed; what yourrole is; what your governance rules are, and what jurisdictionyou have in regard to Scotland and the devolved nations?

John Cross: I will leave some of the technical detail toSimon, but in principle, this is how we arrived where weare now. Yes, we have established traceability systems inthis country and they work but, as we speak, they stilltend to be a blend of paper and digital—sometimesboth at the same time. They work but they are high-maintenance. They are sub-optimal and they take a lotof resource to keep them going. They were, of course,designed to hoard data on behalf of statutory obligations,as opposed to share data, so the design principle neededto be completely different.

I think it is fair to say that Government was facedwith the reality of having to achieve an IT refresh atsome stage, with some fairly urgent timescales. For along time, industry has wanted to have the benefit ofthe use of its own data. Data was being collected aboutthe industry, but the industry could not use it to enhanceitself.

We came to a moment after the referendum where theindustry and Government were faced with a series ofscenarios that required them to think differently andstart to think together—this is where the principle ofco-creation came in—right across DEFRA and all itsdependencies, the Food Standards Agency, the RuralPayments Agency and the others, and right across theindustry to form a think-tank as to how you design,hopefully, the optimum traceability and informationsystem that enables Government to fulfil its statutoryobligations, but better and faster, while allowing industryto start adding value to itself with information.

If it is a matter of exploring global markets, you canevidence a brand vastly better. In the global marketplace,traceability is king. In that area, you have huge opportunity.Similarly, from the viewpoint of the industry looking toeradicate non-notifiable endemic production diseases,again, to tackle disease risk you need information—youneed data. As soon as you have got a unique identificationof any one animal, the information you can attach tothat provides almost endless opportunity.

Q28 Deidre Brock: But your focus is on England; isthat right?

John Cross: This is an English system; yes.

Simon Hall: But it is in the context of a UK story.This is quite complex. In the current situation, traceabilityservices are delivered through a bit of a mixed economyin the UK. Northern Ireland has a multi-species serviceoperating there for cattle, sheep and pigs. Scotland hasa traceability service for sheep and pigs. Wales has atraceability service for sheep. England operates a GBservice for cattle, and we operate a pig service forEngland and Wales, and a sheep service in England.


So, it’s quite complicated. Then, within that, there is amix of services and databases that come together toprovide a UK view of that traceability data, so thatcolleagues at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, forexample, can use that data to respond to an animaldisease outbreak or a food safety concern, or whatever.

We have an ambition in England to create a singlemulti-species traceability service, or a single servicecapability, including help desk and so on, a single ITsystem, underpinned by the ambition to exploit data,not only for the benefit of Government and statutorydisease control, but to deliver a range of outcomesexternally. In that context, the Scottish Governmentand Welsh Government have decided to bring the cattleservices into their own Administrations, and in the caseof Wales, to bring the pig service in-house as well.

We are all moving at the same time to a position thatrespects devolution, where every Administration willhave its own multi-species traceability service. Particularlyin the context of cattle, that creates a new requirementto ensure that we have a really good UK view of cattle,recognising that we are disaggregating services that arecurrently delivered through one service, so we need toensure that that comes together.

DEFRA has asked Livestock Information Ltd, aspart of the process of designing and implementing thetraceability service in England, also to ensure that thereis a way—a mechanism, a service—to ensure that wehave good visibility of that UK data. That approach issupported by UK CVOs and so on.

We are, though, at a very early stage of designingexactly how that would work. So, we do not have atechnology strategy yet for exactly how that wouldwork and whether that means that Livestock InformationLtd would have a copy of all the UK traceability data,or whether it is just providing a window into each of theservices and each of the Administrations for the Animaland Plant Health Agency to look at, for example.

We have really good relationships with colleagues ineach of the UK Administrations and we are havingregular dialogue around how this would work andwhether there would need to be some specific governancearrangements around the UK view, and so on.

Q29 Deidre Brock: So there is no suggestion of imposinga UK-wide scheme on devolved nations that alreadyhave their own.

Simon Hall: Quite the reverse.

Deidre Brock: As you have elaborated, they alreadyhave quite developed traceability schemes

Simon Hall: This is seeing a move to devolve traceabilityservices that comes together seamlessly at a UK level,recognising that disease and food contamination doesnot respect borders.

Q30 Deidre Brock: What are your governance rules,and how confident are you that the traceability set-upwill be ready in time for the end of the year when weleave the EU?

Simon Hall: There are two questions there. The firstis easy: our governance arrangements are that LivestockInformation Ltd is a subsidiary of the Agriculture andHorticulture Development Board, which is the levy

body in England. AHDB is a non-departmental publicbody of DEFRA, so it is accountable to DEFRA butfunded by the levy payer, and therefore responsible tothe farmer, grower and processor in England.

For us, the attraction of using AHDB as the parentbody for this company is the way in which we canembed the traceability service as close to industry aspossible, while retaining the sufficient control needed byGovernment. That model has already been adopted inScotland, Wales and further afield, in Australia. LivestockInformation Ltd is a company limited by a guarantee; itis a subsidiary of AHDB; it has a 49% ownership stakefrom DEFRA directly—DEFRA is important, but if itwants to exert control it does so through the levy body.

Q31 Deidre Brock: And your readiness for the end ofthe year?

Simon Hall: The business case has been approved; wehave funding in place; we have procured IT systems; wehave a team of around 50 people delivering; we areworking very closely with devolved Administrations,and we are aiming for implementation from the autumn.There is lots to do. There is lots of complexity. TheNo. 1 thing we must not do when we effect this changeis compromise our quality of traceability. If we are notready, we will delay, but there is no indication that wewill need to at the moment. We are planning forimplementation from the autumn, starting with cattle,sheep next year and pigs later next year.

John Cross: A parting message: the important thingfor us is to be smart and collaborative with the devolvedregions, because disease pathogens—whether notifiableor not—and disease outbreaks do not recognise anypolitical boundaries. We have to be smart and have aUK view on disease. If you look around the globe, onthe international trade stage we are seen as the UK. It isa UK story if a product goes out, so from the point ofview of access, wherever you go internationally, the UKis the recognised body. It is important that we have asmart, collegiate view on this.

Simon Hall: This Agriculture Bill does support thedelivery of the programme in the way we set out. Inpart 4, clause 32 talks about granting additional functionsto AHDB that will allow it to deliver that Englishtraceability service through the subsidiary body. It currentlyhas the function to deliver the programme and to designand implement the future service, but not to run it. TheBill provides the functions to do that, and the flexibilityto provide any UK functions required, or that aresensible. For example, one might imagine that allocatinga unique identity for an individual animal might besomething that we choose to do once only in the UK,and we may choose to do it from here or from somewhereelse.

The Bill provides the functions that we need to deliverthis programme in the way that we want in the futureservice; it also provides some flexibility, should we worktogether and decide that we want to carry out some UKresponsibilities.

Q32 Danny Kruger: May I quickly return to the tradedeals? Mr Cross, you said earlier that we must notexport our conscience to other countries to importcheap, low-quality food from abroad. Quite right—weneed to export our high standards, and I think we agree


[Danny Kruger]

that the Bill is the opportunity to set a world-classbenchmark model for regulating agriculture and sustainablefarming.

My question is on behalf of our producers. Theparadox is that everybody complains about the complexityof CAP, and farmers have a tough time filling in theforms. Of course, the principle of CAP is very simple:you just pay for the amount of land that you have. Weare proposing to introduce a system with a lot morecomplex objectives—quite rightly—for all the differentpublic goods. I share Ms Whittome’s point about theopportunity for community-based markets and morelocally based producers—more local sourcing. Do wethink that those community groups and small farmerswill be able to navigate what sounds to an outsider like avery complex set of objectives, and therefore potentiallysome complex subsidy systems?

John Cross: I can make a comment as a farmer ratherthan chair of Livestock Information. You make a verygood point: we are entering a very different scenario.Some farmers will need considerable help in changingthat mindset and getting used to a new environment,because it will require a lot more proactivity from thepoint of view of seeking rewards for those public goods.It will be a more complex—

Q33 Danny Kruger: Are we going to have an army ofnew consultants coming in to help themselves to someof the public money?

Thomas Lancaster: Advice is a really important partof the story. We would like to see more clarity fromDEFRA as to what advice will be made availableto farmers, particularly during that transition period.We also understand that the evidence base aroundenvironmental advice is a really good investment. Allthe evidence, particularly from work commissioned byDEFRA and Natural England, suggests that providingadvice to farmers as to how they can meet environmentaloutcomes and navigate some of the paperwork necessaryto access the public money is well worth the investmentin terms of the outcomes. We know that outcomessupported by advice are better than outcomes not supportedby advice.

We have done some social science research recentlyon farmers’ experience of those schemes with farmersthat we have been working with in south Devon for30 years on species recovery projects for the cirl bunting.That social science shows really strongly that advice isthe key element, not just in getting that environmentaloutcome but in ensuring that farmers are bought in tothe schemes, that they understand the outcomes thatthey are seeking to deliver, and that they are able to getpast some of the bureaucracy, which is an inevitableelement of this.

Although direct payments sound simple in concept,you have the eligibility rules, particularly the land eligibilityrules; the land parcel identification system; and the factthat you have to measure things to four decimal places.The fact that it is a very poor use of public money andno one really knows what it is for any more, drives a lotof those eligibility rules, because you have to providesome controls around it.

Our experience of the best agri-environment schemesin England, particularly higher level stewardship, isthat, supported by advice, they are much more intuitively

understandable for farmers—as to why they are receivingthat money—than direct payments. Analysis that wehave done of Natural England data, which we have notpublished but will probably publish in the coming months,suggests that payment rates for small farms, on the first30 hectares or so of agreements, are higher than forlarger farms, which is obviously not the case with directpayments. We know that small farms, again when supportedby advice, can profit from public goods schemes, givenour understanding of higher level stewardship and similarschemes in the past.

Christopher Price: It is important to recognise justhow much farming is going to change. It is not just amatter of changing the subsidy rules; it is a much biggerstructural change. Farmers will be producing muchmore to the market, which means that we will have adifferent type of farmer. We are already starting to seethose people—people who do not necessarily comefrom a farming background, who have made a bit ofmoney doing something more commercial, who arecoming to farming with business and marketing skills,and who are making a go of things in a very differentway. You will know some of them—Lynbreck Croft, theGood Life Meat Company, Hilltop Farm.

People are already doing it and they have quite a bigpresence. They think in a different way. It is not just aboutwho can take the biggest beast to the market every weekor month. It is about sweating all your assets, so youwill be selling the meat, but you will be selling meat witha good provenance, to high welfare standards and witha low environmental impact. If you are savvy, you willbe finding markets for the skins, the wool, the horns. Itmay not be much money per item, but together it startsto create more produce with more of a brand.

If you start thinking in terms of your public goods aswell—many farms are starting to—and working outwhat has a benefit, what you can do to improve yoursoil or your water quality, what plants you can growthat have biodiversity or climate benefits, and startticking off those, you can get there. It does not need tobe particularly complex. In many ways, although I hearwhat Tom says about the importance of advice, the waythat most farmers learn is from other farmers. It isabout encouraging farmers to go and see what theirneighbour is doing, and not thinking of their neighbouras being their competitor, but as someone who can be asource of guidance.

So, I do not think we need be worried about complexity.Conceptually, what is being promised is more straight-forward. Of course there will be compliance requirements,but many of us think that a lot of the previous compliancerequirements were more to do with EU standardisationacross 28 member states rather than being particularlynecessary to ensure the efficient use of public money. So,I think we can be optimistic about what is happening.

Q34 Kerry McCarthy: May I return to the regulatorybaseline issue I raised with the previous witnesses? TheRSPB was involved in the Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy report published this week thatsuggests that, now we have left the EU, there is a realgap in the regulatory baseline because so many regulationswere set at EU level. Is there a need for a firmerregulatory baseline in the Bill so that we know what wereward in terms of farmers going above that baseline,and so on?


Thomas Lancaster: We, the Wildlife Trusts and WWFcommissioned the report from IEEP, who are independentconsultants, to look at a future regulatory framework.Because the Bill includes provisions to move away fromcross-compliance, and in particular to delink paymentsfrom land, that potentially opens up gaps in aspects ofcurrent environmental regulatory protections that existonly in cross-compliance, particularly around soils andhedgerows—for example, cutting of hedgerows duringbirds’ breeding season and hedgerow buffer strips. Wethink there is a gap in the Bill in terms of powersnecessary for Ministers to bring forward regulatoryprotections for soils, hedgerows and other environmentalfeatures, and we would like to see the Bill amended toplug that gap.

There is a big opportunity coming off Dame GlenysStacey’s review. The farm inspection and regulationreview the Government commissioned reported in 2018.It called for a more comprehensive regulatory frameworkthat enables a more advice-led approach to enforcement,so that, rather than farmers being penalised but notreally understanding the underlying issue and thereforenot able to address it, the approach would seek to blendpenalties with advice and incentives to ensure that youget better environmental outcomes.

There is an existing model of that in the ScottishEnvironment Protection Agency and its approach. Whena breach is detected, there is a visit from an adviser or amember of staff, who says, “You have to address thisbreach. You can either go and seek advice or invest ininfrastructure if necessary.” They come back a secondtime. If the breach has been addressed, everything isfine; if it is not, they give them a third visit and, if it isstill there, then they penalise them. That approach,which Dame Glenys Stacey supported, and we supportedat the time, gets better environmental outcomes in a waythat farmers also appreciate and can understand, whereasat the moment our regulatory enforcement is verysubstandard, it is fair to say.

Again, Dame Glenys Stacey found that of 10,600 staffat the Environment Agency, only 40 do farm inspections.As a farmer, you have a one in 200 chance of beinginspected by the Environment Agency, and we knowthat the agency is again cutting back on some of thoseregulatory compliance visits. There is a huge challengein the future, not just in how we reward good practicebut in how we ensure a level playing field so that theprogressive best farmers out there are not undercut by,effectively, cowboys—unfortunately, there are some. TheBill is silent on that, and for us that is one of the biggestgaps and omissions.

John Cross: The only comment I would make—againas a farmer—is that any more regulation would need tobe fit for purpose, logical, proportionate and enforceable.Regulation is fine, but unless it is logical so people canunderstand it, and it is relatively easy to comply with, itis just a source of frustration to everyone. Certainly, theindustry is very keen to move towards an outcome-basedform of regulation as opposed to constantly arguingabout whether a particular margin is six inches toonarrow or not. The industry would be interested inseeing a much more outcome-focused approach.

David Bowles: The EU has been moving towardsan outcomes approach, but obviously leaving the EUgives us huge opportunities in the animal welfare sectors,such as sheep, beef and dairy, where there are no specific

baseline species standards at the moment. There is areal opportunity to introduce those baseline standards,which will help not just the Bill, but in establishing whatthe baseline is—and then establishing how to movefarmers up the scale, through capital inputs or throughspecific measures, and paying them where the marketdoes not deliver. There are huge opportunities to improvethe baseline regulatory standards in those areas wherethey do not exist now.

Q35 Alicia Kearns: This question is mainly for you,Mr Price. My constituency of Rutland and Melton hasquite a few farmers who farm rare breeds. Is theresufficient support for rare breeds in the Bill? Conversely,is that support the right thing to be doing? My farmerswho do not farm rare breeds would say that there is aquestion of fairness in giving too much support to rarebreeds.

Christopher Price: I will take the second part first.Should we be supporting rare breeds? Yes, we should.You probably expected me to say that.

Alicia Kearns: I thought you might, but you neverknow.

Christopher Price: We should do it, first, for economicreasons. These breeds were bred to be in a Britishlandscape. They can survive in parts of the country thatother breeds cannot, or cannot without significant inputs.In many parts of the country, people are farming thewrong animals and are doing so expensively, becausethey are using certain inputs to support them. We needsome help in getting farmers to transition away fromthe old way of doing things into going back to nativebreeds.

Native breeds can also provide a wider range ofproducts than many other breeds. I mentioned wools,skins, horns and so on, which all have markets, if peoplethink about it, or are incentivised to start thinkingabout it rather more. There is a role for Governmentin that.

Then there is the environmental side of things. Thegrassland habitats that we so cherish are there becausethey were grazed by certain animals over generations. Ifwe are going to restore those habitats, the easiest, moststraightforward way to do it is by using the animals thatcreated them in the first place.

Lastly, there is the social side. Many of these breedsare part of our history. White Park cows came overDogger island from mainland Europe before Stonehengewas built. They were part of the Cistercian monks’currency. Some of the earliest Welsh laws are about howyou regulate and use those animals. Herdwick sheepwere bred to live on top of hills in the Lake district.Swaledales were bred to be a bit further down the fells.They are an immense part of our culture.

Those are all reasons for supporting them. In termsof how you support them, I would be reluctant for us togo down a simple headage route; I think that would justcreate the wrong sort of incentives. If a farmer choosesto use native breeds to graze for particular conservationpurposes that do not bring him or her a direct financialbenefit, that is about the public benefit, which should berewarded, but it is more about making sure that we havethe right infrastructure in place.


There is a lot to do with promoting local produce. Wehave talked a bit about creating local markets. Some ofthe more savvy farmers I was talking about are doing anexcellent job of that, and part of their brand is sellinglocal breeds and local products from those breeds withina fairly narrow radius—30-odd miles. That is where thepremium comes from. It is not for everyone, but peopleare starting to do it, which is interesting.

Perhaps the single most important thing—we touchedon this a bit in the earlier session—is abattoirs. Formany of the people that I work for and represent,abattoirs are at least as important an issue as supportgoing forward. We have huge numbers of people whoare producing the right animals to the right standards ina very environmentally friendly way. You hear peopletalking about how their motivation in life is to ensurethat their animals have a life worth living and then onlyone bad day—the day they go to the abattoir—and youhave people who want to buy the products, but thewhole thing is being stymied in significant parts of thecountry because there is no abattoir that can cope. Ifthere is an abattoir, it generally will not be able to takethe small numbers of non-standard animals and giveyou back the by-products—the horns, the skins and soon. In many cases, there is no abattoir at all.

If we are talking about short-term Government capitalinvestments, it seems to me that there is a desperateneed to invest in pop-up abattoirs or mobile abattoirs.There are practical problems with all of that, but if Icould get anything across to the Committee, it would bethe need to make sure that we have an abattoir networkthat is fit for purpose over the next few years, and forthe Government to invest in creating that. It does notneed to be a long-term investment; once it is there, themarket can function and support it, but it is getting usthere that matters.

Q36 Daniel Zeichner: I should like to take you up alevel, in the sense that since the initial iteration of thisBill, we have become very aware of the climate crisisand Parliament has declared a climate emergency. Doyou think there is enough in this Bill to reflect that needfor urgent action, particularly given the recommendationsfrom the Committee on Climate Change on policies fornet zero referred to earlier? If the NFU can look for atarget for 2040, should there not be something in thisBill referencing that?

Thomas Lancaster: We have supported in the past,and would still support, a sector-specific target for netzero by 2040, to reflect the ambition of the NFU andothers. We would support an amendment to that effectin Committee and beyond. As a statement of intent andclarity on the role that the sector could play in thatclimate emergency, it is still a really useful thing to lookat. We would also stress that, although this is theAgriculture Bill, in the climate change world there is alot of talk about nature-based solutions such as peatlandrestoration, coastal habitats and woodland creation,and the Agriculture Bill, particularly through the landmanagement schemes that flow from it, will be thecentral mechanism for delivering those nature-basedsolutions and the aims of the Environment Bill.

Thinking about how public money for public goodscan support more sustainable food production that isalso carbon and climate friendly, it has an importantrole to play in building soil carbon, potentially supporting

minimum tillage systems, cover crops and other landmanagement interventions that build resilience to climatechange in the future. We see climate change runningthrough public money for public goods, from farmedand non-farmed landscapes, and the Agriculture Bill isone of the most important pieces of legislation that wehave had in the past decade or probably will have fordecades to come in helping to meet the climate emergencythat we all face.

Christopher Price: I would support—

The Chair: I am going to interrupt, because there aretwo colleagues who have been asking to put questionsvery quickly, Robert Goodwill and then Virginia Crosbie.Please put your questions to everyone.

Q37 Mr Goodwill: I have a very quick question:farmers are being incentivised to create habitats forground-nesting birds, barn owls, red squirrels or hedgehogs.Do you feel that payment should be made for deliveringthose species, or would creating the habitat be enough?Would predator control be something that your memberswould be content with, if it were part of that management?

The Chair: And then Virginia Crosbie.

Q38 Virginia Crosbie: My constituency is Ynys Môn,and I met my farmers recently. They think that they getquite a tough deal from the public and that it stemsfrom the term “farm payments”, so they are lookingforward to moving away from that, but they are equallyconcerned about “public money for public goods”. Youtalked earlier about communication and advice to farmers.How are we going to communicate this to the public?

Thomas Lancaster: I will pick up on Robert Goodwill’squestion. There is a lot of debate about payment foractions and payment for results. On payment for results,we would see it as the logical thing to pay for the habitatcondition, not the number of species or number ofbirds, because that is not something that is necessarilywithin the farmer’s control.

There is potentially a role for predator control infuture schemes, but there are a lot of steps that need tobe gone through before we get to that point, becauseoften predation pressure is a proximate cause, not anultimate one. The ultimate cause might be forestryproviding a reservoir of foxes, crows and other predatorson breeding waders on neighbouring moorlands, soremoving a block of conifer might be the one thing thatyou need to do, not investing in very expensive predatorcontrol in perpetuity. Getting an understanding of thoselandscape dynamics is an important part of that question.

Christopher Price: In response to the question aboutselling farming, to a large extent that is up to theindividual farmer. It is the farmer who creates theirbrand, and you would hope that their brand wouldfocus on all the good things they are doing—highwelfare standards, low environmental impact, sense ofplace, provenance and so on. Many of the new-stylefarmers that I was talking about are doing that; it isfundamental to them.

Having said that, there is a role for Government atthe higher level in “Brand GB”, and one thing we mightwant to look at is greater use of geographical indicators.There are certain breeds that are associated with Wales


that the Government—possibly the Welsh Government,I am not sure—have a role in promoting and helpingbusinesses with.

David Bowles: Just before the clock ticks over, methodof production labelling is an opportunity in the Bill togive the consumer that link in to the farmer.

The Chair: I thank our witnesses very much for thetime you have spent with us. The Committee is verygrateful. If you feel that you were not given time to

respond to colleagues’ questions, you can still submitevidence about those answers. The room will be locked,colleagues, and we start again at two o’clock in thisroom, where Mr Stringer will be in the Chair.

11.25 am

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Questionput (Standing Order No. 88).




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Second Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS


Adjourned till Thursday 13 February at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than






Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS, † GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)† Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Eustice, George (Minister of State, Department for



† Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)† Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con)† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead)




Witnesses

Ivor Ferguson, President, Ulster Farmers Union

Norman Fulton, Deputy Secretary, Food and Farming Group, Departmental Board, Department forAgriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)

Nick von Westenholz, Director of EU Exit and International Trade, NFU

David Goodwin, Agriculture Chairman, National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs

Richard Self, Agriculture Manager, Co-operatives UK

Graeme Willis, Policy and Technical Expert, CPRE

Jim Egan, Technical Adviser, Kings

Jake Fiennes, General Manager (Conservation), Holkham Estate

Judicaelle Hammond, Director of Policy, Country Land and Business Association

George Dunn, CEO, Tenant Farmers Association




(Afternoon)

[GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair]

Agriculture Bill

2 pm

The Committee deliberated in private.


Ivor Ferguson and Norman Fulton gave evidence.

2.1 pm

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from theUlster Farmers Union and the Department of Agriculture,Environment and Rural Affairs. Thank you very muchfor coming today. We have until 2.30 pm for this session.I would be grateful if you introduced yourselves for therecord.

Norman Fulton: My name is Norman Fulton. I amdeputy secretary within the Department of Agriculture,Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland. Ihead up the food and farming group within the Department.

Ivor Ferguson: I am Ivor Ferguson, the president ofthe Ulster Farmers Union. We are an organisation inNorthern Ireland with roughly 11,500 members spreadacross all sectors.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): I am sorry,but I wonder if we could ask the witnesses to speak upslightly.

The Chair: The acoustics in this room are appalling,which is nobody’s fault apart from the architect’s. Ifwitnesses and members of the Committee could speakup, we would all be grateful. Thank you.

Q39 The Minister of State, Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): Schedule 6 tothe Bill has Northern Ireland-specific provisions, principallyan ability and power to modify the legacy basic paymentscheme—the common agricultural policy scheme. Willyou explain what your priorities are to simplify andimprove the legacy scheme? Secondly, do you have anyemerging thoughts about future policy that you mightmake through your own Northern Ireland legislation?

Norman Fulton: Our motivation in drafting the schedulewas to retain options for incoming Ministers—obviouslythis was done in the absence of an Executive—so wedeveloped it to be able to preserve the ability to continueto make payments to farmers under pillar 1 and toenable us both to continue to deliver schemes underpillar 2, until such a time as Ministers wish to changethose measures, and to keep pace with appropriatechanges elsewhere in the UK. So it was really to providethat framework for incoming Ministers but not really toset out any particular direction in policy, which isclearly something that Ministers will need to take a leadon. There is some scope for simplification in the powerswe propose, but it is really for Ministers to decide whichof those powers they might want to move forward on.

In terms of the future direction of policy, we engagedwith our major stakeholders from the farming, food andenvironmental sides, and we produced a draft outlineframeworkforagriculture,whichwepublishedforconsultationin August 2018, really around the four pillars of resilience,environmental sustainability, productivity and supplychain functionality. It is a very high-level document andit received a good response from our stakeholders. Nowthat we have a Minister and an Executive in place, weneed to work to flesh that out and to start to chart a wayforward in the longer term.

Ivor Ferguson: From the farmers’ point of view, wehad negotiations with our farmers and discussions onhow we would like to see payments going forward. Weproduced a discussion document. We felt that we werequite happy for farmers to be rewarded for activity,whether that be agricultural production or environmentalactivity. We were quite happy with that because a largenumber of farmers were not fully happy with area-basedpayments, in that they felt that the landlord or peoplewho owned vast areas of land received most of thebenefit. Our farmers will be quite happy to have moneydirected to people who are engaged in activity, be itproduction or environmental.

Having said that, we would not want to see area-basedpayments disappear completely. We would like to keepthat in the form of a resilience or volatility payment,bearing in mind that we have a land border with theRepublic of Ireland where they will still receive land-basedpayments. We could not be disadvantaged in any waywith our farming colleagues in southern Ireland.

From that point of view, we would like to see some formof a resilience or volatility payment. If we look at therecent farm income figures for Northern Ireland, theprofitability figure has fallen from well over £300 milliondown to £290 million. That is a similar figure to whatcomes in in farm support to Northern Ireland. It is astark reminder of how dependent some sectors are onbasic payments.

Q40 George Eustice: You mentioned that the rationalefor an area payment might be resilience or as a risk-management tool, but it is ultimately a subsidy on landtenure or land ownership, so is it the best tool to dealwith those issues? Or is it a straightforward marketintervention—crisis payments when there is a slump inthe market or a severe weather event, when you couldintervene using the other crisis powers that are in theother part of the schedule?

Ivor Ferguson: If there were vast changes in themarket for whatever reason, we would certainly needmore support. This resilience payment would be muchless than the payment today—perhaps 30%, 40% or atthe most 50%. We have not put a figure on that yet; it issomething we would have to discuss with our farmersfairly quickly now.

Q41 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Goodafternoon, Mr Stringer. In the written evidence supplied,Mr Fulton, you raise a number of issues around divergence,both now and in future. Could you say a bit more aboutthose issues? Could Mr Ferguson also comment ondivergence?

Norman Fulton: This is certainly an issue of concernto us. We have to be mindful of the fact that we nowhave the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol under the


withdrawal agreement, which means we will need toalign with the European systems, whereas those in therest of the UK could diverge. Therefore, we would beconcerned that, within what will be the single UK market,there could be different approaches to marketing standards,for example. Obviously, that is something that we willall need to be mindful of. I suppose it will be managedthrough common frameworks across the UK. A lot ofwork needs to go into thinking through how we willoperate across the UK, to ensure that the UK market isnot distorted in any way and there is a level playing fieldfor all players in that market.

Q42 Daniel Zeichner: That is extremely diplomaticbut I am not sure how that works. You are in either onesystem or another, are you not? Where is the halfwayhouse?

Norman Fulton: Well, we are very clearly in one system,so we do not have the scope to change under theprotocol. In the schedule, you will see that on marketingstandards, for example, we have taken the ability to setstandards, but that was drafted in advance of the withdrawalagreement, so it would not be enabled. At some point inthe future, if we ever left the protocol, it could bebrought into play. For now, our future is pretty muchmapped out when it comes to marketing standards, butthat is not the case elsewhere in the UK. Although weknow what our standards will be, they may changeelsewhere. That will create the issue of how we ensurethat there is a level playing field within the UK/GB,which remains our biggest market.

Ivor Ferguson: As Norman just said, it is our mostimportant market. At least 50% of what we farmers inNorthern Ireland produce goes to the mainland GBmarket, and in some sectors it is 70% or 80%. If we wereto diverge and the standards were to lower in the GBmarket, lower standards means lower cost of production,and we would be tied to the cost of production withinthe EU system in Northern Ireland, so it would be verydifficult for us to compete in that market. From thatpoint of view, it would be a disaster for us if the standardschanged or diverged a great deal away from where weare today.

Q43 Daniel Zeichner: When you say disastrous, whatdo you mean?

Ivor Ferguson: Take the beef sector in NorthernIreland. All the products that we produce, or 95% ofthem, are produced to Red Tractor quality-assuredstandards. A lot of them go to the major retailers in theUK, which support us well with the Red Tractor standards.For beef production in Northern Ireland, the returns tofarmers are down in the last 12 months by £36 million,so there is no profit in the job at the present time. Wecould not accept a lower price for product, so a lot ofour farmers at the moment are finding it very difficultto stay in business. If there were a lowering of the pricein the marketplace, that would be a disaster for us.

Q44 Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): Irepeat my declaration of interest: I was an employee ofthe National Farmers Union, and indeed of the UlsterFarmers Union when I was working in its office inBrussels a few years ago. I want to pick up on the pointsthat were raised about divergence. On the point you just

made about maintaining an area-based payment in caseof volatility, what would be the consequence of differentagricultural payment schemes operating throughoutthe UK?

Norman Fulton: Again, this is something that allAdministrations need to be very mindful of in thechoices they make. Agriculture is a devolved matter, soeach of the Administrations can set their own policydirection and agenda. Under the protocol, which wewill now be operating under, certain restrictions willapply in the case of Northern Ireland. We will have anoverall envelope for state aid cover, but within that apercentage will have to be green box. That will putcertain restrictions on the choices we make in futurepolicy. That does not necessarily apply elsewhere in theUK. Scotland, Wales and England will all be able to settheir own policy choices.

Again, we need to be careful that we do not start toopen up distortions in competition, which could arisefrom all this. Although these matters are devolved,GB/UK is our domestic market, and we need to makesure we do not end up trying to undercut each other byusing our support mechanisms to facilitate that. Thereis a great deal of responsibility on all the Administrationson this matter.

Ivor Ferguson: I fully agree with Norman. If we takeNorthern Ireland at the moment, we would like to thinkthat we will have the same level of support. We willcertainly need the same level of support. The fact that itis paid in a different way should not distort our marketall that much, if there is the same level of money thatcomes in. We have to be mindful that our farmingcolleagues in southern Ireland will have a basic paymenttoo, so we need a level playing field. We have to be verymindful of that going forward.

Q45 Thangam Debbonaire: This question may be justfor Mr Fulton, but both of you may care to comment.Agriculture is devolved, as you said, but the WorldTrade Organisation requirements for the agreement onagriculture are deemed to have been reserved. Will youcomment further on whether schedule 6 gives DAERAthe powers you need to meet the flexible requirementsfor Northern Ireland’s specific needs? Do you haveanything to add to your comments in answer to thequestion from Fay Jones on how that regional variancewill play out?

Norman Fulton: The schedule is primarily about rollingforward what we have, with options for simplificationand options to keep pace with potential changes thatmay have happened elsewhere. It is not really aboutsetting our future policy direction, which is somethingthat we now need to take forward ourselves in the NorthernIreland Assembly, now that Ministers are back and wehave an Executive.

On the WTO issue, yes, that is a reserved matter, butthere is nothing in the Bill that we feel will constrain ourability to set our policy agenda. For example, there areno restrictions on green box support in WTO rules, andnone at this time on blue box support—for example,headage payments. Hopefully, the UK’s share of theamber box coming out of EU will be well in excess ofwhat any region, or the UK as a whole, could ever hopeto spend on agriculture, so we do not see that as a practicalrestriction on our room to manoeuvre in any way.

Your final point was around distortion in the UK?


Q46 Thangam Debbonaire: You started to commentin response to Fay’s question about regional variations.Is there anything you want to add to that?

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

Q47 Thangam Debbonaire: You mentioned the word“hope” twice there. I am also hopeful, but we are here todeal with legislation. Do you think anything else needsto be added to the legislation to reduce the reliance onhope? Is the hope about negotiating aims, or is theresomething that should be in the Bill that currentlyis not?

Norman Fulton: That is a very difficult question,because at the end of the day agriculture policy isdevolved, so all the Administrations have the flexibilityto deploy the budget that is at their disposal. I do notthink there is a lot more you can do in the Bill to addressthat. It is more in the area of the common frameworksthat govern how the regions co-operate across this area .

Ivor Ferguson: I will just add that we are mindful ofregional variations across our areas. The future tradepolicy to be worked out will have an effect on that. If wediverge a lot, product coming from Northern Irelandinto the GB market and vice versa will have added costswith the border inspection posts, or whatever you wantto call them. There will be added costs. That is somethingthat, if a trade deal did not go for us, or if there was alarge-scale divergence, that would add a lot to our costsand we would need extra funding. We are very aware ofthat.

Q48 Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby)(Con): I seem to recall that in Northern Ireland, unlikein England, BPS payments have a maximum cut-off.That means that, although I assume you have to havecross-compliance on your entire holding, there is amaximum payment you can get. Might switching tomore agri-environmental schemes result in some farmsnot delivering the public goods that they could deliver,because you would be limited in the amount you couldgive them? Do you think that, at that point, it would beworthwhile getting rid of the cap and allowing farms toparticipate fully on the all the land they have?

Norman Fulton: There is an overall cap on the currentarea-based system, but very few holdings hit that limitat this point in time. Again, those are the sorts of thingswe will need to consider in relation to the architecturewe put in place. Certainly, if you were talking aboutlarge areas of land that needed to be brought back intogood management and good condition, you would wantthat to be encouraged and incentivised, and any disincentivethat might arise from a cap would have to be consideredvery carefully. At this point in time, there is no cap onagri-environment—well, there are caps on the amountthat individual farmers can get. I know it is an issue that

some farmers want to do more, and that is somethingwe will have to consider in our next iteration of agri-environment.

Q49 Mr Goodwill: I suppose most farmers favour acap as long as it is just over the amount they get paid.You also have a scheme where young farmers under theage of 40 who farm less than 90 hectares get a 25%additional payment. How effective is that? Has that justresulted in farmers passing on their farms early? Arefarms tailoring their businesses to meet the rules, or doyou see genuine benefits in having a young farmerpayment?

Norman Fulton: It is a bit of a mixed picture. Certainly,it has encouraged conversations around the farm tablethat would not otherwise have happened. We actuallyput in place in addition—it was an optional addition tothat measure—a requirement for the young farmer tohave a level 2 qualification in agriculture, so it was a wayof bringing young farmers into the whole area of technologytransfer. Some, who had perhaps gone out and got jobsin other professions or trades, were coming back to thefarm but did not really have the agricultural training inplace, so this got them on to the stepladder. Quite aproportion then decided they would go on and take onfurther training and qualifications, so it was very positivefrom that perspective as well. The motivations on thatone were good, but I think we could improve on it bylooking at the restrictions and issues facing young farmers,and at how we can tailor a package to help generationalrenewal on farms.

Q50 Mr Goodwill: Is that your experience as well,Mr Ferguson, from a farmer’s perspective?

Ivor Ferguson: Yes indeed. Coming back to the discussiondocument we produced after some consultation withour farmers, our idea was that when we moved awayfrom the basic payment to a payment for productivityand environmental measures, it would mean that someof the farmers who wanted to do extra environmentalschemes on their farms would be able to avail themselvesof a grant to do that, so it would encourage environmentalmeasures as well as production measures. That is somethingwe are very happy about.

On the young farmers scheme, as Norman said, someyoung farmers certainly benefited from the scheme andit does encourage young farmers. However, going a bitfurther, we would like to see a succession plan put inplace for older farmers to pass on to the next generation,and we would like to see some incentives, like they havein southern Ireland, such as tax incentives and that sortof thing. That would make the transition from the oldergeneration to the next generation a lot easier, and itwould be more encouraging for our young farmers.

Q51 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):With regard to the regulatory and policy divergencesbetween the four nations of the UK, I am lucky enoughto have been on the Agriculture Bill Committee twice inthe last two or three years, and I think I am right insaying that we heard from all the NFUs in the previousiteration of this Bill Committee. I recall all the NFUsbeing at pains to say that they currently operate differentschemes and policies between themselves, as you wouldexpect from organisations in devolved Administrations.


There were discussions around common frameworksand how they would work once Brexit occurs; thoseorganisations currently operate in Europe under commonframeworks. However, the details of the future frameworksmust be agreed, not imposed—I think that that was saidright across the board by all the different NFUs. Is thatsomething that you recognise and agree with?

Norman Fulton: Yes. I think the frameworks will beimportant. Up to now, we have operated within a regulatoryframework, the CAP, which gave us a degree of flexibility,although it was ultimately constrained. Going forward,we will no longer have that regulatory framework. Itthen comes back to the politics of devolution and thefact that agriculture is fully devolved. I think all thedevolved Administrations will jealously preserve thatflexibility, but they will also need to recognise that wewill operate within a single market, and that there willtherefore have to be ground rules—

Q52 Deidre Brock: When you say single market, doyou mean the internal market of the UK?

Norman Fulton: Of the UK, yes, which is obviouslyof utmost importance for everyone.

Ivor Ferguson: I agree. For us in the Ulster Farmers’Union, we would certainly have to have some groundrules. We meet our colleagues in the NFUs in England,Scotland and Wales on a regular basis, and we certainlydiscuss all those matters. We fully agree that we willhave to have some ground rules, but we do keep in touchwith farmers in the other regions.

Q53 Deidre Brock: The impression I got was that therelationship between the four NFUs is very good, andthat you speak regularly about these sorts of thing.

Ivor Ferguson: Yes.

The Chair: I am afraid that this will have to be the lastquestion.

Q54 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I will be veryquick. What are your thoughts on the food securityreports? The current Bill talks about them being producedevery five years. Do you have any thoughts on thefrequency?

Ivor Ferguson: We certainly would not be happy at allwith a review every five years. We would certainly wantto see this reviewed at least once a year. Especially in thetransition, as we move forward, we would think thatfive years would be far too long a period, and that it willhave to be reviewed a lot sooner than that—at leastannually.

The Chair: If there are no further questions, we havefinished two minutes early. Thank you for your time.


Nick von Westenholz and David Goodwin gave evidence.

2.29 pm

The Chair: We will now hear evidence from the NFUand the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs.For this session, we have until 3 pm. Would you pleaseintroduce yourselves?

Nick von Westenholz: Nick von Westenholz, directorof EU exit and international trade at the NationalFarmers Union.

David Goodwin: David Goodwin, chair of agricultureand rural issues for the National Federation of YoungFarmers’ Clubs, and I farm in south Northamptonshire.

Q55 George Eustice: You will be aware that clause 9has quite a broad power giving the Government theability to start simplifying and sorting out some of thecomplexity of the legacy CAP scheme, which we candeploy from as early as next year. What would be yourpriorities to improve the legacy scheme in the time untilthe new one is rolled out?

Nick von Westenholz: First and foremost, the contentor focus of those simplifications is not as important asgiving information to farmers. During the previousParliament, as the previous Bill was going through,there was increasing anxiety that, while simplificationmay or may not be coming down the line this year,farmers would not be informed about what thosesimplifications were, and therefore would be unable toproperly prepare in order to meet the requirements ofwhatever the scheme is. First and foremost, farmersneed early guidance about the requirements of thescheme they will be subject to, well in advance of thatscheme year beginning. That information is almost asimportant as what the simplifications might be.

In terms of what the simplifications are, we areengaging with officials at the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs, as you will know. It will notsurprise you that some of the current requirements,such as the three-crop rule, have been criticised by manyfarmers as overly bureaucratic without really achievingthe greening aims it may have hoped to address; thatone comes up most often in our conversation withmembers.

David Goodwin: All our members are keen to get onand farm. That is what we are hearing a lot of at themoment. They hope that this Bill will enable them to dothat, to look for opportunities and to expand theirbusinesses. We keep talking about simplification; anythingwe can simplify will be a good thing. There is a realworry that we will not meet environmental and welfareaims. We need to ensure we maintain our high standardsand do not let them slip.

Q56 George Eustice: In terms of helping new entrantsand the next generation of younger farmers, what ismost important for your members? Is it access to landat an affordable rent, or is it having an area-basedsubsidy system as we do now?

David Goodwin: Access to land is obviously a keyconcern for our members, but access to land is goodonly as long as the land they are looking to farm isprofitable and viable. Finding ways to enable that is alsoimportant. From that point of view, a subsidy system ofsome description, where farmers are rewarded for thegood work they are doing, is still quite high on ouragenda.

Q57 George Eustice: Has the NFU done any work onwhat a sustainable land rent is for different land typeswithout the land tenure subsidy that we have throughdirect payments?


Nick von Westenholz: I am not aware that we havelooked at that sort of detail on where land rents mightsit. It is an interesting question and one we probablyought to look at.

Q58 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. It is probablyno surprise to you that my opening question will referto the letter to the Prime Minister that the NFU andover 60 other organisations have written, expressingconcern about the potential risks caused by importedfood produced to lower environmental animal welfareor food quality standards. What needs to be done to thisBill to resolve that problem?

Nick von Westenholz: The obvious omission from theBill, in our view, is anything around import standards.It is absolutely right that that should be in the Bill,because if the Government are trying to promote, whichwe would support, more sustainable production andfood systems domestically in the future, which is thecore aim of the Bill—to provide a support frameworkfor farming in a high welfare, environmentally sustainableway—they will be fundamentally undermined in thatobjective if there is not a concurrent trade policy thatprevents farm businesses from being undercut bysubstandard imports. A two-pronged approach in policyterms—trade policy and domestic policy—is needed toprevent undermining that sort of farming, in which UKfarmers excel.

The detail of how the Bill is amended or of the termsof the legislation that can achieve that may be quitecomplicated and something that the Committee needsto consider as it goes through the Bill line by line, but atthe core there must be a requirement that if the UK isgoing to import food, that imported food meets thesame standards of environmental protection, animalwelfare and food safety as UK producers are requiredto meet. Of course, the Government have been veryreassuring on that point in recent weeks and have givensome guarantees in that regard, but we feel that thatneeds to be underpinned by legislation, because thereare real technical challenges in doing this that anyGovernment, whether this Government or a futureGovernment, are going to come up against as theynegotiate trade deals and as they pursue a new role forus as an independent member of the WTO.

Q59 Fay Jones: My question is to Mr Goodwin. Arethere any other means that you think should be includedin the Bill that might give your members access toland—means that might increase the opportunities foryoung farmers and perhaps even new entrants intofarming?

David Goodwin: There has been a lot of talk withinour membership about support for schemes whereby weare looking at contract and share farming arrangements,particularly in the livestock sector, to enable youngfarmers to come on to land alongside an existing farmerwho is perhaps getting a bit older and does not want todo it himself. Quite how the framework for those sortsof things fits and how you make them work has alwaysbeen a challenge. I have just come back from NewZealand, and it is interesting to talk to farmers outthere. There is a lot more progression on units andfarmers do not seem to be so static. I think that isperhaps the other issue in UK agriculture: it is veryparochial—which is traditional. It is difficult to really

say how we could break that mould, but certainly fromour members’ point of view, any new, innovative wayswe can find to get young people on to the land—notnecessarily as managers or owners, but also as goodskilled workers—would be good.

Q60 Fay Jones: May I quickly follow up on that? Areyou happy with the proposed schedule for phasing outdirect payments—moving away from an area-basedpayment and towards a system of public goods?

David Goodwin: It seems to be very quick. I wouldrepeat Nick’s point from earlier: for things to happen infarming, we need to remember how long some of thecycles in agriculture are. For farmers and farm businessesto prepare for that, they need to know what they arepreparing for, and they need to know what they arepreparing for a long time in advance of it happening. Ifyou are putting a bull in today, you are not going to beselling the calves, potentially, for three years. We justneed to be mindful of how agriculture works and howthat fits with the legislation’s aims.

Q61 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead)(Lab): Do you have any suggestions as to how the Billcould be improved specifically to enhance food production?The reason why I am asking is that I want to look atways to ensure that poorer consumers are also able tobenefit from the high requirements under the Bill—therequirements for a more sustainable, environmentallyfriendly way of delivering services. I am worried aboutpoorer consumers being left out.

Nick von Westenholz: I think, taking a view of whatthe Bill is trying to achieve in totality in terms of asustainable food production system, that the need toprovide consumers with affordable and safe food mustremain fundamental to that.

One concern we have is that a singular focus on someof the public goods aspects might lead to the foodproduction aspect being overlooked. Indeed, that was acriticism we made of the original Bill. That is not todownplay the importance of the clause 1 public goodselements and the development of the land managementscheme, but we have been clear from the outset of theprocess, some years ago, that a really comprehensiveagricultural policy needs to be built of three key blocks.You need a sustainable, environmental block—the sortof stuff that this Bill does very well—but you also needto keep in mind the need to produce food, which is whatfarmers do as well. You need to encourage increasedand improved productivity in the farming sector. Again,the Bill provides the powers to do that, although we arewaiting for details from DEFRA about exactly whatschemes and measures might be introduced to achievethat.

We also have a concern around what we call volatility,or what might be called stability. That is the stuff thatfarm support systems around the world generally do,which is underpin the farming sector as food producersto provide a certain degree of food security and affordablefood for their country. Obviously, there are new, welcomefood security clauses in the Bill. Our concern is that aswe go into the next few years, direct payments will bereduced and replaced with a scheme that is focused onenvironmental land management, and we will potentiallybe in a very difficult trading environment, depending on


how the next 10 and a half months of trade negotiationsgo. That perfect storm will seriously undermine ourability to provide food. We try to make clear that thissystem needs to be as much about providing food forthe country as it is about looking after our countrysideand our farmed animals.

Q62 Abena Oppong-Asare: Can I ask a supplementaryquestion?

The Chair: Before you do, I have a large number ofpeople indicating that they wish to speak. Please couldMembers and witnesses be brief.

Q63 Abena Oppong-Asare: I will be quick. Youmentioned that you are waiting for DEFRA to give youfurther information. Have you highlighted to them whichof your recommendations you want them to take forward?

Nick von Westenholz: Yes. We have good communicationwith DEFRA officials and conversations are ongoing.Given the immediacy of some of the changes comingin, we are looking for assurance that schemes are goingto be developed and deployable quickly. There are concernsover that.

Q64 Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con): Does the Billinclude the right measures to give tenant farmers certaintyover succession, tenancy length and security of tenure?

Nick von Westenholz: As far as they go, we arepleased with the inclusion of the tenancy clauses in theBill. They are quite technical and we are looking todevelop some amendments to strengthen them, whichwe will be happy to share with members of the Committee.In particular, we want to bring in more of therecommendations of the tenancy reform industry group,which has been up and running and working for someyears now, so that those are properly reflected in theBill. We will suggest some improvements, but we generallywelcome the clauses that have been introduced in thisBill that were not in the last one.

Q65 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): This isprobably a question specifically for David Goodwin.What role do you see county farms playing, given thatthe Government and the Minister have in the pastexpressed support for reversing the decline in county farms?Is that something your members would be interested in?

David Goodwin: Yes, very much so. County farmshave been a shining light for getting younger people intoholdings. In the counties where it works well, it worksvery well. Obviously, there are counties where there arechallenges and more pressures on estates. Unfortunately,we see those in the news regularly at the moment. Thereare some good examples. The number of county estatefarms is very small, compared with the number of peoplewho are perhaps looking for opportunities. Some ofthose individual holdings are very small and do notalways offer the stepping stone that is needed. Going onfrom there, there is still a lack, particularly with tenantedfarms, of progressional farms to go on to from a countystarter farm.

Q66 Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con): Mr von Westenholz,the suggestion of insisting in the Bill that we onlyimport food produced to the same standards as ourfarmers produce is absolutely the right principle, andthe Government are committed to that in principle, but

can you just talk us through the practicalities of whatthe relevant change to the legislation would be? I amjust concerned about what it actually means to insist onequivalent standards. How would that be articulated inthe Bill? Is that insistence not more appropriate to thetrade negotiations, which will get into the actual detailof different sectors, important exports and so on? Howwould you frame that piece of legislation in a way thatdid not just open the door to all sorts of challenges on aconcept that is not well defined?

Nick von Westenholz: It is a fair point, because thequestion of how you compare standards in this countrywith those in other countries is very complicated. Ithink there is a way that you can still build requirementsinto the Bill that address those concerns. Basically, youcan provide safeguards to the Government’s stated aimon these issues. I should add that that is one reason thatwe very strongly called for a commission with theGovernment, stakeholders and industry to be set upthat would examine these very difficult issues and makeclear recommendations for precisely how the Governmentcan safeguard our standards in future.

In terms of the Bill, you could require the Governmentto produce a register, for example, of what our food andfarming standards are, or certainly the ones that we arekeen to safeguard. We can then put in a requirementthat imports should meet those standards or shouldhave to demonstrate that they do, and possibly some sortof reporting mechanism to demonstrate whether importsare meeting those standards. There have been severalamendments to this Bill and the last Bill to attempt toaddress that.

You could introduce amendments that are much moreexplicit. For example, they could set out the sorts ofveterinary medicines—whatever it might be—that areprohibited and would not be allowed to be put on themarket, as well as goods treated with those medicinesthat could not be put on the market in this country.That would be a very clear and straightforward legislativesafeguard on standards, but you would be looking atquite a lot of text if you were to go completely acrossthe board. There are a number of options.

Q67 Thangam Debbonaire: I am not quite sure, butthis question is possibly to both witnesses. The Bill is toa great extent an enabling Bill, and the words “theSecretary of State may” appear frequently. I wonderwhether, were you going through the Bill with a red pen,you would change any of those mays to musts. Inparticular, I am looking at how we make the move fromhaving been a full member of the EU and part of theWTO by virtue of that to completely being just on solemembership terms with the requirements of the agreementon agriculture. I am looking at any mays to musts andhow to get to compliance with the agreement on agriculture.

Nick von Westenholz: I think as a point of principle,we would not just argue that any mays need to beturned into musts. We recognise that this is an enablingBill and the merit of the Government’s having legislationthat gives them flexibility. There would probably besome points where we would be more forceful thanothers, such as the powers around exceptional marketconditions. At the moment, there is a “may” power forGovernment intervention when exceptional marketconditions are adversely impacting agriculture—thisspeaks to that point I was making about volatility, as


agriculture, probably more than other economic sector,can be subject to climate volatility, weather volatility,market volatility and so on—but we think there shouldbe a trigger there that requires a “must” for intervention.I know some have argued that there should be more of a“must” clause around the financial assistance powers. Iam not sure whether that would do the trick, because itcould still be an inadequate amount of financial assistancethat is provided.

The new clauses addressing multi-year financial plansand reporting are important and we are pleased to seethem; we think that those, alongside the Government’sguarantee on the total budget, are just as important ingiving farmers certainty and the ability to plan for thelong term.

I did not quite understand the question on the WTOagreement.

Q68 Thangam Debbonaire: I wanted to emphasisethose provisions of the Bill that pertain to the WTOand ask whether any of those “mays” to “musts” werein that area.

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

Q69 Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con): Mr Goodwin,in relation to the next generation of farmers, I would beinterested to hear whether you have had any feedbackfrom institutions and how you are working with universitiesand colleges to ensure that the next generation takeadvantage of this new legislation.

David Goodwin: We are working closely with variouscounty agricultural colleges at the moment. We havejust run an event in the north—I have forgotten thename of the college—in association with DEFRA, throughour DEFRA grant holder, to engage with our membersabout this Bill in particular and the ELMSs that arecoming forward. That is a project that we were lookingto roll out considerably further; unfortunately, our timescalewas put back when Parliament was prorogued and wehad to postpone a lot of events that we were planning torun. Agricultural colleges lend themselves well to settingup and running events with our members and our targetaudience of potential members and people who arelooking to come into the industry. We are certainlydoing as much work as we can with county colleges andthe universities, which are all struggling a little bit forstudents at the moment.

Q70 Abena Oppong-Asare: My question links in withMs Crosbie’s question and is directed to Mr Goodwin.As you know, the ageing population of farmers ischanging. Is there anything specific in the Bill that youthink needs to be changed that could help more youngindividuals to go into farming? Is there something thatyou feel needs to be specifically looked into?

David Goodwin: As we have touched on at variouspoints in this session, the crux of the matter is this Bill’senabling farmers to run effective, efficient and sustainablebusinesses, both environmentally and economically. Froma young farmer’s point of view, the foundation of allthis must be a strong, stable agricultural industry. Theonly way to attract young people into agriculture is tooffer them opportunity; it is difficult to sell the idea ofworking 150 hours a week and being paid less than the

minimum wage to people who are not necessarily inlove with agriculture. There are no specifics that springto mind, but anything we can do to support agricultureis a positive.

Q71 George Eustice: I want to turn to a different partof the Bill, chapter 2, and the provisions on fair dealingand transparency in the supply chain. Can you tell uswhich sectors suffer the most from a lack of transparencyand fairness in the supply chain? Which are most likelyto be price takers? What regulations or steps would youlike the Government to take, under the powers in thisBill, to ensure that farmers are in a fairer positionrelative to others in the supply chain?

David Goodwin: I have a very quick point on that,specifically pertaining to the lamb industry. We havehad quite a lot of feedback from our members aboutlack of transparency: under the sheep legislation as it isat the moment, we are forced to electronically tag andidentify all the sheep, but currently the abattoirs andprocessors are not required to pass that informationback down the chain or identify those carcases aspertaining to those animals. There is a perceivedtransparency issue with some processes. It is not thatpotentially we are not being paid the right amounts, butI think people would like to know what our killing outpercentages are, so that we can improve performanceand make better informed decisions.

Nick von Westenholz: We are working through ourcommodity boards, which is the way we cover the differentsteps in the NFU to address exactly how the powers willbe used. We are pleased that those powers are in the Bill,but lots of them rely on secondary legislation to operate,so it seems that potentially there is still quite a job to doonce the Bill is enacted to ensure that the powers can beused properly to do what they are supposed to do. Welook forward to working with officials to work outexactly how those powers can be deployed once the Billis enacted—that is a feature of the enabling aspect ofthe Bill. We certainly think the focus on improving thesupply chain is a critical bit of the Bill.

Q72 Daniel Zeichner: Let us turn to the delinkingproposals for a moment. There does not seem to be agreat deal of detail in there. The intention is to bring innew people, which we would support, but are theredangers of unintended consequences? Would you liketo see more detail?

Nick von Westenholz: Yes, absolutely. We would likemore detail. We understand there was an intention toconsult on them at some point under the last Bill, sopresumably that will still happen. You are absolutelyright that there are potential unintended consequences,not least because those aspects of the Bill relate toEngland, and there could be a very different way forwardin other parts of the UK. That would potentially lead toa very different looking system between England andother parts of the UK. We need to understand thedetails. Some people might be attracted to the implicationsof delinking, superficially. Once you delink—particularlywith the potential to move to lump sum payments,which is one of the reasons for doing so—you aremoving away from some of the things I spoke aboutearlier, such as being able to manage the transition forthe next few years, particularly in the volatile circumstancesthat might arise for farming. So yes, the long-windedanswer is that we would like more detail.


David Goodwin: We tend to agree on the whole. Thereis a feeling of quiet optimism that it might offeropportunities for young people to come into agriculture.Without some detail to see exactly how that might workand whether it is feasible, people are keeping it at arm’slength.

Q73 Daniel Zeichner: Returning to the volatility/stabilityquestion, the CAP was much derided in many quarters,but I would say it has delivered some of the goals that itoriginally set out to achieve, including a measure ofstability. Apart from changing “might” to “must”, whatother things would you like to see to ensure stability forthe future?

Nick von Westenholz: The main parts of the Bill thatare relevant are around the transition. Currently, theBill still has the timetable of beginning to phase out ofBPS next year and going over a seven-year period. Wehave called, as have others, for a delay in that process.That is still absolutely right because we are unlikely toknow the trading environment in which farming willoperate until potentially very late this year, possiblyeven into next year, yet the schedule has us beginningto phase out of BPS next year. As David mentioned,agriculture works on very long timeframes.

While we do not know what the future looks like,delaying that is important, not least because this Bill,the previous Bill and the health and harmony consultationthat it was predicated on, all took place in a very differentpolitical environment where the future relationship withthe EU and some other aspects were envisaged verydifferently. Things have changed, and the Bill and thetransition period should also change. We could facesome very volatile times ahead and we need to be able tomanage that.

The Chair: Order. I am afraid that brings us to theend of the time allotted for this session. I thank the twowitnesses on behalf of the Committee. We will move onto the next evidence session.

Examination of Witness

Richard Self gave evidence.

3.1 pm

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence fromCo-operatives UK, and we have until 3.30 pm. Welcome.Would you like to introduce yourself ?

Richard Self: I am Richard Self, agriculture manager withCo-operatives UK, supporting our farmer co-operativesup and down the country.

Q74 George Eustice: Are you broadly content withthe powers in the Bill to modify the retained EU law onproducer organisations in particular? Do you supportthe principle of moving away from the area-based subsidypayment we have now to a system of payment for publicgoods?

Richard Self: We are broadly happy with the way theBill is set out. The detail will come in secondary legislationfor the areas of co-operation and collaboration that weare interested in. The main concern is around exemptions.The exemptions are currently very supportive of co-operatives, but there is some room in the Bill for that to

be narrowed, and we need to ensure that the currentexemptions are carried through to this new environment.We want to encourage our co-operatives, not discouragethem.

On subsidy payments, we accept that. It will create anew environment and a new world for farmers to operatein. Again, co-operation and collaboration can helpfarmers become productive and efficient within thatnew world.

Q75 George Eustice: Coming back to exemptions, Ithink most are carried forward by the Bill. Specificallyon dairy contracts, for example, co-operatives wereexcluded from the voluntary dairy code, but if we wereto introduce a mandatory code under provisions in theBill, they might not be. Will you explain why co-operativesare a special case that should be exempt from givingfarmers clarity about how the milk price is calculated?

Richard Self: It is an interesting area. I am not anexpert on the dairy sector, but in milk co-operatives thefirst-stage processor is owned by the farmers. If thatprocessor takes a high price, farmers will get that backat some stage; in another situation where they do notown the processor, they will not. Therefore, it inhibitsthem from reacting to the market, because ultimately ina situation where the farmer owns the processor, thebenefits will eventually come back to the farmer becausethey own the business.

Q76 Daniel Zeichner: In general, will the Bill helpproducer organisations? What more could be done?Why have we not traditionally done better in UKagriculture?

Richard Self: Producer organisations have done agood job, but I think some people would say they coulddo a better job if they were better organised. I think wecould have made better use of them in the past—othercountries have made very good use of their POs. Oneconcern we have around POs is that they might be toonarrow. We want to ensure that all types of co-operativehave the chance to be a PO, and that extra hoops andbarriers are not put in the way of existing co-operatives,making it more difficult for them to get to that PO status.

Q77 Daniel Zeichner: Why has the UK experiencebeen different from that of other countries?

Richard Self: Other countries have taken those fundsthat they get through being a PO, and the help withtheir technology, productivity and so on, but they havealso changed their business models. What is importantis to get the right business model in place, where youcan add value, capture it and bring it back to the primaryproducer. I think what we have done is just take the moneyfor the grants, if you like, as opposed to changing thebusiness model and the way that the supply chain works.

Q78 Daniel Zeichner: Will the measures in the Billmake it more likely that we go down that route in future,do you think—or not?

Richard Self: I think it can do. As I said, I think thedetail will be in the secondary stage to this, and how thatis built up, but the foundations are there. We can makethat PO scheme work, as long as we are inclusive of allthe different co-operative structures that we have gotwithin that, and do not create extra barriers and hoopsfor people to jump through to get into the PO scheme.


Q79 Daniel Zeichner: Is there anything you wouldlike to see in the Bill that would help that to happen?

Richard Self: There is nothing specific that I wouldlike to see. At this stage, it is about trying to keep it aswide as possible, so that we keep our options open andlook at every stage of making the environment right forco-operatives to thrive and succeed.

The UK is well behind most other developed agriculturalsystems in its use of farmer co-operatives. France, Germanyand the USA are all developing a number of co-operatives,while the number of our co-operatives is reducing. Weneed to change that balance around. Our market shareof co-operatives, based on my most recent figures froma few years ago, is about 6%, compared with Germany’s17%. I think France has something like 55% and Denmarksomewhere over 60%. Their market share is much greater.The value added that those co-operatives bring is returnedto the primary producer.

The other advantage with co-operatives is that theymake the markets less volatile. That is one of the thingswe are worried about in the future—volatile markets. Aco-operative can help balance out that market to makeit work well, so that there is less volatility in the price ofgoods—the primary produce. It also makes sure thatthe supply chains are fairer for the farmer because theyare working together.

Q80 Mr Goodwill: From what you have just said, itappears that the structure of UK agriculture, withlarger units, does not lend itself particularly well toco-operatives; whereas, on the continent, you have lotsof small farmers who, for example, never get a fertilisersalesman on their farm for the size of their operation.

Do you think that, under the old system as part ofthe European Union, we have in many ways been tryingto squeeze a square peg into a round hole, and fit whatis going on here into the way that we can access funds?How do you think in future we can actually produce asystem to encourage co-operatives, of the sort thatwould maybe work in the UK, rather than trying toemulate those across the water?

Richard Self: Generally, we have some very good co-operatives out there. The governance angle of co-operativesis the key thing. If we get that right, and get them wellmanaged at the leadership level, that will help to addressthe sort of thing that we have had in the past.

We have large farmers in our country, compared withsome of the others, but in fact it is the small farmerswho do not tend to collaborate so much. I think thelarger farmers tend to be very professional in what theyare doing, and they are looking at this as a businessarrangement, as opposed to the smaller farmers, whowant to do things themselves. The evidence I have seenbasically says that we need to target smaller farmersprobably more than we do the larger farmers.

Q81 Danny Kruger: You have pretty much answeredmy question. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more onhow to do that. If it is a question of larger farmersnaturally combining because they are more professional,as you imply, is it just a question of education andmaking clear the opportunities that are there? Information,not education, sorry—that was patronising.

Richard Self: No; that was a good point. Education isgood point. I looked at this last year. I looked at ouruniversities and colleges, and they do not do anything

on the co-operative business model and how it worksround the world, and how farmers benefit from gettingengaged. Last year, the Royal Agricultural Universitydid some work for us. It highlighted the lack ofunderstanding of how the business model works andbrings benefit back to the farmers—it is about addingand capturing that value and bringing it back. Somefarmers have said to me, “Is there any point in us addingvalue, because someone else captures it?”, whereas aco-operative makes sure that that value is brought back.

We need to educate—“inform” might be a better wordin some ways. We do proper case studies and show how,around the world, co-operatives are used in such aneffective way, and how their use continues to be developedas they go forward. We were doing quite a lot of workafter the Curry Commission report. I was involved inShare to Grow initiatives to get production collaborationgoing, and we were making some good ground, butthen 2008 happened and the cash—the support—stopped.Since then, progress has basically stopped. We have probablymoved backwards, if anything, since then in terms ofthe level of collaboration and co-operation. Externalsupport is required to make this happen; it will nothappen without that external support to carry it through.

Q82 George Eustice: One of the criticisms of thefruit-and-veg PO regime in particular was that, apartfrom being very litigious because of the way in whichthe legislation was drafted, support could only be givento predominantly marketing co-operatives—marketinghad to be their primary function. Some groups such asthe British Growers Association and others have saidthat that is wrong. Would you support an approachwith support for co-operatives to come together to doresearch and development, or as buyer groups, but notnecessarily marketing in the traditional sense?

Richard Self: Obviously, marketing and consolidatingproducts to make efficiencies in the supply chain arereally important, but as we move forward, there are lotsof other opportunities for co-operatives to get involvedand for farmers to work together. Data is one—we talkabout “big data”—and co-operatives are in an excellentposition to harvest that data and to use it, not just fortheir benefit, but for the benefit of the whole supplychain. It will be important, going forward, that we havereally efficient supply chains, so that we compete withexternal supply chains. Working with a co-operative atthe centre of that, at the production level, is importantboth upstream and downstream. If we can have PO schemesthat run across different areas and different sections ofthat supply chain, it would be good.

Q83 George Eustice: On the competition law side,what kind of exemptions or special provisions in lawwould you seek to enable the co-operative model todevelop?

Richard Self: I think that the existing competition lawthat we enjoy now—or did, under EU law—would begood to carry through. That is how I understand it,although I am not an expert in this area. The worry isthat it might be narrower in the future, so that the onuscomes to fall on the co-operative to show that it is notcompeting unfairly, whereas at the moment it can say,“We’re a co-operative,” and then someone else has toprove that it is competing unfairly. The problem withthat is that co-operatives would have more risk and


more uncertainty when they were trying to grow aparticular business and so on. That is why we would liketo keep it as it is at the moment.

Q84 George Eustice: Are you content with the—Ithink—30% market share provision? So no co-operativeis allowed to go above that—certainly with dairy.

Richard Self: I think that would be sensible. It wouldbe a good aspiration for some areas.

Q85 Ruth Jones: Mr Self, in the agri-food supplychain, how well does the Bill move the power base awayfrom the major retailers towards the farmer?

Richard Self: I am probably not qualified to say howwell the Bill does in that sense, but I believe that if wecan have a policy with an almost horizontal theme ofcollaboration and co-operation that runs through theenvironmental or production side of it, or anything else,it would be good to improve that. In particular, thatstrengthens up the position of the primary producerworking in a co-operative, in terms of balancing out.

Some processors and suppliers are worried aboutthis, if farmers get together. In some situations, theyhave—how should we say?—been proactively discouragingit, and we need to avoid that happening. It is to thebenefit of the whole supply chain if it works with thatco-operative—they can get economies of scale, helpmanage supply and demand, and use the branding ofthe co-operative, if you like, to get to the end consumerto show the traceability, the welfare and the quality ofthe product when working with a co-operative. Thereare win-win situations for both co-operatives and businessesup and down the supply chain if it is looked at the rightway. They can see it as a threat to their profitability.

Q86 Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con):What single change would you advocate if you had toprioritise a single change to the Bill, as currently drafted?

Richard Self: I think the only thing I would change isto make sure that the exemptions are firmed up andprotected over the next few years. We are worried aboutthat, in terms of suddenly making it more risky for ourco-operatives to develop.

Q87 Miss Dines: How long would that extension be?

Richard Self: There is a two-year period on this. Itcould be managed more flexibly, so it would be good ifthat could be extended for two years.

Q88 Miss Dines: What would your choice be? Wouldit be five years, or four years?

Richard Self: Five years would seem like a good period,but I do not have significant knowledge on that front.

Q89 Theo Clarke: I just want to pick up on the issueof transparency and fairness in supply chains. Wouldthe fair dealing obligations in the Bill currently workwith the existing groceries supply code of practice? Iwant to make sure that we have a consistent approachto fair dealing across the whole supply chain.

Richard Self: I’m sorry; what would that be?

Q90 Theo Clarke: How do we ensure that the existinggroceries supply code of practice is consistent, so thatwe have fair dealing across the whole supply chain?

Richard Self: I probably do not know enough aboutthat. The code does a good job in helping the process.Co-operatives are my area of expertise. It would begood if that included co-operation and collaboration asit would help redress some of the balance of fairnesswithin the supply chain, but would be for the benefit ofthe whole supply chain if handled the right way.

Q91 George Eustice: I wanted to return to the issue ofdairy contracts, and whether there should be a continuationof the special exemption for dairy co-operatives. Whatis the remedy for a farmer who finds himself trapped ina long-term contract in Arla, a huge pan-Europeanco-operative, where he is not happy with the price he isgetting or the way the organisation is being managed,but is unable to change either of them despite nominallyhaving a share or stake in it? Should there be some rightsfor that individual member as well? Do the articles ofassociation in co-operatives generally provide sufficientprotection?

Richard Self: Obviously, there is a democratic processwithin the co-operatives in which you can vote peopleon who have a particular stance. The idea is to helpcontrol your own co-operative in doing what themembership wants. A co-operative should have a processin place whereby that can be fed into the co-operative toget the criteria right for that membership. The processof democracy within the co-operative should allow forthat. I cannot comment on an individual case, but it isup to the members how they run their business. Theyshould be able to set it up the way they want it.

Q92 George Eustice: I suppose the key question is: ifthe views and interests of a British minority, for instance,were compromised by the majority in a big pan-Europeancooperative because of a decision taken, should theynot be able to exit with a set notice period, for instance,and have a clear mechanism for doing so?

Richard Self: I would hope so, yes. But I am not anexpert in the dairy industry, so I would need to investigatethat further; we are happy to look into that. I have goodcontacts with our dairy co-operatives and can help feedthat into the system.

Q93 Daniel Zeichner: Earlier, you touched on someof the opportunities around data. Will you amplify onthat? What support might be needed to make the mostof those opportunities?

Richard Self: Increasingly, farmers will have betterdata on their anticipated crop yields, milk yields orwhatever. They can collect that raw data, and farmerscan trust their co-operative to handle it in the right wayfor them. That data is useful and is worth money toothers in the supply chain. It is a question of how theycan work together to maximise the use of that data forthe benefit of the supply chains they are working in.

Q94 Daniel Zeichner: Is that an issue of scale, or anissue of co-operation?

Richard Self: Obviously, the more data you haveacross an area—information on yields, or even perhapson the supply side, on agrochemical use and the anticipateduse of crop-protection products—the more it helps youto manage supply and demand going forward, whichhelps improve efficiency and productivity. Co-operatives


are in a really strong place because they are working onbehalf of their farmer members, and they can use thatdata in the right way to help the whole supply chain.

Q95 Fay Jones: I have a question about risk management.I had to step out of the room, so I apologise if this hasbeen covered. Often, farmers are at the very end of thesupply chain and bear all the risk. We have a good examplewith the beef price at the moment, which is down veryheavily at farm gate level but not so much at retail level.Could there be more in the Bill to provide more riskmanagement support in the event of market volatility?

Richard Self: On risk management, the problem isthat you put your crops in the ground or start toproduce your animals well ahead, and you do not knowwhat you will get for them. Mechanisms to controlthose risks against unforeseen events and so on arereally important. If they could be built in, that would bevery useful. Again, co-operatives have a role in that: youcan pool your crops or your fertiliser payments toaverage out prices within a co-operative. That is the sortof thing that helps to manage risk. If you have a knownprice for a thing, or you get an average price over aperiod, you do not get hit hard if the price suddenlygoes up or down.

Q96 Danny Kruger: That sounds very sensible. Ahuge advantage of a co-op system is that it can help itsmembers share its red risk. It would be good for me, atanother time, to understand more about the extent towhich your members provide that kind of assurancemechanism for their members, but that is not my question.More abstractly, where do you think the opportunity isfor a strengthened co-op movement in the regime that isto be introduced? Is it in enabling co-ops to partake innational and global markets, or in strengthening localproduction for local markets? I bet you are going to sayboth.

Richard Self: I would say both.

Q97 Danny Kruger: Do you have a sense of wherethere is more opportunity? Are you part of the local,anti-food-miles movement, or do you say, “No, we cantake part in the global economy”?

Richard Self: I think there are some wins there forlocal things, but if we really want to make a difference,it has to be about getting a good market share of UKsupply chains and then working with those groups tosee how we can develop export markets around theworld for high-value, high-welfare, quality products.There are some opportunities for that. It is a difficultarea to get into—obviously, it is highly competitive—butwith the story we have through our production methodsand so on, we should be able to do that. Again, thepoint is that you need the right business model to addthat value but then capture it back to the primaryproducer. The problem is that when a farmer producessomething and it just goes off on a lorry and they donot know where it is going, they are price-takers andsomebody else is capturing the value they have created.That is why we need to get the business model right forthose groups.

The Chair: If there are no more questions, I thankMr Self, and we will move on to the next panel.


Graeme Willis, Jim Egan and Jake Fiennes gave evidence.

3.25 pm

The Chair: We will now hear evidence from the Campaignto Protect Rural England, Kings Crops and the HolkhamEstate. We have until 4.15 pm. Would the witnesses liketo introduce themselves first?

Jake Fiennes: I am Jake Fiennes, the general managerof conservation at Holkham Estate in north Norfolk.

The Chair: Before I move on to Mr Egan, may I saythat this is a huge room and the acoustics are terrible, socan people speak up?

Jim Egan: I am Jim Egan, technical advisor for KingsCrops.

Graeme Willis: I am Graeme Willis, agricultural leadfor CPRE, the countryside charity.

Q98 George Eustice: Will you each tell us what youthink have been the main shortcomings of the existingarea-based common agricultural policy; whether wecan, in the short term, modify it to make it work moresmoothly; and whether you support the general premisein the Bill of, in the longer term, a move away fromsubsidies on land tenure to support for the delivery ofpublic goods?

Jim Egan: From my perspective, one shortcoming isthat the current system does not allow fully integratedenvironmental and farming management. It does notlet the whole lot sit together, which causes issues. One ofthe biggest shortcomings of the current system is itsadministration in my specialised area, agri-environmentschemes, which will put people off, as it has in the past. Ido not really want to go much further than that, Minister.There are lots of things, but that is my area of expertise.

In terms of modifying in the short term, my personalview would be not to, particularly on countrysidestewardship. I do a lot of work directly with farmers ongetting stewardship schemes in, and I have never seen somuch demand as this year. I already have 65 people onmy books wanting to do the modified schemes. Thereare obviously things pushing them towards that, but thesimplification of the actual stewardship process hasbeen good. We just need to get the payments and otherthings right in the short term, to provide certainty.

If I was going to modify anything within the widerBPS system, I would perhaps modify the three-croprule, so I could say that we had done something. However,I think people are used to it, and it is actually veryimportant, in a time of turbulence, that we keep it asstable as we can at the moment.

Sorry; what was your third question?

George Eustice: Do you support the general thrust ofthe future policy, moving from subsidy on land tenureto—

Jim Egan: Yes.

Jake Fiennes: If we split it into pillar 1 and pillar 2,the current BPS is rather clumsy and, in places, overlysimplistic. We have the ecological focus area rulingwithin that, which, as Jim refers to, is cumbersome. Thethree-crop rule and hedge-cutting dates sort of tie farmersinto a knot; they are unable to be flexible.


In the short term, farmers are preparing for a transitionperiod, which will start in 2021, according to the currentSecretary of State, although I know that some arepushing for that to be extended, because we have justseen a delay of this whole process. However, farmers areslowly taking on board that there will be seismic changewithin their business. It has happened over a very statictwo years, but we have seen a real momentum, and thereis a general acceptance among those within the industrythat this is coming around the corner. If they have anability to prepare their businesses by going into thecurrent schemes—I think the new stewardship schemewas opened today. I have not looked at it, but I think thedetail made it easier and more user-friendly.

We have to put the past aside, with all the issues thatwe had with the RPA, Natural England and late payments.I think we have moved on from that, and I think thisyear was an example of the RPA demonstrating veryswift payments, and the current stewardship paymentsare being rolled out as we speak. That is all very positive.Again, I see a greater uptake of the current schemes—thecountryside stewardship higher tier and middle tier, andalso the simplified scheme.

That will get farmers ready through the transitionperiod, which comes on to the Minister’s third point,where I am in full favour of it. A slight redrafting of theBill—talking about soil and productivity—basically gotthe entire land-based community on board.

Graeme Willis: I think it is well attested that the CAPscheme is inefficient, ineffective and inequitable. Peoplesuch as Allan Buckwell and Alan Matthews have madethat point, and DEFRA’s own research has shown that,and there have been statements, so we very much supportthat view. In terms of the current countryside stewardshipschemes, as Jim said, it is very important that farmerskeep faith with those schemes. The simplification hasbeen very helpful.

Certainly within DEFRA, I have been making thepoint that those schemes are probably under-commentedon, because we have a 2030 deadline for addressingclimate change by cutting emissions very significantly.Four years through to when ELMs beds in is a veryimportant period in which to get trees in the groundand to get peatland and other high-carbon soils restored.It is very important in this phase to keep putting moneyin and investing in farming. It is very important thatfarmers keep faith with that, and the schemes have beenexpanding, which is very welcome after a rocky start.

We believe that public goods for public money is theright way forward. It is the absolute crux for enhancingthe environment, obviously addressing climate changeand biodiversity issues. But, as Jim said, it is veryimportant to harmonise what farmers do in producingfood and other goods with environmental improvementswhich we know are very necessary. Bringing those twotogether is critical so that they are not seem as oppositional.

Q99 George Eustice: If at one end of the scale youhave what could be called the broad and shallow butlargely universal interventions that most farmers wouldsign up to—catchment sensitive farming or hedgerows—andat the other end you have land use change throughpeatland restoration or new woodland being established,what should be the balance between those competingpriorities in order to really deliver for the environment?

Jake Fiennes: Are we referring to the blueprint ofELM?

George Eustice: Yes, in the new scheme.

Jake Fiennes: We have the regulatory payment. I hearof calls for up to 30% of existing payments that farmersreceive, which is about £200 per hectare. I am certainlynot in favour of that, because it will not encouragestakeholders to go into the middle tier and I think youwill see a great uptake in the middle tier. On the finaltier, which is landscape restoration, whether it is on acatchment basis, if we are going to have sustainable,functional land use, it has to be at scale and deliver allthe climate change issues and soil regeneration. Allthese processes will go into the final tier and, havinglistened to some of the comments earlier about thesmaller farmers not working well together but the biggerones working better, we are seeing a great uptake offacilitation funds and cluster groups. This whole movementis happening. I would not encourage the lower paymentto be a major factor, because we would basically goback to a reverse BPS system.

Jim Egan: My way of answering that would be tolook at the fact that in the majority of lowland England,if you split it that way, you will find farmers taking upmore than you think, if it is properly rewarded, if it islinked in by the rest of the industry and it is linkedtogether. You quite commonly talk to farmers now whotake out anything between 5% and 15% of their land tomanage it “for the environment” and also recognise thereal benefits of changing what they do: introducinggrass lanes to help with grass weed control and to buildsoil fertility, which helps with cleaner water and so on.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jake that there is a sea changecoming. A lot of people stood back, because of the politicaluncertainty, but they are ready for that. The higherextremes you referenced, such as peat restoration, willbe a focus in an area where it can happen, getting thoselandowners together and talking about it. It will take time.I do not think they are completely divorced and different.

On woodland, it will fit when people start to seenatural capital, particularly the natural capital potentialof their land, and they have choices of what to do. Thenwoodland will start to happen, especially where you canget people working together and you can make thelinks. I would be positive about that.

Q100 Daniel Zeichner: I want to put to you a questionI asked earlier witnesses. I think that the CPRE was oneof the signatories to the letter to the Prime Ministerexpressing concern about the potential problems withimporting food with lower environmental, welfare andhealth standards. Why did you sign that letter and whatshould be done in the Bill to tackle the issue? That isparticularly aimed at Graeme.

Graeme Willis: In terms of maintaining standards,we are very concerned—I know that statements havebeen made about supporting high standards—thatundercutting those standards through imports wouldundermine farmers’ incomes, as well as their ability toperform environmental management. I know that anamendment previously tabled to the Bill sought tointroduce a broad requirement that any internationaltrade agreement that was to be ratified must be compliantwith UK standards. We think that is a major omissionand one of the major things that needs to be addressedin the legislation. We have a common cause with thewhole of the farming sector on that. The whole of theNGO environmental sector takes that view. It is a veryimportant element and condition.


Q101 Daniel Zeichner: Thank you; that is helpful.Jim and Jake, you are very enthusiastic and positiveabout the change on uptake in stewardship. That hasbeen a long time coming, has it not? What has changedso dramatically, in your view, to make that happen? Inthe transformation of ELMs, would you agree that itwould have been helpful for this discussion and processto have a bit more detail about the Government’s thinkingon how it will work?

Jim Egan: Regarding possible current uptake thisyear, I have always been positive, and I have been provedwrong, year on year, as I am often told by DEFRA’sagri-environment group. This year, in particular, peoplehave heard for a long time that BPS will start goingdown. They have seen their neighbours’ farms goinginto the simplified scheme, although not in huge numbers.I work with a company that provides agronomy advice,and the agronomists are starting to understand it.

The weather this year in the east midlands, my patchof the country, has meant that there are farms with nocombinable crops in the ground at all—not 5% or 10%,but none. That has made people think. It has made peoplethink about sustainable income streams, support,unproductive areas and what they could do differently.There is a whole raft of different things. There is also aquestion of who sells it. If you sell it directly and positively,people will do it. If you are negative and you harp onabout late payments and so on, the meeting will leaveyou. I tend to be positive about it. Perhaps that is why Ihave a long list of people wanting to work with it.

Jake Fiennes: When you put economically sustainableagriculture to a farmer, he may have had 47 years ofbeing paid just to produce food, irrespective of thequality, quantity and yield he produces on his land.They must realign their business. If we see this transitionperiod take place as of next year, some famers will loseanything from 5% to 20% of their support income.

Agri-environment helps them through the transitionperiod financially, but it also gets them to understand.At the moment, farmers lack good agriculturalenvironmental advice. That is what we don’t see enoughof: advice on the ground. Farmers are a particularlyfickle community. They are wary of individuals they donot know, so the advice has to come from individualswith whom they have had previous relationships, whetherthrough their agronomy, because we are seeing agronomybecome more open to environmental delivery, the Farmingand Wildlife Advisory Groups throughout the country,or Natural England, which changed the game of agri-environment 20 years ago. The advice on the ground iskey.

If farmers are sold an economic reason and then havean ability to deliver the environmental goods, whateverthey may be, through sound advice, we will see greateruptake. The reason we had the stop-start scenario withagri-environment was, as Jim referred to, late payments—“Am I going to get paid for it?”—or commodity prices.We have seen the volatility in commodity prices. If I amgetting £200 a tonne for my milling wheat, why do Ineed to go to an agri-environment scheme when I havealready invested in the men, the machinery and theinfrastructure to deliver that crop? It is an evolving,moving process, but they are definitely coming more onboard with it.

Q102 Daniel Zeichner: May I press you on that point?This is a big transition that is envisaged, possibly over acompressed timeframe. Is there the capacity to providethe advice and to do the negotiation? If there is not,what needs to be done to get it in place?

Jim Egan: I think there is underlying capacity outthere. There are enough people to do it. There will be achange of mindset in some sectors, but bear in mindthat business is seeing some of the opportunities hereas well. Jake is right: it needs to be somebody the farmertrusts—there is a wide range of advisers trusted byfarmers—and the advisers need to believe in the scheme.Many advisers have not sold environmental work forthe past five years, because they do not believe in thescheme; they do not want to put their name on the linewhen the payments are late, and when the agreementdoes not turn up for a year after you have enteredinto it.

You should not underestimate the impact that thathas, because if your adviser walks up the drive and says,“I can’t put my name to that, because I can’t advise youabout that future income and part of your business,” itputs people off. We are starting to get a lot of certaintynow about stewardship. I know it will change andevolve, but we need that certainty of scheme and ofprocess. The advice is there; people just need to believein it.

Q103 Mr Goodwill: Many land managers derivesignificant income from the sporting potential of theirfarms or estates—not just from the sale of game, butfrom the people who pay to stalk or shoot or to catchsalmon in their rivers. Indeed, before agri-environmentalschemes came in, the farms and estates managed in thatway were probably the ones already doing what we wantthem to do now. How important do you think it is thatany new schemes under ELM dovetail in with the waythat these estates are being managed? Do we need totake particular account, for example, of grouse moorsand the uplands, where we have a fragile environmentthat, if managed in a different way, could well revert towhat some might see as a carbon sink, but others wouldsee as a downgrading of that precious environment?

Graeme Willis: Referring to uplands, we have signeda letter to say that we want peatland burning to endrapidly, and the Committee on Climate Change hastaken the same view. I want those landscapes to bemanaged in a re-wetted form, which might help differentforms of game. It might not be the same kinds of gamemanagement.

Q104 Mr Goodwill: Is that blanket bog or the driedheathland and moorland?

Graeme Willis: The blanket bog, essentially. Thatcould be re-wetted and improved upon, and I think youwould get different game. You would not necessarily getthe same driven grouse shooting, but it is important totake into account what game management could do inthose areas and how it might adapt to that. It would bea different form of activity, but very important. I takethe point about large estates, but Jake can say far moreabout that; it is important that you maintain that kindof management. It has a lot of environmental benefits,certainly in integrating woodland into those environmentsand into the farming.


Jim Egan: I have no experience of upland, so I willnot try that one. I used to work at the Allerton projectfor GWCT, and my experience of lowland gamemanagement is that, where it is done very well, it is verygood. It encourages woodland management, habitatmanagement and the provision of wild bird seed mixes,pollen and nectar. You are right to reference the factthat many of those estates were doing that work beforeagri-environment and working with agri-environment.We need to be careful to ensure that that management ispositive and good, because, like everything in life, thereare good and bad shooting estates. For me, it comesback to farming and the environment, completely meldedand meshed together. Sporting activity is part of therural environment and needs to mesh in with it.

Jake Fiennes: It is an Agriculture Bill and game is notagriculture. We have to remove game, because it is just alandscape pastime. The environment can benefit game.The game community has enough issues to deal with onits table, but we can see that game interests have evolvedover the centuries. They will be more crucial in thedelivery of environmental goods. Those with a historyof managing with a game interest see the benefits. TheAllerton project is a great example. The Duke of Norfolk’sestate in Peppering is specifically targeting game, butthe benefits to the wider environment are huge. All thegame interests form part of an agri-environment scheme,so they are sort of intrinsically linked. Where it is donewell, it is done very well, and where it is done badly, it isan environmental disaster. Those with game interestswill have to change, which is no different from howthose with food production interests will have to change.

Q105 Mr Goodwill: Could ELMS incentivise thosepositive changes?

Jake Fiennes: I think the ELM schemes will doexactly that. If we can demonstrate better land use forour land that is less productive—use for the environment,biodiversity, carbon storage, cleaner water and cleanerair—everyone gets to benefit.

Q106 Kerry McCarthy: Did you just say that gameshould be taken out of the Bill altogether because it is aleisure pastime, not an agricultural pastime?

Jake Fiennes: Game is not agriculture. Game hasnever been part of agriculture. Forestry is agriculture;farming, dairying and beef production are agriculture,but game sort of sits on the sidelines and is not part ofagriculture.

Q107 Kerry McCarthy: I thought that the wholejustification for game shooting was that people eventuallyeat the birds, even though we know that they could notpossibly consume as many as were shot. Perhaps we willagree to disagree on that issue.

Jake Fiennes: It is a technicality, but game has neverbeen—

Q108 Kerry McCarthy: You have farmed game birdsthat are released into the world to be shot.

Jake Fiennes: But a game farmer is not a farmer. Heis not a poultry producer either, strangely. Sorry, but itis a real technical difference.

Q109 Kerry McCarthy: Well, we probably do nothave time to go into that. This is probably a question forGraeme, to start with, but others can chip in if they

wish. I have two quick questions. First, still on themanagement of peatlands issue, game shooting andparticularly grouse shooting can be very lucrative forestate owners. Is the mechanism in the Bill about rewardingfarmers who re-wet the peatland or manage the moorsin a certain way ever likely to be enough to encouragethem to do it, or do we need the ban that you are talkingabout?

My other question is that you mentioned your viewsabout county farms, and I am keen to see what youthink should be in the Bill. I think there is generalsupport for the idea that county farms are a good thing,but that does not necessarily mean that they need to gointo the Bill. Can you say what you think needs to be inthe Bill on that front?

Graeme Willis: On peatland, it interesting how broadthat goes in terms of land management. Going back tothe Minister’s question, I would imagine that large-scalerestoration might well be part of ELM. The publicgoods statements are quite broadly framed, but they dotalk about soil, and the supporting position statementtalks about soil and peat.

Q110 Kerry McCarthy: And the climate change thing,possibly.

Graeme Willis: Yes, climate change being one of theobjectives. It is very important, given we know the levelof emissions from upland peat, that the intentions ofthe Bill should cover those areas and ELM should beable to deliver on that within that wider land restorationcomponent, if that be. I think that will be very important,because where else will the resource come from to dothat? The 25-year plan had a £10 million fund. Scotlandhas committed £250 million for restoration, so we needmoney to be identified that can go towards that restorationover the longer period. There is an issue about theviability of those peatlands in the long term in a warmingclimate if they are managed in a different way. That makesthings even more contentious.

I am pleased that you mentioned county farms. I amnot a specialist on entrants, but I think something onsupporting new entrants should be in the Bill throughan amendment to that effect. The Minister has spokenabout investing in county farms on several occasionsand to the EFRA Committee. He welcomed the idea asa very interesting development. The farms could beinvested in so that they can produce more peri-urbanhorticulture, for example, which might be one way tomake smaller units viable. As was referred to earlier,there is an economic question around those. An amendmentto invest and fund—or to give the Secretary of Statepowers to invest and fund—county farms to be developedand improved for wider purposes, would be great.

We would also consider asking for a protective lockon county farm estates while they can develop newwider sets of purposes, so that they can be invested infor the future. Wider purposes in terms of mitigatingand adapting to climate change, supporting connectionto the countryside, access to land and landscapes andthe realities of farming, would be very welcome.

Q111 Virginia Crosbie: Mr Egan, you mentioned thatinspection regimes have to be fit for purpose. Whichregimes do you think need to be changed under the newlegislation? I am also interested to understand from youwhat success looks like.


Jim Egan: When you are on the receiving end of theinspection regime does not seem proportionate at all atthe moment. It is heavy-handed. We all accept thatthere must be rules and that there has to be an inspection,but you are working on a farm, on a shop floor that hasno straight edges. When somebody can come and deducta payment for being four decimal places out in area,which is what it could go to, it does not feel right. Itactually puts an awful lot of people off engaging withagri-environment schemes and measures because of thepure fear of the inspection. The inspectors are greatpeople—they are doing a job—but they do not engageduring their inspection process. There is a finality to theinspection process that says, “Mr Egan, you are wrong.”There is an appeals process, but there is no face to face.That is not a very nice place to be.

It would be better if it was done in a much moreapproachable way. We all accept that a lot of moneygoes into the industry, but we should be approachable.We should be able to say, “Oh, I didn’t quite get thatright.” If it is a minor infringement, it is nothing. Therewill be something else on the farm that delivers aboveand beyond what it was intended to, but it is never takeninto account.

When I worked at the Allerton project, we had threeinspections in seven years. That is in a place where thereis a board of trustees, a management team and we allget on. There is a lot of pressure on the people responsiblefor that. Imagine being on a farm on your own. It is nota good place. It needs to be more human and a betterprocess.

As for success for me, do you mean in terms of thescheme or the inspection regime?

Virginia Crosbie: In terms of the scheme.

Jim Egan: In terms of the scheme, it would be everybodyengaging, and engaging willingly and talking about it.

Q112 Deidre Brock: On the face of it, the Bill seemsto be for the support of farmers, crofters and agriculturalactivities. Getting back to what you were saying, Mr Fiennes,about grouse moors, it sounded that you thought theiractivity should not be part of the Bill, yet in part 1of the Bill, the clauses around financial assistance arecertainly drawn loosely enough that it could apply toshooting estates, as well.

Jake Fiennes: I don’t think I was referring to grousemoors specifically. I was referring to game shooting as acommunity.

Q113 Deidre Brock: Okay. Do you think it is appropriate,then, that shooting estates receive financial assistanceas a result of the Bill? If not, should it be redrawn moretightly, so that they could be excluded? Is that what youthink?

Jake Fiennes: Well, no, I think there are clear benefitsfrom grouse shooting. We can see greater biodiversityon well managed grouse moors. If we look at theburning of peatlands, on Saddleworth Moor last year ahuge area of moor had very deep burning within thepeat; that was an area of moor that was not managedfor grouse, because the heather was very poor, and itwas a tinderbox that caught fire very quickly. We mustunderstand the benefits of well managed grouse moorsto a landscape that is iconic to the English uplands: 70%

of the world’s heather moorland is in England, so it is akey habitat. Admittedly, there are some quite extrememanagement techniques in places, which we are quiteaware of, and the industry is looking inward on how toaddress that.

Q114 Deidre Brock: I hear what you say. Do youthink it is appropriate that financial assistance could begiven to those estates as a result of clauses within theBill, or do you think that the clauses should be redrawnto exclude those estates?

Jake Fiennes: A payment system that rewards farmersand land occupiers for delivering public goods shouldnot exclude anyone. As Jim just said, this has to be opento everyone.

Q115 Deidre Brock: Okay. Would those be the viewsof Mr Willis and Mr Egan as well?

Jim Egan: I do not get involved in policy; I have neverworked in it.

Graeme Willis: In terms of the breadth of it, I think itis still open to question as to how wide it goes. I am onthe stakeholder engagement group, so I am limited inwhat I can say because of confidentiality about that.However, I have certainly seen a slide that shows howwide it might go, and there might be questions aroundwhether it includes, for example, airport operators, whichhave large tracts of open grassland that they need tomanage to keep trees off. Could they do positive thingswith that?

I think there is a very important question about theamount of resource available and whether those are theright people to receive that resource, as against farmers,given the context we talked about, the viability issuesgoing forward and the cuts to basic payments duringthe transition. However, something to address the issuesacross a broad landscape is very important.

On whole-farm areas, we would not want large areasof farmland managed very intensively within a systemin which other areas are just managed for public goods.I think they need to be combined and harmonised, aswe said before, so that land is shared and used in thevery best way, for the environmental benefits and forgood, sustainable food production.

Q116 George Eustice: I return to Mr Egan’s pointabout the control and enforcement regime. If you areclose to the schemes, you will be aware that the introductionin the latest EU scheme of a common commencementdate—so that everybody had to start at the same time,which caused all the predictable administrative problemsfor everyone—combined with the introduction of theIACS enforcement regime drove the terrible, draconianregime that you describe.

One thing we have described for the future scheme isthat you would instead leave all that behind, and individualfarms would have a trusted, accredited adviser on agri-environment schemes. That could be a trusted, accreditedagronomist, or someone who works for the WildlifeTrust or the RSPB, and they would be trained to helpput the schemes together. They would visit the farm,walk the farm with their boots on and then sit aroundthe kitchen table and help an individual farmer constructa scheme.


We are obviously testing and piloting and triallingthat now. If that system could be made to work—analtogether more human system, as you said, because atrusted adviser would do the initial agreement andwould maybe visit the farm three or four times a year,not to inspect but to be a point of advice—how manyfarms can a single agri-environment adviser with thattype of remit realistically do?

Jim Egan: It would depend very much on type, size,place, aspect and everything. I do not think you can puta number on the people that you could hold as clients. Iactually do not know how many clients my agronomycolleagues have, because I am new to that business.However, where I work, I would be perfectly comfortablemanaging 40 or 50 clients and working through with them.

The main premise is not to overlook that that processof walking the farm with a trusted adviser alreadyhappens for countryside stewardship. Most farmers willtake advice and will rely on somebody working withthem. The opportunity that comes from splitting outand putting everything into ELMS—including all thebasic payment elements, so that it is one big agriculturaland environmental processing scheme—actually meansthat you can widen that advice and make it broader.The trick will be that those advisers will have to haveknowledge of the farming business and will have to talkto others within the business. Even on a small dairyfarming unit, they will have to talk to the vet, the feedmerchant and the farmer. It is a facilitation skill asmuch as anything else, and it will require an understandingof how those farming sectors work.

This is definitely the right way to go. We will needprofessional advice to do that. A farmer doesn’t growan arable crop without an agronomist. You don’t growbeef cattle without a vet or a feed merchant. So whyshould you not have what I would call environmentalfacilitators?

Q117 George Eustice: Based on your assessment of40 or 50, you would need somewhere in the region of1,500 to 1,800 of those in England to cover most farms.Is there capacity at the moment in the agronomic andenvironment NGO world to allow people to go fortraining and accreditation? Or is it your view that itwould be better simply to recruit additional staff atNatural England or the RPA to do it?

Jim Egan: First, I do not think they should be recruitedby Natural England or the RPA. Within the supplychain, there are probably sufficient people. An agronomisthas to be trained and to get your agronomy diplomayou have to do a BETA—biodiversity and environmentaltraining for advisers—certificate in conservationmanagement. It is only a three-day course, but it isabout awareness. Whoever is drawing up the schemewill need to pull on other skills and pull and bring theenvironmental community and the farming communitytogether. A good person does that already. I do notthink you need a new qualification. The qualificationsare there. The BETA certificate in conservation managementand that type of approach already addresses some ofthe issues. It would probably need an upland moduleand a little bit more focus on grassland, because it is anarable-focused course.

I also believe that it is Natural England or the RPA’sresponsibility, if they get a bad application, to send itback. I went to DEFRA and Natural England about

eight years ago and asked for that to happen and itnever did. Natural England continues to re-work badapplications. Once you do that, the farming communitywill soon know not to go to that person. It doesn’t needdegree level; it needs an element of a qualification, a CVand management by a managing authority that is notafraid to take people off the list if they are not doing thejob properly.

Q118 Fay Jones: Clause 13 provides the power to optout of direct payments in favour of a lump sum, andtherefore opt out of agri-environment schemes. Do yousee that as a risk of losing a skillset within the agriculturalsector or an opportunity for new entrants and new ideas?

Jake Fiennes: If I am brutally honest, I do not thinkthe Treasury would sign up to that. If we all opted out,we couldn’t afford it. I am intrigued that that is still onthe table.

Earlier you referred to land values. How to devaluevery quickly? Everyone opts out and land values plummet—in an industry that is generally reliant on that supportin the way it currently manages land.

Graeme Willis: When I heard about this in the originalAgriculture Bill, I was concerned that no constraintswere placed on that money. I was not clear about therationale for that. If the rationale is for new entrants,there is an issue if that is only done through land pricesfalling. I am not convinced that we can guarantee thatwhen a farm is sold, a new entrant will get that farm.There is no control over that, so it seems too broadbrush.It also seems somewhat a hostage to fortune becauselarge amounts of public money being paid out for whatis not a clear set of purposes could play very badly withthe public; other people have raised that concern. Ifthat were tied to some investment into the farm, there isan element of advantage there to having a lump sum toinvest that could meet the other purposes to improvethe farm’s environmental performance and productivity.Also, it could be good if it were tied in some shape orform to supporting new entrants.

Earlier, there was a mention of share farming—someform of succession where there is no son or daughter topass the farm on to, some mechanism where that waslocked in to ensure that a new entrant could get on to afarmstead and actually learn. You mentioned skills:they could learn from the skills of the farmer on thatfarm and not lose the knowledge of the land, theaspect, the farming and the culture of that farm, andpass that on to a new, younger or older person with adifferent set of skills. That would be really interesting.

I see it as too broadbrush and not clear at themoment, and I have concerns. I understand that thatwill be consulted on, but I am not sure whether that isclear from the Bill as it stands, or whether that can beclarified.

Q119 Miss Dines: This question is for Mr Egan. Irepresent Derbyshire Dales, which is a very largeconstituency. As well as many large estates, there aremany small farms. I was interested in your answer to theMinister about the point that you made in your writtenstatement, that funding should be available for professionaladvice to ensure that we maximise the environmentalbenefits. How could that realistically be achieved for mysmall farmers, who, historically, have been reluctant to


[Miss Dines]

take advice due to independence, or simply could notafford to? There are a lot of young farmers—between20 and 30—in my constituency. How could that beachieved, however admirable it is? What is your advice?

Jim Egan: I think it can be achieved. The currentexample of facilitation funds in cluster groups is anabsolute classic for that type of farming. I think thatthere is a facilitation fund in your constituency; there iscertainly one not far away. Those farmers could cometogether. I am not a believer in “one farm, one advice”.If there are six people who farm together with smallerfarming units who want to go into a scheme, and willachieve better environmental outputs if they all worktogether, we can give one set of advice to all of them.

We need to think really differently about where weare going now. It is not just about one-to-one advice; itis about one-to-six advice. It is about, when you put thescheme together, providing the training to those six toimplement the measures. I think that it is completelyaffordable, and it works. We just need to think differentlyabout how we put these things together.

Q120 Daniel Zeichner: Since the previous AgricultureBill started, obviously the world has changed in someways. There is a greater understanding of the climatecrisis that we are facing. More work has been done bythe Government’s Committee on Climate Change, includingvery detailed suggestions for land-use management releasedonly a few weeks ago. Would you expect to see some ofthose proposals begin to make their way into a Bill suchas this, and are you surprised, as I am, that there is noaspiration within the Bill to hit a net-zero target at somepoint?

Graeme Willis: On where those targets are expressed,we know that the Environment Bill has been laid beforeParliament. The relationship between the AgricultureBill, the Environment Bill and all the other policyinstruments is very interesting, and remains to be resolved.If you had gone in the right order, it might have beenthat you had the Environment Bill, then the 25-yearenvironment plan, and then the Agriculture Bill, becausethe main funding mechanism seems to be environmentalland management, which would deliver on the kind oftargets that you set through the 25-year plan. That canbe established through the legislation in the EnvironmentBill.

I am not sure whether it is right to put a target in thisBill at the moment—it may be a commitment by theMinister—but I think there is a possibility of introducingfurther regulation that might address that. Obviously,there is the Environment Bill. One of the complicatedissues is whether the Agriculture Bill could reference theEnvironment Bill, because it has not received RoyalAssent. There is a question about how we addresstargets, and whether that is set out through the Officefor Environmental Protection, for example. It is acomplicated relationship.

I think that the situation has changed, and thereforewhat the Agriculture Bill is able to do, and the amountof funding that comes forward to deliver on thosetargets, is critical. Clarity about the long-term fundingarrangements is therefore very important, as well as howthose would seek to address the climate change issue.

Q121 Daniel Zeichner: I very much agree with youabout the complex interaction between the pieces oflegislation, but we know that the sector produces acertain amount. Could there not be a target for thesector?

Graeme Willis: A target for the sector would be veryinteresting. I know that the NFU has come up with itsown leadership statement of a 2040 target. It would beinteresting for the sector. I would flag up that whenemissions from agriculture are referenced they are landuse, land-use change and forestry emissions, which relateto agriculture. Peatland use, particularly, is not mentioned,which is very high indeed—particularly on lowlandpeat. Those need to be factored in. It is of great concernthat those do not get mentioned adequately. I thinkthere are powers within the Bill to address those.

I suspect that if you had sector targets for agricultureyou would argue for targets for other sectors. I am notsure whether those are in place. In the agriculturesector, I think that there will be ambition, given theright funding, to do a lot more on climate change,certainly in terms of locking carbon up in soils, where itbelongs, rather than losing it to the air. There is greatpotential for that.

Q122 Mr Goodwill: I am trying to get my headaround the deal in payments with respect to an earlyretirement scheme. When answering an earlier question,you talked about the way it could affect the value of theland. Could there be a situation in which a tenant takesthe money and runs, and then the landowner is lookingfor a new tenant but without the agricultural support?It is difficult to attract one. How will the environmentbe managed if the payments that would have beenforthcoming for the environmental land managementschemes were not there? What would happen in practicein a situation where a tenant takes early retirement andtakes the money, and then expects the landlord to pickup the pieces?

Jake Fiennes: There could be a technical mechanismrelating to tenant’s dilapidations from the landlord’sperspective. The landlord could seek to recoup that ifhe was going to devalue the land by taking those futurepayments away. There is a technical mechanism thatallows that to happen. That strengthens the landlord’sability to retain that land to rent to others or to newentrants. It is important that there is some kind ofmechanism within the Bill for that. Potentially therewould be land abandonment because it has no value, orwe would see deep intensification of land areas thathave no support mechanism. Then we are trying todeliver environmental land management on a landscapescale, and we have these blackspots in between with nosupport mechanism. That would be my concern.

Q123 George Eustice: On that point: do we want landrents to stay as high as they are? Would it not potentiallybe beneficial for landlords to have to fight one anotherto attract tenants on to their land?

Jake Fiennes: Land rents are artificially high basedon the support mechanism. We will see that slowlydiminish. Commodity prices will periodically affect landprices. The horticultural sector does not rely on supportat all. The average age of the British farmer is 62: landrents are overly high and they will be reduced, thereby


suddenly allowing new entrants to come in who will bemore open to environmental land management andpublic goods proposals. We will see a wholesale change.We are expecting a recession in agriculture through thistransition period, for all the reasons being discussedtoday. Where there is change there is opportunity, andthe opportunities are there for another generation tomove in and manage land environmentally, economicallyand sustainably.

Chair: If there are no further questions, I thank thewitnesses for attending today on behalf of the Committee.


Judicaelle Hammond and George Dunn gave evidence.

4.13 pm

Chair: We will now hear evidence from the CountryLand and Business Association and the Tenant FarmersAssociation. We have until 5pm. Welcome; please introduceyourselves.

Judicaelle Hammond: I am Judicaelle Hammond. Iam the director of policy and advice of the CountryLand and Business Association.

George Dunn: I am George Dunn. I am the chiefexecutive of the Tenant Farmers Association of Englandand Wales.

Q124 George Eustice: I will ask a question that Iasked the National Farmers Union earlier: if we had aworld in which there were no basic payment schemepayments—no subsidy on land, tenure or occupation—andtenants came in and only paid the rent on which theycould still turn a profit, what is the correct value of landrents in an upland area, or a typical lowland area?

George Dunn: That is an interesting question, andone to which there is no simple answer. There are twocodes of tenancy in play. One is the code under theAgricultural Holdings Act 1986, and one is under theAgricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The 1986 Act has aformulaic approach to rent. It steers you away from themarket. In my view, if you look at the rents that are onAgricultural Holdings Act tenancies, they are probablymore akin to an affordable level of rent. We are seeingaround £80 per acre on arable, £50 to £60 per acre ongrass and up to £100 per acre on dairy.

The farm business tenancy rents, which are driven bytender rents quite a lot, are far too high. We often seerents for arable ground in excess of £200 per acre andover £200 per acre for dairy ground. Those are clearlyunsustainable. I would direct the Committee to look atthe sorts of evidence you would get from the 1986 Actas to what a reasonable level of rent is.

Judicaelle Hammond: I do not think it is that easy. AsGeorge was saying, several things make up land rents.One of them is what you can get for what you do withthat land. It is right that it should be left to the market.It may well be that some of the rent levels are unsustainable.I think they will probably adjust as we change regimes,but I do not think that being bound by a formulaic rentsystem is a good idea in a system where there is uncertaintyin trading conditions and there needs to be some flexibility.

George Dunn: To add to that, the problem with anopen market system is that the market is so slim, andthe evidence is so hard to come by. Therefore, you tend

to be driven by the froth in the system—the tenderrents. If you look at DEFRA’s own figures, the averagefarm business tenancy rent on an arable farm is about£100 per acre, but the tender rents suggest they shouldbe double that. I just think we need to ensure that weare not wholly going with the market level.

Q125 George Eustice: I suppose the point I wasmaking was less to do with the market. If you removedfrom the market the roughly £100 per acre basic paymentscheme payment—if that just vanished—what is theland then worth to rent? I am assuming that it was amarket rent, but it would become, potentially, a buyers’market rather than a sellers’ market, as now.

George Dunn: On that point, we would see the farmbusiness tenancy rents under the 1995 Act move moretowards the level of rents we would see under the 1986Act. They might fall a little bit, but because they takeinto consideration the productive and related earningcapacity of the holding, that would reflect better whatthat holding can physically produce.

Q126 George Eustice: I have a linked question, althoughit might be too complex to answer. From the CLA’spoint of view, at what point does it cease to be worthrenting land and start to make more sense to bring it inhand and farm it yourself without a subsidy?

Judicaelle Hammond: There is no easy answer to that,because the circumstances will vary. I think it verymuch depends on what the person who owns that landwants to do with their holding. It may well be that, dueto questions other than just land rents, they want tobring it in hand. It may be that there are other thingsthey want to do on that land—for example, tourism orsomething completely different to agriculture—or itmay be that renting the land to tenants suits them andthey will continue doing that. That will vary accordingto the owners’ vision for the land and the stage they areat in terms of their business.

Q127 George Eustice: On tenancy issues, yourorganisations famously do not always agree, but on thefuture direction of travel for policy, do you both agreethat a move from an area-based subsidy to payment forthe delivery of public goods is the right way to go foragriculture policy? If you have any concerns about thedevelopment of that, what are your key concerns aboutwhat might go wrong in that transition?

Judicaelle Hammond: We would totally agree, as theCLA, that this move is the right move. We have been aproponent of moving towards payment for public goodfor a while now. The Bill is welcome. We also welcomethe inclusion of soil quality, for example, and theconsideration of sustainable food production and foodsecurity in the Bill. The fact that there is now going tobe a multi-annual framework for financial assistanceis also important, as is assistance for productivityimprovement.

Regarding what we would want to see, there are twomain aspects, as well as a number of other improvements,which I might talk about later. One is making sure thatthe transition is right. At the moment, we are missinginformation, not just about what is going to happennext year, but about residual payments for individualbusinesses over the rest of the transition years. We are


missing the kinds of details about ELMS that will makeit possible for those businesses to make decisions aboutwhere they want to take their business, and in particular,of course, about payment rates. In the absence of thosedetails, and given the uncertainty in trading conditions,we would like the start of the transition period to bepushed back by one year without moving the start ofELMS.

The other issue that we have is about trade standards,which the NFU and others have spoken about. We certainlyshare their concerns.

George Dunn: I would take you back a little bit,Minister, and just say that we need to be really careful.Despite the fact that there is a great deal of criticism ofthe CAP, and the way in which the basic paymentscheme operates and its impact on rents, we need to beclear that those payments are being received by individualfarms right up and down the country that are doing theright things on the environment, animal welfare, consumersafety and all those issues. If we simply remove the BPSpayment without properly thinking through the changesthat we need to make, we risk the good work that we aredoing. That is why we have been saying that we aremaking changes for a generation, and they need to bedone well rather than quickly, so we support the CLA’sstance on delaying the transition. We think that we haveconcertinaed the work on ELMS, for example, toomuch to try to bring that forward into a sensible place.

Also, while we support the general move towardspublic payments for public goods, we see that movealongside the productivity elements, which we believeare really important as well. The Bill has a couple oflines on productivity, but we want to see much moreabout how that can work alongside creating resiliencewithin farm businesses. There are also the trading elementsand ensuring that we are not undercut by cheap importsfrom abroad, produced to standards that are illegalhere; the fair dealing practices; and the issue of accessto the tenanted sector. Schedule 3 goes some way towardsaddressing that sector, but it needs a little bit of work.

Q128 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. In general,what changes would you like to see that would improvethis Bill, from your point of view? I am particularlylooking at George.

Judicaelle Hammond: The main one, as I said—I willnot labour the point—is the delay in the start of thetransition. It also seems to us that a couple of otherthings would be improved if they were done differently.For example, the multi-annual framework for financialassistance is five years. I can see why it has been donelike that, but that means that it is at risk of beingentangled with the political and election cycles. As faras I know, farmers in the EU—which is going to be ourclosest competitor—will still have seven years to plan.That is closer to the business cycle in agriculture, so wewould favour lengthening the period covered by themulti-annual financial assistance framework.

The other thing that could be added to the Bill is aprovision on rural development and, in particular,socioeconomic funding schemes. In the new world, thatis going to be done via the UK shared prosperity fund,but that is not due to arrive until 2022 at the earliest.What would happen if that got delayed, or got intoother difficulties? We would like to see some provisionto make sure that it is possible for Government tocontinue socioeconomic schemes.

Those are two important improvements. We wouldalso want to make sure that any moneys that are recoupedfrom direct payment, particularly in the early part ofthe transitions, are used for productivity and ELMSpilots and do not go back to the Treasury.

George Dunn: We agree on the issue of trade standards.We think we need to nail that wholly into the Bill toensure that we are not undercutting our high standardshere and offshoring our issues abroad.

While there have been some helpful statements fromthe Government, we are concerned about some of therhetoric that appears to be emerging, particularly fromthe Prime Minister’s Greenwich speech, where there wasan indication that we would not necessarily insist on ourlaws being protected in trade deals, which is ratherworrying. Of course we were also promised free andfrictionless trade with the EU on leaving the EuropeanUnion,butweheartheChancellorof theDuchyof Lancastersaying today that we need to prepare for issues at theborder when we end our implementation period.

On the fair dealing section of the Bill, we should naildown the fact that that should be regulated by theGroceries Code Adjudicator. The Bill leaves it hangingas to who should be the regulator. There is a suggestionthat the Rural Payments Agency has a role to play; Iwould disagree. As the CLA has said, we need a delay inthe transition period by one year, which will give ussufficient time to think about these things more deeply.

The access for tenants to schemes needs to be addressed,because schedule 3 to the Bill provides a provision onlyon a “may” basis. We want it to be a “must” basis thatthe authorities come forward with regulations. Currently,that applies only to the 1986 Act tenants, not the1995 Act tenants. As that is half the tenanted sector inagriculture in England, we think that should be changed.

On the food security section, we want the report to beannual, not five yearly. Finally, in the financial assistanceplans, the missing thing is the word “financial”. There isno commitment to say what the finances are going to bein any one year over the five-year period. That needs tobe nailed into those plans as well.

Q129 Daniel Zeichner: Do you envisage that measuresin the Bill will affect the lengths of tenancies that arenegotiated?

George Dunn: There is nothing in the Bill that willaffect the lengths of tenancies per se. Obviously there isthe welcome inclusion of soil health within the publicpayments for public goods element of the Bill, whichmight encourage people to go for longer tenancies,depending on how the ELMS fits into that, but there isnothing specific that will do anything about the lengthsof tenancies.

TheTenancyReformIndustryGroupmadeasuggestion,because one of the things that landlords are concernedabout is how they get land back if the tenant goes intobreach. We are not interested in protecting tenants whoare inbreach.If wehadeasier-to-useprovisionsthatallowedlandlords to take land back if they had let for a longperiod of time, that might make them freer to do that.

There is also a need to look at the taxation framework,which goes beyond the Bill, but we hope that theChancellor might say something about that on 11 March.

Judicaelle Hammond: Interestingly enough, we wouldsupport the introduction of provisions that enabledlandlords, as you might expect, to get possession of the


land in the case of breach. The question for us iswhether there should be a threshold on that. Our answerwould be that two years or more would be better thanany arbitrary longer threshold. That is certainly anadditional provision that we could support if there werenot an arbitrary threshold.

George Dunn: Our view would be that there would beno public policy use for such a short-term clause. If weare looking at longer tenancies, we need to find a way ofencouraging them, so it needs to apply to tenancies thatare of 10 years or more.

Q130 Danny Kruger: It is very good to hear that youboth support the direction of travel of the Bill. Weheard earlier from witnesses who were explaining how,under the direct payments system, it is often possible forthe landlord to simply hold the subsidy and for thetenant not to receive the benefit. Do you think that thenew system will align your interests? Can you give us anexample where, possibly, the landlord and the tenantmight disagree about an improvement? Perhaps the tenantwants to gain some support for sequestration or plantingtrees or whatever, but the landlord is in disagreement.Do you think that we are setting up conflict betweenlandlord and tenant? Perhaps, Ms Hammond, you couldimagine a really bad tenant and, Mr Dunn, you couldimagine a really bad landlord. What would you befighting over?

Judicaelle Hammond: It is really important to understandthat, in most cases, we would expect agreement to befound. I think the reason why we do not like one of theparticular provisions in schedule 3, which has to dowith arbitration in case of disputes, is that at the momentit very much looks at the interests of the tenants, whomight be gaining financially quite a lot, without necessarilyhaving a balance of the interest of the landlord.

I will give you a few examples of why landlords mightwithhold consent. It might be about landscape protection.For example, the National Trust will have propertieswhere they want to make sure that the landscape continuesto be enjoyed as it is. Or it might be that something doesnot fit with the business planned for the whole of theholding—in particular, if you are looking at other areasof the holding that are currently in hand or are farmedby somebody else, which might be better suited toplanting trees, because trees cannot grow very well in allplaces. Or it might be about putting buildings on land inorder to create new activities.

As drafted, the schedule would mean that, in the caseof a dispute, it would go to an arbitrator, and then thedecision is binding on the landlord. That means thatthere could be really long-term and possibly irreversibledecisions being imposed on the landlord. We see that asa really fundamental infringement of property rights,and that worries us. It is the absence of balance thatworries us.

Q131 Danny Kruger: Do you mean that there shouldbe an appeals mechanism, or do you think ultimatelythat you should not have to take the ruling of thearbitration at all?

Judicaelle Hammond: Ideally, we would not want thisin the Bill at all. Certainly, if it were to stay in the Bill,we would want to see assurances that would redress thatimbalance.

George Dunn: Just to correct something that youmight have said in your question, for the basic paymentscheme, which is being phased out, in 99.9% of thecases that would be going to the tenant, the occupier,who has the land at their disposal.

Obviously, within some of the newer farm businesstenancies under the 1995 Act—which I referred toearlier, following the Minister’s question—a landlordmight expect to receive at least the basic payment schemein rent, plus more, in terms of the tenant’s willingness topay rent on that basis, so there is a secondary move ofthe payment to the landlord, but the claimant is thetenant, and that is what the regulations say.

The bigger area that we have concerns about is theagri-environment scheme, where there has been this ideathat you could have dual use, where a landlord couldclaim countryside stewardship and environmentalstewardship while the tenant is claiming the BPS. Wethink that is wholly inappropriate, and we will ask foramendments to the Bill to define the rightful recipientof some of this money. It should be the active farmerwho is in occupation of the land.

Responding to what Judicaelle said about the needfor tenants to have access, all of Judicaelle’s memberswill be entirely reasonable and will give consent to ourmembers to go into these things, but we are looking forthose beyond the CLA’s membership, who are not alwaysas reasonable. Sadly, we do see landlords withholdingreasonable consent very frequently. “Reasonable” is thekey word here. We are looking for a set of regulations.The Bill provides that there should be regulations, andthose regulations will set out what are the reasonableterms upon which a tenant should be able to apply andinsist upon a consent, for either fixed equipment or foraccess to a scheme.

If we take the issue of trees, for example, trees arenormally reserved out of tenancy agreements. It is thelandlords who hold the trees, so if there are any carboncredits available under the Bill, they will not be accessibleby the tenant because those trees are reserved to thelandlord. Perhaps that is something that needs to bethought through, if trees are going to be a really importantpart of the Government’s policy going forward.

Q132 Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con): How muchconfidence does the Bill and the general direction oftravel give your members to renew tenancies?

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


Judicaelle Hammond: I think my members want goodtenants who look after the land and can pay their rents.They want tenants who are willing to innovate andcontinue to develop their business. It requires flexibilityon both sides. I understand the appetite for longertenancies and that can be agreed. However, what we donot want is a third party determining how two partieswho are free to contract, contract.

Rolling tenancies happen and I therefore think thatthe figure of 2.9 years is a little misleading. We want asystem that works for both parties, particularly in timesof uncertainty. I would add that an awful lot of mymembers are somebody else’s tenant. They have landof their own, but they might add to it, for scale, forexample.

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

Q133 Thangam Debbonaire: I would like to push youa little further on the security question. I recognise thereare some differences here, but I think it is partly beingpresented as a question of equality, of a negotiationbetween equals. It does not quite seem that way fromwhere I am sitting. Can we explore further whethermore measures could go into the Bill to get the balanceright for members of both organisations, but particularlyMr Dunn’s members, for whom it is presumably harderto get land if they are moved from a particular piece ofland than it is from Ms Hammond’s members to getnew tenants if the tenant has moved. Forgive me if Ihave got that wrong.

George Dunn: From our end of the spectrum, we donot want the Bill to have a minimum term for agriculturaltenancies, because that will not help our sector at all.We want to see the ability for landlords, where they letlong term or where they are nervous about letting longterm, in case they get a tenant who they do not get onwith or who does not pay their rent, or who doessomething to the historic landscape, if the landlord isthe National Trust, to feel confident to let for a longertime, because they know they can get the land backearly if there is a problem. We are absolutely on themoney with that. There is what might be called anoven-ready amendment that could go into the Bill toachieve that.

Thangam Debbonaire: Oh, please don’t call it that!

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

Judicaelle Hammond: You will not be surprised tohear that I do not agree with that. I do not see that thereis a market failure. There might be things in the marketthat are happening at the moment, because of the waythat the system works, that may be unsustainable. Wewill see what happens when the BPS ends. If you look atsome of the reforms that have been made, not in Irelandbut in Scotland, it all but killed the rental market. Thatwould not be good for my members or for George’s. Weneed to be extremely cautious about putting things in

legislation and rushing them through without properconsideration of the consequences for both parties.That could lead to a market that is even more nervousthan it is now and, as a result, becomes ossified. I do notthink that would be good.

George Dunn: We certainly need to learn the lessonsof what happened—what is happening—north of theborder, but that should not be an excuse to do nothingsouth of the border.

Q134 Theo Clarke: Mr Dunn, I was struck by yourcomment about tenancies being too short and the factthat people are just staying 2.9 years and not longer. Inmy constituency I have a lot of county farms, but I alsohave a real problem with the lack of a new generationcoming through. One thing farmers have raised with meis that because the subsidies will not necessarily continuebeyond this Parliament, they can plan for five years, butnot for 10 years. Is there anything specific we can addinto the Bill to address that specific problem? I totallyagree that this longer-term issue is the problem. If I ama county farmer in Stafford, I cannot submit a 10-yearbusiness plan because the Government are onlyguaranteeing it for the first Parliament term. Is thereanything specific we can do to address that?

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

Judicaelle Hammond: I totally agree with the TFAthat the more certainty in the future, the better. Part ofthe problem we have at the moment is that we do nothave certainty past next year. Although there have beencommitments to maintaining the current level of funding,so far they are, unfortunately, just commitments. Wewould welcome a quantification as part of the multi-annualfinancial assistance frameworks.

Q135 Theo Clarke: Is the delegated power included inthis Bill, which allows the Government to extend thetransition period, a good enough safety net if things didgo wrong in the future?

Judicaelle Hammond: I am sure it could be improved.

Q136 Theo Clarke: In what way?

Judicaelle Hammond: I think that my lawyers wouldprobably have my guts for garters if I tried to answerthat question on the spot.

George Dunn: I think it is good that there is thefacility to pause or extend. One would hope that therewould be close consultation with the stakeholders toconsider that. There is a doubt as to whether we canreverse, which might be possible. There is also the issue,which I know other witnesses have raised, that if youare taking money out of the BPS, and, for whateverreason, we are not ready to spend that through the newpublic payments for public goods or productivity schemes,


that money needs to be paid back to the recipients fromwhom it has been removed, until such time as theGovernment are ready to commit to that expenditure.

Q137 Mr Goodwill: Chapter 2, clause 8 deals with thepossible extension of the period. I may not understandit particularly well, but it does not make it clear whether,if there is an extension to the seven-year period, thatwould pause the transition from BPS to ELMS, orwhether that would just continue, but at the end of theseven years there would be an extra year or two underthe full ELMS system. If there was an extension, at thesame time, could that be coupled with a freeze in thetransition for a number of reasons, including that the ELMSwas not being taken up as quickly?

George Dunn: Yes, and I think that is what the Billintends. My reading of the Bill would suggest that thatis what would happen under those circumstances. To goback to the previous question, if money was taken outof the system that was not able to be spent through thenew arrangements, that would have to be paid back, inour view.

Q138 George Eustice: A previous witness said that ifa tenant farmer exercised an option that we set outunder clause 13 to take a number of years payment inlieu as a lump sum, under the way tenancy agreementstend to be drafted, the landlord would say that was adilapidation and would take compensation off the tenantfarmer. That seemed a rather extraordinary extensionof the conventional interpretation of dilapidation. Whatwould your respective views on that be?

George Dunn: My view is that the answer you weregiven was nonsense. There would have to be a veryspecific clause in a tenancy agreement that provided forthe circumstances that you are describing—for a landlordto be able to dilapidate a tenant for taking away thepayment, which is rightfully theirs anyway, because it istheir entitlement to do with that what they will.

We are actually quite excited by the provisions on thelump sum and the extent to which that could generatesome really good restructuring within the sector. I donot think there will be an impact on land values as wassuggested, because land values are driven by muchmore than the agricultural return, which is about 2% ofthe average land value, when you look at how agricultureoperates. There might be an impact on rent, whichcould be a good thing for the sector in terms of productivityand margin and efficiency, but we think that the lumpsum elements are certainly something worth pursuing.

Judicaelle Hammond: I think we are a little bit morecautious without more detail. We look forward to theconsultation that will happen on the secondary legislation.It is hard to say how it would work and whether therewould be any unintended consequences without moredetail. The same thing is true of the lump sum. We cansee opportunities, both for retirement and investment inthe farm, but at the moment, we also see that it couldhave all sorts of unforeseen consequences. We really doneed to have a thought-through view of how the systemwould work.

Q139 George Eustice: The final question from me isabout schedule 3, which sets out in some detail a rangeof quite technical changes to tenancy law that have

come out of the TRIG—the Tenancy Reform IndustryGroup—recommendations. Are you both content withwhat is being proposed for those changes to the commercialunit test and so on?

George Dunn: Minister, you would be surprised tohear me say that we are absolutely content and there areno other changes that we would want to make, and I amnot going to say that. There are elements that we thinkneed to be added—for example, what we were talkingabout earlier in terms of the provision for farm businesstenancies, for encouraging longer-term lets, to give landlordsthe option of ending those early, but only for those whoare letting for a long time. We think that the provisionsin relation to tenants’ access to diversification, financialassistance and fixed equipment need to be extended toinclude 1995 Act tenancies.

I noticed that a question was raised by a Member onSecond Reading about widening the franchise of successionto include nephews, nieces and grandchildren, whichwas not adequately answered by the Secretary of State.Perhaps there is an amendment that could be broughtto look at widening the franchise. Very often, it is thenephews and nieces and grandchildren, rather than thesons and daughters, of farmers, who are the activeindividuals. So there are certain changes that we willpromote through amendments to the Bill.

Judicaelle Hammond: What I have said before aboutschedule 3 stands. We do not particularly like thecommercial unit test removal; we think that it is actuallywell worth having and it should be strengthened. Whywould individuals who are already successfully farmingelsewhere have the privilege of reduced rent? It does notseem fair and it does not make sense. Apart from that,my significant concern is with the arbitration proposalfor dispute resolution on landlord’s consent.

There are a number of things that the CLA welcomesin there, for example provisions relating to landlordinvestments, which we think will provide protection forboth the landlord and tenant, and the removal of theminimum retirement age of 65 and also the widening ofthe pool of potential arbitrators. We are not opposed tothe whole of schedule 3, but we certainly have significantconcern with what is in there at the moment. We certainlywould not favour any extension to the AHA tenancies,which we regard in this day and age, and given theflexibility that the market requires, as an outdated system,which certainly should not be prolonged.

George Dunn: You would not expect me not to disagreewith what Judicaelle has said about AHA tenancies. Ifwe trusted the landlord community with farm businesstenancies to deliver sustainable, long-term, sensible tenancies,we would not be hanging on to the AHA tenancies asmuch as we are. Sadly, the landlord community has notplayed the game well in terms of farm business tenancies,in the way that they have delivered those.

The commercial unit test that Judicaelle talked aboutis a capricious test. It hits people when there is a deathout of time, or people who are badly advised. That isall. It is a very expensive test to have advisers help youthrough. In essence, the Bill is about productivity andincreasing efficiency. Having the commercial unit test inplace hits those individuals who have been go-ahead,and have been looking to get themselves on rather thanwaiting for dad or mum to die in order to get thetenancy of the farm. Why should they be penalised


when they have been the ones who have been go-ahead,and those who are not so go-ahead get the opportunityto succeed?

Q140 Ruth Jones: My question is to you, Mr Dunn,with your expert Welsh agricultural hat on, if youplease. Given that the Welsh Government will not legislateuntil, at the very earliest, the middle of 2021, and giventhat the payments for the direct payment schemes willbegin to diverge across the UK, what do you think theconsequences will be?

George Dunn: We are in discussions with WelshGovernment officials, as you might expect. This morning,I was having discussions with their policy lead ontenancies. Certainly, I would take from the discussionsthat we have had to date that there is a real understandingof the need to ensure that they are moving at a pace thatallows tenants to have access to the new arrangements.

In the context of having devolved Government, thereis no point in having devolved Government if you justdo what England does, so there will be specific thingsfor Wales that we will need to look at. I know that theWelsh Agriculture Minister has some aspirations forthat in Wales. We are waiting for a White Paper from

the Welsh Government that is coming later this year. Weare having input into that White Paper. Obviously, theyhave not reserved the rights for the financial assistancepowers within the Bill, but the agricultural tenancysection—schedule 3—applies to Wales and Englandequally.

Judicaelle Hammond: We represent farmers andlandowners in Wales as well. I think that, given theframework of devolution, there needs to be some flexibility.Like previous witnesses, we are a bit concerned whereeither the implementation of the Bill or, indeed, the waythat the money is allocated across the UK changes tosuch an extent that we see intra-UK market disturbances.We would certainly argue that that should be avoided.

The Chair: If there are no more questions for Members,I thank the witnesses for giving evidence this afternoon.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(James Morris.)

4.53 pm

Adjourned till Thursday 13 February at half-past Eleveno’clock.


Written evidence to be reported to theHouse

AB01 Key stakeholders on Dartmoor (Dartmoor Hill Pony)

AB02 Rare Breeds Survival Trust (RBST)

AB03 Compassion in World Farming

AB04 National Farmers Union of Scotland (NFUScotland)

AB05 Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV)

AB06 Sustainable Food Trust

AB07 The Law Society of Scotland

AB08 National Pig Association

AB09 Nature Friendly Farming Network

AB10 NOAH

AB11 The Trails Trust

AB12 Mid & West Berks Local Access Forum

AB13 Department for Agriculture, Environment andRural Affairs (Northern Ireland)



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Third Sitting

Thursday 13 February 2020

CONTENTS



PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Monday 17 February 2020






† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Eustice, George (Minister of State, Department for



Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)† Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con)† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead)




Witnesses

Dr Nick Fenwick, Head of Policy, Farmers Union of Wales

John Davies, President, National Farmers Union Cymru

Huw Thomas, Political Adviser, National Farmers Union Cymru

Tim Render, Lead Director for the Environment and Rural Affairs, Welsh Government

Gareth Morgan, Head of Policy, Farming and Land Use, Soil Association




(Morning)


Agriculture Bill


Dr Nick Fenwick, John Davies, Huw Thomas, andTim Render gave evidence.

11.30 am

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from NFUCymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, and the WelshGovernment. Thank you very much for coming andwelcome. We have until 12.15 for this panel. Would youintroduce yourselves before we move to questions?

Huw Thomas: I am Huw Thomas, NFU Cymrupolitical adviser, based in Builth Wells.

JohnDavies: IamJohnDavies,presidentof NFUCymru.

Tim Render: I am Tim Render, director for environmentand rural affairs in the Welsh Government.

Dr Fenwick: I am Nick Fenwick, head of agriculturalpolicy for the Farmers’ Union of Wales.

Q141 The Minister of State, Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): Schedule 5 tothe Bill makes explicit provision for Wales, and inparticular gives the Welsh Government the power to amend,modify and improve the legacy common agriculturalpolicy scheme. What would be your priorities for thatsimplification? What are your key concerns about theexisting CAP, and, if the Welsh Government had a freehand to improve and simplify it, what would you likethem to do?

John Davies: Thank you, Minister. Obviously, we awaitany announcements eagerly. We would look to amendwhere there are, we would say, unfair penalties forminor infractions. There are major improvements to bemade there, for instance. There will be a need for moretrees to be planted in future; where there are hedgerowsor woodlands, at present, they are taken out of anycalculation. There are minor adjustments to be donethere that could reduce stress quite significantly in theinterim period, I would suggest.

Dr Fenwick: We entirely agree with that. Penalties area huge issue. It is widely recognised that they are veryoften completely disproportionate to things that haveno impact on the wider environment or the generalpublic. Things that may have cost Government, for thesake of argument, a few pounds, can incur fines ofmany thousands of pounds.

Greening is another issue. The 100 trees per hectarelimit has had a very big impact and goes completelyagainst the current thinking on the importance of trees.The way that it has been implemented in Wales—understandably, given the wording of the Europeanlegislation—seems counter-intuitive, given the prioritiesin terms of silviculture and agriculture co-existing.

Tim Render: From the Welsh Government perspective,we consulted on this question in our last document onideas for taking farming policy forward and future farmsupport measures. We also identified that, as part of thetransition, you would need to look at simplification.The four things that we flagged were very much penalties,as union colleagues have identified; some of the issuesaround cross-border payments and the single applicationrule; the basic payment scheme window for unvalidatedbeneficiaries; and how the environmentally sensitivepermanent grassland rules operate. As I say, those arethings that we consulted on. We are assessing theconsultation responses at the moment and will makepolicy decisions on how to implement that when wehave the powers, through the Bill, to implement—potentiallyfrom 2021.

Huw Thomas: One thing to point out is that thepowers relating to Wales in schedule 5 are far moremodest than those described for England in clause 9.The scope of the ambition for Wales is perhaps somewhatcurtailed by that. In relation to England, you have farmore powers to remove and reduce burdens, penalties,financial costs and so on; for Wales, the powers are a bitnarrower in scope. That is just something to note.

Q142 George Eustice: What about the so-called greeningrules? When those were introduced, environmental non-governmental organisations said that that was greenwashingand farmers said that it was green taping. Perhaps bothwere right, in that it has not delivered much, if anything,for the environment and it is responsible for about 50%of all the guidance that we have to issue. Do you takethe view that it is better just switched off altogether, sothat we do not have the crop diversity rule and do nothave the ecological focus area rules, either?

John Davies: I would say that it is very difficult tofarm in a prescriptive way. We have a real challenge thisyear with the weather, which will cause real issuesaround the three-crop rule, so we need to be flexible inour approach there, because it is simply not practical insome areas at some times. We need more flexibility.

Dr Fenwick: We agree entirely. Something that isaimed at certain types of farms has actually had animpact on the types of farms that it was not aimed at—Iam talking about the impacts of greening. Indeed, thathas been recognised across the EU. The EuropeanCommission is undertaking the same process of lookingat greening and how it should be improved, and hastaken steps in that direction. I think it is universallyrecognised as completely disproportionate.

Tim Render: We would be happy to look at that in thelight of the consultation responses we get.

Q143 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Goodmorning, Mr Stringer, and good wishes to those on theGovernment side who may have a nervous day ahead—wewish you well. My question is one that we have put toother witnesses before. We are obviously very concernedabout the potential threat to farmers if food is importedthat was produced to lower health and welfare standards.What is your view on that and what do you think couldbe done about it in the Welsh context?

John Davies: We have a very clear vision and ambitionto lead the world in producing the most climate-friendlyfood, and that is to be realised with proper policy and


proper support going forward. Obviously, it would be adisaster if that were then undercut by food productionsystems that are illegal in the United Kingdom, so wewould be deeply concerned about the opportunity thereand we would like to see that much more stronglyidentified in the Bill and ruled on.

We welcome the comments that a number of youmade during the Second Reading debate. Also, Liz Truss,International Trade Secretary, said last week:

“In addition, nothing in any agreement will undermine theGovernment’s commitment to tackling climate change.”—[OfficialReport, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 15WS.]

We lead the world with our commitment to net zero by2040, so we look to that being honoured. That is anabsolutely key statement to us going forward.

Dr Fenwick: In clause 36, which relates to organicproducts, subsection (5) makes it clear that it is possibleto restrict or prohibit the import of organic products.That will be legislated for once the Bill becomes an Act.We would have expected an equivalent paragraph orprovision relating to other production standards tohave been incorporated in the Bill. It is there for organic,yet it is not there for all these other issues and inparticular the key issue that John raised—our environmentaland climate change obligations.

Q144 Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con): On that lastpoint, I would be interested to know whether any ofyou have had discussions with farmers’unions or equivalentbodies, or Governments in other countries, in anticipationof the new trade arrangements that might be put inplace. Do you detect any appetite to break into the UKmarket and in particular any willingness to adapt farmingpractices abroad in order to access our market? Werepresent a very big market for these countries. Do youthink those which currently produce food at standardswe would not accept might be prepared to developbetter practices so that they can access our market?

John Davies: If we take America to start with, there isreal hunger to access the UK market, but they arepretty adamant that their standards are the standardsand that they work on equivalence. Obviously, we wouldhave deep concerns about that for a number of specificaspects. Other countries are more flexible and will lookto change, I guess, but I think it needs to be written inabsolutely, in black and white.

Dr Fenwick: It is clear from the leaked trade talksdocument that came out in November—which we assumeare valid—that there is that appetite. It seems to provideevidence that that appetite is there. We also know thatfrom the defensive position taken by scores of countrieswhen the UK and the EU first agreed how certain issueswould be balanced—in those few areas where agreementwas reached—in terms of the splitting of our quotas asregards New Zealand lamb and Australian products.The objections submitted then to the World TradeOrganisation by these countries make it clear how importantwe are as an existing trading destination for them and asa potential destination.

Q145 Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): Myquestion is about aspects of the agreement on agriculture.Clause 42 states at one point:

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

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

Tim Render: That question is probably for me. This isan issue that we had extensive conversations with theMinister about regarding the equivalent text in theprevious version of the Agriculture Bill. Yes, we wouldlove a consent provision, but in the context of the lastBill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UKGovernment—the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on howthe provisions would be operated in practice. The Ministerhas confirmed to us that that agreement will be carriedover with this Bill. We look forward to him making thatstatement again during this stage of the Bill or at a laterstage in the House, about how we would work togetheron that, about the advice and about, were there to bedisagreement, our opposition being formally presentedto the House of Commons to be part of your decision-making process. We have agreed a way of working toensure that that voice is heard effectively.

Q146 Thangam Debbonaire: May I get some clarification?You say, “We have agreed a way of working,” but it isnot in the Bill. Where does it exist, this way of working?

Tim Render: It is not in the Bill, but I have the text infront of me. It is an exchange of letters that waspublished in the context of the previous AgricultureBill. In our bilateral conversations with the Ministerand DEFRA colleagues, we have assurances that thatcan be taken forward in the context of this Bill.

Q147 Thangam Debbonaire: I do not want to beindelicate—perhaps you are at a useful stage, and Iacknowledge that the Minister is very co-operative onthese matters—but do you think that there will be anyharm in inserting an amendment to the clause, that theSecretary of State should also be required to consult thedevolved authorities?

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

Dr Fenwick: We would also welcome such an addition.It must be noted that this extends to far more thanWTO issues, given where we are with our current financialceiling; we are well below WTO limits. The WTO issueis absolutely essential to avoid disputes, but a key issuefor us is the fact that we are moving from a very specificframework of financial ceilings for different areas ofspending to one that is almost as liberal as it could be. Itappears to us that there will be a single financial ceilingfor agriculture expenditure in each of the devolvedregions and in England.

For example, under EU legislation, we have multipleceilings relating to how much we can spend on directinterventions in agriculture production and on youngpeople, how much money can be diverted to ruraldevelopment spending and so on. I am afraid that thisarea just screams divergence between nations at anunprecedented level, as do many of the other sections.


Q148 Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con):My question is on the red meat levy. The Bill irons outan imbalance that has affected many of my farmers—Ishould say that it is a pleasure to see one of myconstituents here this morning. Are you content withthat amendment, or would you suggest further amendmentsto the scheme to improve traceability? That question isparticularly for the unions. Mr Render, would youclarify the timetable for the Welsh Government’s equivalentBill or next steps?

Huw Thomas: On the red meat point, we are broadlycontent. We have been calling for this for a number ofyears. The issue of repatriating the red meat levy hasbeen a bit of a running sore for a long time, so wewelcome this. There has to be a will on the part of theparties concerned to use the new powers that they areabout to have conferred upon them. It is all well andgood to legislate, but the parties need to work togetherand find an equitable solution to this problem.

We are glad to see this change, but we would notpreclude collaborative working at a pre-competitive stagebetween the domestic levy bodies on things such as redmeat, health and climate, which are not directly relatedto the market. Repatriating the levy is certainly somethingthat we welcome.

Dr Fenwick: We recommended precisely this sort ofaction in the Radcliffe review, which was published in2006. That is how long this issue has been running for.We very much welcome that this is there, but this is thefirst step—it simply opens the door. Given that lengthyperiod of waiting, and the imbalance in where the levyhas been spent, this needs to be acted on once that dooris open.

Tim Render: We welcome the clause on the red meatlevy, and we are grateful to the Minister, who has put alot of effort into working with the devolved Administrationsto craft this, to resolve this long-standing issue. On theway the Welsh Government are looking to take thingsforward, we have said that we plan to produce a WhitePaper by the end of this year, which will set out theframework for a Welsh Agriculture Bill. Ministers havesaid that they want to take that forward early in the nextAssembly term in 2021.

In terms of operational measures, we have alreadyannounced that we will effectively maintain the basicpayment scheme approach in 2021 as well, so we havethat package of measures to take forward in our ownWelsh Bill. That would, I suspect, mirror and addresssome of the wider issues that this Bill takes forward butare not reflected in the Welsh schedule, as well as dealingwith some wider things.

Q149 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): Mr Render,can I press you a bit further? You were saying that thelegislation from Wales will have to be set in law. Yes,absolutely, but when will it actually be up and running?We accept that there will be a time lag, but it is importantthat it is as close as possible, because what we do notwant is divergence, which you have already alluded to.We know that the border is porous, and that livestockand crops travel across it all the time. It is importantthat where key parts of the Bill do not apply to Wales,such as the environmental land management schemes,we make sure that Welsh farmers are not sufferingdetriment. I wondered what the panel’s thoughts onthat were.

Tim Render: Of course, agriculture is a fully devolvedpolicy area, so we will be developing our own equivalentsof the land management approaches that England isproposing. We have already issued two major consultationdocuments with a lot of detail on that. What we arelooking to do through this Bill is to ensure continuity:to make sure that a lot of the important operationalelements that mean the agricultural market can workeffectively and we continue to have the powers to payagricultural support to farmers, will be in place and canbe maintained beyond the end of this year. From aWelsh perspective, the main thing this Bill does is giveus those continuity and keeping pace powers.

However, what we have explicitly decided not to takethrough this Bill—this is a change from the previousBill—are powers to make radically new types of payments,analogous to the ELMS in England. We discussed thatwith the Assembly, and they felt that it was potentiallysuch a large change that they wanted to be able toinfluence that development of a Welsh agriculture policy,so we have not taken those powers to make major changesin the future; that is what we would do through a WelshBill. Obviously, this will depend on the Governmentafter the Assembly elections in May 2021, but we wouldexpect that to be taken forward fairly rapidly as a newWelsh agriculture Bill in that period. As I say, we will besetting out detailed ideas as to what would go in thatBill, particularly the new powers, building on the verydetailed proposals we have already set out in consultationdocuments.

John Davies: It is vital that we take our time over this,because we still do not know what trading environmentwe will be operating in, and there is an awful lot ofvolatility out there. It is absolutely vital that we get thisright and do it in a co-production way. If we get it right,there are real opportunities; it needs to be a co-operativemodel that we not only design with the industry, butacross different Departments of the Welsh Government.Recently, the Welsh Government have announced thatwe have hit our target for food sales from Wales, whichis £7.5 billion. If we get our “sustainable farming andour land”—that is the name of our new agricultural policy—and sustainable brand values right, we will have twogears meshing, which will really benefit our climatecredentials and validity by being able to prove that whatwe do and how we do it are totally sustainable. It is vitalthat we get this right and do not rush it.

Q150 Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con):What assessment have you made of the impact of theBill on food producers, particularly the agri-food supplychain, and are there any missed opportunities in the Billthat you would like to see us take action on?

Huw Thomas: Probably the biggest missed opportunityis the one about standards, which we have already covered,but there are certainly provisions in the Bill that wewelcome. The food security provision, for example, isnew and something we have been pressing for for quite awhile. The requirement to report every five years is notespecially ambitious; it should be every year. Especiallyas we are transitioning out of the EU and leaving thosestructures behind, we need to ensure we have a reviewevery year. I would also suggest that the Bill does notimpose any positive obligations on a DEFRA Minister—forexample, in the light of an adverse finding in a report onfood security. You could consider placing obligationson Ministers if we are found to be deficient in food security.


Dr Fenwick: From our point of view, it is about morethan farming and food production per se; it is about thefamilies that farm on the land. There are certain typesof farming that continue, but effectively the communitiesdo not. We see that in parts of England; thankfully wedo not see it so much in Wales, if at all. We would saythere has been a missed opportunity to include amongkey priorities the sort of ambition that is there at EUlevel in terms of the reforms that are going through,which relate to looking after farming families andcommunities and to laying out sentences explicitly inlegislation.

I refer you back to what Tom Williams said about the1947 Act, which was in place until it was superseded byEU regulations. He said it was based on providing

“adequate remuneration and decent living standards for farmersand workers”—[Official Report, 17 December 1945; Vol. 417,c. 931.]

with a reasonable return on capital investment. We wouldwelcome that sort of aspiration being inserted intothe Bill.

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):The other day, we heard evidence from John Cross ofthe Traceability Design User Group and Simon Hall,who is the managing director of Livestock InformationLtd, which is a new organisation. I thought they were alittle vague on details of the traceability service thatthey are setting up in England, and on how it willintegrate or potentially even overrule existing traceabilityservices in the devolved nations. I would be very interestedto hear your thoughts on that.

Dr Fenwick: Having only had the time to look at thisand go through it as thoroughly as I could yesterday,that clause did ring alarm bells for me. Compared withother systems, Wales has a very successful sheep traceabilitysystem that it took into public ownership, rather thanfarming it out to a private body. It works very well. Itcould work better, as is the case with all systems, but wehope to develop it into an improved system that willencompass more species. That is certainly the aspiration,and that clause of the Bill certainly raises questionsabout how those two things interact.

It certainly makes sense to have some form of centraldata collection point for the UK, given that we are asingle country and that it is important for our tradingarrangements with other countries. Nevertheless, it dependson how that functions. That part of the legislationwould effectively grant powers to non-public bodies—boards that are given certain powers by the Secretary ofState. That in itself raises questions; indeed, it is why youtook evidence from the witnesses that you mentioned.

Tim Render: To build on that, there are clearly somereally important operational issues with the livestockidentification systems. We are developing the livestockidentification system that we already have in Wales,which works very well. It was co-designed with theindustry for ease of operation. We also built it withexpansion to different species in mind, so we are lookingto turn it into a full livestock ID system, building on aproven IT platform and user interface. It is absolutelyvital that we get the behind the scenes IT with whathappens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland tohave that interchange of data, because you have gotcross-border trade and that is how you manage animalhealth issues, which do not respect borders. That is the

big piece of IT work that we are doing with colleaguesin DEFRA and colleagues in the other Administrationsaround the livestock identification system. We will buildour own front-end system for Welsh farmers to use,building on what the industry sees as a successful system.

John Davies: It is vital that we get this right. Animaldisease does not respect boundaries well, and I concurwith everything said in terms of the databases talking toeach other. There is also an opportunity here to bringrealtime information to purchasing decisions aroundanimal health and the likes, and we need to get thisright.

Dr Fenwick: If I may come back, to lessen the potentialadverse impacts of clause 32, which amends the NaturalEnvironment and Rural Communities Act 2006, thereneeds to be at the very least a duty to consult and reachagreements with Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Governmentand so on to ensure that this does not hand over anextreme power to, in effect, an English board.

Deidre Brock: It is the Agriculture and HorticultureDevelopment Board.

Dr Fenwick: Yes, or it could be anyone, because it isonly created with those powers.

Q151 Deidre Brock: How do the four different schemesand the devolved nations currently integrate?

Tim Render: At the moment, it is only sheep forwhich there is a full integrated electronic system.

Deidre Brock: In Wales.

Tim Render: In the UK. The other systems are muchmore primitive, it is fair to say. For instance, the Britishcattle movement service is not essentially an onlinerealtime system. This is one area where we have whatare technically called concurrent powers and we are indiscussion with DEFRA about these powers and thosearound organics being subject to consent by devolvedAdministrations rather than just consulting, for the reasonsthat colleagues outlined.

Q152 Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con): I want to pick upon the question of divergence. I realise that the Billaffects England, but there are plenty of farms aroundthe border. How will they be affected and what can wedo in the Bill to support them more?

Dr Fenwick: There are about 600 cross-border farms.Some are administratively answerable to England andsome to Wales, depending on the proportion of land oneach side of the border—I think that is how it works.Those guys have consistently been the last people toreceive payments of any form for the last 15 years,since basic payments and what is generically called thesingle farm payment was introduced in 2005. Theyhave a very tough farm and are placed at significantdisadvantage.

Divergence will clearly be an issue for those farms.Conversely, some of the powers in the Bill would lessenthe impact, allowing their payments to be releasedearlier by changing EU regulations that make it difficultwhen one payment authority is slower than the other atprocessing applications—because unless everything hasbeen processed, payments cannot be released. The abilityto change the rules is therefore welcome, but as things


diverge, as they may well do—it is difficult to see howthey would not—a lot of thought and care needs to betaken regarding those impacts. It is not just divergenceover payment systems and policies; it is also aboutstandards. This provides an opportunity for Wales to,for example, have different assurance standards fromEngland, yet we have a 300-mile-or-so border, which iseffectively porous.

John Davies: As one of the UK NFUs, we have afantastic working relationship. We met last week inGlasgow at NFU Scotland’s AGM. Divergence is frontand centre of all our minds, because it is vital that we donot diverge too greatly and create a different tradingenvironment in the UK. That is really important. Thekey basis that we always operate on is that everythingshould be done through agreement, not imposition.That is our guiding principle.

Tim Render: Divergence is a consequence of devolution,in that you are making different choices to reflect differentcircumstances, although I have a lot of sympathy forMr Davies’ points about operating in a common market,and about standards and not diverging in some of thoseareas.

The issue of cross-border farms keeps me awake atnight, as I think about how I move to develop a newpolicy. It is one of the really difficult issues. We do nothave clear answers to it yet. We are working with theindustry and DEFRA on what doing potentially quitedifferent things in return for public support on eitherside of the border means for those 600-or-so farms thatare potentially on either side of that. How we managethat is a tricky question. I do not have any answers tothat, but it is something that we are working on withDEFRA and the industry, to work out what the mostpractical, simple and effective way of doing it is.

Dr Fenwick: When it comes to divergence, of coursedevolution implies divergence. We as a union supporteddevolution, so we have no problem with divergence, butit was divergence within boundaries. The current EUframework has strict boundaries in terms of flexibilitywithin legislation and flexibility within financial limits.We are looking, potentially, at a complete liberalisationof those boundaries, so that they become far wider andthe degree to which divergence can be market distortingbecomes potentially far greater under what is happeningat the moment.

Q153 Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby)(Con): This question is primarily for Mr Render,but others may wish to chip in. In earlier evidencesessions, we heard some of the frustrations with theinflexibility of cross-compliance, such as the three-croprule or rules on hedge cutting. In particular, farmers tellme that it can sometimes be frustrating that rules on theapplication of slurries and manures are based on thecalendar, not on the particular climatic conditions of aseason or the situation on a particular farm. Do youfeel that the powers that you will have will allow you theflexibility—even in-year flexibility—to enable you tocarry out those sorts of operations under the bestconditions, and at the same time to understand yourobligations in the way that we implement the nitrateregulations and water framework directive-type regulationsthat we take over? Do you feel that you can get thebalance right between the flexibility and the obligationsto the environment?

Tim Render: I think we can. The questions aroundwater and diffuse agricultural pollution are live in Walesat the moment. In terms of our regulations under thevarious water rules, we are some way behind the rest ofthe UK, and we are looking to take action to ensurethat we have effective measures for the management ofagricultural pollution.

One of the things, looking to the medium term, is anability to think about how we do some of the widerregulation: what conditions we attach to future paymentregimes; how we link that to the regulatory floor; andthings around earned autonomy for more flexibility, inreturn for clearer, authenticated and demonstrable actionsthat take account of flexibility while there are, at thesame time, clear ways of ensuring and providing assurancethat the necessary actions are taken. Those are some ofthe opportunities that we have in the medium term,adapting some of the regulations, but it is probably throughmore sophisticated regulation and earned autonomyapproaches that we can really provide some of that greaterflexibility.

John Davies: Thank you, Mr Goodwill, for theopportunity to comment on this, because obviouslyregulation has been one of the reasons that Europe hashad less favour. Nitrate vulnerable zone regulations areamong the most prescriptive and least effective of thosethat have been implemented by Europe. Let us moveaway from that. Let us ensure that regulation, when itcomes, fills the gaps and is effective. Anybody whothinks that they can farm by date will fail. It is vital thatwe farm by the ground conditions. We have a changingclimate here, and we have to respond to that. We have toevolve, adapt and work effectively to reduce the numberof incidents. It is coming down slowly, but we need tomove more rapidly to reduce it. It is vital that we get ontop of that through effective, proper, reasonable regulation.

Q154 Deidre Brock: I wish to reinforce the point thatMr Render and Dr Fenwick made. They basically mademy point for me: the four nations already operatedifferent policy and regulatory frameworks, within acommon framework across the UK, and with certaincommon frameworks under the EU. That has been thecase since devolution 20 years ago. I would hate to seeany sort of imposition of a UK-wide situation thatwould affect that.

Tim Render: I agree with that. Equally, there aresome measures that need to operate across the UK fortrade and operators. The red meat levy is a very goodexample of something that needs to be applied at theUK level, but from a devolved Administration perspective,where some of those powers operate at a UK level, thatneeds to happen with our consent and agreement. Yes,let us agree a common approach to something—that isvery often the best approach—but, for us, those sorts ofconcurrent powers need to be with consent.

Dr Fenwick: To give an example of the sorts ofdivergence at a very simplistic level that will potentiallyhave an impact in the coming months, the Direct Paymentsto Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 receivedRoyal Assent the day before we left the EU. Thateffectively cuts and pastes EU payment regulationsback into domestic legislation. However, one section ofthe Act allows devolved regions—this relates primarilyto Scotland—to exceed those financial ceilings that areeffectively derived from EU-set ceilings.


Within hours or minutes, effectively, of our leavingthe EU, we have the potential for financial divergencethat would increase the difference between the averagepayments received by a Scottish farmer and a Welshfarmer, which is already in the tens of thousands, potentiallyto far more. That relates to the Bew review, which hasgiven lots of additional money to Scotland. Previously,that money could not be paid to farmers. The newlegislation allows them to diverge—I go back to thatword—from the ceilings that are set in the legislation.

John Davies: We have a very clear ambition for apolicy made in Wales, where we see the productivity andthe environment meshing together, underpinned by astability pillar that will give us real opportunities. Weare ambitious for the future. There is real opportunityout there to make policy in Wales, for Wales, by Wales.

The Chair: Order. I am afraid that we are at the end ofthe time allotted for the Committee to ask questions.On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses fortheir evidence.


Gareth Morgan gave evidence.

12.15 pm

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from theSoil Association and we have until 1 pm for this session.Welcome to the Committee. Please introduce yourself.

Gareth Morgan: I am Gareth Morgan and I representthe Soil Association, a charity engaged in sustainablefood and farming. We also run some certification oforganic agriculture and sustainable forestry.

The Chair: The acoustics in this room are appalling.Can you speak up and project your voice?

Gareth Morgan: Yes, will do.

Q155 George Eustice: You know that in the new Bill,compared to the one in the previous Parliament, wehave added an explicit purpose around soil quality. Willyou describe for us how best to measure soil quality orsoil health? What kind of management interventionsshould we encourage under the Bill’s provisions?

Gareth Morgan: Unsurprisingly, we were delighted tosee that addition, which we thought was a grave omissionlast time round. There was a rather arcane debate aroundwhether soil health was a private or a public good.What matters is that we achieve better soils, because weknow that there is a soils crisis. Indeed, Michael Govehighlighted that in some of his speeches.

The other problem, as you allude to, Minister, is thatsoil is highly geographically variable and contains manydifferent parameters, from organic matter in terms ofthe ability to sequester carbon to soil biodiversity, productivecapability and the rest of it. That challenge has made itvery difficult to set standard provisions around soils forfarmers to follow. I suspect that that side of it willprobably be best developed through the 25-year plan inthe Environment Bill, so in a sense the Agriculture Billis the place where the tools for farmers to improve theirsoils can be placed, and where the provisions aroundwhat sorts of soils we need, and where, will need a lot ofresearch and geographical specificity. Farmers will need

assistance to understand their soils, so a top-downapproach to the same soils everywhere is probably notthe right way to go.

One exception is that the concept of a steady increasein the carbon content of soils seems to be widelyaccepted. I think the UK is in the “4 per 1000” club onthis, which is around a steady percentage increase oforganic matter in soils. That will be a useful singleaspiration for farmers and policy makers to coalescearound.

Q156 George Eustice: Soils have been around for avery long time and the human race has worked out howto grow crops on them, so I never understand whypeople say we need huge amounts of research when weknow how soil works. Soil science is not new.

Gareth Morgan: The lack of knowledge should notbe used as an excuse to not do anything. I agree withyou that far. In terms of understanding at the field levelwhat a particular farmer needs to do, I do not think Iagree that that is always obvious. You might have sharedthe same train journey that I had today from Bristol.Going through Wiltshire and looking at the waterloggedsoil-laden water lying on the fields, so that it is pouringinto the River Avon at the moment, is a signal to me.That is not necessarily the fault of the farmer, but thereis a gap between academic understanding of what soilsshould be like and what is happening in practice in thefields. There is a huge need for farmers to better understandwhat is appropriate on their farms. That will involve afair bit of Government investment to help them in thatprocess.

Q157 George Eustice: Some suggested as long ago asthe 1930s—such as Albert Howard, who was seen bymany as the father of the organics movement—thathumus in soil is the key criterion to target, because thatlinks to mycorrhizal activity and soil health more generally,carbon in the soils and the growth of various micro-organisms. Would you subscribe to that?

Gareth Morgan: Yes. The Soil Association is rootedin the philosophy that the essence of successful farminglies in the soil. There has been a welcome resurgence ofinterest in soil over the last few years. It is not anexclusive club; there are things such as minimum tillage,which is not necessarily an organic philosophy. A lot offarmers are increasingly focused on soil as the centralorganising principle of productivity, pest resistance,carbon sequestration and biodiversity, but that recognitionstill has a long way to go. I do not think organic is theonly way in which that can be achieved, but it is onesimple codified way of farming that we know builds onthat understanding of soil and organic matter in soil.

Q158 George Eustice: If we tried to return to ageneral principle of more sustainable farming practicesand husbandry, but recognising that the majority offarmers will probably want to stop short of becomingfully organic, could certain things be borrowed fromorganic production—traditional approaches to farmhusbandry that could be deployed in more conventionalfarms? Or is it your view that nothing works unless yougo the whole way to be fully organic?

Gareth Morgan: No, I would not say that. That is whythere is increasing use of the term “agroecology”, tosuggest that there is a more inclusive approach to sustainable


farming. Organic is a great codified way of doing thatand guaranteeing to the farmer and the consumer thatthe farmer is following a particular practice, but agroecologyis wider in the sense that it incorporates practices suchas mixed farming, where there is a mixture, or ruminantlivestock and arable so there is a natural fertility cycle.It incorporates a focus on reducing pesticides—it wouldbe fantastic in the Agriculture Bill to have some targetfor the reduction of pesticides as an aspiration—and afocus on leguminous plants, to increase nitrogen naturally,to avoid the use of artificial nitrogen. We are going tohave to wean ourselves off artificial nitrogen at somepoint if we are to meet our carbon targets, because wehave not found an alternative way to make it. All thosepractices can be incorporated into conventional farmingsystems.

Q159 Daniel Zeichner: Since the earlier iteration ofthe Agriculture Bill, there has been wide acknowledgmentthat we face a climate crisis. As part of that, althoughclearly different in different parts of the country, thereis a crisis around our soil, is there not? Could you say alittle about how intense that is?

Gareth Morgan: There is a soils crisis, which is expressedin a number of different ways. It is probably slightlyalarmist to talk about a certain number of years of soilsleft, which is quite graphic and gets people engaged inthe topic, but that will be different in different places.Soil can regenerate, so we should not look at it as aone-way trajectory of decline; we know ways in whichsoil can be recovered. The decline in organic matter insoil is a key dimension of that crisis.

The other big element of soil health that has beenneglected by the environmental side as much as by thefarming side, is biodiversity in soil. I assume that is assimple as the fact that it is below the ground, and thereforeyou do not see it. I heard an interesting statistic theother day: in a typical sheep field, the weight of creaturesunderneath the field far exceeds that of the animals onthe surface, whether as simple as worms or down tobacterial and fungi. The problem is that, because we donot see it, it is not that immediately obvious to us. Itbecomes obvious through things such as feeding birdsin the winter—the number of lapwings on the fields. Ifthere are no invertebrates in the fields, there will not bebirds above them. Getting back to a sense of the biodiversityof soil will be a good way to re-engage with it.

Q160 Daniel Zeichner: I guess many of us would saythat there is a need for urgency, but farmers find themselvescaught in the middle, don’t they? There is pressure tochange—the Bill is part of that change—but is therenot a danger that if we have food imported to lowerstandards, that will put farmers under even more economicpressure?

Gareth Morgan: I absolutely agree with the latterpoint. We may come on to the issue of trade equalitylater in the discussion, I imagine. There is simply nopoint in us exporting our production by forcing upstandards here when we are importing products that areproduced to low environmental and climate-changestandards from other places. We urgently need to find away to address that, because the tsunami of change thatis about to hit farming in this country will not be able towithstand that, so we have to find a way of addressingthat issue.

I do not think that should be used as an excuse fornot starting to tackle some of these big crises, such asthe soil crisis. It would be useful in the Bill, for example,for the food security provision to talk about things suchas soil as part of food security. At the minute, it is veryfocused on economic factors. If we do not sustain thesimple biological and physical nature of farming overthis period, we will not have food security. That is oneplace where it would be useful to put this in the Bill.

Q161 Daniel Zeichner: What would you like to seeput into the Bill, in terms of the imported food standardsissue?

Gareth Morgan: I do not think anyone has found asimple solution to this, other than a protectionist model,which is what we are trying to get away from. The mostinteresting example I have heard is talk from DieterHelm at the Natural Capital Committee about somekind of carbon border adjustment. It would seem ridiculousfor us to import products from countries that are notsigned up to the Paris treaty and may be subsidisingfossil fuels for their farmers in order that they canproduce cheaply, and for those products to be on themarket in this country, going against products thatproperly factor in the carbon price. It is not going to beeasy to get around, but we cannot duck it. A number ofgroups have put forward potential amendments to theBill to try to address some of that, and that also needsto be reflected in the trade Bills. Just ignoring it, as isbeing done at the minute, is not satisfactory for ourfarmers or our environment.

Q162 Danny Kruger: I represent the waterloggedWiltshire farms that you passed today. Given your pointabout different soils in different places, are you confidentthat, in the emerging policy about public good payments,we are getting the balance right between farming practicesand outcomes? The detail is not all there yet, but areyou concerned about getting that balance right?

Gareth Morgan: I think the Bill is a good step, interms of providing the toolkit to give farmers the financialassistance to provide some of those public goods. Theenvironmental land management scheme seems to havegot quite bogged down over the past couple of yearsbecause it has been trying to get round this issue ofworking to more outcome-focused schemes, rather thanjust prescriptions for farmers, but there is a reason whywe ended up doing prescriptions, although they are veryfrustrating for farmers to work to, because it is a list ofrules that you have to follow and that is not a verycreative way of doing things. The reason we do that isthat you can audit them and specify them, even if it is abit rough and ready, whereas saying to a farmer, “Wewould like to see 10 pairs of skylarks on your land. Youdecide how you do it,” is quite open-ended and not thathelpful to the farmer. Hopefully, ELMS is the place wherewe will find a way of reconciling those two conflictingpriorities.

Danny Kruger: That is helpful. Thank you.

Q163 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Where tostart? Could you say a bit more about the whole-farmsystems approach and the concern that the Bill mightlead to farmers cherry-picking some of the public goods,but not to a transformation of farming, as would bepossible if we were to go for a more holistic approach?


Gareth Morgan: One reason I joined the Soil Association—I was previously working at the Royal Society for theProtection of Birds—was the sense that you can doquite a lot for particular things, such as bird numberson farms, without affecting the underlying sustainabilityof farming operations. I do not think the Bill deliberatelyplays into that, but it could be an unintentional consequence.There is a whole series of public goods that a farmercould choose to provide, but—particularly if we are goingto lose things such as cross-compliance now, which isthe basic way to encourage a farmer to look across thewhole farm—there is a considerable danger that we willjust focus on the easy or obvious bits, such as doing aflower margin or some skylark plots on a farm, and notreally think about why the ecological operation of afarm is not satisfactory.

At the moment, there are two distinct dangers. First,some farms might opt into the public goods systemwhile other farms will decide to farm to the market,especially if they are competing with foreign importsproduced to lower standards. Secondly, even on individualfarms, a farmer might be tempted to look for a particularthing that can be done that will be good for the environment,but neglect what is happening on the rest of the farm,for example the state of the soil across the whole farm.The whole-farm approach should be at the centre of theAgriculture Bill, but it is not at the moment.

Q164 Kerry McCarthy: Meeting net zero is a publicgood, looking at climate mitigation and adaptation. Doyou feel the Bill could be stronger on that? My concernis that while in a sector like transport it is quite easy tomake big policy moves that shift us, say, to electricvehicles, because there is only a small number of carcompanies, in agriculture there are lots of differenttypes of farmers with a large geographical spread. Howdo you get them all working towards that net zero goal,and could the Bill be a mechanism to do that moreeffectively? I have not heard much from the NationalFarmers Union about the road map for getting there.

Gareth Morgan: It is fantastic that the NFU hastaken the position of committing to an early net zerotarget for the agriculture and land use sector. That hasshifted the debate enormously. Establishing the routemap by which you do that is quite difficult. I am notentirely sure that a net zero clause in the Bill is the rightway to go about it.

In several sectors—such as transport and energygeneration—we have a clear idea about what that routemap needs to be. Land use will be much more complicated.We do not know all the answers yet—for example, in thecurrent argument about red meat, we are veering adifferent way each month. Setting a clear trajectory infarming to net zero in law could be counter-productive.The easiest way for us to go net zero in terms of landuse in the UK is to stop farming and plant treeseverywhere and import food off our balance sheet. Thatwould be madness, but it could be an inadvertentconsequence if we get the wrong sort of legal fix intolaw. I think the Bill could be more explicit about netzero and the need to achieve it, but we need to be carefulabout the way in which we phrase that.

Q165 Mr Goodwill: Conversion to organic farming isquite an expensive process, because during that conversionperiod one cannot sell organic products. Do you think

there should be more incentives for farmers to switch toorganic production and, if so, how can we ensure thatwe do not flood the market with organic food andtherefore undermine the whole economic basis for organicfarming?

Gareth Morgan: That is a well-made point. In food,demand and production need to be balanced. That istrue not only of organic produce; it is a general point.

One key point is that it would be helpful if the Billrecognised the specific contribution that organic farmingcan make against a whole range of public goods. Ratherthan inventing a complicated system in parallel withorganics—for example, saying, “If a farm satisfies thecarbon criteria, the biodiversity criteria, the rotationsand the rest of it, then we will make a payment”—let usjust cut to the chase and say that it makes sense for thereto be some kind of organic maintenance payment torecognise additional public goods that are there butcannot be recovered through the market. I think thatwould in some sense help with the conversion issue,because if farmers are clear that if they move to anorganic model they will be rewarded, both by the marketand for the public goods that they provide in the longerterm, then that will give them that level of certainty.

Regarding conversion, you are right—I think thereneeds to be caution around doing that, because in thepast we have had examples of where there has beenover-conversion to organic ahead of the market being readyto be there. So I think the focus on some sort of organicmaintenance payment in ELMS is absolutely vital.

There is a role for help with conversion, but it maynot be in terms of straightforward payments duringthat period. It may be through things like the ancillaryproductivity payments or some of these other issuesthat are acting as a barrier to conversion. For example,bringing livestock back on to arable farms will be quitea difficult operation, and most people who convert toorganic would need to do that if they are an arablefarm. So help with the process of establishing thosethings might be the way that one could assist in thatprocess.

Q166 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead)(Lab): As you know, clause 1 provides financial assistancefor protecting and improving the quality of soil and, asyou mentioned earlier, soil is highly variable and it isdifficult to set the standards equally across all thefarmers. You mentioned something about tools forfarmers—being given specifically, I guess, for the 25 yearsthat you mentioned. Are there any specific measuresthat you would like to see mentioned in relation to soilhealth?

Gareth Morgan: At the end of the day, there will haveto be some sort of whole-farm planning process. I amsure the Minister has thoughts about this: there is anaspiration to reduce our transaction costs, around theamount of advice and so on that schemes involve. Ithink there is a limit to how far that can go, so at the endof the day I suspect that any farmer who is receivingsubstantial public good payments will need to havesome kind of system of working with an adviser arounda whole-farm plan, which will enable them to put themeasures into place, particularly for something like soil.

There are general measures that are great for wildlifeand the environment, like having flower margins aroundfields, having rough grass margins and the rest of it;


they will be useful anywhere. With something like soil,I cannot really see how that can be done without thesupport of an agronomist, or a specialist, or someonehelping the farmer and working on the nature of thesoil on that particular farm. That need not be done byGovernment advisers; it could be done by certifiers, orprivate suppliers and so on. But without that level ofsupport being built into the system, it is quite hard tosee how farmers will be able to make the transition thatthey might want to make on their farm to things likesustainable soil management practices.

Q167 Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con):Mr Morgan, in your written submissions you criticisedthe Bill as it is currently drafted for not having cleartargets for soil health. I represent the Derbyshire Dalesarea, which has a massive variation of soil qualitiesfrom the flats to the higher land. How can you possiblyfairly have targets, and how would you measure them,to make sure that those of my farmers who put a lot ofeffort in to improve the soil, but who will get a lesserresult because of the nature of the soil they have, can befairly rewarded for providing a public good improvement?

Gareth Morgan: I am quite pragmatic about wherethose targets should lie and if it is not in the AgricultureBill, there are other places; I have already alluded to thepotential for both the Environment Bill and the 25-yearplan to be the place where those targets and metricscould reside. It is disappointing that at the moment theEnvironment Bill does not have a soil chapter, becauseit would seem to me logical for that to be the placewhere, say, a target for increasing organic matter in soilsat a national level would reside.

Regarding the targets for an individual farm, clearlyit would not be sensible for those to be iterated in thisBill, because they might have to be done farm by farm.However, some provision for making sure that farmersare clear what they are working to on the soils on theirfarm over a particular period will be vital. I do not knowwhether some provision can be made in the Bill forthere to be that level of assessment before public goodpayments are made on a particular farm, for example,because you are right: unless the farmer is clear abouttheir current resource or what the expectation is aboutwhere they will be going, it is going to be quite—andthis may be one of the reasons why soils were notpreviously itemised in the Bill, because of this preciseproblem about that geographical specificity.

Q168 Miss Dines: That would be a huge piece ofwork, would it not—like a national survey of eachindividual farm. If you want to set targets as yousuggest, are you saying that that is realistically what theGovernment have to look at? Can there be a morepragmatic approach?

Gareth Morgan: I think a soil organic matter targetnationally is realistic. I think there is a fair consensusthat increasing organic matter in soil ticks so many boxesthat that is something that would be useful. That doesnot necessarily help the individual farmer to know whatneeds to be done on their farm. There is a good nationalsoil survey, so there is good spatial information aboutsoils that we could be using as part of this process, so itdoes not all have to be done from a base of no knowledge.

Q169 George Eustice: I just wanted to come in on thispoint about targets. I know they are the tool that peopleoften reach for—they say we should just have some

statutory target—but you said yourself at the beginningthat it varies considerably from soil to soil, it is hard tomeasure these things, and an enormous amount ofresearch is needed. I have sometimes been told it willprobably take eight years to do that sort of research.

Given the complexity of the issue, is there not adanger that if you are waiting to try to identify thetarget, you end up effectively delaying action—the worstof all worlds? Does it perhaps matter less that there issome sort of prescribed target, and more that youencourage and incentivise good soil husbandry fromyear one as best you can with the knowledge that youhave? You can measure trends. You can get a sense ofwhether the trends that matter are moving in the rightdirection from the interventions you are doing. Is notthat perhaps a better way to approach these things thansome kind of prescriptive target?

Gareth Morgan: I think you are right, in the sensethat the best must not be the enemy of the good, andthere is plenty that can be done on soils tomorrow. I donot think I agree that the absence of a target is somethingthat we should be content with in the long term, particularlyat the Government level. Targets have been useful infocusing the attention of policy makers on results. Thefarmland bird recovery target, although the bane ofmany people’s life, was useful in terms of focusingattention on what could be done to reverse the declineof farmland birds.

I think national targets around soils would be helpfulin terms of focusing and attracting funding. Ultimatelythe Treasury is going to come and say, “I can see you aredoing lots of interesting things on your farms; what,actually, are you benefiting, in terms of the naturalcapital account for the country?” Unless we can go backto the Treasury and say, “This investment of £2 billionor £3 billion has achieved the following things over thisperiod,” I suspect the money will dry up pretty quickly.

Q170 George Eustice: There was another area of theBill that I wanted to ask your view on. It is furtheron—there is the clause relating to organic, principallymarketing, standards. That is, in essence, the primarypowers that we would need to amend the organics regimethat we have inherited from the EU and that itself isabout to change.

Are you content with the revised organics regime thatwe are about to inherit from the EU, as it stands, orwould you be interested in us using these powers tomake specific changes that might make the future UKorganics regime work better?

Gareth Morgan: That is a little bit off my area, so Iwill not speculate too much. The Soil Association isonly one part of a very broad organic movement, sothere are a number of players who, I think, will want tocome back. I think the general feeling was that theprovisions in the Bill provide the right enabling startingpoint for creating a domestic structure around organicregulation.

The one concern that I have heard expressed is that,given we have quite a collaborative model for developingorganic standards and lots of players in this country,building that level of engagement with the variousplayers and consultation into that process will be important.At the European level, the International Federation ofOrganic Agriculture Movements, or IFOAM, has been


involved in the ongoing development of organic regulation.We will clearly need to have something similar at adomestic level to ensure that everyone, from the farmersto the certifiers to consumers, has a stake in the developmentof the regime.

Q171 Daniel Zeichner: Two questions: first, in someof your evidence you have suggested that there shouldbe a public health aim within the Bill, and I wonderedwhether you could tell us a little more about how youthink that might work. Secondly— you have touched onthis a bit in some of your contribution—who do youthink is best-placed and qualified to negotiate andadminister the new environmental land managementschemes? Are there any potential conflicts of interest inthat set-up?

Gareth Morgan: Taking the first point, it does feelthat there is still a gap in the policy and legislativearchitecture in agriculture. We have “Health and Harmony”,which sets out a good, new, broad trajectory for agriculture,and we have quite a technical, nitty-gritty enabling Billhere in terms of saying, “Here are the tools that can bedeployed to achieve things.” At the moment there is notanything knitting all that together to say, “What arefood and farming for? Do we have any sense of what theright model might be?” I suspect that is perhaps a bit ofa legacy from having had the CAP, which was a prescriptiveand sometimes flawed model of European farming. Wehave almost moved away from that to being afraid tosay we have any preferences at all. We have a series oftools and a broad aspiration that farming should begood for the environment, and then the market doesthe rest.

The reason for putting down a marker on publichealth was to say that food and farming are not justabout a commercial transaction; it is of huge nationalimportance whether people have secure and healthyfood supplies and access to the right sort of food andwhether the farmer is able to get a just return from themarket. Some of those things are touched on in the Bill,but it almost feels like there needs to be something rightat the front of the Bill to say what all this is for, asopposed to, “What should we pay farmers for andhow?” It feels a bit too fast. That does not necessarilyhave to come in the Bill, but it has to come somewhere,to our mind. Again, that is where we would say that apresumption in favour of a move to a more agroecological

way of thinking about farming probably would sit.Equally, it is the place where the national food strategywould fit in to say that food is more than just a markettransaction for consumers.

Q172 Daniel Zeichner: You said a little about theenvironmental land management schemes, but who is bestplaced to administer and deliver those?

Gareth Morgan: I would tread very warily in thatminefield.

Daniel Zeichner: You do not have to answer if you donot want to, but the fact that you are treading warilytells us what we need to know. Thank you.

Q173 George Eustice: On that point, you made areference earlier to the need for advisers. You will beaware that the concept behind the future policy is thatthere will be an individual agronomist—possibly fromthe private sector, possibly from groups, perhaps evenfrom your group or the Wildlife Trusts—who would beaccredited by the Government to help farmers putschemes together and to walk to the farm and sit downaround the kitchen table to do that. I think I am right insaying that the Soil Association already accredits organicproducers and growers, probably under a similar model.I wondered if you might explain how that processworks. How many clients—for want of a better term—canan accredited Soil Association adviser look after in atypical year?

Gareth Morgan: I should first say that other certifiersare available—for example, our colleagues in OrganicFarmers and Growers. It is a competitive market. I amnot from the certification side of the organisation andso I will follow up with written evidence on that point, ifthat is acceptable.

The Chair: Thank you. If there are no further questionsfrom the Committee, I thank you, on behalf of theCommittee, for giving your evidence, Mr Morgan.


12.49 pm




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Fourth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

Examination of witnesses

Adjourned till Tuesday 25 February at twenty-five minutes past

Nine o’clock.


PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Monday 17 February 2020






† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)

† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)

† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)

Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)† Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Eustice, George (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)


Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)† Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con)† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead)




Witnesses

Jonnie Hall, Director of Policy, NFU Scotland

Alan Clarke, Chief Executive, Quality Meat Scotland

George Burgess, Deputy Director, Trade Policy, Food and Drink, Scottish Government

George Monbiot, journalist and author

Professor Bill Keevil, Professor of Environmental Healthcare, School of Biological Sciences, University ofSouthampton

Diana Holland, Assistant General Secretary (responsible for Food, Drink and Agriculture), Unite

Jyoti Fernandes, Campaigns and Policy Co-ordinator, Landworkers Alliance

Vicki Hird, Campaign Co-ordinator, Food and Farming Policy, Sustain

Dr Nick Palmer, Head of Compassion in World Farming UK, Compassion in World Farming

James West, Senior Policy Manager, Compassion in World Farming

Sue Davies MBE, Head of Consumer Protection and Food Policy, Which?




(Afternoon)


Agriculture Bill


Jonnie Hall, Alan Clarke and George Burgess gaveevidence.

2 pm

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from NFUScotland, Quality Meat Scotland and the ScottishGovernment. Thank you for coming. The panel willfinish at 2.30 pm. Could you introduce yourselves forthe record?

Alan Clarke: Good afternoon, everybody. My nameis Alan Clarke. I am chief executive of Quality MeatScotland.

George Burgess: Good afternoon. I am George Burgess.I am the head of food and drink at the ScottishGovernment.

Jonnie Hall: My name is Jonnie Hall. I am director ofpolicy for NFU Scotland.

Q174 The Minister of State, Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): For decades,the common agricultural policy, with all its prescriptiverules, has applied to every part of the UK. As we leave,each part of the UK will have the freedom to develop apolicy that is right for it. Could you each say what it isabout the common agricultural policy that you dislikethe most, what you most want to change and what typeof system you think is appropriate for the modern world?

Jonnie Hall: I am happy to start. I can quote Mr Eusticeback at him and say that the CAP has largely “incentivisedinertia”—a phrase he has used many times. We agree.The bluntness of area-based payments has not driveninnovation or productivity, or indeed delivered onenvironmental challenges.

In that respect, we see the departure from the EU andfrom the CAP as an opportunity to develop bespokeagricultural policy tailored to the individual needs ofthe devolved Administrations. We have some capacityfor that already, in the fact that we have four differentsettlements of pillar 1 and pillar 2 under the CAP, butwe are nevertheless constrained by an awful lot ofbureaucracy and by the rules and regulations aroundmapping, inspections, penalties and so on.

It is vital for us to take the opportunity and forScotland to be allowed, under the devolved nature ofagricultural policy development and delivery, to developits own suite of schemes and measures that fit the needsand profile of Scottish agriculture, which is significantlydifferent from that of the rest of the UK and, inparticular, England. That is absolutely right and, therefore,this provides us with an opportunity.

George Burgess: The Scottish Government position,as I am sure all Committee members will know, has notbeen in favour of Brexit. We believe that continuedmembership of the single market and customs union isthe best way forward on economic, social and environmentalgrounds. That includes on the common agriculturalpolicy.

Obviously, there will be areas in the common agriculturalpolicy that are not necessarily to our liking. Work hasbeen under way in Scotland, under the “Stability andSimplicity” consultation, to identify, in the short term,any areas where some improvement could be made tothe common agricultural policy. That might be aroundissues such as mapping and penalties, as Mr Hall hasmentioned. We are working, through a farming andfood production future policy group, to look at longer-termpolicy in Scotland.

Alan Clarke: I have a couple of points from QualityMeat Scotland. This gives us an opportunity to lookoutside our normal markets. Currently, 69% of Scottishred meat is being sold in the rest of the UK, outside ofScotland, and 10% goes internationally. It gives us anopportunity to continue to build on that. To do that,protection of our protected geographical indicators isessential.

In addition, we need to have no reduction of standardsof any other imports coming into the country, to makesure that we have a level playing field for our foodproducers. We would like to see transparency of pricereporting throughout the supply chain, to enable us tomake better decisions across that area. As you willperhaps hear later from me, we have been workingclosely with the Agriculture and Horticulture DevelopmentBoard and Hybu Cig Cymru on levy repatriation work.We think there is a lot of work that we could build onacross the three nations, if not the four nations.

Q175 George Eustice: When the current design of theCAP was brought in, I remember a lot of concern inScotland, including from NFU Scotland, farmers andthe Government, that area-based payments did notwork in such a landscape—that the diversity betweenthe lowlands and the moorlands made it highly problematicfor an area-based-only payment to work. Mr Burgess,are you saying that, although you might try to simplifythe legacy CAP scheme around the edges, you still thinkthat a basic CAP subsidy on land tenure is the rightapproach?

George Burgess: The Scottish Government’s approachthrough the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation isthat, for the period from now until 2024, we will essentiallyretain the features of the current CAP system withsome scope for simplification, improvement and piloting.Beyond that, we are open to looking at a more radicalreform of the policy. That is the approach we are takingthrough our future policy group, which includesrepresentatives from the farming industry, food productionand environmental groups, so that is the forum forconsidering the longer-term changes in Scotland. Whetherit retains area-based payments or moves to some othersystem, or a combination of the two, remains to be seen.

Jonnie Hall: I support that, in the sense that area-basedpayments are far too blunt and do not deliver theobjectives that we all aspire to, not only in supportingagricultural incomes and productivity but in addressingchallenges suchasclimatechange,biodiversityandsoon.


The sooner we move to an approach that is more action-based than area-based, the better. However, we are inalignment with the Scottish Government in the sensethat from 2021 onwards, we will be venturing intouncharted territory in many ways, given the changes inour operating environment, trading issues and otherareas. The ability to retain direct income support thatoffers some stability in the interim is key. We are absolutelyin alignment about change, but the key questions areabout the pace of that change and how we manage it.

We note with interest what is happening in Englandand the Bill’s proposals for phasing out direct support.Of course, that would be inappropriate and inapplicablein a Scottish context, so we need the devolved capacityto do things differently. The direction of travel is verymuch the same and the landing space is probably thesame as well, but we have to consider the pace of thatchange and recognise the challenges and issues that areparticularly pertinent to Scottish agriculture.

Q176 George Eustice: We have set out in this Bill aseven-year transition for England, from 2021 to 2028. Isuppose it is possible that the Scottish Governmentmight say, “We will keep the current system with a fewminor simplifications until 2024”, but then ditch itovernight and go straight in one leap to a new system.Do you envisage a sharper transition than seven years,or have the Scottish Government made clear that theywill definitely not do things faster than seven years?

George Burgess: No, I do not think so. The Agriculture(Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, whichimplements the stability and simplicity approach for theperiod between now and 2024, is currently before theScottish Parliament. I have mentioned the future policygroup, which aims to bring forward proposals by thesummer of this year. That is the point when we willbegin looking at the transition—things that may bepiloted between now and 2024—so we are definitely notlooking at a sharp cliff-edge transition in 2024.

Hopefully within that time period, we will gain aclearer understanding of our trading regime with Europeand the rest of the world. At the moment, it is franklyquite hard to work out what we should be doing withsectors such as sheepmeat, given that we do notknow what the situation with our largest export marketswill be.

Jonnie Hall: A number of interests in Scotland havesuggested that there should be a sunset clause in thepiece of legislation that Mr Burgess has referred to, sothat it comes to a definitive end in 2024. However, wewould not agree with that, because it would potentiallycreate a cliff edge where we would go off the stabilityelements that we have talked about and into the unknown.We want to avoid that; we need to be able to adjust toand reflect on the circumstances of the time, and it isright that the Scottish Government have the ability todo so under the legislation that is going through theScottish Parliament.

Q177 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Goodafternoon. I think Mr Clarke alluded to this pointbriefly earlier, but I will ask all of you, as I have askedmost of the witnesses: what effect do you think allowingimports of food produced to lower environmentalwelfare and health standards will have on Scottishconsumers and producers and, most of all, on theScottish environment?

Alan Clarke: It would be a disaster for the Scottish redmeat industry.TheScotswerepioneersof qualityassurance.Scotland was the first country in the world to set upwhole of life, whole of supply chain quality assurance,and that gives a unique selling point to our world-classproducts of Scotch beef PGI, Scotch lamb PGI andspecially selected pork. For any diluted product to cometo market and be able to compete directly—as far as Iam concerned, that has no place on the supermarket shelves.

George Burgess: I suspect you will find a very largemeasure of agreement at this table. The ScottishGovernment are very concerned at the prospect thatfuture trade agreements could allow for a dilution ofstandards.

Jonnie Hall: It is also worth adding that the produceof Scotland—commodities is the wrong word—is notabout, “Stack it high, sell it low.” We are not going tocompete on world markets. We are not a volume producer.We are based on the authenticity and the provenance ofour product, and the welfare standards and environmentalstandards behind that. If we expose Scottish agricultureto cheaper imports of substandard production methodsand so on, we will blow large sections of Scottishagriculture out of the water. That will have significantimpacts on the agricultural industry itself, but also,more importantly, on the wider issues around ruralcommunities and the environment and habitats thatScottish agriculture underpins with its extensive grazingsystems and so on.

Q178 Daniel Zeichner: Paragraph 21 of the writtenevidence from NFU Scotland touches on the complicatedquestion of the governance of common frameworks.We had the same discussion with representatives fromWales this morning. How do you see a way forward onthat? It seems that divergence is inevitable at some point,and yet it needs to be managed.

Jonnie Hall: It is quite clear, in many ways, in thesense that the development and delivery of agriculturalschemes and policy, in terms of what outcomes we wantto achieve from managing our land in an agriculturalsense, should absolutely be devolved, and is today.However, when you are looking at the operation of theinternal UK market, we need to be able to operate tothe same rules in a very transparent and open way acrossthe United Kingdom.

Our worry and concern is that a lot of the discussionsfrom outside of the Government appear to be aboutcommon frameworks, but we are unsighted on that. Weare not seeing what common frameworks might looklike. More important to me is the governance of thosecommon frameworks going forward. Like or loathe theEuropean Commission, at least it acted as some sort ofreferee when it came to compliance with regulation,standards and so on across member states and withinthe UK. If we are going to preserve the internal UKmarket, as Alan Clarke has pointed out is so importantto Scottish agriculture, we need to ensure that we are allplaying to the same rulebook on a whole range ofissues. We are unsighted on an awful lot of that. We arestill trying to flush out of Governments—plural—theactions and discussions that are going on.

Q179 Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): Ido not know whether I need to restate my interests—I once worked for the UK farming unions, includingNFU Scotland—but I will do so, to be on the safe side.


The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. Weare halfway through and a number of Members want toask questions, so I would be grateful if you could beshort and precise.

Fay Jones: Certainly. Mr Hall, your counterparts inWales are happy with the pace at which the WelshGovernment are bringing forward their equivalentAgriculture Bill. Are you content with the pace of theScottish Government?

Jonnie Hall: If anything, we would like the pace to bea wee bit quicker. As I said earlier, we recognise that weare all venturing into an unknown world, in terms ofthe operating environment in which we will find ourselves,so it is probably more pragmatic not to give ourselvesdistinct deadlines. I mentioned the proposal for a sunsetclause in the current legislation, which might suggest adeadline for new policy to be put in place for the longerterm. We do not want to be a hostage to fortune on that.Certain sectors of Scottish agriculture might find itparticularly bumpy in 2021, 2022 and possibly 2023. Wewant to see change happen sooner rather than later, butlet us not push ourselves into a situation where we mustaccept change but that change does not take us in theright direction.

Q180 Fay Jones: Correct me if I am wrong, but myunderstanding is that the Scottish Government stillmaintain a headage payment system, particularly forthe beef sector. Would that sort of measure remain onthe table as you design a future agricultural policy?

Jonnie Hall: We have had a beef calf payment since2005 under the CAP. There are strict rules on how muchmoney can be spent on that. It is about how importantthe suckler herd is to the socioeconomic fabric of ruralScotland. It certainly has not driven production, becausesuckler cow numbers have continued to decline overthat period. If anything, it has slowed the decline down,so I would not call it a production support. It recognisesthe additional cost of suckler production in our hills, inparticular, and therefore it is a very important piece ofthe policy toolkit. It enables the retention of sucklerbeef in Scotland, and that has significant implicationsfurther downstream and into the supply chain, as I amsure Alan Clarke would agree.

Alan Clarke: Absolutely.

Q181 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith)(SNP): We do not have much time, so could you let usknow quickly the main areas you have concerns with inthe Bill? You have expressed some of them—governanceframeworks is one, of course, Jonnie. One of the thingsthat was brought up was the livestock informationprovision. An organisation is being set up, and thismorning our Welsh counterparts expressed real concernabout that. They said that that section of the Bill rangalarm bells and raised important operational issuesabout whether this could indeed be overseen and directedthrough England, through the Agriculture and HorticultureDevelopment Board and the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs. That is a starting point, but arethere are any other areas of the Bill that you have concernsabout?

Jonnie Hall: In our evidence we cite a number ofareas. If you look at the Scottish Bill going through theScottish Parliament and the Bill that you are considering

now, there are clear overlaps, not just on animal traceabilityissues but marketing standards and other things. Manyof those issues are devolved, but our concern goes backto the operation of the internal UK market. It is quiteright that those things are devolved, but how do weensure that there is consistency in application of thosedevolved issues across the United Kingdom? If there isnot consistency, there has to be at least co-ordination ofthose things. It is right that the capacities are devolved.It is right that the Scottish Bill is doing what it does andthe UK Bill does what it does, but it is about wherethose things might rub together to create problems inthe UK internal market. There are a number of examplesin there. [Interruption.] I am not saying that it willhappen, but we need to have consistency if not co-ordinationacross the UK.

George Burgess: From the Scottish Government’sperspective, the Bill is something of a curate’s egg. Theprovisions that we like include the red meat levy provision,which we played a large part in developing at the outset.We very much welcome that, and we would like to see acommitment from the UK Government to its swiftimplementation.

Other provisions in the Bill on food security andfertilisers make a great deal of sense, but we have somedifficulties with others, including the livestock informationprovision, which has already been mentioned. Again, theconcern is really about governance and the appropriaterole of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern IrelandGovernments.

Similarly, the organics clause to some extent recognisesdevolved competences, but we are concerned about thepower that is given to the Secretary of State to act indevolved areas without seeking the consent of the ScottishParliament. Other concerns of long standing from theprevious Bill relate to producer organisations, the WorldTrade Organisation agreement on agriculture, and fairdealing in supply chains, where we have a very differentview on devolved competence from DEFRA.

Alan Clarke: I will pick two, Deidre, because I amconscious of time. In relation to the LIP system that wetalked about, I think there has always been a history, ifthere has ever been a disease breakout, that everybodyhas worked extremely well together and come togetherand shared all the information. I think it is importantthat that is retained and that anything that is developedin England must read across to the rest of the UK.ScotEID, again, has been leading the way on that inScotland. There must be those links. I know the meetingshappen regularly every month with the devolvedassociations and the developers of it, but the mechanismthat George talked about is one to consider.

The second issue is levy repatriation. I have beenworking very closely with AHDB and HCC towardsgetting a scheme of operation, which can be put toMinisters, showing what the long-term solution for levyrepatriation would look like. We have identified, usingthat scheme, the numbers involved. It would mean thatevery year, £1.2 million of producer levy that is currentlytrapped in England would come back to Scotland, and£1.1 million of Welsh levy currently trapped in Englandwould come back to Scotland—to Wales. Apologies—Wynwill not forgive me for that one. Essentially, the schemehas been agreed by the three levy bodies. It has now


gone to each of the boards, and we hope to be in aposition to put that to the Ministers in a short period oftime.

Behind the scenes, we have been looking at the interimsolution of the ring-fenced fund—the £2 million thathas been ring-fenced for the benefit of levy payers inEngland, Wales and Scotland. We hope to make anannouncement in the next few weeks on greater workingrelationships between the three levy bodies. This givesus a really good opportunity. We would like to see a dateput into the Agriculture Bill to say when the legislationmust be passed and the scheme be in operation by. Thethree levy bodies are working to a date of 1 April 2021for a long-term solution to be in place, meaning thatthis is the last operational year of the ring-fenced fundthat we will be coming into in April. It would be nice tohave that enshrined in law.

Q182 Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby)(Con): On Tuesday, we had evidence from Jake Fiennes,the general manager for conservation for the HolkhamEstate. In his view, the definition of livestock in clause 1should not be extended to game—to grouse, pheasantor venison, such as the excellent produce produced inScotland. Do you agree with that observation, or doyou think that the management of game and financialhelp from the taxpayer for those sorts of landscapeswould be beneficial to the future of agriculture in Scotland?

Jonnie Hall: First, I do not think the likes of game—pheasant, grouse and, indeed, wild deer, because we havefarmed deer as well—should be governed as agriculturalactivity. The husbandry is not the same. They are wildanimals. The habitat may be managed in their interests,but nevertheless they are not livestock that are bought,sold and managed in the same way as cattle, sheep, pigsand so on, so I do not see the benefit of that.

I do see, particularly in the Scottish context, the benefitsof multiple land use in the same vicinity—the sameland—such as having grouse moor management andmanaging wild deer populations in the interests ofconservation, as much as in the interests of stalking andvenison, alongside extensive grazing systems for thedelivery of key habitats. That is one thing, but we willalso be thinking increasingly about the preservation andrestoration of our peatlands in the effort to tackle climatechange. Grazing management will become a morefundamental issue—and extensive grazing managementin Scotland—specifically for its public benefits andpublic good delivery, rather than just the production ofan agricultural product.

That debate is an important one, but at this momentin time I do not view those things as agricultural activities.They can be supported through other means, becausethey are essentially environmental delivery mechanismsas well.

Q183 Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP): Given the broaderambitions of this Bill, and that which is going throughthe Scottish Parliament at the hands of the ScottishGovernment, how seriously do you view the potentialfor any checks on agricultural commerce between Scotlandand Northern Ireland, in terms of how that affects crofters,farmers and processors?

Jonnie Hall: Again, at the risk of repeating myself,the preservation of the internal UK market is vital tothe interests of Scottish agriculture. Alan Clarke mentioned

some statistics about red meat. Our most importantmarket is the rest of the UK, but we want to growmarkets beyond that. I have often referred to the spendingpower within the M25, where we are sitting right now,as our bread and butter. That remains key, so we arevery mindful of anything that rubs against the free flowof not just finished agricultural produce, but livestock.If I were a beef producer in the Scottish borders andwanted to buy a bull from Northumberland, I wouldnot think it a smart move to operate different animaltraceability systems and have all sorts of checks andbalances at Berwick. In theory, that could be the outcomeif we do not get these pieces of legislation to align.

Q184 Dave Doogan: What I was trying to get at wasthe particular role of trade between Scotland and NI,and the implications of any kind of impediment to thatfree movement. We are not going to have that betweenScotland and England, or between Scotland and Wales,but we potentially will with NI. How big a deal is thatfor Scottish agriculture?

Jonnie Hall: I do not think it is a huge deal forproduce leaving Scotland and going to Northern Ireland,but it is a very big issue for Northern Irish colleagues,who obviously want to access markets in GB—the restof the UK. That is a real conundrum, in the sense thatregulatory alignment with the EU will clearly be a vitalissue on the border between Northern Ireland and theRepublic. If that has implications for regulatory alignmentwith the rest of the UK and the EU, I can foresee lots ofheadaches and issues with that.

From what I see, we are moving more and moretowards the potential of triangular trading agreementsbetween ourselves, the EU and non-EU countries—forexample, those in North America. There clearly has tobe some sort of tension point at some level, because theUK Government have made it clear that there will notbe regulatory alignment with the EU, although therewill be equivalence—whatever that might mean—inorder to secure deals with non-EU countries. That putsin doubt or jeopardy our potential to trade both withthe EU and with other countries at the same time. Thatis a major concern for us.

The Chair: I call Danny Kruger, and this will have tobe the last question.

Q185 Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con): I asked yourWelsh counterparts this question this morning. Mr Hall,you talked about the transition from an area-based toan activity-based subsidy regime. There is also an outcome-based regime. I am interested in your view on the rightprinciples that should guide us in designing a regimethat has public good as its objective. Do you think weare sufficiently clear at this stage about whether farmersshould be rewarded for what they do, or for what theoutcomes of their work are?

Jonnie Hall: I think it is a very important point forthe future direction of agricultural policy anywhere. Iwould say at the outset that blunt area payments reflectneither activity nor outcomes; they are simply a ticketto receive an income by declaring an area of land anddoing some compliance. We really need to work on asystem that recognises the actions that deliver an outcome;you then pay for the actions that deliver the outcomesyou require. If it were exclusively about delivering outcomes,that is a very risky situation for farmers and crofters in


Scotland. We probably need a combination of bothsystems, and we are piloting various things in Scotland—forexample, an outcome-based approach to agri-environmentin different parts of the country.

It is about actions on climate change and so forth.How do we encourage more efficient production systems,soil management and extensive grazing systems? That iswithin the gift of the farmer or crofter. What is not intheir gift is the precise outcome that we get from that.We might think that we will get the right outcome, butwe do not 100% know. There are lots of forces at play inagricultural land management, and the risks need to bemanaged carefully. The key thing is to move away fromarea-based payments in the first place, with actions thendelivering the outcomes and objectives that you want.

The Chair: Order. I am afraid that brings us to theend of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thankthe witnesses for coming along this afternoon.


George Monbiot gave evidence.

2.30 pm

The Chair: We will now hear evidence from GeorgeMonbiot. Welcome to the Committee. This panel willfinish at 3 pm. Would you introduce yourself, please?

George Monbiot: Thank you. I am an environmentalcampaigner and journalist.

James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con):I suppose it’s down to me?

The Chair: Yes. The Minister has gone to see thePrime Minister.

Q186 James Morris: What do you think about thepublic good provisions in the Bill, and to what extent doyou think they are correctly defined? Is there furtherscope for the definition of public good?

George Monbiot: I think it really important to tightenthe definition and to stick with, basically, the classicaldefinition of non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Thereis potential for slippage within the wording of the Bill,for example into food production that does not fit thedefinition. We should basically also be funding publicgoods that are additional and which are not going to bedelivered anyway.

We should be very careful not to use subsidies as asubstitute for regulation. There is a real danger insaying, “We will put all this on a voluntary basis and wewill pay people to do the right thing,” rather thansaying, “You may not do the wrong thing.” I feel thatthere have already been a lot of failures in monitoringand enforcement of cross-compliance under the currentsubsidy regime. If we are not careful, we could see thosefailures become a lot worse.

Q187 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. Since theBill was introduced a couple of years ago, the world hasmoved on in some ways. There is greater awareness ofthe challenge that we face, and the Government haveconceded that there is a climate emergency. Do youthink that the Bill is up to the task and, if you startedwith a blank sheet of paper, what would you do?

George Monbiot: One of my aims would be to reducethe area of land used for agriculture. All agriculture is aradical simplification of ecosystems, until you get to thepoint at which it is so extensive that it is not reallyagriculture. The Knepp Castle Estate, for example, is awonderful example of rewilding, but I worked out thatif we were to universalise that across much of the UK,we would need to cut our meat consumption by about99.5%—that is not a great example of agriculture. Untilyou get to that level of extensification, you are reallyremoving huge numbers of species and a huge amountof potential carbon storage that would otherwise bethere.

In this country, we suffer grievously from what I call“agricultural sprawl”—large areas of land used to producesmall amounts of food. It gets to the point at which, forinstance, sheep farming in the uplands, according to myestimates, occupies roughly 4 million hectares—almostas much land as all our arable and horticultural productionput together—yet produces roughly 1% of our food bycalories and roughly 2% by protein. That is a remarkablywasteful use of land, which could be much better usedfor carbon storage through regeneration and rewilding,and for the great resuscitation of ecosystems and therecovery of our very put-upon wild species.

Q188 Daniel Zeichner: I have one additional questionthat has not come up very much. We talk about publicgoods and public money, but should there be somepublic voice in all this, for any decisions about whatgoes on locally? Where are the people in all this?

George Monbiot: That is a very good question. TheBill discusses both natural heritage and cultural heritage.Both are very important values and neither should bedismissed, but there is an assumption in a great deal ofrural thinking in Britain that they are one and the same.We have to acknowledge that they are often in directconflict. Maintaining sheep on the land is highly damagingto ecosystems, but getting rid of sheep farmers can behighly damaging to local cultures and languages. Wehave to see that a balance should be struck.

We have so often fudged the issue, the classic examplebeing the world heritage bid in the Lake district, wherethey were assumed to be one and the same. It is alwaysresolved in favour of farming, because farming is assumedto be good for ecosystems, but in the great majority ofcases it is not—the best thing to do for an ecosystem isto withdraw farming from it. But because we do notacknowledge that there is a conflict, we do not producea balance that ever favours wildlife.

Q189 Mr Goodwill: Mr Monbiot, you are on recordas saying that

“farming is no longer essential to human survival”.

In contradiction to what the Soil Association told usthis morning—that we should have more mixed farmingand more livestock, allowing soils to be improved by theuse of natural manures—you suggest that we shouldabandon livestock production, particularly on the uplands,and plant trees and rewild large areas of our country.Is that a correct appraisal?

George Monbiot: That is broadly correct. One thingto say is that in the uplands there is almost no mixedfarming. In fact, it would be very hard for mixedfarming to be established in the uplands, which are very


unsuitable on the whole for arable. In the lowlands, ifwe were to reintroduce mixed farming, at the microlevelthat could be a very good thing by comparison to thearable deserts of East Anglia, but we would see a majordecline in total yield. There is very little research onwhat that decline would be, but everyone can more orless accept that we will see that decline.

The global conundrum we are in is that roughly halfthe global population is dependent on NPK, to put itcrudely, and certainly on nitrogen and other artificialfertilisers. If we were to take those out of the system, wewould have mass starvation—huge numbers of peoplewould die. However, we are aware that applications ofN, P and K and others are causing global disaster: theycontribute significantly to climate breakdown, soil loss,downstream pollution, air pollution and a whole loadof other issues. We cannot live with it and cannot livewithout it. We are in an astonishing and very difficultconundrum. If we were to switch—as the Soil Associationrecommends and as my instincts would tell us to do—tomixed rotation or organic farming, we would not beable to produce enough food. It is as simple as that.

How do we get out of that conundrum? I see somehope in factory-produced food—microbial protein andcultured meat. That could be the only way of reconcilingenvironmental needs of future generations and the restof life on Earth with the need to feed people alive todayand in future. We need to find ways of feeding theplanet without devouring it. That could be the way.

Q190 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Could wetalk about peatlands? You have been very involved intrying to make the case for the restoration of peatlandsand their role as a natural climate solution. Do youthink more can be done in the Bill to encourage theirbeing left alone?

George Monbiot: I do not know whether this wouldfit in the remit of the Bill, but I would certainly favourbanning driven grouse shooting, which is a major causeof peatland erosion. I would look at the strongestpossible measures we could introduce for the restorationof blanket bogs. I would, at the very least, commissionnew research into the impact of agriculture on peatlands,and whether we are better off without agriculture onpeatlands in terms of the carbon budget.

There is a paper in Food Policy by Durk Nijdam thatpoints out the extraordinary levels of carbon opportunitycost on Welsh farms with high organic soils. He talks insome cases of 640 kg of carbon per kilogram of lambprotein, as a result of the lost opportunity to protectthose organic soils, which is a result of farming continuingthere. It would be far better in carbon terms not to farmsoils, if his research is replicable.

Q191 Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con): Iam interested in your view that we should be looking atreducing farming land usage. As we leave our presentfarming relationships due to Brexit, is this not a time ofnational need when we must preserve our acreage tofeed our growing population? I am asking whether youhave a political slant that is not directed at feeding thenation and securing the interests of our home farmersand workers. Is it not fanciful to think that we shouldgive up a large amount of our acreage? Do we not needit to save us against the trials and tribulations of thepost-Brexit world?

George Monbiot: There are a lot of things we need tosave ourselves from at the moment, and the most urgentis climate breakdown and ecological breakdown. Hugetracts of this land are scarcely feeding us at all. Thereare very large areas of land where you have one sheepper hectare, per 2 hectares or, in some places, per5 hectares. That is not producing food in any appreciableamount, yet that land could be used to draw down largeamounts of carbon, to stop the sixth great extinction inits tracks, for the restoration of wildlife and ecosystems,or to prevent flooding. There is a whole load of ecologicalgoods—public goods—that that land could be delivering,but it is not currently delivering them, because it isproducing tiny amounts of food instead. We are probablyall against urban sprawl and believe it is a bad thingbecause it takes up huge amounts of land while deliveringnot many services for the people who live in a sprawlingcity. We should be equally concerned about agriculturalsprawl, which takes up far more land.

Q192 Miss Dines: With respect, what do I say to myfarmers in the Derbyshire dales, where, by necessity, theland is good only for sheep in some areas? Do I tellthem they should not be able to earn a living and feedthe country? It is a bit fanciful to think we can give uphuge tracts of land. Is it not the case that we will get thebest outcome if farmers work in conjunction with placessuch as the Peak park authority?

George Monbiot: I would characterise the Peak parkas an ecological disaster area. It is remarkable how littlewildlife there is. You can walk all day and see just ahandful of birds; I will see more in a suburban garden.We need a completely different approach to managingland like that.

What you can tell the farmers is, “Let’s pay you to dosomething completely different, such as restoration,rewilding, bringing back the missing species or bringingback the trees.” Where are the trees above around200 metres in the Peak district and, indeed, most of theuplands of Britain? They simply are not there. This is adisaster. Anyone who visits from another country—someone from Brazil or Indonesia, my friends, tropicalforest ecologists—says, “What’s happened here?” Theysee these places we call our national parks and say, “Howcan you call that a national park? It’s a sheep ranch.”

By all means let us keep people on the land, but let ususe public money to pay them to do something completelydifferent. Let us face it: there would not be any hillfarming in this country without public money. It is aloss-making exercise. If we, the public, are going to payfor it, I think we, the public, have a right to determinewhat we are paying for. We should be paying for publicgoods, not public harms.

Q193 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead)(Lab): Hi George. There has been a lot of publicityabout the carbon footprints of different types of food.For example, 1 kg of vegetables produces approximately2 kg of carbon dioxide, whereas 1 kg of beef producesabout 27 kg of carbon dioxide. Do you think the Billshould go a step further and focus on those who producefoodstuffs with low carbon footprints rather than thosewho produce foodstuffs with higher carbon footprints?

George Monbiot: I think this should be the perspectivethrough which we start to see everything. This is thegreatest crisis humanity has ever faced: the breakdown


of our life-support systems. The Governments that willbe judged favourably by future generations are thosethat put that issue front and centre. Other things aresubsidiary to our survival. It is imperative that weshould start favouring a low-carbon diet and use publicpolicy to disfavour a high-carbon diet. Whether throughfarm subsidies—I think that does play a role—or meat taxes,which I think could also play a role, we should find allthe instruments possible to steer and encourage peopleto reduce the environmental impacts of their diets.

The most important metric here is what scientists callcarbon opportunity costs, which is basically, “Whatcould you be doing on that land if you weren’t doingthis?” If, for instance, you are producing beef or lambon this piece of land, what is the carbon opportunitycost of that? What would be the carbon storage if,instead, trees and wild habitats were allowed to return?There has been some new research just published, or anew compilation of research, on Our World in Datashowing that when you look at the carbon opportunitycosts, those of beef and lamb are massively greater thanthose of anything else we eat. It is really, really huge.Even when you take food miles into account, they aretiny by comparison to those carbon costs, and that iswhat we should focus on.

Q194 Danny Kruger: I have one yes/no question andthen a slightly fuller question. The yes/no question is,did you say that we should take food production out ofthe Bill? Food production is something that has beenadded, as an objective of the new system, and I thinkyou said that it should not be an objective of the Bill.

George Monbiot: It should certainly not be linked tothe public goods agenda; it should not be seen as apublic good.

Q195 Danny Kruger: It should not be seen as a publicgood. Okay. Thank you.

My next question is this: do you agree that a grass-fedcattle herd on open pasture in Wiltshire has a netpositive effect in terms of carbon capture? I appreciatethat you have an argument about opportunity costs—missedopportunities from grazing—but the terrible carbonimpact of beef is because of intensively farmed, closelypacked cattle—

George Monbiot: No, that is not true at all.

Q196 Danny Kruger: However, a good pasture-fed,grass-fed cattle herd has a net positive effect in terms ofcarbon. Do you not agree?

George Monbiot: No, that is simply not true. Thatclaim has been made many times, and it is now basicallyreaching the level of climate denial—climate sciencedenial—because it is so far removed from what thescience base actually tells us.

I can pass the papers on to you if you wish. There hasbeen a meta-study done by the Food Climate ResearchNetwork that looked at those claims. It investigated300 sources and found that in none of the cases that itlooked at was carbon sequestration in the soil underpasture compensating for carbon losses. The highestlevel of compensation was 20% to 60% of the overallcarbon losses; there is a net loss in every case. Theextensive grazing systems also have a higher net lossand a higher carbon opportunity cost than even theintensive grain-fed systems.

There is a paper by Balmford et al in Nature, I believe.There is another one by Blomqvist et al—I think it isin Science of the Total Environment. They show that,paradoxically—unexpectedly, perhaps—intensive systemsper kilo of beef produced are less carbon-damagingthan extensive systems per kilo, and that is simplybecause of the amount of land that they occupy.

Q197 Deidre Brock: You were speaking just thenabout the conflict between natural heritage and culturalheritage, and you will know that the highlands in Scotlandstill have a wonderful cultural heritage, despite whatwas at times a quite systematic depopulation of thearea. I wondered what sort of future you envisage forthe people who live there now if they turn from beingfarmers on the uplands, which, as you know, are basicallylargely suitable for rough grazing—that is one of thereasons why sheep, and to a lesser extent cattle, aregrazed there. If they do that, what do they then become?Just on a practical, day-to-day level, what do they thenbecome—just land managers, because they get subsidiesfor food production, which only supplements part oftheir income? What do those people do, and how do wekeep them there so that we still have communities in thehighlands?

George Monbiot: I would see them as ecologicalrestorers—people who have a different but very richrelationship with the land, bringing back wildlife andecosystems. We would hopefully see a constant racking-upof ambition as time goes by.

It is hard to universalise it, but there is now quite abig literature on nature-based economies, showing that,certainly in some circumstances, they can employ a lotmore people than farm-based economies, even in quitefertile areas. For instance, I was at Gelderse Poort in theNetherlands last year, in an area that was previouslydairy and maize farms. For the purposes of creatingmore room for the river, the dykes were taken a mile orso back from the river and the land was rewilded. Thefarmers were saying there would be a loss of employment.In fact, it turns out that there was an increase ofbetween five and six times the total employment as aresult of the tourists who have come in to see thewildlife, the bed and breakfasts, the cafes and the rest ofthe things associated with that. The farmers have donevery well out of it.

I do not know the answer to whether we can replicatethat everywhere, but we should be urgently investigatingother new rural economies based around the restorationof wildlife and nature. Given that we are competinghere with a loss-making economy—an economy wherethe farmers would make more money if they took thesubsidy and stopped farming—it is not a very steepcompetition that we have to win if we are to show thatnature-based economies are more productive in termsof employment and income.

Q198 Fay Jones: My farmers would argue that foodproduction and environmental delivery go hand in hand,and you cannot have one without the other. They wouldnot be able to make any money if they did not havegood soil, clean air and clean water, and they areresponsible for maintaining that. If we did adopt yourmodel of removing land from agricultural production,who would be responsible for ensuring those environmentalbenefits? Who would be safeguarding that?


George Monbiot: Yes, how did nature survive beforehumans came along? It is extraordinary, this idea ofstewardship and dominion—this idea that humankindhas to intervene to protect wildlife and ecosystems. Wedo not. We can do a lot to encourage the protection andto kick-start things, and we will always need a role asrangers to ensure that there are not too many conflictsbetween people and ecosystems. However, the idea thatwe are necessary to create healthy soils and healthyecosystems—the best thing we can do in the greatmajority of cases is to remove extractive economiesfrom the land and to let ecosystems recover. We need tobring back missing species, to take down fences, tokick-start woodland in places where there is not aseedbank left and stuff like that, but we need very littlehuman intervention to get a healthy ecosystem going.While farmers are absolutely right to say that they needa healthy ecosystem to sustain their farming, we do notneed farming to sustain a healthy ecosystem.

Q199 Dave Doogan: Mr Monbiot, there is a significantdifference between your ambitions and the ambitions ofthe Bill and agriculture more generally. If you were toget free rein with one element of the Bill—some operationalamendment that you could make to the Bill, rather thana theoretical one—what would it be, and how wouldyou achieve it?

George Monbiot: I think it would be a clear distinctionbetween the additionality that public payments for publicgoods could produce and the regulatory environment. Iam not skilled in framing policy, but basically we needto lay down a distinction between, “Here is the list ofthings that you as a steward of the land are expected todo. That will be a matter of regulation with monitoringand enforcement. For most of those things, you will notget paid,” and, “Here are the additional things that arenot being done anyway, for which you will be paid ifyou do them.” Quite how you draft it to deliver that,I am not sure. Is that a clear enough answer?

Dave Doogan: In terms of those things that youwould have them do, are these elements of rewilding orsome form of carbon—

George Monbiot: Rewilding, carbon storage, watershedrestoration—there is a whole series of additional ecologicalinterventions that you could consider that would clearlyfit the notion of public goods, but I worry when I seethings like, “Animal welfare will attract public payments.”Surely animal welfare should be something that welegislate for. Hopefully we legislate for ever higher animalwelfare standards.

Q200 Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): Iapologise, perhaps Mr Zeichner planned to ask this, ashe is an east of England MP, but I found your descriptionof the east of England as an arable desert slightlyconfusing, having grown up there. It is better known asBritain’s breadbasket, so I wonder how you came tothat conclusion.

George Monbiot: It can be both. It can be highlyproductive in producing a handful of crop species anddeserted in terms of wildlife. There are large areas ofarable land, particularly in East Anglia, where there islittle wildlife. We see a lot of nitrate pollution, soilerosion and water pollution. It is not in a good ecologicalstate, even though, thanks to lashings of NPK and lotsof pesticides, we are producing a lot of food there.

We must recognise that what is great on one metric isnot so great on another. The attempt to pretend thatthey are one and the same—that agriculture is good forecosystems and that the more we have, the better it willbe for ecosystems—clouds this whole debate. There isan inherent conflict between an extractive economy,which simplifies ecosystems, and the complex, richecosystems, with food webs that are both wide anddeep, which an ecologist like me wants to see.

Q201 Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab): George,Parliament has declared a climate emergency since thelast agriculture Bill. What changes can you see in thisBill that deliver the urgent action needed?

George Monbiot: I am afraid I have not seen changescommensurate with the declaration of a climate emergency.This should be front and centre. An emergency is anemergency. We should be maximising mitigation andabsorption of carbon from the atmosphere. The Parisagreement asks us for the greatest possible ambition; wedo not see that in the Agriculture Bill.

Q202 Nadia Whittome: I have a quick supplementaryquestion. How far does this Bill go in doing that?

George Monbiot: The public goods agenda is somethinguseful that we can build on. It is a massive improvementon the common agricultural policy, but it must be muchmore explicit about what public goods are. Carbonstorage, as a metric, must run throughout it like a stickof rock, but also ecological restoration—we do notwant to make it just about carbon. We want to maximisethe recovery of wildlife and ecosystems, which are insuch a dire state in this country.

It must be recognised that the ecological differencebetween farming and not farming, particularly in theuplands, is far greater than the ecological differencebetween, say, BPS sheep farming and HLS sheep farming,which is very small in ecological terms. Having a cessationof farming in those areas, bringing back many of themissing species and having an ecosystem dominated bytrees and other thick vegetation would be massivelybetter, in terms of both carbon and ecology, than amodification of farming in those places.

The Chair: A very brief question from Theo Clarke.

Q203 Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con): Thank you. Farmersare at the forefront of climate change and, I think, do ahuge amount to help conserve the countryside. Do youthink that farmers and land managers should be financiallysupported to deliver environmental improvements, orshould it just be required by regulation?

George Monbiot: As I say, we should distinguishbetween environmental improvements and not doingharm. I do not think we should be offering paymentsfor not beating up old ladies. That is the way I see it.Lots of people do not do bad things in society, but theydo not get paid for refraining from doing bad things.Keeping soil on your land should be a regulatoryrequirement. We should not have to pay people to dothat; we should say, “You are not allowed to destroy ournatural heritage in that way.” But we should pay forbringing in ecosystems that do not currently exist.

The Chair: Order. That brings us to the end of thissession. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you foryour evidence. I apologise to those members of the


Committee who would have liked to ask questions. Youhave answered more questions per minute in half anhour than anybody else. Thank you very much.


Professor Bill Keevil gave evidence.

3 pm

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence fromProfessor Bill Keevil from the University of Southampton.We have until 3.30 pm. Will you introduce yourself,please?

Professor Keevil: Good afternoon. I am Professor BillKeevil, professor of environmental healthcare. I headthe microbiology group at the University of Southampton.

Q204 James Morris: The Bill makes provision forMinisters to report periodically on food security. Whatdo you think about that? What other food securitymeasures might you want to see?

Professor Keevil: To my mind, food security is thesupply of wholesome, nutritious, safe food. Within thatthe key issue is safety. There has been a lot of discussionthis afternoon about whether the UK can provide itsown food. If it does not, we have to rely on imports.What is the veracity of checking the safety of thoseimports?

We made a short written submission to the nationalfood survey—it may have been circulated to you—inwhich we talked about the microbiological safety offood, particularly from the processing point of view. Itdeals in particular with the chlorination of food, whichhas become a very contentious issue in how the UK seesits future trading relationship with countries that usethat practice. Currently, the UK follows EU law, withthe standing position being that they dislike chlorinatingfood. Their perspective is not that chlorination poses atoxic chemical risk if you ingest the food; they are moreconcerned about animal husbandry. As a microbiologist,I would go further and ask the question that mostpeople have ignored until now: does chlorine actuallywork? Our published research shows that, in fact, itdoes not.

For more than 100 years, we have relied on the goldstandard of examining a sample from patients, theenvironment or food by culturing it and growing samplesin a Petri dish on a nutritious agar medium. If anythinggrows, something is still alive; if nothing grows, by thatdefinition, everything must be dead. Our research andthat of other groups around the world shows that that isnot true; it tells us that the current methods of analysis,which help us set the standards, are not rigorous enough.We have to use modern molecular and biochemicalmethods, which are available, but which, by and large,have not been adopted so far.

Q205 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon, ProfessorKeevil. When I came to this debate a few weeks ago andstarted reading about it, I found the apparentlycontradictory claims about the safety of the varioussystems confusing. I was struck by your evidence, and Iwondered if you could take us through it. You say atone point that it is difficult to make comparisons, but Imust say that in most of our debates people makecomparisons with huge amounts of confidence, dependingon which side of the debate they are on. You also say

that the USA reports that 14.7% of its populationcontracts a food-borne illness annually, while in the UKthe figure is 1.5%. Could you amplify that?

Professor Keevil: As you rightly say, when we look atthe data, depending on the source, it can be difficult tointerpret because of the way it is recovered. For example,in the USA, they report on infections, some of whichare assumed from the evidence they have available. Ifyou look at the reporting of the numbers of pathogensin American produce, such as poultry, they report it interms of the answer to the question, “Does the foodcontain more than”—for example—“400 counts of apathogen per gram of food?” In the UK, the FoodStandards Agency reports in terms of “low”, “medium”or “high”. National surveys such as sampling fromsupermarkets, for example, show that 50% of poultry havevery low numbers of pathogens such as a salmonella; onlyabout 5% or 6% have food samples with over 1,000 countsof a pathogen. By those criteria, UK foods appear to besafer—but, I must stress, according to those criteria.

As I say in the written evidence, we now have thisvexed question of viable but non-culturable—VBNC—bacteria. When looking at some of the published data,it is very difficult to take that into account, but the workthat we and other labs have done is now telling us thatwe cannot ignore it. We have published our work onchlorine treatment, but we have also looked at whathappens when you stress a pathogen such as listeria bydepriving it of nutrients. For example, in a factorywhere you are washing down with tap water, the listeriacan still survive, and in those conditions it can becomethis VBNC form. If all you are doing is regular swabbingand then reporting, you could say, “Our factory is clearof listeria.” In fact, if we used the more modern methods,that might be found to be not true.

We are really talking not just about standards now,but the standards we should adopt in the future, both inthe UK and in what we would expect other countries toadopt if we are going to import food from them.

Q206 Mr Goodwill: We occasionally hear of outbreaksof food poisoning, but this is the Agriculture Bill, whichrelates to food only once it passes the farm gate. Towhat extent is the problem within agriculture and towhat extent is it in the transportation, processing, storageor preparation of food?

Professor Keevil: As you rightly to point out, it is verycomplex. We have to talk about the food chain, but letus look at the route which is the primary source ofpathogen ingress into the food chain. To take the case ofpoultry, one of the issues is that some countries, includingAmerica, they have intensive rearing of poultry; theyalso have cattle feed lots, where animals are raised andfed in a dense community. In the UK and Europe, ourhusbandry standards appear to be better, poultry arereared in less intensive conditions and we do not havecattle in feed lots like the Americans do, so the animalshave more space, they appear to be healthier and, fromwhat we have seen so far, they have reduced numbers ofpathogens at that stage.

Of course, you are quite correct that every step in thefood chain is a potential source of contamination. If weuse lorries, provided that those lorries are properlycleaned and decontaminated, that should not be anissue. When food is produced for restaurants, if the staffadopt good hygiene, they should not transmit pathogens


to the customers—that has been well documented. Thesupermarkets are very responsible; they have a reputationto maintain—they do not want to be seen as thesupermarket that poisons their customers—so they maintainvery high standards.

Q207 Mr Goodwill: So is food safer now than it was,say, 10 or 20 years ago, or do we have increasing problems?

Professor Keevil: That is a tough question, partlybecause all the time we are seeing pathogens emerging.For example, we have E. coli 0157, which not even beenheard of 30 years ago. We have Cryptosporidium, whichhad not been heard of 25 years ago. We are beingpresented with new challenges all the time. If we look atthe more conventional pathogens, however, such assalmonella, if anything British farming is doing a goodjob. Salmonella-contaminated eggs have virtually beeneliminated under that scheme, and the quality of thepoultry sold by supermarkets appears to be a lot better.These are good things.

Q208 Abena Oppong-Asare: The Bill attempts tosupport innovation, and you said that you like the ideathat it is environmental and sustainable. What specificallywould you like to see in the Bill to support innovationand help improve supply in this country?

Professor Keevil: The previous speaker was veryconcerned about the carbon footprint, and he rightlycommented that the world needs NPK. The UK, if itneeds NPK, has got to import it, and that means a veryhigh carbon footprint from shipping, so that is in a waycounter-intuitive.

For hundreds of years, the UK has been very good atcrop rotation and the recycling of animal and humanwastes. My research team has previously done work forDEFRA and the Food Standards Agency, looking athow safe composted animal manures and treated humanwastes are. Our research shows that if they are treatedproperly, they can be recycled safely to land. That is avaluable source of NPK.

In terms of ecosystems and services, we are lookingfor balance and harmony. If anything, I would supportmore the view of the Soil Association. I think we canlive in harmony, but we need to get that balance. Forexample, there has been a lot of concern about theavailability of bees to fertilise plants. If everything wasconverted over to woodland, would we have sufficientbanks of wildflowers to support essential insects tomaintain the ecosystem? The plant life in the UK needsit; certainly, agriculture needs it. We need that balance. Ithink there is a role for farming in the UK.

On the impact on the environment, we still have greenpleasant lands, and when you speak to visitors whocome to the UK, a lot of them comment as they fly inthat it is a pleasure to see well-kept farmland alongsidewoods, which I think is a good thing.

Q209 Abena Oppong-Asare: Am I correct in assumingthat you are very much in favour of natural, organicfarming? One of the things that I am concerned about,particularly in this Bill, is that there farmers are beingsubjected to a lot of expectations to deliver sustainably,and as you know that costs a lot of money. Do you feelthat the Bill should provide more information or support,in terms of how people can do organic farming in a way

that is not going to affect us, particularly given theconcerns about imported food, which will make it verydifficult. Does that make sense?

Professor Keevil: Yes, it does. As a microbiologist, Isupport the safe production and supply of microbiologicallysafe food. One of the problems is that when we importfood, there is a potential issue. If that means that thatfood is cheaper than what can be produced by UKfarmers, the Bill must address that, because otherwisethey could be at a financial disadvantage. The UK hasalways prided itself on quality, and I know that Britishfarmers would like to maintain that reputation forquality. Perhaps the food they supply may be a littlemore expensive, but in a way that can be reassuring. If itmeans that the customer has to pay more, that is somethingthat the Government have to look at within the Bill.When they talk about subsidies and remuneration,can it be facilitated that farmers who produce to thehighest-quality standards are in some way remuneratedfor that?

Q210 Danny Kruger: You spoke about the physicalmethod for dealing with listeria and salmonella andsome of these new pathogens that are emerging. Canyou give us your sense of the global architecture formanaging this, and what prospects you see for newglobal agreements on how to deliver high-quality foodhygiene? Does the opportunity we now have to be partof the global trade conversation give us the opportunityto improve global standards? What are the architectureand institutions, and what is your sense of where theleadership on this is coming from globally?

Professor Keevil: A lot of it is price driven, notsurprisingly. Certain countries say, “We are in a competitiveeconomy, and we believe we can supply food safely for alower cost.” That is what our research and that ofothers is starting to challenge.

In terms of global supply, we talk a lot now aboutinternational jet travel. For example, we can travel aroundthe world in 12 hours or what have you, hence thecurrent problems with coronavirus, but many peopleforget about migratory birds. We know that some birdsfly thousands of miles north and south, east and west.They can bring disease with them. That is partly why wehave the problem of emerging diseases that we must beconscious of for the future. We have had concerns, forexample, with avian flu and DEFRA maintained highsurveillance of the farms where avian flu had an impact,to ensure that it did not decimate the poultry industryin the UK.

Those are all issues that we will have to face. We donot live in a sterile world. We have mass migration ofpeople and particularly of wild birds. We must allow forthat in all our farming practices and ecosystems services.I maintain that good husbandry practice is the wayforward. The previous speaker mentioned factoryproduction, and I agree with him in that very goodsupply chains are now being established for vegan burgers,much of which is produced from bacteria and fungi.That is a good thing.

Vertical farming is starting to become more prevalent.That is the horticulture where crops such as salads aregrown in an aquaculture-based system, and everythingis stacked up. We are now seeing very large factorieswhere they control the quality of the water, the lightingregime and so on. That seems to be a very safe, nutritious


way to produce salads. In the winter the UK imports alot of salads from the Mediterranean countries—weused to import a lot from Kenya, but I think that isreduced now. We used to import a lot from Florida andCalifornia, and that is a carbon footprint, but if we cando more vertical farming ourselves, particularly in thewinter, that is a substitute. We can get this mix of whatwe might call modern biotechnology with more traditionalfarming.

Q211 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): In the Bill,there is a requirement to report on food security everyfive years. What are your thoughts on that timescale?

Professor Keevil: To my mind, every five years shouldbe the minimum frequency. That is because, as I havesaid, we are continually beset with emerging diseasesand we have to be able to respond rapidly. The FoodStandards Agency reports much more regularly thanthat, so in a way we already have inbuilt mechanisms tosupply the information. It is true that the Bill says itshould be every five years as a minimum, but I thinkDEFRA and the food standards agencies report morefrequently. Whether that should be incorporated withinthe Bill is up for discussion, but we have good reporting.

Ruth Jones: That is what I would like to have youropinion on, because obviously five years is a long time.Do you have any thoughts on the timescale? Would youmake a recommendation?

Professor Keevil: I would like to see it reported muchmore frequently, every year or every two years.

Q212 Miss Dines: Professor Keevil, you make quite abold statement in your briefing note about the 14.7% ofthe USA population getting food-borne illnesses everyyear, compared with only 1.5% in the UK. I want to askyou about your reference for that, because there is not areference for the source of that information. That bringsme on to a general question. It is quite clear that therecould be a variety of other reasons for that: it could bebad storage, bad travel or bad food preparation orcooking. How reliable is this sort of statistic in a climatewhere we are facing going into new agreements withother countries? How reliable is that sort of information?

Professor Keevil: That is a good question, becauseyou will get different metrics if you go to differentsources. What we tried to do with those numbers waslook at the annual reporting by the Centres for DiseaseControl and Prevention in Atlanta. You will find theinformation on their website. A lot of the agencies say,“Well, these are the numbers of actual reports that wehave received,” for example, through people going tohospital, to their GP and so forth, and then they apply amultiplication factor for the numbers who could havebeen affected but for whom the signs of disease aremuch less—people who do not report that they havehad any disease. A lot of the information is based onthose types of numbers—for example, 14% of Americansdo not report to a doctor to say they have had foodpoisoning—but they are extrapolated. As I say, you willget different metrics depending on your source. It couldbe that the figure in the UK is more than 1.5%, but I donot think it is anywhere near what the Americans haveextrapolated.

Q213 Kerry McCarthy: We mentioned clause 17 onfood security, which is new to this edition of the Bill.Do you think there is scope for an extra provision?

It talks about looking at global food availability, supplysources and resilience of the supply chain. In terms ofyour speciality, there is a lot of concern about endocrinedisrupters in food, nitrates in meat, and the overuse ofantibiotics, which affects human health, through thefood chain. Do you think there should be reports toParliament on food security? It is not really about foodpoisoning, but about the wider health concerns aboutwhat is getting into our food supply.

Professor Keevil: As I said at the start, the issue isvery complex because food security is not just aboutsupply; it is about whether it is nutritious, wholesomeand safe. You cannot separate one from the other, so wehave to be aware of the microbiological safety of thefood that is being produced and consumed. The workthat we and others have done shows us that our currentmethods of assessing safety are not adequate. That hasto be recognised. As a scientist, I would always say weneed more research done; I sincerely believe we do inthis particular case. Knowledge improves standards,and we have to adopt and enforce the highest standards.We need better research and continual reassessment ofwhat we are being challenged with, and perhaps the Billcan reflect that.

The Chair: It seems we have no more questions.Professor Keevil, on behalf of the Committee, I thankyou for your time and answers this afternoon.


Diana Holland and Jyoti Fernandes gave evidence.

3.24 pm

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence fromUnite and the Landworkers’ Alliance. We have until4 pm. Welcome. Would you introduce yourselves?

Diana Holland: I am Diana Holland, Unite’s assistantgeneral secretary, with responsibility for food, drinkand agriculture. We are the only union that representsagricultural workers directly, as the historical AgriculturalWorkers Union is part of Unite.

Jyoti Fernandes: I am Jyoti Fernandes. I am a farmerin Dorset and president of the Landworkers’ Alliance,which is a union for small and family farms, mixedfarms, market gardeners and community supportedfarms.

The Chair: Thank you. The acoustics in the room arepoor, so it would be helpful if you raised your voice.

Q214 James Morris: Diana Holland, in your submissionyou say that you think the Bill should have measuresabout pay conditions for agricultural workers. What doyou think those measures should be, and why would theBill, as drafted, be the most appropriate vehicle forthem?

Diana Holland: The measures we were thinking abouthave previously been raised in a number of submissions:first, looking at the impact of the Bill on workers inagriculture, and secondly, looking specifically at thereinstatement of the protections of the AgriculturalWages Board, which currently exists, in some form, inNorthern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but not in England.


Why do we think that is important? We do not thinkthat agricultural workers are like every other worker; wethink that they are different and their experiences aredifferent. As a union with an incredibly long history ofrepresenting them, we speak from experience. Theyhave a special place in the union, and we think that theyshould have a special place in the Agriculture Bill, too.

Right this moment, the director of labour marketenforcement has a session going on to look specificallyat the problems of wage theft and employment lawnon-compliance in agriculture. The Gangmasters andLabour Abuse Authority has had a licensing system inagriculture for 15 years, but it is still recognised as anarea with a high level of exploitation and threat ofexploitation. That is the background to this.

When the Agricultural Wages Board covered everywhere,there was a level of protection and information that isno longer available to us. Increasingly, you will find thatstatistics relating to agriculture have little stars by themand a note at the bottom saying, “The sample figuresare too small.” That does not mean that there are noother workers to record; it means that they are nothitting any of the official ways of recording people.Increasingly, we find that people are employed in differentways, meaning that they are not recognised in theofficial statistics in the way they used to be. The AgriculturalWages Board provided a way of ensuring that all thatinformation came to the forefront.

Finally, we have always argued that safe, healthy foodand high-quality jobs go hand in hand. There is lots ofevidence that where workers are badly treated, there isalso an undercutting of food quality standards acrossthe board. We see this as part of ensuring and protectingfood standards, food security, supply chains and all theother issues in the Bill. They all have workers associatedwith them, and we think they should be included andrecognised.

Q215 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon to you both.We have heard from a lot of witnesses, but this ispossibly the first time we have actually heard about thepeople who work on the land, which is why it is veryimportant that you are here. How could the things thatyou are looking for be incorporated into the Bill?

Diana Holland: There are a couple of ways. Onewould obviously be an additional clause that coveredthe impact on workers of those developments in agricultureand how the protections that exist in Wales, Scotlandand Northern Ireland could also be applied to agriculturalworkers in England. On top of that, in the rules foragri-food imports, where we will be looking at futuredevelopments, we are extremely concerned, first, thatthere is a lessening of all standards and, secondly, thatwhere food is concerned, while there may be somerecognition of protections for food standards, and evenof animal welfare, workers may be left out. It should allgo together—food, environment, labour protections foreverybody.

As I said, when we wrote to our rural and agriculturalrepresentatives to ask for examples of issues—I amaware it is anecdotal, but it is important—we found thatthere are still pressures to hide problems that agriculturalworkers face, because in small isolated communitiespersonal relationships often extend over other areasand the employer may have other roles in the communitythat people feel could have an impact on their lives.

There is pressure all the time not to speak out aboutproblems that arise. Your accommodation is often tiedto your job in some shape or form, whether that is onthe horticultural or agricultural side of things. It isthose kinds of pressures and those sorts of experiencesthat we think need to be included; otherwise there is areal danger that, as well as being wrong for the peopleconcerned, they will undermine some of the other thingsthat the Bill is trying to achieve.

Q216 Daniel Zeichner: Will you explain some of thereasons why you feel that agriculture is different fromother sectors? When the Agricultural Wages Board wasabolished in England, the coalition Government claimedthat the minimum wage would pick up the issues. Whathas the experience been in England since, and what isthe difference in the other countries where similararrangements have persisted?

Diana Holland: First, there is a bit of a dearth ofinformation. We have been constantly asking for that tobe specifically looked at. We have done some researchourselves, however. Not long after the board was abolished,within the first year or two years, we surveyed all ourmembers who had been covered by it. We were reallyshocked, although perhaps not surprised, to find that ahuge proportion had had no pay rise since the AgriculturalWages Board had been abolished. Those who had had apay rise, the vast majority, had had no say or discussionover that pay rise—it had just been introduced.

The employers we have talked to in the sector havesaid that they would find it helpful to have a processthat could be relied on and about which everybody hassaid, “We’ve come to a conclusion,” rather than thepressure of having to negotiate individually or to findthat the pressure is on and to think about what is fair inthe circumstances. There is also exploitation in thesector—I will not run away from that—but I am notsaying that every single person is deliberately trying toexploit. Sometimes there are other pressures.

There was also some survey work done in 2017 thatcompared Wales with England. There was a suggestionthat protections in Wales meant that there was a 6% higherrate of pay overall. As I say, again, these are often smallsamples and figures, and we need to look more. We havehad a chance, however, to talk to the employersin Wales. Some of the evidence from the employerrepresentatives has made us concerned that there areemployers in the sector—who previously followed asystem that has been abolished—who are not aware oftheir responsibilities and who saw the national minimumwage as a voluntary mechanism rather than an absoluterequirement. That might seem impossible, but it is areality that came out in the discussions and the evidence.We feel that where the Bill talks about public money forpublic goods, that should also include ensuring that theworkers are treated decently.

The minimum wage does not cover all the additionalthings. Career progression was provided, relating it tothe jobs and roles that people have, allowances forhaving a dog, overtime and sick pay rates. All thosedetails were included, but they are not in the nationalminimum wage, which does not take into account theparticular considerations that the Agricultural WagesBoard does. But that does exist elsewhere. That has beena massive loss to those people, without any demonstrablegain to anybody.


Q217 Fay Jones: What is your assessment of the wayin which the Bill and its conditions on unfair tradingpractices will work with existing legislation to protectfarmers and those at the lower end of the supply chain?How will those instruments work together?

Diana Holland: Can you explain what you mean bythat? Do you mean in terms of the workforce?

Fay Jones: In terms of farmers being at one end ofthe supply chain, dealing with much larger retailers andmuch longer, complex supply chains. Do you think theBill gives them any further protection than they alreadyhave under the Groceries Code Adjudicator or thegrocery supply code of practice? Do you think that theBill will work well with existing policy measures?

Diana Holland: First of all, we really welcome therecognition that protection needs to be built in to thesupply chain. However, we are concerned that there isnot sufficient detail, and how it will work in practiceneeds to be fleshed out in more detail. In our experience,holding different stages in the supply chain to accountis a very difficult thing to enforce. Often, when workersare at the end of that supply chain, they are the lastpeople to be considered. Something that may have beenvery well intentioned at one end of that supply chainpushes enormous pressures at the other. If there aresavings to be made, it would be on the amounts of moneythat are paid.

We want protections built in, so that part of enforcementalong the supply chain would be to check that that isnot happening, and that it is not a method of passingon pressures to cut standards and people’s pay. It isreally important that it is in there, but we feel that thereshould be more detail. I have not identified anycontradictions with other legislation, but when it comesto the detail, that would need to be taken into account.

Q218 Fay Jones: Do you think the Bill gives moreprotection to farmers or farming co-operatives thanexisting legislation such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator?

Jyoti Fernandes: No, I do not think it gives moreprotection to farmers. This is a slightly different part ofthe Bill, and I had prepared to talk about it later. Itneeds to change from powers to duties, to assure farmersthat the money will come through to support farmerincomes. We greatly agree with the thrust of the Bill, butit is quite scary that even though great programmesare being rolled out, such as the environmental landmanagement schemes, there is no assurance that thatwill continue and that Government will give the budgetto those programmes to help supplement farmer incomesin future. That is scary and it is worrying for our foodsupply. It would mean a lot if the Bill’s wording waschanged from “may” to “must” give money, to ensurethat we will be able to rely on some income to supplementproducing the food that everybody needs.

Q219 Abena Oppong-Asare: My question is targetedat Jyoti. Do you as a smallholder famer feel that the Billis wide enough to support those with small farms,compared with those with bigger farms?

Jyoti Fernandes: Our union represents all scales offarms: we are all agroecological farms, family farms andmixed farms. As smallholder farmers, this is somethingwe are particularly interested in. We also represent a lot

of horticulturalists, who grow fruit and veg, and it ispossible to grow a lot of fruit and veg on a very smallacreage.

To date, we have been really disadvantaged by thepayment schemes that are out there. There is a 5-hectarethreshold, which cuts people off from getting paymentsif they have less than 5 hectares. If someone has a largelandholding that is used extensively for beef, they canget quite a lot of subsidy, but if they have less than5 hectares and use it for intensive market gardening—providing the fresh fruit and veg that we need—they getnothing. That means that 85% of our membership havenever received subsidies before. That puts us at a seriousdisadvantage, even though we as small farms provide ahuge amount of public goods—we directly providefresh food, the sorts of fresh fruit and veg that we needfor healthier diets—to communities. In the transitionaround climate change, we need to eat more fruit andveg and less meat. That is the sort of thing that we canbe in a position to do.

There is nothing in the Bill that specifically directstowards helping smaller farms, though the focus onpublic goods would enable us to do that, if we get theright schemes in place. We are working with DEFRA totry to ensure that the schemes it rolls out will benefithorticulture and fruit and veg. One amendment that wesuggested was about affordable access to food. Wewould like to see some acknowledgment that agricultureis about producing food and that everyone needs food.While food itself might be a business like any other—bought, sold and traded—access to food is not. Havinggood, nutritious food available to everyone is somethingwe strongly believe in.

If that was in the Bill, a lot of our farms, whichprovide a social outcome directly to consumers at anaffordable price—from fresh fruit and veg, to milk andpasture-fed, free-range meat—could be enabled to developthose marketing mechanisms. That would help us outquite a lot. That means community supported agriculture,direct supply chain stuff and doorstep delivery ofunpasteurised, raw, wholesome milk, or whatever it maybe. That would enable those small businesses that workdirectly for our food supply in our local communities toget support. It would also support community farmsthat integrate social measures. They might, for example,have green gyms, work with horticultural therapy orbring people form disadvantaged backgrounds into thecountryside to learn where their food comes from andjoin in that process. Food has a much wider remit thanjust being something that farmers gain an income from.A lot of us produce food because we believe it isimportant to our society.

Q220 Danny Kruger: This is for Diana. You mentionedthis when you spoke about wages, but could you explaina bit more about why you think agricultural workersneed a different protection regime than workers in othersectors?

Diana Holland: Obviously, all workers deserve overallprotection. Many workers have additional forms ofcollective bargaining or representation through differentstructures. Agricultural workers in some areas are anexample of an extremely fragmented and isolated groupof workers; in other areas, there are big concentrationsfor small periods of time. The work is seasonal and thereis insecurity.


The issues they have experienced over many years arewell-documented. I think that singles them out to requiremore than the basic national minimum wage, workingtime regulations etc., to take account of the fact thatpeople may have accommodation tied to their role,which could be their permanent home or temporaryaccommodation for a seasonal role, or that transportcould be provided, which, in extreme circumstances, isused to keep people on site beyond the time that theyshould be there or is denied to them. Those kinds ofthings mean that there is intense pressure.

Q221 Danny Kruger: You mean they are particularlyvulnerable?

Diana Holland: They are particularly vulnerable toabuse. Therefore, it continues to be recognised that theyneed to be identified within labour market protection.In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, they haveadditional protections to those that apply in England.We think that needs to be put right.

While, of course, at the time, in 2010, a number ofthings identified as red tape, burdens and so on were gotrid of, there was general shock throughout the sector—across the board—that it could have been done like thatto the Agricultural Wages Board, with a two-weekconsultation period, given that it had existed all that timeand had all that experience. It needs to be put right.

Q222 Dave Doogan: Diana, you talked very clearlyabout the effect of the removal of the AgriculturalWages Board and its replacement with the dysfunctional—inthe context of agricultural workers—minimum wage.Are the three devolved Administrations broadly similar?Do you suggest that including in the Bill an instrumentto replicate the provision of the Agricultural WagesBoard would be relatively straightforward for Ministersto do?

Diana Holland: I would say so, yes. It has been donerecently; obviously, the original legislation covered Englandand Wales, so extricating Wales and doing that separatelyhas been done in recent times. My answer would be yes.

Q223 Dave Doogan: Jyoti, I was interested to notethat you represent large horticultural producers as well.There is nothing in the Bill to give a positive voice toindustry about the availability of seasonal labour fromabroad. Do you see that as a challenge? Would you havethat amended?

Jyoti Fernandes: In many ways, because our unionworks with workers across Europe, we think it is importantthat some workers can come over to other places, aslong as they are respected and get decent wages anddecent labour conditions, to work on larger agriculturalunits. By and large, we represent people who live in theUK who want to be able to produce and to farm andwork on other landholdings as well. We do feel thatmore encouragement and support for the sector, sothere did not need to be poor working conditions, therewere decent wages, and fewer pesticides and fungicideswere used, would encourage British workers to work onfarms. We also feel that would encourage loads ofindependent smallholder market gardens, which can bequite intensive and could provide really good employment—and enjoyment in that employment. We would like tosee a lot more encouragement for independent horticultureand British workers.

Q224 Mr Goodwill: Key to the structure of agriculturein many parts of the country is the traditional familyfarm. In many cases, family members who perhaps haveother jobs will come and work for free at weekends.Spouses are often unwaged. As a farmer’s son myself, Idid not get any wages at all until I was 28; I just gotsome money out of my mum’s purse if I needed it. Yousuggest reinstating the Agricultural Wages Board. Howwould that work with the traditional family farm structure?I can see difficulties. Some of these farms are verymarginal indeed and can survive only because of peopleworking either unwaged or for low wages in the hope ofinheriting the family business.

Diana Holland: When it existed, it was not any different,and it was fine in the sense that it operated. Whethereverybody got what they were entitled to is anotherquestion; perhaps you are suggesting they did not.Certainly, we have worrying evidence of individualsbeing paid not in money but through provision ofaccommodation and so on. We got evidence—it was aterrible story—that an individual woman had workedfor a long time on a farm and in all that time had neverreceived anything, apart from the odd bit of what mightbe considered pocket money. She was extremely worriedwhen the employer was in danger of stepping downfrom his responsibilities that nothing—no rights—wouldexist for her. I think that is evidence of the nature of theproblems that workers in the sector face. I do not thinkit is a reason for not trying to do something about it. Ithink it is important that people receive recompense forwhat they are doing, and that needs to take account ofthe nature of agriculture. The Agricultural Wages Boarddoes that by bringing together workers’ representatives,farmers’ and employers’ representatives and independentexperts in a tripartite way, to make sure that thatproperly reflects what is really going on. The issues youraise would be discussed at the table, alongside thepressures and issues that I am raising and the officialevidence gathered by the experts.

Q225 Theo Clarke: I want to pick up the point aboutagricultural workers. My constituency in Stafford has alot of rural areas. Farmers have mentioned to me thatthe pilot scheme is great, and it has now been extendedto 10,000. Are your members saying that we need tohave an increase in seasonal workers, because there willbe fruit left unpicked later in the year if more do notcome in? What are your views on that?

Jyoti Fernandes: We believe in smaller units, whereyou do not need to bring in loads of seasonal workers.With smaller-scale market gardens and horticulturalunits that pay well, you can attract British workers andwill not need to bring in so many people from othercountries in order to pick those crops. We see a flourishing,home-grown fruit industry, where you can bring in morepeople to do that kind of work.

That needs investment, access to land, grants forpeople to get into that kind of small-scale marketgardening and horticultural units and to plant fruittrees into mixed farms, and training. It needs routes tomarket, which means processing facilities, so that youcan make apple juices and that type of thing, and sothat you can store those things, add value to them andget better value back on them. It needs distributionfacilities within local market economies. That might bemarket facilities in town, online distribution services orco-operatives that try to process those fruits and get


them to market, so that you get a good price for them. Itneeds all those sorts of investment in our nationalinfrastructure in fruit, fruit processing and distribution.

Q226 Daniel Zeichner: I would like to pursue thelabour supply issues, because my understanding is thatthere are very large numbers of people working insomething like the poultry sector who are not originallyfrom the UK. Is there anything you think the Billshould look at to make sure that some of those issuesare addressed—I am looking particularly at Diana onthat one—and am I right to be concerned about it?

Diana Holland: You are definitely right to be concernedabout it. The important thing is that, where decentstandards are protected and reinstated, they shouldapply to everybody. The original seasonal agriculturalworkers scheme was part of an educational opportunityfor students. We worked very hard and gave evidenceover many years to make sure that that was what it was.It should not be about workers coming in from othercountries—because the sector cannot get people in thiscountry to work for the terms and conditions and paythat it is offering—and then treating them extremelybadly when they are here. As you say, it will not providethe security, the quality needed or the stability in thesector. It is very important. We want opportunities thatare properly worked out. How fantastic it would be ifwe could make this sector one that people want to workin and one that they look for, rather than thinking it issomewhere they will be exploited.

Daniel Zeichner: There is a danger that, if we do notaddress those labour supply issues, the industry willstruggle, and we will then inevitably be back to importingfood from outside again.

Diana Holland: Exactly.

Jyoti Fernandes: I was going to bring up somethingreally important to this whole scenario, which is theimpact of trade. Basically, we are never going to getthe conditions here where small and family farms cansurvive as independent businesses, or keep decent workopportunities on larger units, if you are undercut bycheaper produce from elsewhere. It just is not a possibility.The global marketplace can source cheap labour—slavelabour—from all over the planet, and really exploitplaces with really low conditions. It is not just the tradestandards: it is also the competition from very largemultinational corporations in other countries—the hugefarms in California or South America, which have loadsof exploited labour, much higher levels of pesticideusage and multinational advertising campaigns that willblow any of our homegrown industries out of the water,unless we can get some control over that and havesomething in the Bill that allows for tariffs that stopthat imported stuff, and standards and rules that do notallow our homegrown industries to be undercut.

This is a very exciting Agriculture Bill. Everythingabout it that is moving towards environmentally friendlyfarming, agroecological farming and all of that istremendously exciting. We could have one of the besthomegrown food supplies in Europe, and we couldreally pioneer something very special and really supportsmall and family farms, independent businesses andworkers being treated decently, but not if we are undercutby cheap imports. That must be looked at very carefully,otherwise all the good work and the good will of thisBill will be undone.

The Chair: If there are no more questions, I thank thewitnesses on behalf of the Committee.


Vicki Hird, Dr Nick Palmer and James West gave evidence.

3.57 pm

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence fromSustain and Compassion in World Farming. We haveuntil 4.30 pm. I welcome the witnesses and would askthem to introduce themselves for the record.

Dr Palmer: I am Nick Palmer. I am the head ofCompassion in World Farming UK. Compassion is thelargest animal welfare charity globally, and we havedeveloped our interests to also look at the environmentsurrounding animal welfare issues. In the mists of pre-history, I was the Member for Broxtowe for 13 years.

James West: I am James West, the senior policy managerat Compassion in World Farming—I work with Nick.

Vicki Hird: I am Vicki Hird, farming campaignco-ordinator at Sustain, which is an alliance of over 100non-governmental organisations and royal societies,including Compassion and many other people you havehad as witnesses.

Q227 James Morris: This is a question probably forall three witnesses. In your submissions, you refer tosome of the public good provisions in the Bill as beingpositive. I just wondered what aspects of the Bill youthought needed to be improved.

Dr Palmer: The Bill is a good basis, but it is a missedopportunity in the sense that it provides the basis for avariety of things that the Secretary of State may do, butit does not specify what the Secretary of State will do.In the current situation in particular, after Brexit, thefarmers and everyone dealing with the industry needmore certainty. This would really be an opportunity topin down what we are prepared to do and what we arenot prepared to do in terms of trade, support for thefarming industry and a long-term strategy to ensurethat we have a viable farming industry stretching intothe future.

James West: I would add that it is important that theBill is joined-up in its thinking, in as far as protectionfrom potentially being undercut—as I am sure you haveheard lots of times—as a result of trade agreements.That is fairly critical. That is not in the Bill. Added tothat would be that you are then providing farmers withsubsidies and grants to help them move to higher standardsof production. We should also be looking at things suchas method of production labelling—as Nick said, thatit is a “may” in the Bill, rather than a “must”—so thatconsumers know what they are purchasing. We shouldalso look at Government procurement policy, so that inaddition to protecting farmers from what is coming intothe country, you are also rewarding farmers for deliveringhigher standards and for protecting our animal welfarestandards. Just on Government procurement, McDonald’shas better animal welfare procurement policies than theUK Government, which should not be the case, and theBill could address that.

Vicki Hird: We were very pleased to see some of thechanges in the Agriculture Bill. Overall, we are verypositive about the public money for public goods approach


and the financial support being listed. We were verypleased to see soil being included in that. We would liketo see a stronger reference to agroecological whole-farmsystems, because we think that is the way to ensure thatyou get the in-field changes, as well as the edge of field,wildlife and other nature outcomes that you see. Weneed the whole of the UK farming system to go towardsan agroecological approach in whatever way they can.Those steps should be available through financial support.

We would also like to see, as Nick said, a lot of thesethings as duties, rather than powers. It seems incrediblehow much effort—I know, because I have been involved—DEFRA has put into the environmental land managementscheme, when it could stop it all in a couple of years andpay a smaller amount of money and not follow through.As MPs, you should have that accountability for you ondelivering ELMS.

Finally, I agree with Diana on the protection forworkers. We are also pleased with clause 27, whichconcerns fair dealing. It has been enhanced to reallyprotect farmers. We are grateful to DEFRA for makingthose changes and to George Eustice, who we welcomeas our new Secretary of State. We would like to see thatas a duty, because it is so important. It is absolutelyvital that we get the protection for farmers in the supplychain. They do have that from retailers, but most farmersdo not sell direct to retailers. They need good codes ofconduct developed with the industry for every sector,probably starting with dairy.

Q228 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. I have differentquestions for Vicki and for Compassion. Vicki, in yourwritten evidence, you make a very strong case for apublic health function. Can you elaborate on that alittle? To Compassion, you make some quite strongsuggestions about the pre-conditions for receiving publicmoney. Can you amplify that for the benefit of theCommittee?

Vicki Hird: Thank you for reminding me about thepublic health purpose. We think it would be very easy toinsert it into the Bill. There are so many ways it isalready designed to help, for instance with air pollutionand with reducing exposure to plant protection products,which can be harmful. We think that saying that there isa public health purpose for agriculture would recognisewhat an important thing farmers do in providing uswith healthy, safe food. It could help by showing thathaving animal health and welfare measures that helpfarmers to manage their stock and change their stockingpatterns can reduce the reliance on antibiotics, whichwe know is an absolute global public good, in order toprotect our medicinal antibiotics.

The other area is the huge need to boost our supplyof fruit and veg, so that people can have access tocloser-to-home, more affordable, fresh, sustainably producedfruit and vegetables. That is absolutely central to ahealthier diet for the nation. To be able to say that wewere doing that would be a benefit. As James wassaying about procurement, we could be saying somethingabout procurement and investing in healthier diets forour children in schools.

Q229 Daniel Zeichner: Before we turn to Compassion,on the antibiotics point, do you think there should bestronger, more directive provisions in the Bill?

Vicki Hird: I think that would be very helpful. Wedesigned a clause for the previous version of this Billthat mentioned that, along with exposure to pesticidesfor consumers, workers and the community, and otheraspects of public health. There therefore is a clauseavailable, if anybody wants to table it.

Antibiotic reduction is important. I know that theindustry has already gone some way. It is doing a goodjob, but it needs to be supported in that, through animalhealth and welfare financial support, and through training,advice and demonstration. The Budget should definitelybe strong enough and big enough to provide farmerswith that kind of support, to take things in the directionof lower antibiotic use.

James West: The question was about subsidies, andbars on subsidies. We support the use of subsidies fordelivering the public goods that are in the Bill. Again,we would like that to be a requirement rather than a“may”. Essentially, public money should deliver genuinelyhigher standards of welfare; it should not be for meetingthe regulatory baseline or going marginally beyond it. Ifyou are looking at the top line, you might consider suchthings as allowing animals to express their naturalbehaviour, access to pasture for dairy cows, and theprovision of enrichment materials for pigs. Obviously,depending on which species you look at, there will bedifferent requirements, but broadly speaking, they willbe lower stocking densities, slower-growing breeds, ifwe are talking about meat chickens, and access to pastureoutdoors.

You might also look at things that would disqualifysomeone from receiving an animal welfare payment.One of the things that Compassion works on is endingthe live export of animals. From our point of view, ifyou are involved in the live export trade, you shouldprobably not receive the public subsidy for good animalwelfare. In the area of mutilations, going back to pigs,you have enrichment. In Germany, they provide a premiumfor pigs at slaughter when the pig gets to the slaughterhousewith an intact tail, because that means that you havealmost certainly run a very good system. The amount ofspace, enrichment and so on that you will have given thepigs during the rearing process will have been such thatyou will not have needed to tail-dock the pig, as youmight in more intensive systems. We have fairly detaileddocuments with what may or may not qualify you for asubsidy, but broadly speaking it is natural behavioursand space.

Dr Palmer: The absence of a clear percentagecommitment regarding the amount of support that willbe given for animal welfare purposes means that adegree of uncertainty remains, which is bad for thewhole agricultural industry. A farmer needs to knowthat what amount of money is potentially available, sothat they can try to work for it. With respect to the newChancellor, we are unlikely to get an infinite amount ofsubsidy in the Budget, so it makes sense that the availablemoney is used to help farmers to become among thebest in the world, rather than to move marginally from afairly low base to a slightly higher one.

In the long term, the future of British farming has tobe at the top of the scale. If we try to race to thebottom, we will fail. The British farming industry willnot succeed on that basis, so we should consider theareas where we can help farmers to move towardshigher welfare—for instance, ending the use of farrowing


crates. There is a one-off cost, which it is reasonable tohelp them with. Once they have moved away from that,there should not be an additional cost. They will then,in association with the better labelling scheme, be ableto tell consumers that British farming has producedhigher welfare, higher quality meat.

Q230 Mr Goodwill: To follow smoothly on from that,British farmers pride themselves on having the highestwelfare standards in the world. Indeed, in some ways wewere held back by the European Union, because wetried to ban things like dry sow stalls, but we could notstop their pork coming in.

However, I noticed that the Compassion in WorldFarming website talks about ending “the horror” offactory farming. I just wondered if you felt that therewere any farms in this country that that definitionwould apply to. You talked about housed livestock—forexample, dairy cattle that are housed in winter. Do youthink that is acceptable? Where do you set the bar indescribing what British farmers are doing, perfectlylegally, as “horror”?

Dr Palmer: When we are talking about horrific factoryfarming, we are talking about the caging of egg-layinghens, which is still one third of the total in Britain; weare talking about the use of farrowing crates, which keepthe sow unable even to turn round for up to five weeks.

Q231 Mr Goodwill: It saves piglets’ lives, though,does it not?

Dr Palmer: There are very well-established alternativemethods. At the moment, British farming is 50:50—roughly50% have moved away from farrowing crates and theother half have not. That is a record that is less goodthan some countries’, and really we should strive to bethe best.

One can always argue about the exact wording, but Ithink that anyone familiar with the range of systems inBritish farming would agree that it ranges from the verygood—where we can really be proud and tell the worldthat we are the world leader—to areas where the farmersthemselves would say that they would like to do betterbut cannot afford the conversion costs. This is a classicexample of a public good. I think the overwhelmingmajority of British consumers would be pleased toknow that farmers were moving up the scale. Farmersthemselves would like to, but they need assistance forthe one-off transition costs.

This is not an area of huge controversy between usand the National Farmers Union and others. We are allpulling in the same direction, and we should use theopportunity of Brexit to try to make sure that we actuallyget to that point.

Q232 Ruth Jones: You mentioned that you want tolook at banning live exports. Have you talked to people—certain farmers—who say, “Look, let’s be honest: in thesouth-east of England, to export live exports is quickerthan travelling hundreds of miles to an abattoir, giventhe numerous closures of many of the abattoirs”? Do youhave a solution to that?

Dr Palmer: Having more local abattoirs is clearlydesirable. It is a marginal business for many, and youcannot force people to set up a local abattoir, but I thinkthere would be a great deal of cross-party and cross-industrysupport for the idea that it should be encouraged.

The problem with overseas shipment is partly thetime involved, and you can get pre-weaned calvestransported for over 100 hours. That is with pauses, butit is nevertheless a grim business and is really difficult todefend, and a lot of farmers will not defend it.

Also, there is the lack of control. It is very difficult,with the best will in the world, for DEFRA to say whatwill happen at all stages of a journey once a vehiclemoves outside the UK. I used to be ParliamentaryPrivate Secretary to a DEFRA Minister, and this wasan issue we struggled with. Live exports is a very smallpart of the British farming industry, and we think it isone that should come to an end.

James West: I would add that people can take thejourney length to be the time it takes to take the channeltunnel from Dover to Calais, for example, but we aretalking about live exports going on a boat that is notreally designed for sea crossing. The crossing fromRamsgate to Calais normally takes about six hours, soby the time you have got to Ramsgate and across to theother side, you are talking about a fairly lengthy journeytime, which in most cases would probably get you to anabattoir in the UK.

Q233 Theo Clarke: I am pleased that the Secretary ofState now has direct responsibility for the nation’s foodsecurity, but I wonder whether it should be a nationalpriority to support domestic agriculture. What is yourview on the frequency of reporting? I know at themoment it is being suggested it should be every fiveyears, but we have heard differing views today. What dothe panel think about that?

Vicki Hird: I think it is welcome to have that in there.There is a case for making it more frequent, given thatwe are facing a climate and nature emergency that willthreaten our supplies and production here and overseas.We should be building that into the review, in terms ofanticipating how that will affect land use both here andoverseas. That is currently not in the Bill, and it wouldbe a welcome addition to recognise the sustainabilityfactors that will increasingly come into play before thenext five years are up. We already know that flooding ismore frequent, and drought is affecting many parts ofAfrica, which supplies us with a lot of fruit and veg.

There is a case for more frequent reporting; it is awelcome element in the Bill, but as the previous speakermentioned, we already do much of this food securityassessment already, so it is a question of building onthat and making it an integral part of the sustainabilityof our food system. [Applause.] May I congratulateGeorge Eustice, our new Secretary of State? I will endthere, on food security.

Q234 Kerry McCarthy: I am trying to tease this out,because we have heard previous witnesses say that thereis concern about the lack of baseline regulation in theBill and the fact that we no longer have the cross-compliancechecks. There are concerns that people will drop belowthe minimum standards. How does that work? Clearly,you do not want to use public money for public goodsjust to reward people for keeping to the standardsrequired of them by law, because there is no additionalityto that; they ought to be doing it anyway. We couldreward farmers for doing the higher welfare stuff, but atthe same time, we really ought to have an ambition tosay, “If they can do it, why can’t all farmers treat their


animals that way?” Will we end up always having tokeep raising what counts as higher welfare for farmersto get money? Do you see what I am saying? You couldalmost end up not raising standards, because the farmerswould not get paid for the higher welfare standards.

Dr Palmer: Yes, I see the problem. As in other areasof public subsidy, we have to start from where we are.Because we have the range of quality that I mentionedin response to the previous question, there are a lot offarmers who would genuinely like to raise their standards,but need assistance in doing so. I accept that there is anelement of moral hazard in that, if someone already hassuperb standards, they may feel a bit irritated thatsomeone else is being given money to come up to them.

Kerry McCarthy: Is that how it would work? That isthe other thing. It is the same as with planting trees orimproving soil health; there is a danger that, in a bid touse public money to encourage other people to do that,the people who were ahead of the curve are penalised.

Dr Palmer: I believe DEFRA envisages, which I thinkis right, two types of support. One is to assist withspecific one-off costs—I gave the farrowing crate as anexample—but the other is to reward people who aremeeting a higher standard. To my mind, that must belinked to a good labelling scheme, because if we arespending public money to assist farmers to reach ahigher standard, we should also be able to tell consumersabout it, so that they can respond, in the same way thatwe have seen with eggs. When there was a choice betweenfree-range and battery eggs, people migrated overwhelminglyto free range, to the point that it is now very difficult toget the lowest standard of egg in supermarkets. You areright that, over time, we will probably develop furtherideas on how to give farm animals the best possible life,and that is right—we should not stay at the same levelforever—but for the time being there is a lot to be doneto reinforce the farmers who are striving to be the best.

Q235 Fay Jones: I have a question about kitemarksfound on products, such as Red Tractor and RSPCAAssured. How could future Government policy recognisethat?

If I may, Mr Stringer, I have a small supplementary.In Compassion’s written submission, you welcomed theSecretary of State’s ability to make regulations regardingfarming method in relation to labelling. Could youelaborate on that, please?

James West: We submitted details to DEFRA a whileago. Essentially it would be different labels indicatingthe method of production. The range of methods ofproduction would differ according to species, but ineffect you would indicate whether it had been produced,say, intensively indoors versus extensively outdoors andeverything in between. That would be on the packet, sowhen you go to the supermarket or shop you can seehow the product was produced. As Nick was saying,with eggs that moved the market towards free-rangeeggs and away from caged egg sales—barn egg sales inthe UK are low—to the extent that roughly half thesupermarkets have phased out caged egg sales and theother half plan to do so by 2025.

It goes back to the point that you need to support thefarmers in the subsidy scheme we introduce, but therealso needs to be an outlet for them to show that they are

delivering at a level that consumers may want. It doesnot mean that consumers have to buy it—they can seethe stuff produced to a lower standard and still choosethat—but at least they are informed. At the moment, itis really hard to find meat or dairy products labelled asto method of production. Possibly the only other one isoutdoor-bred and outdoor-reared for pork; other thanthat, it is essentially free range/organic or you are in thedark. It would cover the whole spectrum.

Dr Palmer: That is also really important when youcome to trade, because if we are to sign a free tradeagreement with the United States or other countries, wereally need to give our negotiators a clear steer on whatwe collectively are willing to see. If we have an evolvinglabelling scheme, we have a basis for doing that. As youknow, international trade negotiations usually start fromthe point that each side says what their red lines are andwhat they cannot move on and the negotiations operatearound those to see what is possible. We are keen to seespecifications in the Bill on minimum standards foranimal welfare—Ministers have said this many times—sothat our negotiators can say to their American, Brazilianor other counterparts, “I’d love to help you, but I’mafraid I can’t because it is in the legislation.” Thatwould give farmers and consumers the reassurance thatwe are absolutely not going to end up with Britishfarming being undercut by what you vulgarly call cheapand nasty imports.

Vicki Hird: I think that goes for other aspects of foodstandards and production standards. I totally agreewith Nick. It is very important that we see something inthe Bill around trade—I am sure you have heard this alot over the last week—so that we have a way to stopagri-food imports produced to lower standards of food,animal welfare and environmental production systems.I would add labour standards as well.

One of our members is supporting the idea of an100% grass-fed label, because there is some confusionabout grass-fed labels and claims being made. There is avery good Pasture-Fed Livestock Association producinganimals with really strong environmental, as well asanimal welfare, benefits. It is only fair that that shouldbe recognised through a proper labelling scheme.

Q236 Danny Kruger: We had George Monbiot hereearlier; I do not know if you were listening. What didyou think about his point about grass-fed beef?

Vicki Hird: There is a balance to be struck. Peopleare still going to eat meat. It is a highly nutritiousproduct and there are people who want to eat it. Recognisingthat, we should be eating much less but better meat,produced here in ways that we can recognise, enforceand celebrate, alongside the rewilding that can go alongwith those animals.

Q237 Danny Kruger: And carbon capture of beef herds?

Vicki Hird: There is a lot of science, and people pickthe science they want to use. There are a lot of differences.You can go from one meter in one field, to anothermeter, and it can be a different carbon reading. We haveto be careful with this and not throw the baby out withthe bathwater. For instance, small-scale producers willnot be able measure their carbon with expensive tools,so we need to make sure we are doing right but alsosupporting farmers for agroforesty, for rewilding with


animals and for silvopasture, which is fantastic and canhave big animal welfare gains. There is a spectrum thatwe need to recognise.

George has a particular approach and we do have acrisis ahead. We need to recognise that, but we take aless is better approach. We can envisage the Bill supportingfarmers to deliver that. It does not include factoryfarms, I have to say.

Dr Palmer: I am not sure I fully answered yourquestion regarding Compassion’s submission on labelling.This is an area where the international debate is movingvery rapidly. France now has a very extensive scheme,pioneered by Carrefour and Casino, two of the bigsupermarket chains. Germany is proposing that theEuropean Union as a whole looks at labelling, specificallyfor animal welfare. There are also schemes in Italy andDenmark. It is important that we do not fall behind thecurve here. People are looking at us and asking, afterBrexit, are we going to be better or going to have to fallbehind? This is a classic example. The Bill offers theopportunity to pin down some of the reassurance thatpeople are looking for.

Q238 Mr Goodwill: Just before we finish on the issueof labelling, I see that France has introduced regulationsto allow misleading words, such as sausage, burger orsteak, to be used in connection with non-meat products.Do you think we should follow that lead?

Dr Palmer: Personally, I would not go in for legislatingon what people call things, unless there is a deliberateattempt to defraud. If someone goes to the vegansection in Sainsbury’s and sees a sausage, it is unlikelythat they will say, “Aha! That’s a pig.” I do not feel it isworth parliamentary time. Companies are quite capableof making clear what it is they are selling.

The Chair: If there are no more questions, on behalfof the Committee I thank the witnesses for their evidencethis afternoon.


Sue Davies gave evidence.

4.29 pm

The Chair: We have until 5pm for evidence from therepresentative of Which? Welcome. Could you introduceyourself ?

Sue Davies: Good afternoon. My name is Sue Davies.I am head of consumer protection and food policy atWhich?.

Q239 George Eustice: The Bill sets a different coursefor the future of agriculture policy, so it will be muchmore about payment for the delivery of public goodsthan arbitrary area-based subsidies. Are you generallysupportive of that approach? I know there are one ortwo other things that you think have been missed.Perhaps you could explain what those are to the Committee.

Sue Davies: May I start by saying congratulations onyour appointment, Mr Eustice?

We support the public money for public goods approach.We think it is the right way to go, but there is a realopportunity to put more about consumers—the peoplewho will ultimately be eating the food—in the Bill.There is a range of ways in which that could be done.We have a real opportunity to redesign agriculturepolicy to make sure that we have a much more joined-up

approachtofoodandfarmingpolicy ingeneral.Wewelcomethe commitment to the national food strategy, for example,as part of that.

The public money for the public goods that areincluded is really important, but we would also like tosee a stronger focus on other consumer benefits, particularlyin relation to food safety, public health and reducingantibiotic resistance. When talking about productivityand increasing food production, we fine that peoplecare so much about food. We have done lots of consumerresearch over the years. In the last couple of years, wehave particularly focused on asking people about foodstandards.

People expect the UK to have really high standardsand that, if anything, we will build on the standardsthat we have at the moment. We talk about productivity,and we want it done in a way that meets consumerexpectations. We would also like to see a more generalcommitment to upholding high food standards in the Bill.

Q240 George Eustice: To come back to that point, theview we took when drafting the Bill—I am interested inwhy you take a different view—is that the payment forpublic goods could involve things such as reduced pesticideuse and reduced antibiotic use, because animal healthand welfare is in there. By targeting those public goodsin some areas, there would be a consequential benefitfor public health, because of the nature of the foodproduction.

There is a separate area that is about public healthcampaigns, healthy eating and food standards, but obviouslymeasures are already in place through the Food SafetyAct 1990 and the work that the NHS does to encouragehealthy eating. Our view is that we do not want toduplicate work that is already present in other fields andis the responsibility of other Departments.

Sue Davies: I can see that to some extent, but there isa real opportunity to integrate public health much morein farming practices. A good example of that is thework the Food Standards Agency did a couple of yearsago to try to reduce campylobacter rates in chickens.We have regulation to some extent around that to try tocontrol the practices that are used, but it was only byincentivising action throughout the supply chain—inthat case, by the Food Standards Agency doing a retailsurvey, where it was, in effect, naming and shamingretailers by showing how campylobacter levels compared—that that led to co-operation across the supply chain tolook at what measures could be put in place. Thatincluded measures in slaughterhouses as well as a strongon-farm focus, such as looking at biosecurity measuresand what happens in relation to thinning.

It is that kind of approach that we feel should beincluded, and certainly the opportunity to do it shouldnot be excluded. Some things will require regulation,and we definitely think they should be regulated, but itis a mix of using regulation and wider incentives to raisebest practice. For issues such as antibiotic use, there isan opportunity to try to incentivise the reduced use ofantibiotics again, on top of the legislative requirementsthat we have.

Q241 George Eustice: There is an animal healthprovision there, which opens the prospect of healthylivestock accredited schemes that farmers could sign up


to, which might be all about reduced antibiotic use ordifferent stocking densities in poultry. That is all possibleunder the existing powers, so I am trying to get my headaround what additional powers you feel are needed overand above the objectives that we have.

Sue Davies: It is certainly really positive that that is inthere, but if there are specific measures where the maingoal is focused on human health, rather than animalhealth, that should be included in the Bill. Ultimately,the Bill will determine the types of food choices we haveas consumers and the sorts of standards to which ourfood is produced. Obviously, a lot of other policies willhave an impact on that, but we think this is a realopportunity to shape our food system in a positive waythat works for consumers as well as farmers. We shouldnot miss these really good opportunities to include thatin the Bill at this point.

Q242 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. May I addmy congratulations to the new Secretary of State? Weobviously do not want to be too nice about him and sethim off to a bad start, but he is clearly a popular choice.

Ms Davies, I am bound to ask you the question that Ihave asked virtually every other witness: from a consumer’spoint of view, what would be the impact of allowingimports produced to lower standards? I think I canprobably guess the answer, because it has been veryconsistent across all our witnesses. At the end of thewhole chain, particularly with ready meals and so on,do you feel that consumers know enough in the currentsystem? Could we not do more through the Bill to liftstandards, particularly on antibiotics and so on?

Sue Davies: I think your food standards question isreally important and shows why we need to make surethat we have a joined-up policy. This will have a bigimpact on the sorts of choices that consumers canmake, but if we do not address other policies, particularlytrade policy, it could completely undermine all thepositive things that we are trying to achieve with the Bill.

As I mentioned, we know from our consumer researchthat people have really high expectations on food standards.Some 93% of people said they expect that food standardswill be maintained, and ideally people think they shouldbe enhanced now that we have left the EU. People donot expect cheaper imports to come in and undercutour producers. People want to support UK producers,particularly of products such as meat and dairy, so thetariff schedule that has come out is interesting. All ofthat has to be joined up to make sure that we are nottrading away our standards and potentially bringing insafety issues, or allowing production methods that weknow consumers do not find acceptable.

We saw with the horsemeat scare that food has manydifferent aspects. Some are about safety, and others arecultural—people just do not want to eat food that isproduced in certain ways. We have been doing a lot ofsurvey work and we know that around eight in 10 peoplehave concerns about eating hormone-treated beef. Asimilar number have concerns about food producedusing antibiotic growth promoters. Those practices areused in some of the countries with which we will seek toreach trade deals—hormones in the case of the US,Australia and New Zealand. We absolutely have toensure that trade policy builds on our current standards.If anything, we are looking to improve our standardsrather than allow them to deteriorate or accept lower

quality imports that will make it very difficult for UKproducers to produce to the standards that consumersexpect.

We have also asked about labelling issues, becausesometimes it is suggested that people can decide if youjust label everything. People feel strongly about it anddo not think that labelling is the solution. That appliesto people across all socioeconomic groups; it is not justbetter-off customers who can make this sort of choice.We think it is really important that there is something inthe Bill that makes it clear that we should maintain andbuild on our food standards.

We have asked people what they think about labelling,and they generally tell us that they think the labellinginformation is about right, but when you ask peopleabout where improvements might be made, they talkabout things such as helping people to make moresustainable choices and improved animal welfare labelling.There is scope to look at how we can improve that bybuilding on the labelling information that we have already.One area that we know people feel strongly about is thetraffic light nutritional labelling system, which we wouldlike to be made mandatory when we have the opportunityto legislate to do so.

Q243 Fay Jones: I have a question on food productionstandards and imports. The Agriculture Bill applieslargely to England only, although there are bits andpieces that pertain to the devolved nations. Would foodproduction standards and imports not be covered byinternational trade? Is the Agriculture Bill the right placefor it?

Sue Davies: We can put it in this Bill and in the tradeBill. This is about agriculture and how we incentivisefood production, and a vision for agriculture in the UK.The approach that we take to trade will have a hugeimpact on how we are able to deliver that, and it willhave huge implications for the support that needs to beprovided to farmers and how we incentivise standards.There is a strong link between the two.

We think there should definitely be something in theBill recognising, at a principled level, that this is whatUK food production is about. It should also recognisethat, on the one hand, we need to ensure that wemaintain high standards that meet consumers’expectationsat a national level and, on the other hand, that we willtake a strong stance to ensure we are not trading awaythose food standards to get the many other benefits wemight get through trade deals. It should not be aboutlosing food standards to get those benefits.

Q244 Abena Oppong-Asare: Thank you for that, Sue.I want to follow up on your comments about foodstandards, specifically on labelling. How far do youwant the Bill to go? Obviously, this starts from thebeginning. Do you see soil as part of consumers’ concerns,in terms of what type of soil is used and how it ispreserved, or do they essentially just want to know abouthow the food is labelled?

Sue Davies: I suppose that reinforces your question ina way. Ultimately, things like soil health will feed throughinto the quality of the food that we eat as consumers.That is why we must ensure that there is recognitionthat the way we produce food has huge implications forconsumers, both in terms of their health and their


preferences. Most people will not think about soil whenyou ask them about food, but it will have an indirectimpact on them.

At a more principled level, when we are talking aboutpublic money for public goods, we should recognisethat public health and food safety are important. Thereis a range of different mechanisms. Some things areobvious, such as the promotion of fruit and vegetables,but as we are looking at how food is produced and theproduction methods that are used, it is important thatthere is a clear steer that public health and food safetymust also be at the heart of that.

Q245 Abena Oppong-Asare: The Food StandardsAgency looks into the standards in food production.Are there elements of that that you think should beincorporated into the Bill to embellish it?

Sue Davies: Including provisions that enable financialassistance for food safety and public health measures,such as the reduced use of antibiotics, feeds throughinto the things the Food Standards Agency is trying toachieve. That then allows sufficient flexibility.

I mentioned the example of campylobacter becausethat has been a big priority. It is the main type of foodpoisoning in the UK. Most of it comes from chickens.We have been struggling to reduce its level for years. Wehave made progress in recent years by taking the farm-to-fork approach. We need to recognise that a lot ofthings that manifest at the end of the food chain originatein production. Giving the flexibility to be able to providefinancial assistance and incentivise those kinds of measuresis really important. The Food Standards Agency willthen need to work with DEFRA and others in definingwhat those might be and what sort of indicators youmight want to include, in terms of the monitoring thatis set out in the Bill.

Q246 Miss Dines: Ms Davies, your organisation,Which?, has historically been a champion for consumerchoice. I want to ask you what your position is. Fromyour written statement, it seems like you are proposinga form of protectionism against certain imports basedon standards, but with a lack of clarity, I would suggest.Does that not deny the consumer a choice and potentiallymake food a lot more expensive for the consumer?

Sue Davies: We are certainly not protectionist and weare certainly in favour of consumer choice. However, itis about enabling people to make meaningful choicesand the types of choices that we want. We also basewhat we say and what we call for on consumer research—talking to people and understanding their perspectives.Over the last couple of decades, we have been talking topeople about food a lot, but in the last three years wehave had a regular tracker and have been asking a lotabout food standards.

We are just in the process of doing some moreresearch, for which we are going to do a series of publicdialogues around the country, particularly focused ontrade deals and what some of the opportunities of thosecould be, as well as some of the issues over which peoplemight have concerns. It will look at food standards, butalso at things like digital services and opportunities fora wide range of cheaper products. We know from theresearch we have done to date that people feel verystrongly about food production methods and would

have concerns if food was allowed to come in with reduced,cheaper standards that undermined the standards andchoices we have at the moment.

I do not think it is about reducing people’s choice. Itis about enabling people to have an informed choice,and about enabling everybody to have a choice. At themoment, we have regulation and standards that underpineverything that everybody buys, whatever their incomelevel. If it suddenly becomes the case that only thosewho can afford it can have the type of standards wehave at the moment, and other people have to havelower standards, that would certainly be a completelyretrograde step.

We are starting from a point where we have goodstandards, and we are about to start negotiating tradedeals, so we need to be really clear in those objectivesabout where food fits. We need to look at the opportunitiesfor food and other things that we might gain in thosetrade deals, but also to be really clear about wherewe will not compromise. Things such as food safetyand quality and animal welfare come out from ourresearch as things that people do not think we shouldcompromise on.

Q247 Ruth Jones: I am sure you are aware that thenational food strategy will be published shortly. Howdo you think that will complement the Bill? The strategyis coming out after the Bill has been published. Will thetwo marry up? We obviously do not know yet what itwill contain.

Sue Davies: We are really pleased that the nationalfood strategy is being developed. In a way, it is incrediblethat we have not really got a clear vision for food andhow it should be produced, so we think that is reallyvaluable. The way it is being conducted, with publicdialogues and citizens’ assemblies, is a really inclusiveprocess, and will hopefully look at the breadth of issuesand the many different interests involved in food policy.

As you say, ideally you would have your food policy,and you would then have your agriculture policy, yourtrade policy and your environment policy; they shouldall be complementary. Obviously things are working todifferent timescales, so we need to make sure that theBill allows for the breadth of issues that agriculture canbe impacted by. That is why, as part of that nationalfood strategy, we think it is important that food deliversfor consumers and that we tackle some of the challengesin the food system, whether that is climate change,dealing with obesity or food security issues.

We realise that there is limited scope within the Bill,compared with the strategy, but we should take everyopportunity to make sure that we put the right incentivesin the Bill to deliver on those wider things that matter topeople.

Q248 Ruth Jones: Is there anything missing from theBill, in terms of strengthening it or in terms of thenational food strategy?

Sue Davies: Obviously Which? would say this, but itis really surprising that consumers are not featured inthe Bill, when ultimately the Bill will shape the types offood choices we will have, potentially for decades. It isreally important to make sure that the Bill recognisesthat we ultimately produce food to meet the needs andexpectations of consumers, and to have a market wherepeople want to buy the products. That is why we thinkwe should ensure that the public money for public


goods area is aligned with consumer needs and benefits,particularly public health and food safety. If we aretalking about productivity and producing more food,we should recognise that that has to be done in a waythat meets consumers’expectations; not by using productionmethods that mean people will ultimately not want tobuy or eat the food. That is where having that commitmentto food standards in the Bill is really important.

Q249 Mr Goodwill: Two of the objectives of the Billare improving plant health and reducing or protectingfrom environmental hazards. Groundbreaking work isobviously being done on plant breeding. For example,potatoes may not need to be sprayed every 10 days forpotato blight, and there are potatoes that are potatocyst nematode resistant. Some of that may use geneediting. Do you think consumers know enough aboutthese issues to have a view, or do you think that if it ispresented in the right way, they may see that the upsidescancel out the downsides and their prejudices?

Sue Davies: We have done a lot of consumer researchover the years and have talked to people about theirattitudes to different food technologies. About three orfour years ago, we did quite a big project with Sir MarkWalport and the Government Office for Science lookingat food system challenges and carrying out public dialoguesin different parts of the country. What comes out fromthose dialogues and our wider research is that peoplereally want to have a more open discussion about whatthe risks and benefits are. It seems that people do notreally know enough about it. They want to be convincedthat, if technologies are being used, they are beinglooked at in the full range of possibilities and alternatives.People are more nervous about technologies like geneediting than, say, the use of precision agriculture. Oftenin these debates, we start from the technology and lookat how it can be used, rather than looking at what theproblem is, what the range of options is, and why we aredeciding that that is the right approach.

The other thing that comes across really clearly isthat people expect there to be strong, independentoversight. It is concerning that when we talk about theuse of technologies, you often hear some people call forderegulation and less oversight, when all our experienceis to the contrary: you do not want to over-regulate andhave an overly burdensome system, but people want toknow that things are being done in the public interest,and that there is a clear understanding of any safetyissues or wider environmental risks before we go downthe route of using some of these technologies.

People are open to technology, but they want toknow exactly why it is being used and whether it is thebest approach. The only way to do that is that to makesure that, if we are looking at using these technologies,there is proper public engagement and understandingof them. The retailers and others in the food industryare obviously key, in terms of their understanding ofwhether people would want to buy products producedusing these methods.

Q250 Mr Goodwill: Is there any reason why peopleare much more open to these types of advances inmedicine, for example, than in food production? Itseems that they are happy to go right to the cutting edgeof technology, in terms of the treatment of geneticconditions, but somehow this is different.

Sue Davies: All the research shows that it is quite astraightforward risk-benefit analysis. If you are ill, youwill take something that you think is more risky butmight make you better. If it is about maintaining health,people expect there to be a higher barrier.

Q251 Kerry McCarthy: Some groups are talking aboutmethod of slaughter labelling. Does Which? have aview? Would the consumers you deal with find thatuseful?

Sue Davies: It is not something that we have carriedout any research on, to be honest. It is not somethingthat we have particularly worked on. As I say, when wehave asked people about labelling information, most ofthem feel that we have quite a good level of information.Certainly, the areas that come out most strongly wherepeople would like more clarity are things like makingmore sustainable choices. Animal welfare issues areimportant. We did a report in the last issue of Which?that looked at the different assurance schemes that areavailable to help you make sustainable choices. They allcovered different elements of sustainability, so it isdifficult for a scheme to help you make a choice. Thereis a lot more scope in that sort of area to improvelabelling. Method of slaughter is not something that wehave asked about recently.

Q252 Kerry McCarthy: There is some quite misleadingpackaging. There was the whole issue of Tesco and itsfake farms—it had pictures of cows frolicking in meadows,when they had never seen the sunlight. I am not sayingthat that was simply about Tesco, but the farms thatTesco had on its products did not actually exist.

Sue Davies: I think there are still cases where the wayfoods are presented does not meet the actual way theyare produced. When we ask people about their expectations,though, people are often surprised: they may think thatwelfare standards are higher than they actually are, andthen when you explain, they are often quite surprisedabout what is the minimum—what is free range, what isorganic or whatever. It is certainly an area where peoplewant more information.

We also did a report on chicken welfare in, I think,the November issue of Which? and it was quite interestingto ask the different retailers about their stocking densitiesfor chickens and to see the variation, even within thecurrent legal framework, between individual retailers.That went down very well; I think people found it veryuseful information.

Q253 Kerry McCarthy: Do you think that, in termsof the consumer side of things, that would be more anissue for the food strategy? I think there will be quite afocus in that on—

Sue Davies: It is really good that in the Bill there is,obviously, the potential for financial assistance, andanimal welfare is a clear criterion for that. I think thatthat is right. Whether it is in the Bill or the foodstrategy, I think there needs to be a mechanism to lookat how we improve labelling.

Q254 Kerry McCarthy: I suppose the Bill is encouragingmore humane production methods and so on, and thefood strategy is making sure, at the consumer end ofthings and the marketing end of things, that farmers


can be rewarded through the market as well. Theywould be rewarded twice: once through public moneyfor public goods, but also through people being preparedto pay a little bit more because they trust that somethinghas genuinely been produced to better standards.

Sue Davies: I suppose that the Bill will also cover themarketing standards that fall under the commonagricultural policy, which cover everything from breakfastproducts like jams to poultry. So there is an elementwithin the Bill where that could be covered. We havehad concerns that the marketing standards under thecommon agricultural policy have been developed veryseparately from other food standards and very muchfrom a producer-only perspective, rather than by thinkingabout what the end consumer might want. I think that

there is an opportunity, if we are reviewing any of thosestandards, to make sure that they are meeting consumerneeds as well.

The Chair: If there are no more questions, let methank you on behalf of the Committee for the evidencethat you have given this afternoon. Thank you very much.


4.57 pm

Adjourned till Tuesday 25 February at twenty-fiveminutes past Nine o’clock.


Written evidence to be reportedto the House

AB14 Arla Foods UK

AB15 Anglian Water Services Ltd

AB16 Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK)

AB17 RSPCA

AB18 Scottish Land & Estates

AB19 Sustain

AB20 Myra Bennett, British Horse Society CountyAccess Officer, Wiltshire

AB21 Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Schoolof Public Health, Imperial College London

AB22 Dairy UK



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Fifth Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 1 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day

at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than







† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)

(Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)† Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)† Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con)

† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead)

(Lab)† Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)† Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab)† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)






(Morning)


Agriculture Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: Before we begin, I have a few preliminarypoints. Will Members switch electronic devices to silent?Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

Today, we will begin line-by-line consideration of theBill. The selection list for today’s sittings, which isavailable in the room, shows how the selected amendmentshave been grouped for debate. Amendments groupedtogether are generally on the same or similar issues.Decisions on amendments take place not in the orderthey are debated but in the order they appear on theamendment paper. The selection list shows the order ofdebate. Decisions on each amendment are taken whenwe come to the clause that the amendment affects. I willuse my discretion to decide whether to allow a separatestand part debate on individual clauses and schedulesfollowing the debates on the relevant amendments.

I hope that is helpful. The process and procedures arevery similar to those in the Chamber. If any Member isnew to this and requires assistance, the Clerk and I willbe as helpful as we can to support proceedings.

Clause 1

SECRETARY OF STATE’S POWERS TO GIVE FINANCIAL

ASSISTANCE

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out“may” and insert “must”.This amendment would require the Secretary of State to providefinancial assistance for the purposes listed in Clause 1.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,Mr Stringer. I welcome everyone to the Committee. Isuspect we will have lengthy and interesting discussions,and I am sure we are all very much looking forward tothat.

To those who were here some time ago for Committeestage of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament, theamendment will look remarkably similar to the openingamendment then, although of course the world hasmoved on. This is a big issue, but I would like to prefacemy detailed “may”/“must” comments with someoverarching observations.

I should make it clear from the start, as we did onSecond Reading, that the Opposition support many ofthe principles underlying the Bill. Indeed, as I havepointed out before, one can find similar sentimentsabout improving the common agricultural policy andmaking it more environmentally friendly as far back asLabour’s 1998 rural White Paper. We have already saidthat the shift to incentivising farmers to provide greatersupport for the environment and deliver public goods,and to providing finance for that, is welcome.

I think there is widespread agreement about that—interestingly, not just in this country. Those who werepresent at yesterday’s debate on an agriculture statutoryinstrument will know that I spent some time then explaininghow the European Union has sought to green thecommon agricultural policy, including by promotingmeasures such as environmental land management schemes.I observed that I find it slightly puzzling that a Governmentso enamoured with burnishing their green credentialsdid not fully use flexibilities such as the 15% in pillar 2that could have been transferred to environmental schemesin England. However, a repentant sinner is alwayswelcome—despite the nagging suspicion that some maynot be entirely repentant.

The Opposition seek to work constructively to improvethe Bill, but also to tease out what we see as some of theunderlying contradictions, not least by pointing outthat the Government are proposing a framework systemfor agriculture that does not see food production as akey part of its role. I quite understand why thosefighting for a shift to environmental goods—they havefought the good fight for many years—may be nervousabout the risk of business as usual through the backdoor, but we must be aware that just exporting ourenvironmental damage somewhere else does not help. Imust say that the Secretary of State’s continuing refusalto put into law the standards we need to apply toimported food does little to assuage concerns, and hiscomments at the weekend did little to reassure us. Wewill return to that at a later stage.

Members do not just have to take my word for that.They might want to look, for instance, at the powerfulresponse to the new immigration system from the BritishPoultry Council last week. Its chief executive, RichardGriffiths, said the proposals

“have shown a complete disregard for British food productionand will have a crippling effect on our national food security”—

a very strong statement from an industry leader. Hecontinued, and this is the salient point for this morning:

“We cannot run the risk of creating a two-tier food systemwhere we import food produced to lower standards and only theaffluent can afford high quality British produce”.

That is the danger—some farmers paid via environmentalland management schemes to do good things, with a bitof food production on the side, while the food that mostpeople in our country eat is imported to lower standards.That is the risk, and we will not take it.

Our support is qualified on the Government comingclean on the plan. On a day when Sir Michael Marmothas laid out the consequences of the policies of the last10 years—shameful consequences in my view—it ishardly surprising that people are worried, because thecreation of a two-tier country is part of a piece, and thearchitects of this Bill have also been responsible in otherpolicy areas for where we find ourselves today, in adisunited kingdom. We are not prepared to see thiscontinue. For our purposes today, how much better ifwe had had the food strategy, and probably the EnvironmentBill, in place already, but we are where we are.

Having made trenchant criticisms of the Government,it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge thatthere have been improvements since the first version ofthe Bill, and we welcome them. We have noticed that theGovernment have been responsive to constructive criticismof their proposals and made additions to the Bill fromits previous incarnation, following strong interventions


by stakeholders. We hope that the Government continueto be receptive to improvements, because we believethere is certainly room for improvement.

It is precisely because changes have been made to theBill, and because the climate and ecological crisis hasbecome ever more pressing in the year or more since theBill was last in Committee, that it is so important thatwe have returned to scrutinise this new version of thelegislation. Our amendments are intended to strengthenthe Bill—to give it more bite and deliver greater certaintyto our farmers, to tackle the health and climate crises,and to fill in some of the gaps and missed opportunities.

I turn to “may”/”must” in amendment 1. Clause 1gives the Secretary of State the power to provide financialassistance for the public goods purposes listed in theclause. It stipulates that the Secretary of State may dothis, but there is no requirement to do so. Our amendmentwould change that, so that the Secretary of State mustprovide financial assistance for those clause 1 purposes,which I suspect we will debate at some length.

The simple fact is that the Secretary of State is notbound to do those things; they do not have to do them.The Government have guaranteed the previous annualbudget under the common agricultural policy to farmersfor every year of this Parliament, but what about afterthis Parliament? What guarantees do we have that financialassistance will continue to be provided for these publicgood purposes if that is not a strong requirement inthe Bill?

What guarantee can the Minister give that the promisedbudget will be allocated? We still do not have thelong-promised broader policy statement on ELMS. Iwondered whether that was what the Prime Ministerwas working on at Chevening last week—I can imaginehim spending his week doing the detailed policy work—butI am told that it is imminent and will be available withinminutes. I think it is slightly disrespectful to Parliamentto introduce such an important part of the policyprocess half an hour after Committee proceedings havestarted—I am sure we will all spend our lunch timeporing over it.

I understand that the Secretary of State’s need toavoid the difficulties of his predecessor earlier this yearand to have something to talk about when he is at theNational Farmers Union—once a pressman, always apressman. I rather admire that; however, I think weshould have seen the statement before today.

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I arrived in theoffice just before nine this morning to discover thatthese documents had been produced. That makes thingsvery difficult, because we may have missed the opportunityto table amendments to this part of the Bill if anythingin those documents raises concerns. As my hon. Friendsaid, it is wrong that this situation has been dictated bythe need for the Secretary of State to make a speech atthe NFU this morning. The Committee should takeprecedence.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.We are politicians and we know how the world works,but it is a pity. This Government have a strong majorityand are at the start of their term; surely they should notbe running scared so soon. Frankly, it speaks volumes. Ido not blame the Minister—I am sure she is doing what

she has been asked to do—but this raises particulardifficulties for us. Until we have seen the documents, wewill not know whether we should have tabled differentamendments. We probably have a fair idea of what is inthere, but this is no way to proceed.

Do we know that the money will actually be allocated?This is a change to a new and complicated system. Theexperience of stewardship schemes in the past is thatthey have not always been easy. We heard very enthusiasticevidence the week before last from some who say thateverything will be wonderful. That is not what I hearfrom others. The question in my mind is whether budgetallocated will be different from budget taken up. Mysense is that many farmers think they are going to getthe same kind of money, minus the 10%, in the yearsahead. They may not. There is no guarantee that theyare going to get the same amount for doing somethingslightly different. The money may be allocated invery different ways, which is part of the concern thatpeople feel.

The shift that we need to see in our agriculturalsystems towards producing food in a way that is lessdestructive to the environment and that reduces agriculture’scontribution to climate change is too important to leaveto the optional discretion of Secretaries of State. Underthe current wording, we find ourselves in the uncomfortableposition whereby current and future Secretaries of Statewill be under no actual obligation to provide financialassistance to address agriculture’s contribution to climatechange, despite that supposedly being a key driver ofthe Bill.

If the Government understand just how importantthe environmental and climate crisis is, it really is notsuch a tough ask for them to back up their commitmentswith stronger wording in the Bill. Others had the samediscussion about the previous iteration of the Bill, so Iam well aware of the current Secretary of State’s argumentsagainst the change—that by keeping this as a power andnot a duty, the Government are following a legislativetradition—I am sure the Minister has been givenappropriate examples to make that point. I will notre-rehearse the point, but she will note that it was notonly the Opposition who expressed that concern lasttime. She may find that some Members on her side ofCommittee care and worry about this issue. I wouldgently point out that the circumstances are really ratherdifferent now; in fact, the case has been strengthenedsince the previous discussion, given the climate emergencythat we are facing. We hardly need look very far aroundthe country to see the evidence of that.

Of course, we are also now leaving the EuropeanUnion and embarking on a journey of considerablefinancial uncertainty for farmers and the wider ruralcommunity. That is why we need strong legislativecommitments that guarantee long-term support for theenvironment and the climate, and financial certainty forour farmers. All that the amendment would do is makeit a requirement to provide the financial assistance.

Other measures in the Bill are worded as requirements.Clause 4 makes the preparation of multi-annual financialassistance plans a requirement, while clause 17 obligatesthe Secretary of State to report to Parliament on UKfood security. There are other provisions in the Billwhere the power is a duty. The amendment wouldensure that clause 1, which is pretty much at the heart ofwhat we are talking about, has equal standing to other


[Daniel Zeichner]

clauses. Shifting the power to a duty would rightly openthe Secretary of State’s actions up to proper parliamentaryscrutiny. If it is the law that the Secretary of State mustprovide finance for those essential activities, and theydo not, they can be held duly accountable.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is a greatpleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer,at this very exciting time for agriculture. I thank the hon.Gentleman for his broadly kind words this morning andfor his acceptance that we have a great deal in commonacross the House, as we move forward in planning thenext stages of food production, farming and other systemsthat we want to implement to make sure the environmentis better protected. We have much in common in thisarea at the moment.

As a newbie to this Committee, I also welcome thosewho served before and who, as the hon. Gentlemansaid, did a great deal to improve the Bill, which appearsbefore us today in a new, streamlined form. Clause 1(4)includes an important mention of the role of foodproduction as part of what we do in our countryside. Itmakes it clear that encouraging the production of foodin an environmentally sustainable way is necessary. Thatis one of the most important changes made to the Bill,and I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to standards. I amsure we will return to this discussion, probably nextweek, when we discuss imports and how that issue willbe taken forward. I ask him to accept that my predecessorand I—and, indeed, many Government Members whoare interested in agriculture—have always been clearthat it is important that we are committed to the highestpossible standards of food production. We want reasonablypriced food, but produced to a standard of high ecologicaland animal welfare.

Kerry McCarthy: Can the Minister clarify whethershe is talking about standards in the UK or standardsof imports, too?

Victoria Prentis: It is a great pleasure to take anintervention from the hon. Lady. She and I have workedtogether for many years on food waste reduction, so wehave had a certain amount to do with each other in thatsphere.

The Bill deals with standards in British agriculturethat we impose on our farmers. It is inevitable at thisexciting time for our nation that we will also stray intodiscussions on imports. I do not wish to shut thosediscussions down, however the Bill concentrates on thefinancial assistance that we give to the people whoproduce food in our countryside and are engaged inother schemes that, hopefully, will help us to enhancethe environment.

I wish to restate the Government’s commitment togiving farmers, stakeholders and the public as muchcertainty as possible as we move away from the commonagricultural policy towards our new policy of publicmoney for public goods. I know that the previousCommittee discussed at enormous length whether “may”or “must” should be used. As you may have heard,Mr Stringer, I am a former Government lawyer, and Iam aware of the way in which legislation is oftenframed. When talking about financial assistance—which

I politely say is what makes this different from the otherclauses that the hon. Member for Cambridge referenced—it is traditional, in this sphere at least, although not inall Government legislation, to use the word “may”. Twoexamples are the Natural Environment and RuralCommunities Act 2006 and the Science and TechnologyAct 1965, which both use the word “may”when discussingfinancial assistance. I would suggest that, in this situation,that is not an unusual piece of drafting nor one that inany way lessens our commitment to providing the financialassistance to which we have committed for the remainderof this Government.

We listened to hon. Members’ concerns during thepassage of the first version of the Bill and have includednew duties relating to financial assistance. The provisionof the multi-annual financial assistance plans underclause 4 is a significant change, which sets out ourstrategic priorities for financial assistance under clause 1,with the first plan starting in 2021 to cover our seven-yeartransition period. Publishing these plans and otherreports required under part 1 will ensure greatertransparency and provide necessary certainty about theamount of public funding that has been allocated underclause 1.

9.45 am

Clause 5 includes a new duty on the Secretary ofState to prepare an annual report, which will givefurther details of the financial assistance given underclause 1. Clause 6 gives a duty to prepare reports on theimpact and effectiveness of the financial assistanceschemes. The plans and reports also give Parliament—and,of course, the Select Committee on Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs, the public and anybody interested—theability to scrutinise the Government’s plans for financialassistance schemes, to check that the future fundingdecisions under the Bill powers will be aligned with ourstrategic priorities and to hold the Government toaccount on how much they are spending.

There is no doubt that the Government intend to usethe financial assistance powers in clause 1. The newduties in clauses 4 to 6 will ensure ample opportunityfor scrutiny. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman towithdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister forclarifying some of those points. She said that theGovernment aim to create as much certainty as possible.That is sadly not how it feels to many in the sector. Partof the reason for people’s concerns is that they wonderwhy some of this was not in the original Bill. That iswhy I keep returning to the underlying philosophicalprinciples driving this. That is my concern and what hasfed people’s worries.

Of course, we welcome the changes and improvementsto the Bill. However, as I said earlier, GovernmentMembers raised questions 14 or 15 months ago. Isuspect they will not necessarily be reassured by this.They would like to see something stronger, as we would.That is why—as this part of the Bill is so important—wewill press the amendment to a Division.

I noticed—although I am not surprised—that theMinister did not feel able to respond to the observationfrom the British Poultry Council. Those are very strongstatements coming from some sectors. I am of an agethat I can remember the debates about manufacturingin the 1990s. I recall a visit that I made to one of the


shoe factories in Norwich with the late, great RobinCook. We were stunned to hear from that business thatthey had had a visit from a very enthusiastic Minister inthe then Conservative Government to tell them, essentially,that they were not needed any more; the future wasgoing to be different.

My concern, which is reflected by others, is thatextraordinarily, in our great country, with its wonderfulrural traditions, there is in some quarters a school ofthought that sees the same outcome as a possibility foragriculture and farming. That is why we are so concernedand why we believe the powers should be strengthened.

Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con):Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that the inclusionof the word “must” could open up the Government tojudicial review from farmers who could make a sensibleargument that not all the objectives are being fullyfunded? They could then revert to the courts to try toget that through. That is not what I believe the Governmentshould be doing with the Bill.

Daniel Zeichner: I always listen carefully to the righthon. Gentleman, because he knows of what he speaks,but I wonder whether that is a slight red herring in thiscase. What he warns of could come about, but onbalance I would say that that is a risk worth taking tostrengthen the Bill. To me, the risks that I have justoutlined are greater.

I have huge confidence in the future of the sector, butsome ideologues in the world have strange ideas. I donot think that is unique to one party or another. Iwould just caution Government Members to be awarethat they, too, have people with some interesting thoughtson their side. In my view, the country needs such peopleto be seen off. I suspect that there is, if not unanimity,then considerable cross-party support for that point.We want our agricultural sector to continue to thriveand prosper. Food production is a key part of that, andwe want that strengthened in this legislation. On thatbasis, I will press the amendment to a Division.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Division No. 1]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Goodwill, rh Mr Robert

Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria

Question accordingly negatived.

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 2, inclause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

“(aa) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses inenabling public access to healthy food that is farmedin an environmentally sustainable way, including foodproduced through whole farm agroecological systems”.

This amendment would add to the purposes for which financial assistancecan be given, that of ensuring access to healthy food produced sustainablyincluding through whole farm agroecological systems.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussthe following:

Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at endinsert—

“(k) establishing, maintaining and expanding agroecologicalfarming systems, including organic farming.”


“‘environmentally sustainable way’ means in a way which employsfactors and practices that contribute to the quality of environmenton a long-term basis and avoids the depletion of natural resources”.

This amendment defines “environmentally sustainable way” for thepurposes of clause 1(4) and Amendment 2.

Daniel Zeichner: Amendment 2 seeks to address twoissues: what we consider to be a lack of proper emphasison access to healthy food, and the missed opportunityto support whole-farm agroecological systems moreexplicitly. As I have intimated, for a Bill on food production,there is very little about public access to food and howthe Government could support moving the sector towardsproducing healthy and sustainable food for our citizens.There is a nod to the broader issue of food security inclause 17, which we believe can be improved, and towhich I will return.

This is a Bill about agriculture and public goods, andit is important to recognise that access to healthy,sustainable food is a public good, and one that shouldbe eligible for financial support. I suspect that economistswould go into technical detail about what public goodsmay or may not be. We believe there is a market failurein this country. We need to provide people of all incomelevels with access to fresh, nutritious food, no matterwhere they live. Last year, a study by the Social MarketFoundation think-tank suggested that more than 1 millionpeople in the UK live in so-called food deserts—neighbourhoods where poverty, poor public transportand a lack of shops and supermarkets are seriouslylimiting access to affordable fresh fruit and vegetables.That has clear public health implications.

We all know that we have rising levels of obesity, andwe know about the strain that puts on the NHS. Onlyyesterday, we heard that record numbers of people aredeveloping type 2 diabetes. I have already referred totoday’s report by Sir Michael Marmot, which we shouldall feel anxious about. We also know that with risingfood poverty, we are in the upsetting position of havingmore food banks than we have branches of McDonald’srestaurants—over 2,000. That statistic is frequently cited.There is an obvious opportunity here for provisions inthe Bill to enable the Government to support the coreproduction of food and food distribution in a way thatfacilitates access to healthy and locally produced foodsat an affordable price. There is a clear need to boost oursupply of fruit and vegetables, so that people can accessfood that is closer to home, more affordable, fresh, andsustainably produced. Provisions could facilitatecommunity-supported agriculture and encourage localpublic food procurement. The Government could alsobe enabled to give farmers the support they need toreduce UK reliance on imported food. We will comeback to the issue of the balance of locally produced andimported food.

If the Government are not convinced that some ofthis can be done, I invite them to visit my Cambridgeconstituency to see the innovative work led by Labour


[Daniel Zeichner]

Cambridge city councillors Katie Thornburrow andAlex Collis, including community gardens in some ofthe new developments in Trumpington, on the edge ofthe city. These innovative pioneering schemes show thatit can be done: they are a real opportunity to work withfood producers, but are currently outside the scope offunding as a public good. This is not about returning tothe common agricultural policy and simply paying farmersto produce food; it is about supporting public access tofood that is healthy and local, and recognising that it isa public good in itself—with all the potential publichealth implications.

Amendment 2 explicitly allows for the provision offinancial assistance to support food produced throughwhole-farm agroecological systems. The Governmenthave made a move towards recognising the importanceof agroecology clause 1(5) of the Bill by clarifying thatfinancial assistance that farmers can receive underclause 1(b) for supporting a better understanding of theenvironment among the public includes a “betterunderstanding”of agroecology. A “better understanding”is about education. It does not financially support theadoption of agroecological principles by farmers. Intheir written evidence to this Committee, the SustainableFood Trust said that“without adequately supporting the implementation of agroecology,it is merely rhetoric.”

In putting the maintenance of natural ecologicalprocesses at the heart of agricultural production, weknow that taking that agroecological approach candeliver many of the public goods throughout the farmingprocess identified in the Bill in an integrated way, notjust in separated or reserved areas or only at the margins.These systems are geared towards using natural processesacross the board to reduce the use of agrochemicals;encourage biodiversity; improve soil health; recycle nutrients,energy and waste; and generally create more diverse,resilient and productive agroecosystems, which we knowwe need. Sustain’s written evidence to the Committeehighlighted that by adopting an integrated approach inthis way, agroecological systems can deliver a “higherlevel of benefits”, with organic farms

“supporting 50% more wildlife than on conventionally farmedland, and healthier soils with 44% higher capacity to store long-termsoil carbon.”

The report “Our Future in the Land”, produced lastyear by the RSA Food, Farming and CountrysideCommission, recommended the design of a 10-yeartransition plan for sustainable agroecological farmingby 2030, and the establishment of a national agroecologydevelopment bank to accelerate a fair, sustainable transition.Reports on sustainable agriculture produced by the UNhigh-level panel of experts on food security and nutritionin 2019 state that Governments should

“promote agroecological and other innovative approaches in anintegrated way to foster transformation of food systems.”

The Bill is an obvious place for the promotion of thatapproach, which is now widely recognised. It shouldprovide specific funding for farmers wishing to switchfrom conventional production to agroecological production.The support could be directed towards training farmersand providing capital grants for the infrastructureinvestments required to transition to agroecologicalfarming systems, as well as significantly increased researchinto agroecological farming systems. It would create a

funding mechanism for farmers currently locked intoan industrialised production system through no fault oftheir own. We can help them adopt an agroecologicalapproach that would speed the much-needed transitiontowards more sustainable methods.

Such funding could be made available at whole-farmlevel, to avoid the piecemeal approach of greening onlythe edges of fields, which risks creating isolated areas ofbiodiversity and retaining the deserts of intensive agriculturethat we still too often see. It seems clear that a whole-farmapproach should be at the heart of the new environmentalland management schemes, some of the detail of whichwe will all enjoy over our lunch break.

10 am

In our view, agroecology is at the heart of what theBill tries to achieve. We do not think it should be left asa legislative footnote in clause 1(5). Amendment 3,which is complementary to amendment 2, would clarifywhat constitutes food produced in an “environmentallysustainable way”.

Mr Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman’s amendments areentirely laudable, in that we should wish to encouragethe production of more organic food in our country.However, in the evidence sessions, we heard some concernfrom representatives of the organic sector that the supply-demand balance in the organic market in the UK is verydelicate, and that over-incentivising switching to organicproduction may undermine those at the forefront oforganic production and may result in market collapse.We have already seen that—to an extent—in the liquidmilk market, where organic production has exceededdemand, meaning that those who have invested in organicshave not reaped the benefits they would have wished.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has seen researchby the Royal Agricultural University, Cranfield Universityand the University of Reading into the impact of organicproduction on the environment and on food productionin general. Although they found that greenhouse gasemissions from organic production were 20% lower andthat there would be

“a 4% reduction in livestock emissions and a 6% overall directemissions bonus if the UK went fully organic”,

they found that the effect on food production as a whole

“would be a 40% reduction in total food production in Englandand Wales when expressed as total metabolisable energy (ME)output.”

That means that a massive switchover to organic maynot only collapse the market but may cause us to haveto import more food. Organic production produces lessfood, but the overall demand for food in this country interms of calories needed would remain the same—indeed,it would increase in line with the population.

My worry is that the hon. Gentleman’s amendmentswould over-incentivise switching to organic production,which would not necessarily have all the environmentalbenefits we expected, particularly if the grain production,for example, that was lost to the UK because of a switchto organic was replaced by imports from places such asBrazil, where rain forest deforestation is carried out. Thatmay have the opposite effect to the one that we expected.I absolutely understand the sentiments behind the hon.Gentleman’s amendments, but I wonder whether the lawof unintended consequences might come into play.


Kerry McCarthy: Mr Stringer, amendment 11 is inthis group. Is it in order for me to speak to thatamendment now?

The Chair: It is in order. We are debating amendments 2,11 and 3.

Kerry McCarthy: Thank you for that clarification.

My amendment 11 is very similar to the LabourFront Benchers’ amendment 2. It would give the Secretaryof State the power to provide financial assistance forthe purpose of

“establishing, maintaining and expanding agroecological farmingsystems, including organic farming.”

For a number of years, I chaired the all-partyparliamentary group on agroecology for sustainablefood and farming. We have not yet reconstituted in thisParliament, but the group has gone from strength tostrength. It is fair to say that, when I first got involved,it was very niche; we would have meetings with a smallhandful of people. Now, however, we regularly pack outCommittee Rooms—standing room only. As I said, Ichaired that group for a number of years, apart fromwhen I was in the shadow Cabinet, when my hon.Friend the Member for Cambridge kindly took over.

Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Scarboroughand Whitby just said, agroecology is not just aboutorganic production. I entirely refute what he said aboutorganic productivity and so on. Unfortunately, I do nothave the figures to hand, but I am sure that the SoilAssociation will soon be in touch with him and the restof us to put straight some of the things he said aboutthe ability of the country to feed itself under an organicsystem.

Agroecological systems include organic, agroforestry,pasture-based livestock systems, integrated pestmanagement—farming in a way that does not requirepesticides—low-input mixed farming and biodynamicagriculture. All such things deliver a higher level ofbenefits and co-benefits across the farm than conventionalsystems do. Organic farms have 50% more wildlife thanconventionally farmed land, and healthier soils with a44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon.Obviously, too, if the soil is more fertile, that increasesproductivity. The amendment is supported by Sustain,the Landworkers’ Alliance, the Soil Association andmany others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentionedfood deserts. The survey that he mentioned showed thattwo of the top five food deserts in the country were insouth Bristol: the estates of Hartcliffe and Withywood.In the top 100, an area in my constituency is also listed.In a city such as Bristol, that is really surprising. Bristolprides itself on going for gold among the SustainableFood Cities later this year—I am sure the Ministersupports that; we are surrounded by countryside, withan awful lot of urban food growing; and Feeding Bristoldoes a tremendous amount of work to encourage healthyeating and tackle food poverty. Yet we still have thoseareas where that is a difficult problem to crack, so I verymuch hope we will pay particular attention to that inthe food strategy that the Government are developing.

On the amendment, as I said, agroecology integratesfood production with delivery of environmental andsocial public goods. That would give farms the support

and incentives they need to transition to ecologicalfarming models. I am sure that at some point we willtalk about climate change, but land use—the sustainableuse of land, which means sustainable agriculture—isabsolutely intrinsic to meeting our global climate targets.We will discuss later why there is no commitment to netzero in the Bill, as supported by the NFU. We must takethe situation seriously, and it is so frustrating that, yearon year, all we talk about is fossil fuel use and industry,with perhaps a little nod to transport and electric vehicles,but we do not talk about this incredibly importantangle—locally and in the impact overseas with deforestationand so on, as was mentioned.

The recent Institute for Sustainable Developmentand International Relations modelling report makes itclear that a 10-year transition to agroecological farming,which was also recommended by the RSA’s food, farmingand countryside commission, can deliver the food andenvironmental outcomes needed to feed Europe and totackle the crisis we face. Were the Minister to look at theexample set by France, she would find that there is fargreater focus on agroecology and organic farming, andit has been done very successfully.

The Bill only rewards farmers for managing land orwater in a way that protects or improves the environment;agroecology would reward them for integrated, whole-farmaction. At the moment, a farmer might still farmunsustainably in the middle of the field, so most of thefarm would not be sustainable, but could get the publicmoney for public goods for things done around theedge. Farmers will be able to pick and choose—tocherry-pick certain things that they do—and that willnot transform farming in the way needed.

If agroecology is specified as a Bill purpose, theGovernment could also chose to develop schemes thatdeliver social benefits as part of the farm system, suchas community projects for public education about foodgrowing and cooking. That is so important, to changefarming from being seen as part of a countryside versustown thing; everyone eats food and benefits from thegrowing of healthy food.

The Bill fails to support whole-farm systems in deliveringpublic goods in an integrated manner. Agroecologicalfarms, including organic, at the moment may get start-upfunding under clause 1(2), and certain agroecologicalapproaches may get funding under clause 1(1), butthere is not support for whole-farm systems to deliverpublic goods on an ongoing basis. That is not explicitanywhere in the Bill; I think it should be.

The Chair: May I clarify the answer to the hon.Lady’s initial question? It was completely in order todebate amendment 11. If she wishes to press it to a vote,that will be after the debate on amendment 40. I hopethat is clear.

Victoria Prentis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon.Members who have spoken with such passion. I wouldbe delighted to visit all sorts of food producers in theirconstituencies whenever the diary allows.

I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm our commitmentto support domestic food production, and to the farmerswho provide high-quality, home-grown produce farmedin an environmentally sustainable way and produced,broadly, at a reasonable cost. Clause 1(2) allows us to


[Victoria Prentis]

provide financial assistance for starting or improvingthe productivity of agricultural forestry, and horticulturaland certain related activities. That will complement theGovernment’s increasingly joined-up approach to food,which goes far beyond the Bill. We hope that will ensurepublic access to healthy food.

Last year, the Government asked Henry Dimbleby,the lead non-executive director at the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, to lead anindependent review of the food system and to shape anational food strategy. The strategy will cover the entirefood chain from field to fork, including addressing thechallenges of supporting people to eat healthy diets,producing food sustainably, protecting national foodsecurity, and ensuring that our food system deliverssafe, healthy and affordable food, regardless of wherepeople live or how much they earn.

I do not wish to shy away from the debate about foodpoverty, which was raised by several hon. Members,but, with respect, we are discussing the scope of theclause, and I politely suggest that food poverty shouldbe considered in a debate with the Department forWork and Pensions, which provides a safety net and a£95-billion-a-year budget to help those in poverty. Weare discussing financial assistance of about £3 billion ayear to those who provide our food. I hear what hon.Members have said, but it is important not to get drawninto a debate on food banks.

Farming efficiently and improving the environmentcan and must go hand in hand. Clause 1(4) demonstratesclearly that the Government recognise the importanceof environmentally sustainable food production. It placesa duty on the Secretary of State, when framing schemesunder clause 1, to take into account the need to encourageEnglish farmers to produce food in a way that protectsand enhances our environment. Those who applyenvironmentally sustainable farming techniques, includingwhole-farm systems and agroecological principles, totheir farming or land management practices will be verywell placed to benefit from ELM schemes in future—Iwill come on to amendment 11 in a minute. The ELMsystems will be regulated in a different way: an agronomistwill go out to the farm and consider in a holistic andwhole-farm manner how systems can best support ecology.That is really exciting and I look forward to discussingit further with the hon. Member for Bristol East.

We made it clear in the Bill that funding can beprovided to support better understanding of theenvironment. That could include funding for bettereducation and understanding of agroecology. Ultimately,good farmers and land managers know their land best.We want to ensure that our future schemes give themthe freedom to choose the best approach, with high-qualityadvice for their land and businesses. Turning to the hon.Lady’s amendment 11, I pay tribute to her work in theAPPG and I recognise that agroecology has sometimesbeen misinterpreted as synonymous with organic farming.That is, of course, one example of an agroecologicalsystem. Let me take the opportunity to reassure theCommittee that we recognise the environmental andanimal health and welfare benefits of agroecologicalfarming systems and principles, including those onorganic farms.

10.15 am

We are designing the ELM scheme with stakeholders,including those in the organic sector, to ensure that itworks for them in a holistic way. We want to ensure thatthe system supports all farm types to deliver environmentalpublic goods, including support for farmers who arealready using sustainable farming methods, as well asnewcomers to the techniques. However, we do not needamendment 11 to give such support. Clause 1(1)(a)already allows us to provide financial assistance tofarmers for the purpose of managing their land ina way that protects or improves the environment. Thatcan include assistance to support organic or otheragroecological methods.

I turn to amendment 3. Under the rules of the EU,we were all required to follow prescriptive definitions.Now that we have freed ourselves from the bureaucraticand inflexible system, we are free to define “publicgoods” as we see them. We hope the approach will givefarmers and land managers much greater flexibility todeliver those goods in a way that best suits them andtheir land.

We subscribe to a broad definition of “environmentallysustainable way”, which goes beyond that used inamendment 3. It includes things such as minimisingharm to the environment, reducing the exploitation ofnatural resources, protecting natural assets and restoringdegraded natural capital. We want to focus our effortsnot just on protecting the environment and limiting orreducing damage, but on encouraging active improvement.I appreciate that the hon. Member for Cambridge wishesto add clarity to the term “environmentally sustainableway”, but I fear that, in practice, this could limit the wayit is understood in the Bill. We might fall into the trap ofrepeating the failings of the current system, wherebylegal definitions have undoubtedly restricted the evolutionof more sustainable policy.

When framing a financial assistance scheme, the Secretaryof State will consider the need to encourage food productionin a sustainable way. That could include production inways that minimise harm to the environment and reducethe exploitation of capital resources. However, it couldalso include production that protects natural assets andrestores degraded natural capital. I ask hon. Membersnot to press these amendments.

Daniel Zeichner: We have had a good discussionpointing out some of the interesting trade-offs andtensions that we face as we look ahead. I was struck bythe point made by the right hon. Member for Scarboroughand Whitby, because it seems there are potentially manyunintended consequences of the changes that we areabout to make. I absolutely understand his point aboutoversupply. All I would say is that if we are trying totackle the climate crisis, we will have to managethe transition. That is one of the great challenges ofthe Bill.

A long time ago, I was a student of early moderneconomic history. The terrible crisis that faced farmersand communities was the constant problem of howpeople deal with dearth and plenty. Year after year, wesaw populations across Europe struggling with that. Igently suggest that the post-war settlement, and thedevelopment of a system to try to manage that problem,was what the common agricultural policy was originally


about. That is one of the reasons that we now have tochange it and reform it. It was never set up to deal withthe environmental challenges, although there have beenattempts to reform it. The basic question of how weensure that we have sufficient food for our population,and a decent return for those producing it and living inrural communities, does not go away just because it hasnot been a problem for a while.

Mr Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensibleand considered point. My concern was that, in the sameway as we strove to reduce our carbon footprint in themetallurgical industries by offshoring some of theproduction of steel and aluminium outside our country,we might see a risk. For example, it is virtually impossibleto produce oilseed rape in an organic way; the weedpressure is such that it is almost impossible. We mightfind that we export production of oilseed rape to countrieswhere that production is less sustainable, resulting inmore carbon being burned and possible deforestation.

The Chair: Order. May I take this opportunity toremind Members that interventions should be shortand to the point? There is plenty of time to makespeeches in the debate.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful, Mr Stringer. I am alsograteful to the right hon. Gentleman for making thatpoint. One difficulty we have in discussing the Bill isthat the philosophical underpinning is somewhat absent.These big questions of what agriculture is for, andwhether we are going to have a future, sustainableagricultural system, trouble many of us. As I saidearlier, those issues do not go away. He made a verystrong point, which many Opposition Members willreturn to, about the danger of effectively moving theenvironmental harm elsewhere. That is a key stickingpoint, which I suspect will be returned to on manyoccasions.

We want to ensure that we can manage a transition. Iwould like to see us get to a much more sustainablesystem. I hope that the discussions we are having providea structure to allow people to make that transition. Thedanger is that it becomes more expensive, as the righthon. Gentleman pointed out.

We may move to lower levels of food production inthis country. That is a matter to be debated. Providedthe standards elsewhere are good enough, from ourpoint of view, it would not necessarily be the case thatwe would want to maintain the current levels. We willcome to that when we discuss food security, no doubt. Itis always tempting to say that we should continue as weare, because that happens to be where we are now.Looking ahead, do we think the world is safer than itwas or not? Those are the questions worth asking.

Returning to discussion of the amendment, many ofus would like to see much more local, sustainableproduction. People worry about food miles involved.Having rehearsed these debates in the past, I am surethere are transport experts in the room who will pointout that it is not simple. Not being far away geographicallydoes not necessarily produce a lower carbon footprint.

Those are matters that people rightly want to discussand challenge. There is no better person to challengethose than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East,

who displays a passionate knowledge. She has beenbending my ear on this issue for the best part of twodecades. [Interruption.] Sorry. That was when my hon.Friend was a very young person.

As is often the case, people are proved to be right. Iam not sure that when my hon. Friend was embarkingon those points two decades ago, everyone would necessarilyhave agreed or given her the space to make those points.She has been proved right. It is important to pursue thematter in the amendment. I take the Minister’s pointthat it might be possible to secure some support throughthe environmental land management schemes. Withoutwanting to sound like a broken record, it would havebeen a lot easier if we had had further detail on thatearlier. That is why I think it is reasonable for us to keeppressing.

I understand that the Government did not have entirecontrol over the political agenda in the past couple ofyears, but this has been done in the wrong order. Thefood strategy is really important, and we welcome it,but it just seems to be the wrong way round. The foodstrategy should be set first, followed by discussion onhow to achieve it. We are in the curious position oftrying to second-guess what is going to happen. Giventhat it may well be set in stone, as this is a key momentin agricultural policy, and may have to stand the test oftime for 40 years, it is difficult to approach the matter inthis order.

I fully appreciate what the Minister said about tacklingpoverty. From our side, every opportunity to tacklepoverty is worth pursuing. It is a striking feature of toomany parts of our country that the opportunity forpeople to eat healthily has been withdrawn from localcommunities. Sometimes, it is all very well to point thefinger at individuals, but individuals can only choosefrom the choices that are offered to them. Ironically, it isnot only in cities—in many villages and rural communitieswe have seen the absence of local shops. Of course, themarket will do what the market will do unless weintervene.

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

Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): I am gratefulto my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I amhere in my capacity as a Whip today. Does he agree thatthe time will come when people will look back on theBill as a lost opportunity? We have not grasped this—thepoint of agriculture, as many farmers, including Membersopposite know, is to grow food. Is this not the time totackle food poverty?

Daniel Zeichner: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.There is considerable enthusiasm in many communitiesto grasp that opportunity, if it is given. Many communities


[Daniel Zeichner]

do not have the resources necessary to do it themselves,without some external help and support. This is exactlythe opportunity to do that.

I will touch on the Minister’s initial discussion ofhow Environmental Land Management schemes mayoperate. We are all enthusiastic and want them to workwell. I have rather enjoyed the images that the Secretaryof State has occasionally conjured up of a cosy chataround the farmhouse table. I caution the Conservativeparty—I think country suppers got it into trouble in thepast. Members opposite may want to reflect that not allfarms are the same. I have often noticed over the yearsthat the kind of farms I have been invited to arewonderful, astonishing places—the crème de la crèmeof our system. Not all farms, in my experience—I goback to my days as a rural district councillor in Norfolk—are like that. For many farmers, it is tough. As we knowfrom the statistics, they are barely eking out a living insome places. I have never been entirely convinced thatall those farms would be quite so welcoming to theagri-economist turning up to have a discussion. Fromtheir perspective, it may feel a touch intrusive, if theyare told to make changes that they will find very difficult.

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

10.30 am

We hear what the Minister says and we will hold herto it in future. There is plenty of opportunity for theagri-ecological sector to take advantage of these newschemes. In the meantime, partly because we do nothave the level of detail to give us the assurance we need,I will push this amendment to a Division.

Question put, that the amendment be made.


Division No. 2]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria



‘(ca) improving public health;’.

This amendment would add ‘improving public health’ to the list ofpurposes for financial assistance given under clause 1, with ‘improvingpublic health’ defined in Amendment 35.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 35, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at endinsert—

‘“improving public health” includes—

(a) increasing the availability, affordability, diversity,quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables andpulses,

(b) reducing farm antibiotic and related veterinaryproduct use, and antibiotic resistance in harmfulmicro-organisms, through improved animal healthand welfare,

(c) providing support for farmers to diversify outof domestic production of foods where theremay be reduced demand due to public concernsover issues such as health, environment, andanimal welfare, and

(d) reducing harm from use of chemicals on farms,and reducing pesticide residues in food;’.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 34.

Daniel Zeichner: The amendments cover a huge numberof areas that could occupy us for many hours, nodoubt. I promise I shall spare the Committee that.Greatly missing from the Bill, however, is the understandingthat how we manage our agricultural systems not onlyhas implications for the environment but for publichealth. What we grow and the support we provide forthat affects the availability of healthy food, as we havealready discussed. The current overuse of antibiotics tocounter high stocking densities in livestock continues tobe linked to worrying trends in levels of antibiotic-resistantdiseases. Pesticide use can also have impacts beyondbiodiversity on human health.

The Government’s White Paper “Health and Harmony:the future for food, farming and the environment in aGreen Brexit”, which prefigured the Bill, highlightedthe key links between our agricultural and food supplysystems and public health outcomes. Yet, as my predecessorpointed out, where has health gone in the Bill? It doesnot seem to be there, and we think it should be.

Amendment 34 would therefore include “improvingpublic health” in the list of public goods for whichfarmers would be eligible to receive financial assistance.Amendment 35 outlines specific priority areas we believeshould receive funding, including the key areas of reducingantibiotic use; reducing harm from the use of chemicalsand pesticides, particularly pesticide residue on food;and increasing the availability and affordability of healthyproduce such as fruits, vegetables and pulses to encouragehealthier diets.

Reducing antibiotic use in particular is a clear globalpublic good. We know that antimicrobial resistance isincreasing across the world and that the United Nationshas identified the overuse of antibiotics in farming asone of the biggest emerging threats to human health. Inparticular, routine preventive dosing of healthy animalswith antibiotics has implications for the rise of potentiallyfatal viruses, and we have already seen outbreaks ofviral diseases that have spread to people, such as bird fluand swine flu, which have been directly linked to intensivefarming.

Over the last few years, our farmers have rightly cutback on using antibiotics. We appreciate that, but webelieve that more needs to be done. We also think thatmoving outside the European Union and its rules hasput a question mark over our position on that. At the


moment, we have our UK voluntary standard producedby RUMA—the Responsible Use of Medicines inAgriculture alliance—which requires farmers to avoidroutine use of antibiotics, but we still do not havelegislation banning the routine use of preventive antibioticson groups of healthy animals in the UK.

The European Union has seen the light and hasagreed to end the use of all routine antibiotic use,including group preventive treatments, by January 2022.So far as I am aware, however, we have heard nothingfrom the Government on whether we will follow suit. Iwould appreciate the Minister’s observations.

We believe that we need concrete incentives in the Billto reduce antibiotic use now. I am well aware thatfarmers operate in a marketplace and need to producefood at affordable prices, and indeed at various pricepoints. That is why we believe that help for people islegitimate when we want to make that change. Financeshould be made available to support farmers to makethose changes.

Surprisingly, as far as we can see, the Bill makes littlemention of pesticides. We will discuss the need tomonitor pesticide use in relation to the environmentwith a later amendment, but we all know that thosechemicals can have an effect on human health. Lastyear, Soil Association research showed that reliance onmodern intensive farming methods means that everyday we are exposed to traces of potentially carcinogeniccompounds left on fruit and veg. I suspect that we willreturn to such contentious points later, but some foodstufftested by the Soil Association was contaminated withup to 14 different chemicals.

In the evidence sessions, we heard some of the difficultquestions about the science of such issues, and I fullyadmit that it is contested. None the less, it is important.When we used to work under the precautionary principle,we were cautious about such things. According to theExpert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food, pesticidetraces were found in 45% of thousands of tested samplesof food and drink bought in the UK in 2018, so it is asignificant issue.

The potential implications of repeated spraying ofpesticides in rural areas on the health of rural communitieshas also been well documented in the past, although Ifully acknowledge that all farmers are cautious andcareful, not least because of the costs involved—peopledo not do this willy-nilly—but, sadly, not always inways that necessarily protect the adjoining ruralcommunities.

Mr Goodwill: I understand that pesticide residuesmust be minimised, but is it not the case that the currentgeneration that is living to ever-increasing ages, withmore people than ever before at 100 years of age, is thefirst generation not to be brought up entirely on organicfood?

Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman temptsme to go back to the Marmot report. Sadly, not everyoneis living to 100—not everyone necessarily wants to liveto 110 or 120, of course—and the worry is that theincrease in life expectancy appears to have stalled. However,he makes an important point. I am not one of thosewho thinks that life was so much better in the past.Most of us can recognise plenty to celebrate in themodern world and in the technological advances wehave made, but alongside those advances we have learnt

some of the downsides and unintended consequences ofsome of the things that we can now do. Perhaps we areat a point in time—to go back to this being a keymoment in developing our policy for the future—tolook at the decisions made 40 years ago to tacklescarcity and shortage. Now, we might be tackling adifferent set of problems. That is why the debate is soimportant, but the right hon. Gentleman makes animportant contribution.

Going back to the potential issues with pesticides, inMarch 2017 the report of the United Nations specialrapporteur on the right to food highlighted the fact thatchronic exposure to agricultural pesticides has beenassociated with several diseases and conditions, includingcancer, developmental disorders and sterility, and thatthose living near crop fields are particularly vulnerableto exposure to those chemicals.

Again, I acknowledge that some of that is contested,but it would be unwise to suggest that there is nopotential problem here. If we can find ways of reducingthe risk, that is surely something to be sought. It is alsothe case that, while those who are administering thepesticides should use protective equipment when usingagricultural pesticides and there are clear guidelinesand rules on that, adjacent rural residents and communitiesdo not necessarily have anything like the same protection—most do not have any protection at all—and there arestill no mandatory measures in the UK specifically forthe protection of those rural systems.

Alongside that, boosting our supply of fruit and vegis particularly important for public health, as we havejust discussed, so that people can have access to fresh,sustainably produced fruit and vegetables closer to home.We know that low intake of fruit and veg is among themost important dietary risk factors for chronic disease,including heart disease and stroke. I am told that, sadly,only 31% of British adults and 8% of children currentlyachieve the Government’s recommendation of five portionsof fruit and vegetables per day.

We are using far less of our agricultural land toproduce fruit and vegetables than we could—only 1.4% inEngland, when the Public Health Policy EvaluationUnit estimates that we could be using up to 19% of landto cultivate crops of fruit and vegetables. Looking back,we had a very different mix in past times. This is part ofthe wider discussion about the extent to which we arepart of a global trading system and want to importthings that we could very well produce here. Again, it ispart of the economic trade-offs.

Kerry McCarthy: I was pleased to see mention ofpulses in amendment 35. People often talk about fruitand veg, but pulses are not only good for the soil, interms of fixing nitrogen, but an important part of ahealthy diet. In certain parts of the country, includingEast Anglia, which my hon. Friend is very familiarwith, they are a booming part of the agricultural sector.For example, for people who cannot handle gluten,there are pea-based pizza bases and things like that. Ihave spoken to producers about them. Does he agreethat we ought to be pushing that as well?

Daniel Zeichner: As ever, I find myself in agreementwith my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. Iam still chastened by one of the hon. Members opposite


[Daniel Zeichner]

chiding me about my comments on eastern England atthe evidence session, because I am very proud of easternEngland, but I do reflect occasionally that the landscapehas changed over the decades. We are very efficient foodproducers, but—there is always a but—there have beensome costs to that in terms of environmental degradation.There is an opportunity, through these changes, tomove some of that production to the kind that my hon.Friend is suggesting.

My guess, although I do not know for sure, is thatmany farmers would be quite happy to do that, becausewe know that farmers tend to operate within the rulesthat this place sets. That is why we have a responsibilityto make that more attractive and to incentivise it, andnot necessarily to make it attractive to carry on as wehave done in the past. There is a real opportunity there,and I am sure we will talk further about diversificationopportunities, but I must say that I worry sometimesabout imagining that everyone wants to be diversified.Some people went into farming because that is whatthey want to do and they do it very well, and we shouldrecognise that.

Going back to fruit and veg, the Public HealthPolicy Evaluation Unit’s written evidence to the Committeeestimates that, if there were a gradual increase in landuse for fruit and vegetable production to 10% of suitableland, fruit and vegetable intake could increase by around3.7% and 7.8% respectively. That could prevent or postponearound 3,890 cardiovascular disease deaths between2021 and 2030. My guess is that the science is not exact,but the drift of the argument is clear. There is anopportunity here, and I very much hope that, as wediscuss the environmental land management schemes inmore detail, we will be reassured by the possibilities.

10.45 am

According to that written evidence, financial assistanceshould be further available to support fruit and vegetabledemand by

“improving local accessibility, quality, and affordability…supportingshorter supply chains through local markets and farm shops,investing in marketing and promotion of local fruit and vegetables,supporting public procurement of British fruit and vegetables,and promoting other innovative measures, such as community-supported agriculture.”

I suspect that there is nothing in that paragraph towhich Conservative Members would object. The questionis whether we can amend the Bill to make that publicgood easier to achieve.

We do not accept that this is out of the scope of theBill. Public health is also about public choices. Action isclearly needed, beyond the farm gate, to curb the processingand marketing of unhealthy foods, which we still see,and to ensure, vitally, that our farm policy promoteshealthy food production and does not support thecontinued production of foods or the operation ofsystems that contribute to unhealthy or unsafe diets,with all the associated wider costs to society and theeconomy.

We firmly believe that public health issues stemmingfrom or connected to agriculture should absolutely beconsidered in the Bill.

Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hisconsidered amendments—I am enjoying his philosophicalapproach. I was brought up by a farmer who studiedphilosophy at university—he has joined us to watch—sothe hon. Gentleman’s approach is one with which I amvery at home. My first job for that farmer was sellingplums at the side of the road, and the hon. Gentlemanmay have noticed that my Christian name is that of thebest-selling plum variety.

I heard and agreed with a lot of what the hon.Gentleman said about fruit, vegetables and pulses. It iscrucial that we recognise the many connections betweenagriculture and public health. DEFRA is working closelywith the Department of Health and Social Care andothers to ensure that we put the improvement of publichealth at the heart of everything that we do.

I spoke earlier about Henry Dimbleby’s independentreview to develop a national food strategy, and I amgrateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for it. Wehope that it will ensure that safe, healthy and affordablefood is available to everyone, regardless of where theylive or how much they earn. We are also investingsignificantly in schools, to promote physical activityand healthy eating, through various programmes, includingthe healthy start, the school fruit and vegetable and thenursery milk schemes.

Turning to the amendments and to support for fruitand vegetables and—as the request of the hon. Memberfor Bristol East mentioned—pulses, the UK enjoys ahigh degree of food security, which is built on access toa range of different sources, including domestic productionand imports. Our climate means that, try as we might,we cannot grow everything here, so access to a range offood sources is important. Having said that, I lovebuying British fruit and vegetables, and I encourageothers to do so.

The Bill will enable us to continue enhancing foodsecurity by supporting the adoption of new technologiesto help producers and to extend our domestic growingseasons. Such an increase in domestic production couldhelp to increase the availability of different foods throughoutthe year, reducing imports and leading to a reduction inprices for the consumer. Of course Victoria plums arethe best, but many other plum varieties come to fruitionearlier and later in the season. We may need to supportsuch native species when considering financial assistancegiven under the scheme.

A joined-up and practical approach across Departmentsis required to tackle public health and food issuesproperly. That is beyond the scope of the Bill alone, butI reassure the Committee that we are committed toincrease demand for and access to healthy food. Oneexample is the school fruit and vegetable scheme, whichprovides 2.3 million children in key stage 1 with fruit orvegetables every day.

Subsection (1)(f) allows the Government to give financialassistance to protect or improve the

“health or welfare of livestock”.

We will use the power to develop schemes to tackleendemic diseases, which will support a responsible reductionin antimicrobials and other veterinary medicines and,through that, better public health. More needs to bedone on antimicrobials, and the Bill provides the abilityto give financial assistance to encourage good practice,but I also refer the hon. Member for Cambridge to the


UK five-year action plan for tackling antimicrobialresistance. The Bill provides carrots—if I may use thatterm—but we also have regulatory sticks, as not everythingcan be provided for within that context.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance ofensuring that farmers can make a choice to diversifyand respond quickly and flexibly to market demand.Our intention through the Bill is to enable farmers andgrowers to improve productivity, better tap into marketdemand and provide new protections to first producersfrom unfair trading practices. That is particularly importantfor growers of high-value fruit and vegetables, who toooften see produce returned by retailers and processorsfor no good reason—I was brought up hearing all aboutthat at the farm table. The Bill gives farmers and growersthe ability to challenge such practices.

On the use of farming chemicals and pesticides, weare already committed to protecting people and theenvironment from the risks that such products cancreate. Strict regulation already permits the sale and useof pesticides only where thorough scientific assessmentshows that they will not harm people or pose unacceptablerisks to the environment. The Department is carryingout a review of the national action plan for the sustainableuse of pesticides, which will focus on introducing integratedpest management and alternatives to pesticides. Someof that will come within the practices that we are tryingto encourage in the Bill, but some will remain a matterfor strict regulation.

We are already working hard across Government totackle the issues raised in the amendment. I am confidentthat the Bill already provides broad powers to supportfurther activity in these key areas, so I ask the hon.Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I have listened closely to the Minister.In some ways, this goes to the heart of the problem inour discussion: the Opposition are raising a series ofthings that we think should have funding and supportthrough the new system, and although £3 billion issmall compared with the DWP budget, it is a considerableamount of public money, which in the past went directlyto farmers. For many of them, the question is: how willthe new system work? As I suggested—this point hasbeen made not just by the Opposition but by seniorGovernment Members—the idea is that the money willtransfer over almost seamlessly, provided that farmersdo a bit of this or that, but that is not necessarily how itcranks out.

While I absolutely trust what the Minister says aboutthe Government’s abilities through the environmentalland management schemes, I am sure she understandswhy there is concern. That is why we want this detail inthe Bill. Again, the point has been made before byGovernment Members that, in future, there may be lessrural-friendly Ministers, who may be tempted to look atthe budget line and think, “Well, given that the localschool is struggling and the local health service isstruggling”—the Minister knows entirely what I amtalking about. This needs to be nailed down in the Bill.

I appreciate the difficulty the Minister has, because Isuspect she probably agrees, but that is why we think itis necessary to set out these various public goods toprotect them. It has been said to me by farmers that,actually, farmers do quite well under Labour Governments,

so I do not suggest that there will be any problem downthe line. However, not everyone necessarily will alwaysbe as sympathetic, so it would be very much in theinterests of communities—particularly those that manyGovernment Members represent—to take a safety-firstapproach and tie down these public goods.

This is our opportunity to make it easier for farmers,as they go through this difficult transition, to access themoney that the Government have promised will beavailable during this Parliament. My concern is thatsome of them will find that money not very easy toaccess, so why not widen the scope so that, where theycan see things they could do with some help and supportfor—transferring production to pulses, fruit and vegetables,for example, or tackling some of the difficult issuesaround pesticide use—they are enabled to do them?This goes back to economics. Essentially, we want farmersto be able to survive, but if they are disadvantaged inany way, they will struggle. Why not use the resourcethat is available in a way that farmers can understandand that will help them?

We urge the Committee to support amendment 34 forthat reason, but also because it would send the rightmessage about these public health issues. I represent anarea with a strong life sciences sector, and antimicrobialresistance has been brought to my attention constantlysince the moment I was elected four and a half yearsago. It is difficult. I lose track of Prime Ministers, butthe Prime Minister before the one before the currentone—David Cameron—had Jim O’Neill do a lot ofwork on this issue. I think there is cross-party agreementabout it; it is not a party political issue. It is a realconcern and a real worry, and I am in no doubt thatfarmers also worry about it. However, market pressures—Ikeep returning to the same point—dictate that peopledo certain things. We must therefore act to mitigatethose pressures and to provide help and support. We arein the slightly unusual position of having a £3 billionbudget. Normally, one has to make the argument, butthe money is there; the question is how it will beaccessed and used. What better use could there be thantackling some of these big public health issues?

I probably should have intervened on the Minister toask about schools support, but I was still ruminatingover what she was saying—I think I was stuck onVictoria plums. It is not entirely clear to me that the Billwill allow some of that money to be utilised in that way.I guess we will not know until we get down to the detailof the environmental land management schemes, butwe would like to make it clearer, as we seek to dothroughout this process, not least because that wouldgive farmers the certainty that the Government rightlysay they want to give them.

On that basis, I am afraid that I would like, yet again,to press the amendment to a Division. We think it is ofconsiderable importance.

Question put, That the amendment be made.


Division No. 3]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel


NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


11 am

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, after “(d)”insert

“limiting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture or horticultureor encouraging activities that reduce such emissions or removegreenhouse gas from the atmosphere, or otherwise”.

This amendment explicitly provides for limiting and reducinggreenhouse gas emissions to be one of the purposes for which financialassistance is given.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to move thisamendment, which would make it explicit that the publicgoods for which farmers can receive financial assistanceshould be activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissionsfrom agriculture. The Opposition believe that the currentwording in clause 1(1)(d), which refers to

“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates oradapts to climate change”,

is not strong enough. We must do more and go further.Mitigating is lessening the impact of something that ishappening, not preventing it; adaptation is managingthe impacts that we are already seeing. We think it isextremely important that the money that will go fromdirect payments into environmental support should explicitlytarget emissions reduction. The wording is importantthroughout the Bill, and not least in clause 1.

It is essential that climate change as a cause is frontand centre of the Bill. It will be one of the mostimportant measures introduced by the House in thecoming decade to tackle the climate emergency genuinelyand effectively. Through the support of the public goods,it will be a central mechanism by which we can reduceemissions from our land management and deliver thenature-based solutions to climate change that we knowwe need, such as peatland restoration and woodlandcreation.

Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that the Bill needsfar more than one line on climate change, especially aswe have established that the provision effectively statesthat the Secretary of State “may”—not even “must”—givefinancial assistance for the relevant climate mitigationor adaptation. There is no bite to that, and no certaintyor urgency.

The Bill should set a target for agriculture to reachnet zero carbon, and I have no doubt we will return tothat later. The National Farmers Union is alreadycommitted to that. There is no reason not to have asector-specific target for agriculture when we know howsignificant its contribution is to emissions and howmuch support the sector will need to reduce it.

The 2019 progress report by the Committee on ClimateChange showed that agriculture in all parts of theUnited Kingdom is not on track to meet any of itsindicators. There has been no progress in reducingemissions from agriculture since 2008. As only 30% ofdirect payments are currently secured through meeting

greening requirements, we know that the lack of financialsupport for farmers to adapt their practices to focus onclimate change has been a key part of that, which is whyit is so important to get the financial provisions tosupport farmers right in the Bill.

A great deal of the Bill, as I am sure we will discuss inthe coming weeks, places great trust in the hands offuture Secretaries of State. That is particularly evidentin relation to prioritising climate change. As the divisionof funding between the various clause 1 public goods isunknown, as has been alluded to already, we very muchhope that clause 1(1)(d), in whatever form it goes forward,will have a greater focus on that funding.

The Committee on Climate Change’s progress reportcontained clear recommendations on agriculture andland use, and on the development of an effective post-CAPframework, and firm policies to reduce greenhouse gasemissions. There is ample room for consolidation in theBill. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.I say to the Minister that there is no harm in acceptingan amendment that allows the Government to maketheir intentions for emissions reductions in agriculturemore explicit with a slight but important wording change.

Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Lady for drawingattention to this important and pressing topic. We onthe Government side are committed to leaving ourenvironment in a better condition than we found it.That includes facing the challenges associated withclimate change and with greenhouse gas emissions.That is why we legislated in June 2019 to introduce a netzero target to end the UK’s contribution to the mostserious environmental challenge we face: climate change.We are the first major economy in the world to legislatefor a carbon net zero target.

We have not made sector-specific targets, so I will notbe accepting the hon. Lady’s amendment, although weare pleased with the ambitious target set by the NationalFarmers Union for its members. We are committed tocontinuing to work with the agricultural industry totackle climate change together. One example is the£10 million of Government money given in May 2018to help restore more than 10,000 football pitches’ worthof England’s iconic peatlands, which she referred to.This year we will establish a lowland agricultural peattask force that will build on the work already begun inthis important area.

Kerry McCarthy: On the subject of peatlands—Ihave an amendment on this, to be considered later—it isone thing to talk about restoring peatlands, but ifgrouse moor owners are being allowed to burn peatlands,a huge amount of damage is being done, by destroyingwhat is a natural carbon sink and releasing carbon intothe atmosphere. Does she agree with me, and with herministerial colleague in the House of Lords—he hasindicated that he believes this too—that we ought toban that practice?

Victoria Prentis: I do not necessarily agree that allburning should be banned outright. Some low-levelburning is not necessarily as harmful to the environmentas the hon. Lady suggests. We can agree on the importance


of peatland as a place to store carbon, and the importanceof working together to ensure that peatland is restoredand improved.

I move on to our £90 million industrial strategychallenge fund—the transforming food production initiative.Through this fund, we support industry-driven researchand development to move agricultural systems towardsnet zero emissions. It has some relevance to the pointmade by the hon. Member for Newport West. It isimportant for us always to be open-minded and able tolook at evidence. Everything we do must be evidence-basedin this important area. This investment will support thedevelopment and adoption of advanced precisiontechnologies and solutions to boost the efficiency ofour agriculture. It will help to ensure that we producehigh-value food in a way that maximises productivityand environmental performance.

The original drafting of the clause enabled the Secretaryof State to give financial assistance for the purpose of

“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates oradapts to climate change.”

We envisage that these objectives will be delivered by abroad spectrum of activities, and therefore all agriculturalor horticultural activities that contribute to this purposewould already be within scope of funding supportunder clause 1(1)(d), as drafted. I hope that I havedemonstrated that we already have the powers in theBill to cover the proposed content.

Daniel Zeichner: On that point, the concern sharedby many of us since the previous Agriculture Bill is thatthe climate emergency seized all of us and yet there isno net zero target. The National Farmers Union say2040. What is the Government’s view?

Victoria Prentis: The Government legislated for netzero emissions, and in doing so we decided not to makesector-specific targets, but we absolutely support theNFU’s ambitions. I do not know whether the hon.Gentleman watched “Countryfile” at the weekend, butthere was an interesting piece on agricultural emissionsthat mentioned both livestock practices and the keepingof nitrogen within soil. This debate, as he says, is notreally partisan; we do not have different passions forthis. We need to work carefully together, always lookingat all the evidence, with improved support for researchand development, which the Bill absolutely providesfor. I hope that we will be able to meet the NFU’sexacting targets.

Kerry McCarthy: My concern is that other sectorshave quite a clear road map for how we get to net zero,and carbon budgets that deal with that. I have neverseen that for agriculture. I was quite worried that theprevious Secretary of State seemed to think that theanswer was all about technological solutions and weirdand wonderful things, rather than in how the land isfarmed. That is what is missing. Some of us have beentalking about this for a very long time, but the Ministertalks as if these solutions are new to the table and needto be investigated. There are a lot of good practicesout there that would help. Why is there not a clearagenda or line of direction from the Government forachieving that?

The Chair: Order. May I make it clear that there is nolimit to the number of times Members can contribute,but there is a limit to the length of interventions? Iwould be grateful if hon. Members could be precise andto the point with their interventions.

Victoria Prentis: The hon. Lady and I will discussthese issues over many years. I point out one importantchange made in the new version of the Bill relating tosoil quality. It is really important that we recognise thatsoil is itself an essential natural asset and very importantto the way we work to reduce carbon emissions.

I do not want to trespass on your time any further,Mr Stringer. I hope that I have shown that we alreadyhave the powers in the Bill—that was just one example—tocover the proposed content of the amendment, and Ihope I have demonstrated the Government’s commitmentto making good use of those powers. I therefore ask thehon. Member for Newport West to withdraw theamendment.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her consideredthoughts on the matter. Labour Members are united onthis. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, this is crucialto how we move forward. We need to make sure that wegive a clear message, and the Bill gives the perfectopportunity to send a clear message to the agriculturalsector.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East talkedabout the road map for other areas and how we do nothave one for agriculture. We have all heard about thegood farmers and how they will be necessarily workingwith agronomists, but in terms of assistance and guidance,the Bill could be key to ensuring that everybody workstogether and does what is necessary for the greatergood, of not only of the UK but of the planet as awhole.

We heard about the peatlands. Although there issome debate about this, we know that it is crucial thatwe maintain our existing peatlands. We need to makesure that tree planting continues apace. We know thatthe Government are missing their target on that by atleast 70%. We need to plant millions and millions oftrees, not the odd thousand here or there. That is notgood enough. This is what we need to work towards.

Land managers need guidance and support, and theBill should show the way, blazing a trail. The Ministerquite rightly alludes to the climate change emergencydeclared last year by her Government, but it is importantto make sure that we carry on. We cannot just declareand stop; we need to say, “Declare and so what?”. Weneed to move forward.

11.15 am

If we were in any doubt about the climate changeemergency, we need to look no further than StormCiara and Storm Dennis last weekend and the weekendbefore, and the devastation that has been caused by soilerosion and poor management of the rivers. The floodinghas been horrific and people’s lives have been devastated—some people have actually lost their lives. Businessesand family homes, as well as livestock, have been lost. It


is terrible. This is a wake-up call for us to ensure that westand up and be counted, and the Bill is a brilliant wayto do that.

The Minister has made it clear that we are all singingfrom the same hymn sheet. If that is the case, let usput it down in writing; let us legislate for it. The Billtalks a great deal about “powers” rather than “duties”,which is great if we have a Secretary of State who iscompletely committed. However, let us not rely onSecretaries of State as individuals; let us legislate, sothat we have it in writing and know exactly what we areall working towards.

Limiting greenhouse gas emissions is crucial for achievingthe goal of saving the planet. We must all work togetherin this endeavour, which is why we will not withdrawthe amendment.



Division No. 4]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria



11.18 am




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Sixth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 1 agreed to, with an amendment.

Adjourned till Thursday 27 February at half-past Eleven o’clock.


PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than







† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)










(Afternoon)


Agriculture Bill

2 pm

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): On a point oforder, Sir David. First, it is a pleasure to serve with youin the Chair. My point of order is straightforward. Weare happy with the Government’s response to our concernsabout the publication this morning of the “EnvironmentalLand Management” policy discussion document, whichI am sure we all read over lunch. We were concernedthat we would not have been able to table furtheramendments, but my understanding is that the Committeewill adjourn once we finish debating clause 1 and wehave been advised that it will be possible for us to tableamendments for consideration on Thursday. I am gratefulfor that sensible solution to the delay.

The Chair: That is the most sensible point of order Ihave heard for a long time. I understand that the policypaper relevant to the Bill was published earlier today,and I have it in front of me. It is helpful that thatdocument has been made available to the Committee asit considers the Bill, and I hope that Members will bebetter informed as a result.

The hon. Member has answered his own question,but he asked whether fresh amendments, on pointsarising from the policy paper, may be tabled for debateon Thursday, even though the usual notice period willnot have been observed. I have spoken to Mr Stringer,and we are prepared to use our discretion to considerany such amendments for selection for debate in theThursday morning sitting, which Mr Stringer will chair.However, we will consider selecting amendments only ifthey meet three criteria—namely, that they arise fromthe policy paper; that they apply to a part of the Billthat the Committee has not yet considered; and, mostimportantly, that they are tabled before the rise of theHouse today. There is no wavering on those criteria.

Daniel Zeichner: Thank you, Sir David. I am gratefulfor the good sense that has prevailed.

The Chair: There will be a Division in the Houseat 4 o’clock. If there is only one vote, as I suspect willbe the case, we will adjourn for 15 minutes and returnat 4.15 pm.

Clause 1

SECRETARY OF STATE’S POWERS TO GIVE FINANCIAL

ASSISTANCE

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 40, inclause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert“, including measures to improve the standard of accommodation forfarrowing sows”.

See explanatory statement for NC12.



“(ca) section [Sow farrowing stalls],”.

See explanatory statement for NC12.

New clause 12—Sow farrowing stalls—

“Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of the Welfare of FarmedAnimals (England) Regulations 2007 shall be omitted.”

This new clause and Amendments 40 and 41 would end the use of sowfarrowing crates (subject to a delayed commencement) and addimproving the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows to thepurposes for financial assistance in Clause 1.

Daniel Zeichner: Amendment 40 relates to clause 1(1)(f),on

“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”,

and would ensure that farmers receive financial assistanceto improve the standard of accommodation for farrowingsows. New clause 12 and amendment 41 would endthe use of sow farrowing crates, subject to delayedcommencement at the discretion of the Secretary ofState. The provision in clause 53 means that the banoutlined in new clause 12 would not come into effectimmediately when the Bill becomes an Act, but on suchday that the Secretary of State makes a statutory instrumentto that effect.

That is all totally incomprehensible to most people,but, taken together, the amendments and the new clausewould allow for a phasing out of farrowing stalls andmake available resources and finance to support farmerswith the capital costs of that process, as well as thosewho take interim measures to improve the conditions offarrowing sows. I suspect there will be widespread supportfor that aim, but I fully appreciate that this is a contentioussubject that has been well rehearsed on other occasions.The public take the issue seriously and we would all likeit to be achieved over time. As I have said on manyoccasions, it is a question of ensuring that the resourceis available for people to make changes and to not bedisadvantaged by competition elsewhere.

To give some background, although sow stalls thatkept pigs caged for the entirety of their pregnancy werebanned by Labour in 1999, it is still permitted forfemale pigs to be kept in farrowing stalls for seven daysbefore they give birth and until the piglets are weaned.That can result in sows being caged for up to five weeksat a time. If they farrow twice a year, that means thatthey spend up to three months a year in an extremelyrestricted space. It may be called a crate or a stall, but itis effectively a cage. The crate length is such that the sowis only able to lie down or stand up. The standards statethat the space should not allow excessive free movement.Before anyone jumps in, I will come to the reasons forthat in a moment.

The sow is often completely unable to turn around. Shecan scarcely take a step forwards or backwards, and shecannot reach the piglets placed next to her for suckling. Iam told that 60% of the 350,000 to 400,000 sows in Britainare kept in such crates to give birth. We know that keepingpigs caged in that way causes distress and leads torepeated bar biting, and it limits the pig’s ability to exhibitimportant natural behaviours, such as nest building.


Trapping the animal in that way also creates a breedingground for diseases. E. coli in newly born piglets oftenpresents in conditions where the mothers have beenmoved into farrowing crates to give birth and suckletheir young. We know that is not done out of cruelty; itis done because keeping a mother restrained preventsthe death of piglets by accidental crushing. We wouldargue that that in itself is a direct consequence ofhigh-intensity farming techniques. In normal conditions,in the wild, the mother pigs would make effective nestsand have the space to keep the piglets safe.

As with so much in this area, the research is contested,but robust studies suggest that there is clear evidence ofa significant difference between the mortality rates ofpiglets reared in crated systems and those reared inloose housed systems. There are also other systems,which I shall come on to. The individual farrowing arksor huts used in the outdoor systems of organic farmingare deep bedded with straw. There are many examplesacross eastern England.

Although piglet morality rates can increase in extremelycold and wet weather, UK figures show that outdoorsystems can rear largely the same number of piglets asfarrowing crates. Good production figures have alsobeen attained from the so-called Swedish group system,where each sow has her own box to farrow in and canleave her piglets and carry out normal activity.

We contend that there are alternatives, though wefully appreciate that they are more expensive. The industryrightly points out that consumers buy at different pricepoints and that producers respond to that demand. Weunderstand the economics but, as I said earlier, this isan opportunity to use public money for public good.

This issue has been debated many times in this placeover the past 20 years. We rightly pride ourselves onpursuing higher animal welfare standards, but othercountries are already ahead of us and have moved on toalternative systems. I am told that Norway, Sweden andSwitzerland have already banned farrowing crates andthat free farrowing systems are being developed in otherEuropeancountries,particularlyDenmarkandtheNetherlands.

In response to animal welfare concerns, the SoilAssociation and the Royal Society for the Prevention ofCruelty to Animals already prohibit the use of farrowingcrates under their labelling systems. This is anotherexample of this country’s multi-tiered system of foodproduction, with food being produced at different pricesfor the consumer. The question is how we can liftstandards while protecting the interests of farmers bymaking it economically viable.

Back in 2015, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’sreport on free farrowing systems recommended takingaction to encourage the replacement of farrowing crates,and called for the adoption of free farrowing systems tobe reviewed in five years. Well, 2015 plus five is 2020—itis five years later. We contend that the Bill is the perfectopportunity for the Minister to make it clear that financialsupport for higher animal welfare includes specificprovisions for farrowing sows in relation to such crates.

We recognise that it would be a challenge for theindustry. As I have said, a ban would need to be phasedin with financial support, which is what the amendmentwould provide for. Back in 1999, when sow stalls wererightly banned by the Labour Government, it is undeniablethat that had an impact on the domestic pig industry.

We contend that Government support for alternativesystems is vital to encourage a switch, while protectingthe UK pig sector.

The flipside, of course—this will be a repeated refrain—isthat we have to ensure that any home production ofpigmeat to higher welfare standards is not simply replacedby imports produced in other countries that continue touse such stalls. It is important that we protect all ouranimal welfare standards, and that in upcoming tradedeals we do not sell out our farmers by allowing lower-standard imports. We will insist on provisions beingadded to the Bill to guarantee that, and will seek toamend it later to guarantee against that danger. In themeantime, we urge the Minister to consider this importantclarification to the Bill to allow financial support toimprove pig welfare, specifically in relation to suchrestrictive crates.

Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con):I would not argue with anything the hon. Member hassaid. We all wish to have the very best welfare standardsfor pigs in this country. Indeed, the Red Tractor labelassures customers that very high standards are beingmet. My only slight caution is that history might repeatitself, and the law of unintended consequences may comeinto play. Members may well recall that when veal crateswere banned in the UK, the result was that calves wereflown to Holland and elsewhere to be turned into vealunder the very systems that we wanted to ban. Owing tosingle market rules, we could not ban that movement.

Similarly, when dry sow stalls were banned in 1999,there was an erosion of the British pig market, particularlyby such countries as Denmark and Holland where drysow stalls were still being used. Indeed, most of the EUstill allows dry sow stalls from up to four weeks afterservice to birth, when in some cases they may be putinto farrowing crates as well.

My concern is that, were we to act unilaterally throughlegislation, we could end up having more pigs cominginto the country as imports. It is all very well saying,“Let’s ban the importation of pig products not producedto our high standards.” It would be very difficult to banimports from the European Union given the degree ofreliance on that market and the cross-border tradein pig products. The different parts of the carcase thatare consumed in the UK and in Europe mean that thereis a vibrant market in different cuts of meat, to meetthose particular markets. Were that to be destroyed orundermined, it would cause great problems for theBritish pig industry.

Of course, if we had more pigs coming into the countryfrom abroad, that would mean more castrated pigs. Inthe UK, only 2% of pigs are castrated. In Sweden, thefigure is 94%, in Denmark 95%, the Netherlands 20%,Germany 80%, and Spain 20%. It could, in effect, resultin more pigs coming on to our supermarket shelves andinto our restaurants and cafés produced under systemsthat we do not wish to see in this country. Surely theanswer is not legislation, but better consumer awarenessof those production methods, better labelling, and betterunderstanding of the labelling systems, so that supermarketsand customers, who would be enlightened, can do whatwe did regarding battery cages, which was to get peopleon to free-range eggs not through banning batteries butby consumers understanding that it is right to makechoices based on animal welfare.


[Mr Robert Goodwill]

Although I agree with what the hon. Member forCambridge said about trying to improve standards, Inote that he made the slight caveat that at certain timesof the year, particularly at the moment, some of ouroutdoor farrowing systems result in quite high pigletmortality. I have seen piglets trampled into the mud inthe quagmires in outdoor systems. That aside, we shouldlook at how we can move the industry into a better place,particularly in terms of farrowing crates, but withoutallowing our market to be eroded by other countries,particularly in the European Union, that do not havethe same high welfare standards as us. I would not liketo see history repeating itself in terms of what happenedwith veal crates and dry sow stalls in 1999.

2.15 pm

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is particularlygood, Sir David, to be discussing animal welfare provisionswith you in the Chair. A certain amount of consensushas broken out again in Committee. The Governmentare a world leader in animal welfare and we are absolutelycommitted to retaining that status by strengthening ourstandards. However, we would say that this amendmentdoes not make any legal change to the powers set out inthis Bill and is therefore not a necessary addition. Financialassistance can already be given and is provided forunder section 1(1)(f) in order to protect or improve thehealth and welfare of livestock. That includes schemesfor improving the accommodation of livestock, includingfarrowing sows.

The Government’s aim is for farrowing crates nolonger to be necessary, but it would not be right to endthe use of such crates without examining all the evidencearound their use and considering all the options. It isimportant to recognise how they protect piglets, forexample. The hon. Member for Cambridge talked aboutthat. Alternative farrowing systems in indoor productionare being developed all the time—I have heard aboutsome high-tech solutions with moving floors—whichneed to be investigated fully. They will be expensive toinstall, but that may well be a price worth paying. As thehon. Gentleman said, the public is broadly with us onthat. It may well be the sort of public good for whichthe public is keen to pay, assuming we have sufficienttransparency in our systems to ensure that they understandthat that is what is happening.

The UK has led the way in improving the welfare ofpigs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the banning ofclose confinement stalls in 1999. While approximately60% of UK sows farrow indoors, it is not always thecase that they spend the full length of time that the hon.Gentleman mentioned in such crates. We hope thatfarmers would be able to work to much shorter periodsof time. The remaining 40% of sows are housed outsideand able to farrow in much more natural conditions.The Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs has funded recent research into alternative farrowingsystems and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee hasprovided expert advice on this issue.

As part of our ongoing commitment to animal welfare,we are developing a scheme that aims to improve farmanimal welfare in England. We are exploring a one-offgrants scheme that will help farmers to improve welfare

on farms, for example, by installing new equipment.We are also exploring a payment by results schemewhereby farmers could receive ongoing payments fordeveloping specific animal welfare enhancements. TheAnimalWelfareCommittee, industryandnon-governmentalorganisations will have their say on the welfare outcomesthat are financially supported. For pigs, this could easilyrelate to improved enrichment opportunities to root;improved housing; and tail docking, which has not beendiscussed today.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have keptextremely free-range pigs at home in the past. They areso free range that they have, on occasion, wandered offaround the village. While the Bill aims to support nativebreeds, it may well be that the pigs kept exhibit suchbehaviours. Our most difficult experience was with ironage pigs, which are one-quarter wild boar and do notseem to view fields as any sort of captivity.

We are constantly reviewing our legal standards aspart of our commitment to animal welfare. A newwelfare code for pigs, which includes guidance on farrowinghas been produced, is available online and comes intoforce on 1 March. I think the Committee will broadlywelcome paragraph 158, which says:

“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary andfor any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as herpiglets. Where the sow is confined in a farrowing crate, it shouldbe large enough to accommodate her and to allow her to rise andlie down without difficulty and should be easily accessed in anemergency.”

It goes on to give further specific details.

To my mind, that is an excellent way forward, and theowners and keepers of pigs will have to be aware of andabide by it from 1 March. That is one example of howwe continually update and review secondary legislationunder the animal welfare legislation introduced in 2006.The Government share the public’s high regard foranimal welfare and intend to use the powers in the Billto reward farmers for improving a number of animalwelfare issues. I therefore urge the hon. Member forCambridge to withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister for herresponse. I will not withdraw the amendment.

In a way, the Minister conceded something important—that clause 1(1)(f) shows that resources can be used,which I am sure will be welcome to some. However, theclause also points to some of the general difficulties inthe Bill. The pig sector benefits only indirectly fromsupport under the current system. The clause rathersuggests that money will be moved around the system,and I wonder whether everyone is aware that there willbe winners and losers as a result. As we all know, onegenerally hears from the losers, not the winners, but thatis a problem for the Government, not me. I am pleasedabout that concession, but I do not quite see why theGovernment could not actually do themselves someextra good by making the positive benefits specific, aswe suggest. I encourage them to do that.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond tothe right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Iwas chided by one or two of my colleagues for agreeingwith him too much earlier, but I disagree with himrobustly now, in a civilised way. He makes an importantpoint about where responsibility for these decisions


should lie. We have been trying with labelling over manyyears, and he is right that it has proven more successfulin some areas than others.

However—this is probably a fundamental philosophicaldivision between us—I think that putting the onus ofresponsibility on individual consumers is problematic,not least because, as we heard the evidence sessions andin written evidence, it is pretty clear that many peoplesubscribe to notions of higher standards until they getinto a supermarket and are confronted with price differences.I suspect that many of us in this room are now in thefortunate position of being able to make an informedchoice and not worry so much about the price, but forvast numbers of our fellow citizens, price is still a keydriver. For many people who would probably like tosupport higher standards, if the price is too high, theyhave no choice.

We want not to take that responsibility away from people,but as with so many other things, to make it easier forthem to make the right choice; in other words, toexclude the low-cost alternatives. I am not an economist—itwas suggested earlier that I might be, about which I ampartly flattered and partly not flattered—but there isclear evidence that, if standards are lifted, industriesrespond and prices begin to settle. This is a case ofneeding leadership. We have done it before. There areconsequences, but we have public money to spend, andit could well be that the public would actually be veryhappy that we offered this kind of support, whichwould to some extent get them out of that price dilemma.

It is a bit like the dilemma around the smoking ban. Ilost track of the number of smokers who told me that theywere delighted that, basically, the ban made it easier forthem to give up smoking, because the Government hadintervened. That was during the last Labour Government,and I remember Tony Blair being very nervous aboutsuggestions that he had offloaded responsibility on tolocal councils, which did not go down well. In the end, itneeded cross-party leadership—it has to be somethingsupported across the House—to make it easier forpeople to make the right choice. It is a judgment call.

Mr Goodwill: In many ways, the hon. Gentleman isenlarging on my argument, given that when we banneddry sow stalls consumers chose to buy the cheaper porkand bacon produced in Holland and Denmark, where awas not in place. It made the problem worse in manyways because those consumers made those choices.

Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman is makingmy life much more difficult and I am going to have to behorrid to him again. Yes, in one sense, he is correct, butthat is the challenge. Throughout this, if we do not findways, whether in trade agreements or whatever, to protect—and it is protect—our higher standards against lowerstandards, we are lost entirely. That will be a recurringtheme throughout this debate. I do not think it isbeyond the wit of hon. Members to find a way of doingthat. The right hon. Gentleman may disagree with me,and that will probably be a fundamental point of difference.

I have two final points to make: first, I do notthink it is fair to offload the responsibility entirely on toconsumers. We should take the lead. Secondly, we needto take the lead on making sure that we can protect ourhigher standards. That would attract considerable supportacross the House.



Division No. 5]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 28, after ‘activity’insert—

‘, provided that such assistance does not contradict or underminethe purposes in section 1(1).’

This could possibly be described as a probingamendment. There is general agreement that theGovernment’s commitment to the principle of publicmoney for public goods is welcome. This amendment isa safeguard to ensure that the delivery of public goodsis not undermined by any financial assistance for improvingproductivity. There is some concern that it could mean agreater proportion of the money going to the productivityhead rather than to public goods. If the new environmentalland management scheme is to be successful and providevalue for money, all the payments need to contribute tothe delivery of public goods.

It is still not clear how the future Budget will bedistributed between financial assistance for public goodsand productivity, and there is concern that we could endup with a pillar one and pillar two-type system—again,where public goods take second place. I am seekingassurances from the Minister. If I am confident that herassurances are credible, I will not push this to a vote.

Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Lady for thatassurance. I understand that she wants to ensure thatwe do not provide financial assistance to improveproductivity or production in a way that would harmthe environment or undermine any of the purposes inclause 1. I hope that is a fair summary of what she said.

Kerry McCarthy: It is partly about not underminingthat, but it is also partly about how the money is divviedup. If a huge proportion of the money goes towardsproductivity, it is not clear how the budget will bedivided. That is what I am seeking clarity on—thatthere is money for public goods.

Victoria Prentis: I cannot give the hon. Lady absoluteassurance at the moment as to how the budget will bedivided, as that is a matter for the development of thescheme. We will do a great deal of work developing it,including years of pilots and a great deal of consultation,in which, I am sure, she will be involved. I can assure herthat it is not our intention to put the productivity wingon a higher level than allowing damage to the publicpurposes, which are there to protect the environment,


[Victoria Prentis]

or the other purposes is clause 1. That is absolutely notour intention. Our ambition is to leave the environmentin a better state than we find it.

2.30 pm

We intend to continue to be a world leader in animalwelfare and health standards. We will promote engagement,as is clear from clause 1, with our natural heritage andbeautiful landscapes. However, a productive, competitivefarming sector is also our priority. We think our farmersare among the best in the world, providing healthy andnutritious food for our population. We will supportthem to become more productive, so that they canprovide more home-grown healthy produce.

Kerry McCarthy: Just to clarify, it would help if theMinister could give an assurance that all payments needto contribute to the delivery of public goods, whether itis a payment for productivity or directly for publicgoods. She phrased it to me in the negative—theyshould not undermine public goods—but the intentionof this Bill is that everything should support that publicgoods agenda.

Victoria Prentis: I think the hon. Lady and I aredancing around the same issue, which is that the ambitionsdo not need to be mutually exclusive. We absolutelybelieve that producing food and managing a sustainableenvironment can and should go hand in hand. Improvingproductivity is normally about improving efficiency byusing less energy and fewer pesticides to produce thefood that we eat. Greater efficiency can also mean usingless land, so that other land can be freed up for otherpurposes such as tree planting. I share the hon. Lady’sconcerns, however I feel that her amendment wouldrestrict our ability to offer financial assistance in themost effective way.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend the Member forBristol East has raised a very important point. Thelunchtime reading of the ELMS policy discussion documentprefigures further discussion on this. It is a shame thatwe were not able to have our earlier discussion in thelight of some of these points. To a number of us, onfirst reading, tier 1 does not look sufficiently ambitious,in many cases, and it feeds exactly into my hon. Friend’spoint that there is a worry that we will not get theenvironmental gains that we thought we would. Thatwill be of concern to many. I wonder if the Ministercould clarify that point.

Victoria Prentis: At the moment, I cannot set outhow the ELM scheme will work. That will be workedon, probably by all the people in this room, very carefullyover several years, before we come up with the finalscheme, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman absoluteassurances as to what will happen.

I can say, however, that we added clause 1(4) becausewe wanted a clear requirement—partly because of thework of the previous Agriculture Bill Committee—onthe Secretary of State, in framing any financial assistancescheme, to have regard to the need to encourage foodproduction in an environmentally sustainable way. Ihope that I have provided some reassurance about howwe intend to use the powers in clause 1 so that productivity

is improved in a sustainable way that does not underminethe other purposes in the clause. I cannot go furtherthan that at the moment. I ask the hon. Member forBristol East to withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate why trying to get thebalance correct is a difficult dilemma, but it is crucialthat we do so. We are not satisfied, frankly, that we aregetting the clarity that is required. We understand thatthis is a framework Bill, but much more detail is requiredto give certainty, so—I may be speaking on behalf ofmy colleagues here—we would like to push the amendmentto the vote.

Kerry McCarthy: I am afraid I am not satisfied withthe Minister’s reassurances and would like to push theamendment to a vote.



Division No. 6]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move amendment 14, inclause 1, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4) andinsert—

‘(4) In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretaryof State must have regard to—

(a) the need to encourage the production of food byproducers in England and its production by them inan environmentally sustainable way; and

(b) the need to ensure that all farms and horticulture units,including those smaller than five hectares, can accessfinancial assistance.”

The key point in the amendment is paragraph (b),which deals with the need to ensure that all farms andhorticultural units—including those smaller than 5 hectares—can access this financial assistance. In 2014, the thenSecretary of State ruled that a farm needed to be morethan 5 hectares to receive direct payments. The decisionto increase the limit from 1 to 5 hectares excluded one insix English farmers during the transition from single tobasic payments.

During the oral evidence sessions we heard evidencefrom Jyoti Fernandes at the Landworkers Alliance thatthe threshold resulted in smallholders being at a seriousdisadvantage. In designing any new scheme, the thresholdshould be scrapped. Every farm, no matter what itssize, has the ability to deliver the public goods listed inclause 1. The farms and horticultural units showcasedin the latest Landworkers Alliance report, “Agroecologyin Action”, illustrate what they can achieve in terms ofencouraging biodiversity, building soil health, replacingagrochemicals, mitigating climate change, integratingcommunities and enhancing economic resilience. Earlier


we discussed the need to bring food production closerto communities. Often, it is the smallholdings that dothat. They also tend to have higher levels of employmentthan conventional farms. A 2017 study of agroecologicalfarms smaller than 20 hectares found that they employed26 times more workers than the UK per hectare average.It would be a huge mistake to exclude them fromfinancial assistance.

It was good to see from DEFRA’s press release today that“anyone from any farm or land type”

can participate. Will the Minister confirm that “anyfarm or land type” means farms smaller than 5 hectares?

Daniel Zeichner: I echo my hon. Friend’s comments.It is important that small farms are not left out of thislegislation. As she said, in the evidence sessions weheard compelling evidence from the Landworkers Alliancethat farmers on smaller holdings have been muchdisadvantaged to date by the current payments systemdue to the 5 hectare threshold, which cuts those withless than 5 hectares out of the system for getting payments.I was surprised to hear that 85% of its membership hadnever been able to get support for their work. We knowwhy: back in the previous iteration of discussions, therewas concern that small firms would not be subject tocross-compliance. That is my understanding. That waspossibly a reasonable position to take, although I suggestthat the answer to that is that there should be properand appropriate checking and verification.

Precisely for the reasons that my hon. Friend hasexplained, we will support the amendment. We need toinclude many more people in the system and to make itfar more likely that they will be able to benefit from it.

Victoria Prentis: It should have been obvious frommy previous comments that I am a passionate smallholder,so I listened to what Members had to say with considerableinterest. As I have said, I cannot promise exactly howthe ELM scheme will work going forward, but I hope Ican provide sufficient assurance in the rest of what I say.Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunityto design agricultural, horticultural and forestry schemesin a way that best reflects our circumstances and allowsus to deliver the best possible outcomes.

As my predecessor said, we are determined to workwith industry to co-design the new schemes and ensurewe get them right. In determining whether there shouldbe a minimum size threshold for eligibility, we will needto weigh up the benefits that can be delivered by smallland holdings—benefits that I recognise—against theadministrative costs associated with managing agreements,as the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. Weneed to ensure that the different schemes providedunder ELMS provide value for public money.

Detailed eligibility criteria will be established forELMS as soon as the schemes are developed, workingwith stakeholders. I can only apologise, because I donot have all the answers at the moment. This will be avery complicated, new set of schemes, which will takemany years to develop.

I draw the attention of the hon. Member for BristolEast to clause 1(2), which is reflected in the press releaseshe mentioned. It provides a power for financial assistanceto be provided in connection with

“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural,horticultural or forestry activity”.

The power clearly does not put any restrictions on thesize of holding for which financial assistance can beprovided. We will be designing our future schemesalongside industry in a way that delivers the best possibleoutcomes. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Kerry McCarthy: I am confused by what the Ministeris saying. She is right that there is no mention of anylimit in the Bill, but her earlier words, before she mentionedthe clause about start-ups, clearly suggested that shethought there could be bureaucratic problems. She wassort of putting objections in the way of extending thescheme to smallholder farmers. Today’s smallholdercould be tomorrow’s big food producer.

I do not know whether the Minister wants to interveneto say more, but I do not think she has given anyassurance at all. The 5 hectares issue has come up timeand time again, including during previous discussionson the Bill. Why has the Department not got to thestage that it can give that assurance to smaller farmers?

Victoria Prentis: As I said earlier, the environmentalland management systems have not yet been workedout. It is clear from the scoping document that waspublished today that they will vary enormously in theirsize and scope. Some will be concerned with just onefarm, and others will be concerned with multiple farmsor even a whole area, in order to provide the bestpossible ecological solutions that we are all seeking. Iam unable to provide the hon. Lady with an absoluteassurance at the moment, but I hear what she has to sayabout the importance of small agricultural holdings.

Kerry McCarthy: Once again, I cannot accept theMinister’s assurances and would like to press theamendment to a vote.

2.45 pm



Division No. 7]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Mr Goodwill: I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1,page 3, line 13, after “kept” insert “or managed”.

In clause 1(1)(d), reference is made to

“managing land, water or livestock”.

The amendment would change a reference later in thesame clause to keeping, not managing, creatures. Myworry is that relying on the word “kept” may exclude


[Mr Goodwill]

some of the most environmentally beneficial land uses,where birds or mammals are to a greater or lesser extentwild and thus, by definition, not kept.

I have a number of examples, such as the Chillinghamwild cattle in Northumberland. The herd, of about 100,has not been touched by human hand or been seen by avet for more than a century. They are certainly not kept,but the environment at Chillingham Castle is managedfor the benefit of the many species and birds that thrivethere.

Wild ponies also carry out important land managementtasks. I have had ponies on my own farm from theYorkshire Exmoor Pony Trust for a while; they carryout a great role in managing the land. I draw attentionto my entry in the Register of Members’ FinancialInterests, as I have done in previous sittings—I am afamily farmer myself.

Most importantly, we should recognise the importanceof game as an integral part of many rural economiesand ecosystems. Some species, such as pheasant, maywell be kept for part of their life, when they are reared incaptivity, but once released, they become free to rangefar and wide. Many shoots—I would suggest the moreenlightened ones—do not artificially rear birds andstrive to create the conditions for wild birds to breed.Those birds are never kept, but the management of thenecessary ecosystem and environment would certainlynot be in conflict with the wider public goods we seek tocreate, using this Bill as a tool.

The same argument must certainly apply to grouse,which cannot be reared in captivity. Managing moorlandfor the benefit of grouse not only favours other ground-nesting birds, such as golden plover and lapwing, butalso the sustainability of sheep farming on our grouseuplands. They can only go hand in hand together if themoor is managed correctly.

According to the BBC “Countryfile”website, the UK’sdeer population is at its highest level for 1,000 years, ataround 2 million deer of the various species. Numbershave doubled since 1999. That has an impact on crops,wildlife and, in particular, forestry. The ForestryCommission estimates that the damage to plantationsand commercial woodlands in Scotland amounts to£4.5 million per annum. The Royal Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that around350,000 deer are culled each year. In the absence ofnatural predators such as lynx and wolves, culling hasto be carried out to maintain a stable population andprevent damage. In the main, those deer are not kept,but managed, and they may range over more than onelandowner’s property. Deer management is vital to meetingour objectives.

There was some confusion during the evidence sessionsabout whether game was within the scope of the Bill. Iwould argue that it is vital that the definition of livestockin the Bill must include game species, which producesome of the most sustainable and healthy food availableto consumers. The amendment would clarify that, toencompass not only creatures that are “kept” in thestrict definition of controlling virtually every aspect ofan animal or bird’s existence, but the production ofhealthy and sustainable game products in an environment

that is managed to produce many of the public goodsthat we wish to reward, and sustained economically bythe income from that game.

Of course, I strongly criticise the situation that wehave read about in the press where game is dumped andnot eaten. In some cases, I understand that game hadbeen breasted, so the breast meat had been removed,but from an environmental perspective and from a foodwaste perspective that is not an acceptable practice, andI would criticise it. We need more promotion of thehealthy game produced in our country, and we needmore websites, such as the one that my son went onrecently—I think the wives of the people on smallshoots got sick of plucking and drawing pheasants, andmade the game available free of charge locally. That isjust the sort of website that we want. I also pay tributeto YouTube, which has some excellent opportunities forpeople to learn how to skin rabbits and prepare game intheir own kitchens.

I hope that the Minister will recognise what I havesaid, and reassure me that the amendment may bewithdrawn. I look forward to hearing that game is foodand should be within the scope of the Bill.

Daniel Zeichner: I was intrigued to discover the directionin which the amendment would take us; I probablyshould have known in advance. It gives me an opportunityto have a genuine disagreement with the right hon.Member, because I think many of our constituentswould be astonished at the idea of sporting shootingbeing considered a public good, in terms of puttingpublic money in, although I recognise that for someMembers that would be legitimate.

Again, it points to the whole new world that has beenopened up by taking the pot of money that used to godirectly to farmers based on area. We are now facing upto some really quite hard decisions about the kind ofworld in which we want to live. I have to say to the righthon. Member that for many constituents, I suspect inmy seat and many others, it would not seem an appropriateuse of public money. Although that may causedisagreement, that is what we are here to resolve. I donot think that the Opposition will be able to supportthe amendment.

Victoria Prentis: I thank my predecessor and righthon. Friend for his amendment. I believe that he wishesto ensure that we are being comprehensive in our coverageof the word “livestock” in clause 1. I, too, am keento ensure that we cover everything that we need to inthe Bill.

Good management of livestock is a key part ofdelivering the public goods that we want to support inour future agricultural policy. That, of course, is reflectedby the purposes listed in clause 1. Under subsection 1(f),the Secretary of State will be able to support action toimprove animal health and welfare, reduce endemicdisease and keep livestock well maintained and healthy.The plan is that not only will that deliver better animalhealth and welfare, which itself can be considered apublic good, but through addressing endemic diseasewe can also deliver other public goods, such as lowerantibiotic use and lower greenhouse gases, due to lessintensive livestock production.


Subsection 1(g) will enable us to provide financialassistance for measures to support the conservation andmaintenance of UK native genetic resources relating toboth rare breed livestock and equines, into which categoryI suspect Chillingham cattle very firmly fall, and indeedExmoor ponies, whether or not they are to be found inYorkshire—that confused me somewhat, but there weare. The measures could be used to incentivise farmersto rear rare and native breeds and species. That isundoubtedly, to my mind, a public good and the sort ofthing that we are trying to achieve.

Game such as wild pheasants and partridges, whilekept in captivity, would come within the definition oflivestock and could be eligible for support, where theyare kept for one of the purposes mentioned in clause 1and its definitions of livestock. As my right hon. Friendsaid, grouse are not reared in captivity, so I cannot seehow they would be covered. However, once the birds areno longer in captivity, following their release into thewild, they are classed as game. Therefore, it would notbe appropriate to class them as farm poultry or livestock.

That legal position is supported by the definitionsused in animal disease control legislation and the GameActs. Farmers, after all, cannot be considered responsiblefor birds that have been released into the wild.

Mr Goodwill: No one is suggesting that the gamethemselves should be subject to support in terms ofsubsidies or any other means of support that the Billwould lay out, but the environment that they inhabitwould certainly be a public good. My amendment seeksto ensure that, where public money is going to supportthose environments, which may support sheep, gameand other wildlife, the fact that game is being producedas a business should not exclude it.

Victoria Prentis: Forgive me, Sir David, I am a humblelawyer trying to define the word “livestock” rather thana farmer of great experience, such as my right hon.Friend, who is trying to go further. I am keen to definelivestock according to what is set out in the Bill. Thedefinition of livestock in clause 1 has its roots in theAgriculture Act 1947, which was the last major piece ofagricultural legislation that this House decided. Thisdefinition has been used in more modern legislation,such as the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and theAgricultural Tenancies Act 1995.

Agriculture has, of course, changed since 1947. Becauseof that we have made the amendment to the definitionof livestock to include additional products, such asfibres and oils, and have recognised the importance ofthe production of milk from livestock. That ensuresthat we cover all aspects of livestock production that Ican think of.

The current definition refers to livestock that is kept.We do not see that the amendment would enhance thatdefinition. I hope that I have done my best, despite mylegal background, to assure hon. Members that thecurrent definition of livestock ensures financial assistancecan be given for the important purposes set out inclause 1.

If the land that my right hon. Friend has in mindcomes within another of the purposes in clause 1,applications can be made for financial assistance formany other reasons. I, therefore, ask my right hon.Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Goodwill: I thank the Minister for her explanation.As a humble farmer, I would not wish to have anargument with a lawyer on a legal matter. Her pointmakes sense. The land occupied by many of these gamespecies will be subject to support through the Bill, notleast because of the wish to restore natural habitats andenvironment, and preserve some of our fragile naturalenvironments.

What is not in doubt is that when the animals havebeen shot, prepared and put on the supermarket shelves,they qualify as food. Therefore, it struck me that somepoints made in the evidence session were not preparedto look at this as a useful source of food. Having heardthe Minister’s sensible and legally wise words, I beg toask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move amendment 13, inclause 1, page 3, line 17, at end insert

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

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

Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): And me.

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

3 pm

In that spirit, I would like clarification on the provisionon protecting or improving the soil, to make sure that itincludes the restoration of blanket bog and other peatlandhabitats. I would like that specified in the Bill. This isabsolutely important. Peatland is the single biggeststore of carbon in the UK. We talk so much aboutplanting trees, but very little about peatland. It storesover 3 billion tonnes—about the same amount as all theforest in the UK, France and Germany put together,but 80% is damaged. It is damaged by drainage, atmosphericpollution, peat extraction and burning. In those partsof the country where we have seen flooding at themoment, many people can talk about the impact ofpoor peatland management on drainage and run-off.

As a result of the damage to peatlands, 10 milliontonnes of carbon dioxide is being released into theatmosphere every year. Rather than being a carbon sinkthat draws in carbon, it has the opposite effect. It is notjust neutral: it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.That is why, as part of the environmental land managementscheme, we need to reward land managers and farmerswho restore our peatlands. We have 13% of the world’sblanket bogs. That is quite unusual and we have aparticular responsibility. If we do not act now, we willerode the multiple benefits it provides, such as cleandrinking water, carbon storage, flood mitigation andwildlife habitat.


I am pleased that today’s DEFRA press release onELMS specifically cites landscape scale restoration ofpeatland. That is absolutely vital if we are to avoidserious environmental, economic and social harm. Giventhat it is mentioned in the document that was releasedtoday, and given that the Minister is sitting there noddingaway at what I have to say, I do not see why thisamendment cannot be incorporated into the Bill.

Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Lady for drawingattention to the importance of peatland and the peatlandhabitats that we are lucky enough to have in this country.The protection and improvement of all soil is key toa sustainable agricultural industry that helps in ourcommitment to tackle climate change and deliver onmultiple public goods.

Peatlands have an important role in this commitment.That is why the Government have committed to publishingan England peat strategy and announced the creationof the lowland agricultural peat taskforce. These willfocus on the protection and improvement of England’speatlands. In addition, we are currently funding £10 millionworth of peatland restoration in England between 2018and 2021.

The current drafting of clause 1(1)(j) enables theSecretary of State to give financial assistance for “protectingand enhancing the quality of soils”. The clause is notrestrictive and will enable all soil types to be included,not just peatland. Ample provisions in clause 1 will allowus to protect peatlands. For example, clause 1(1)(d) includes,“managing land or water in a way that mitigates or adapts toclimate change”.

That could certainly allow support for peatland restoration.Such provisions would allow for the management ofland to restore peatland habitats by more than just thesoil if it is within the Government’s strategic priority todo so. This could be achieved through the new ELMscheme or research into other sustainable practices.

By specifying a habitat, rather than a soil type inthe definition, the amendment extends the scope ofclause 1(1)(j) beyond that of soil quality. Healthy peatlandhabitats are reliant on factors beyond soil, such asbiodiversity and water. Therefore, DEFRA believes theinclusion of this definition is inappropriate and unnecessary.As I have just mentioned, promoting the health of thesehabitats as a whole is within the scope of an earliersection of clause 1.

Daniel Zeichner: I understand why the Departmentwants maximum flexibility, but we want some action,because we have been waiting a long time for thesepromises. In fact, I think on the last day of the lastParliament, at DEFRA questions, the Minister in theLords promised action, so when are we going to get someaction on banning peat burning?

Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman is definitely gettingaction. I set out earlier what is being done to preservepeatland at the moment: £10 million of peatland restorationis definitely action, in my book. What I do not want todo is clog up—that is not a technical term; I am trying tofind a soil-appropriate word—a definition of “soil” withsomething that happens in part above the soil, which iswhy I am resisting this amendment. The Governmentare committed to the importance of preserving peatland,but we need to ensure that all our soil types are protectedby the part of the clause that is concerned with soil.

I hope I have reassured Opposition Members that werecognise the vital role peatlands play in helping todeliver on our agricultural and environmental commitments,and that there is no requirement to single out peatlandin the soil provision of the Bill. I therefore ask the hon.Lady to withdraw her amendment.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for her response,and I take her point about habitat, but peatlands are soimportant that I still think they could be included inthis provision. The Minister has sort of argued bothways, in that she said “soil” did cover blanket bog andpeatland and then said that this amendment wouldwiden the definition, but this is so important and we doneed action. As I have said, the Minister in the Lords,formerly the MP for Richmond Park, has made it clearthat he wants a ban on peat burning. That is notspecifically what this provision speaks to, but obviouslywe are going to give—

Mr Goodwill: Does the hon. Lady agree that a distinctionneeds to be drawn between the blanket bogs—such asSaddleworth moor, where the fire got right into thebog—and the drier, heathland type of moor that wehave in North Yorkshire? The North York Moors NationalPark Authority itself supports the traditional managementof that moor, particularly for the benefit of sheep butalso of grouse.

Kerry McCarthy: There is a whole argument to behad about the management of moors for the benefit ofgrouse, when grouse are imported into this country intheir millions just so they can be shot by people on anaway-day. I would not have thought that was a priority.

Given peatland’s carbon role, its importance in thearea of flood mitigation and all the other environmentalbenefits I have mentioned, it is important that we spellthis out on the face of the Bill. We argued in the lastCommittee about whether the definition of “soil” neededto be spelled out on the face of the Bill, and I am askingfor it to be spelled out in greater detail this time around.As such, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.



Division No. 8]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Victoria Prentis: I beg to move amendment 15, inclause 1, page 3, line 21, at end insert “made by theSecretary of State”.

This drafting amendment makes clear that a “financial assistancescheme” is one made by the Secretary of State. It is intended (withAmendments 16 and 17) to clarify the distinction between financialassistance schemes and third party schemes as defined in Clause 2(5).


The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendments 16 and 17.

Victoria Prentis: Amendment 15 is a technical draftingamendment that makes it clear that a “financial assistancescheme” is one made by the Secretary of State. It isintended, with amendments 16 and 17, to clarify thedistinction between financial assistance schemes andthird party schemes as defined in clause 2(5).

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.


3.11 pm

Adjourned till Thursday 27 February at half-past Eleveno’clock.


Written evidence to be reportedto the House

AB23 Shaun Leavey OBE FRAgS

AB24 British Canoeing

AB25 Tenant Farmers Association

AB26 The Ramblers

AB27 Richard Bruce

AB28 British Mountaineering Council

AB29 Horse Access Campaign UK (HAC UK)

AB30 Friends of the Earth England Wales and NorthernIreland

AB31 Sally Crone, Committee Member of Essex BridlewaysAssociation

AB32 Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)

AB33 Byways and Bridleways Trust

AB34 The Fairtrade Foundation

AB35 Essex Bridleways Association

AB36 NFU

AB37 Agricultural Christian Fellowship

AB38 Greener UK/Wildlife and Countryside Link

AB39(A) RSPB

AB39(B) RSPB supplementary

AB40 Clean Air in London

AB41 Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust

AB42 Landworkers’ Alliance

AB43 The Humane League UK

AB44 Cycling UK

AB45 Farmers’ Union of Wales

AB46 Crop Protection Association

AB47 UK Pesticides Campaign



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Seventh Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 2 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day

at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Monday 2 March 2020






† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)










(Morning)


Agriculture Bill

11.30 am

The Chair: I remind hon. Members to switch electronicdevices to silent mode and that tea and coffee are notallowed during sittings. We shall now continue line-by-lineconsideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’ssittings is available in the room. Before we begin, I shouldtell the Committee that Sir David Amess and I haveused our discretion to select amendments 63 and 64 andnew clauses 23 and 24 for debate today, even though theusual notice was not given. We have done that becausethe circumstances were exceptional. A relevant policypaper was published by the Department on Tuesday,and we took the view that it was in the Committee’sinterest to have the opportunity to debate amendmentsarising from that policy paper today. I am assured bythe Clerks that our decision is well precedented.

Clause 2

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: FORMS, CONDITIONS,DELEGATION AND PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 63, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, at endinsert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations makeprovision for establishing any financial assistance scheme andsetting out how it will be designed and how it will operate.

(1B) No motion may be made in either House of Parliamentfor the approval of any regulations under subsection (1A)unless—

(a) a draft of those regulations has been submitted forscrutiny by any select committee of either House ofParliament which, in the opinion of the Secretary ofState, has a remit which includes responsibility forscrutiny of financial assistance under section 1, and

(b) any such committee has expressed a view on the draftregulations.”

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 64, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after “subsection”insert “(1A) or subsection”.

Daniel Zeichner: It is a pleasure to continue underyou in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank you and Sir Davidfor exercising your discretion. I will make some pointsabout that matter in a moment, but I shall start withamendment 63; amendment 64 is consequent to it.

The reason why we want to make this amendmentand think it important is that we believe that the designand implementation of the environmental land managementscheme that the Government have suggested shouldbe subjected to proper scrutiny. Amendment 63, with

amendment 64, would ensure proper parliamentary scrutinyby requiring the Secretary of State to make provision byregulations for establishing any financial assistance schemeand setting out how it will be designed and will operate.Under our amendment, those regulations must beconsidered and reported on by an appropriate SelectCommittee, of the Secretary of State’s choosing—weare very generous—before being brought to the House.Amendment 64 would ensure that a proper debate onthe regulations could be held by subjecting them to theaffirmative resolution procedure.

I apologise to you, Mr Stringer, and to the Committeefor warning that I will speak at some length on thisamendment to demonstrate why it matters. This goesback to our debate on Tuesday about the Government’sbehaviour in relation to publication of the “EnvironmentalLand Management: Policy discussion document”. I amsure that everyone has carefully read it and I adviseeveryone to have it to hand for the next hour or so,because I shall be referring in detail to various elementsof it.

Just incaseanyonethinks that this is somehowadiversionor distraction, the document itself says on page 7:

“The new ELM scheme, founded on the principle of ‘publicmoney for public goods’, will be the cornerstone of our agriculturalpolicy now we have left the EU.”

It would be very strange if the Committee were discussingthat complicated new future and we did not have achance to discuss what will be, in the Government’s ownwords, its cornerstone.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): My hon. Friend ismaking an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is ashame that we got the ELM document—as he says, thecornerstone—too late to make meaningful progress onit on Tuesday? It is also a shame that the Prime Ministerdecided to take it to the National Farmers Union,rather than bringing it here first.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is entirely right, andI will say more about that, as she can imagine.

This discussion is hugely important, and I hope thatwe will be able to give it the attention it deserves. As myhon. Friend said, the document was delayed until halfan hour after the Committee had started our sitting,although I am grateful to Ministers for having the graceto look a little sheepish and to be apologetic—not theirfault, I suspect. Frankly, however, it was a poor way tobehave, although ironically the desired outcome wasnot achieved—for reasons that I am not entirely au faitwith, the Secretary of State went to the NFU the dayafter anyway, and I understand that he had a fairlytraditional welcome. It is not unusual for Ministers togo to industry events and get a bit of a roasting. I amopposed to all forms of cruelty—we will come to thatlater—but he clearly had a tough day.

More importantly, I fear that this has skewed the wayin which we are discussing the Bill. Had we had thedocument in advance, we would have framed a differentset of amendments to the key clause 1. I am grateful toyou, Mr Stringer, and to Sir David for exercising discretion,which allowed us to table amendments to clause 2. Thatwould not normally have been possible within the timescale.I put on record my thanks to the hard-working staff inour offices, who were up until late at night working on


that, and to the Clerks, who were also up late workingon potential amendments. People were under considerablepressure, and I hope to do justice to their work thismorning.

I have to say that something made me cross and, whenI came to read the environmental land managementpolicy discussion document that we are talking about, attimes it made me even crosser. It is a mixed bag. Some ofit is excellent, and we will be supportive, but my overridingimpression was that, despite detecting some extremelyhard work and thought put in by officials, they had beenhamperedbysomebasiccontradictions intheGovernment’sthinking.Thatisapoliticalfailing—notapolicyfailing—whichI suspect partly reflects changes in personnel and thinkingover time. The original architects—the unrepentant sinnersto whom I referred on Tuesday—have moved on, andothers have been left to figure out how to make acomplicated set of ambitions work.

The thing that made me cross—we do not have toread far—is virtually in the opening line, although Iunderstand that the prefaces to such documents areoften bolted on at the end, possibly by eager-to-pleasespecial advisers. I will read the opening sentence:

“For more than forty years, the EU’s Common AgriculturalPolicy…has dictated how we farm our land”.

“Dictated”—think about that sentence. We were membersof the European Union of our own free will—[Interruption.] I do not want to go over old ground, butI invite people to think about how that reads to thosewho might not share in support for the current situation,which is possibly half the country. It is a poor way tostart the document.

Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con):As a farmer, I can only describe the three-crop rule asdictating what I can grow on my farm. I cannot see anyother interpretation.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the right hon.Gentleman. I am sure we will have a to and fro thismorning. We will come to the three-crop rule later. Ihave a suggestion for a more conciliatory word: “framed”is a more accurate term, frankly. “Dictated” is highlycontentious and in some ways designed to rile, and I cansay to whomever did that, it succeeded. Some of us takeexception to the idea that the Government of our countryseems to have become a Vote Leave franchise operation.

To add evidence, I have a Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs press release from 2013, whenthe then Farming Minister—different context, differenttime, obviously—who is now the Secretary of State,told us:

“The UK ensured that we have choices in how we implementthe Common Agricultural Policy, rather than having to work witha one-size-fits-all approach from the European Commission…Thisgives us the flexibility to target funding in ways that will deliverreal benefits to the environment, boost the competitiveness of ourfarming industry and grow the rural economy.”

I actually agree with him, but it does not sound like thepolicy has been “dictated” to us. I make a gentle plea tothe Minister to change that one word, which might helppeople to be brought together.

Now that I have got that off my chest, we can moveon to the substance of my argument. To be fair, there issomething much more welcome a few lines later in the

document, although it is not entirely reflected in thebody of the document. It talks about the new systemmaking it“possible to meet the objectives of protecting the environmentand producing food.”

That is a significant discussion within the document,and I will come back to that point. I appreciate that thisis a framework Bill—as the Government constantly tellus—but there needs to be scrutiny as the framework isfleshedout.That iswhatweseektodowithouramendments.

As I will show in the next few minutes, these arecomplicated, interesting and important issues, whichneed scrutiny. I hope the Government will see sense andmerit in our proposal. I hope the excellent GovernmentWhip might consider allowing his side a little leeway, aswe have considerable expertise present on the GovernmentBenches today. Although he was gloriously successful inensuring that people did not make contributions earlierin the process, it would be helpful if a little leeway couldbe shown at this point in our discussions on the Bill,because we are now getting into the real meat of it.

Some Members will have attended Second Readingof the Environment Bill yesterday. The interaction betweenthese various Bills is really important, as was mentionedby the Chair of Select Committee on the Environment,Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tivertonand Honiton (Neil Parish). I think many of us havecome to the same conclusion. As so often happens, thedebate yesterday strayed into the Agriculture Bill bymistake at one or two points. That is no surprise,because the Bill is important.

There are number of puzzles and contradictions inthe policy discussion document that are worthy ofdiscussion. I will come to some of the positive aspects,but one or two sentences jumped out at me. On page 6—I suspect this is by the same author who wrote theopening remarks to which I referred—there is a sort ofeulogy to our wonderful system at the moment. Thedocument quite rightly praises our farmers for thewonderful things they do. However, one of them is

“supporting our supply of clean water”.

I think that will jar slightly, particularly with some ofthe water companies, which know that one of theunintended consequences of our current agriculturalsystem is that they, and as a consequence all ourconstituents, have to pay considerable costs to clean upsome of the water. Obviously, the hope is that our newsystem will have ways to deal with that.

Later in the document there are some very positiveproposals, but there are also some big unansweredquestions about the interaction between the documents.Again, that point was raised yesterday in the discussionon the Environment Bill. This is a particularly pressingissue, given our current situation with flooding in thiscountry. Some things look in danger of falling betweenthe cracks, particularly overall land use policy. Ouramendment is designed to allow proper scrutiny of howthe proposals will be developed. Given that this is a verylong-term set of pilots in development, things will changeand lessons will be learned. Having proper parliamentaryscrutiny seems to be well worth while.

The document—as I said, I suspect it had variousauthors—is littered with problems and quite a fewinternal contradictions. On page 7, there is a hopeful claimthat environmental land management schemes will

“help us maintain our food security.”


[Daniel Zeichner]

That feels as though it is a bolted-on, pious hope, giventhe tension between environmental goods, which we allsupport, and food production. Indeed, in the list ofpublic goods on page 7 there is no mention of food.There are some non-sequiturs here, although if I wereto be generous, the fact that some of these problemshave not been entirely reconciled may explain some ofthe delay in producing the document.

It actually gets worse. On page 7, at the end of theintroduction, it says that the goal is to “improve” existingstandards, but later in the same sentence it says it is topossibly maintain them. This is one of the key conundrumsof the legislation—what are we actually supporting?The document goes on to say a bit more about that,which I will come to later.

The key issue is whether we should support peoplewho have already made improvements to get to a highstandard or target resources on lifting others. That is animportant and difficult point—we could call it additionality,if we want to get into jargon—but it is a profound issue.Page 8 defines two strategic aims. I do not have anyissue with them, but there is no strategic aim for foodproduction, so this running internal contradiction continues.

11.45 am

I have to say that this is quite a good document inmany ways. It goes on to the lessons learned fromprevious schemes and lists a series of points. The first,on high uptake, is really important. This is another keyissue, and I am afraid that I will address a few questionsabout it to the Minister; I fully understand that she maynot be in a position to answer immediately. I will behappy to take interventions on some of these points,which I think will facilitate our understanding, becauseI am not sure that we fully understand what the Governmentare trying to do. My sense—the Chair of the Environment,Food and Rural Affairs Committee also made this pointon Second Reading—is that a lot of farmers kind ofthink that they will get payments in the future providedthat they make some environmental improvements, whichis the way it kind of feels. The Government must havesome idea of how many farmers they expect to makethat transfer. I am not expecting a fixed figure, but itwould be helpful to know whether it was around 10%,90% or 50%. That is an important point, and up to now,so far as I am aware, we have had no indication. I hopethe Minister can help us on that.

Among the lessons learned—which, again, are fair—point (c) is:

“Land managers must have access to effective advisory services”.

Of course, we completely agree, but there are questionsleft hanging. At what cost? Who pays? Who does it?Who has the capacity? Again, this will come up in furtherdiscussions, but it would be helpful to have some senseof where the Government think those answers lie.

A strong point made on page 9 is about recognisingthe success achieved in the past. It is all too easy topocket successes, so I thoroughly welcome the suggestionthat we celebrate what has been done well. However,going back to my earlier point, point (e) is clear:

“We need to balance delivering improvement with rewardingexisting good practice”.

We absolutely do, but nowhere in the document doesit say how to do that or what the Government’s view onit is. Surely we need to know, because as we have said,we are framing the most important piece of legislationfor many years into the future. I will return to this point.People are asking for certainty, and for them to have it,they need to know the Government’s view on that.

TheChair:Order.Iunderstandthatthis isnotacompletelysatisfactory way for the Committee to proceed with whatwould normally have been a starred amendment. However,the wording of amendment 63 relates primarily to

“establishing any financial assistance scheme”.

I understand that the hon. Member is trying to relatethat to the whole paper. I will be grateful if he could notturn this into a debate on the paper, but relate the paperto the amendment and the design of the financialassistance schemes.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful, Mr Stringer, but I amslightly perplexed as to how to proceed because the caseI am making is about the need for proper scrutiny. I amtrying to explain why we think that is so important, andto do that I have to delve into the detail of the paper,which we were not given sight of before. I will do thebest I can and I will keep trying to refer back to thepoint about the need for scrutiny overall, if that isacceptable to you.

The Chair: I thank the hon. Member for that. It is nota satisfactory situation that the Committee has arrivedin, so I am trying to be as flexible as possible whileabiding by the correct rules of debate.

Daniel Zeichner: Thank you, Mr Stringer. I will try totake heed of that. I will not refer so closely to the paperand I will try to put my comments into the frameworkyou suggest.

People would always want a more simplified financialassistance scheme. Looking back at parts of the commonagricultural policy, I suggest that that has been an aimfor a long time. From debates about the statutoryinstruments this week, some of us have had the opportunityto read closely regulation (EU) 1307/2013, in whichparagraph 2 states:

“One of the core objectives, and one of the key requirements,of the CAP reform is the reduction of the administrative burden.”

So, in designing any financial assistance scheme, we areall trying to do that. The suggestions coming forwardfrom the Government face exactly the same kind ofproblems we faced within the CAP now that we arewithout it.

As I have made clear, designing such assistance schemesand getting them right is a complex task. Any designwill take time; to give the Government credit, theystarted on this path some 18 months ago. From ourunderstanding, and from the National Audit Officereport, it has not been an easy task. The suggestionsabout how financial assistance schemes should be developedmake sense to me.

Referring back to the policy discussion document,there is a suggestion of a three-tiered approach thatsounds remarkably similar to the system we alreadyhave. Looking at the suggestions for a financial assistance


scheme set out under tier 1, many farmers—if they getthat far in the document—would be encouraged becausefor those who do not want to see change, the schemelooks remarkably like the old basic payment scheme.Given that a three-tiered approach is suggested, whatdo the Government envisage to be the split between thethree tiers? That is a reasonable question. It is similar toa pillar 1 or pillar 2 issue—12% or 15%—in that a lotcould be put into either tier 3 or tier 1. It would help ifwe knew how that would be done.

It is correct that we do not want to repeat the mistakesof the CAP, but in designing any financial assistancescheme it is important to know what was the intentionwhen the scheme was designed in the first place. TheCAP was not designed as an environmental scheme buteffectively as a food and rural support scheme, so we areundertaking a different task.

Clearly, the Government based those designs for afinancial assistance scheme to some extent on the experienceof the tests and trials. Of course, numbers are relativelylow in tests and trials, but the National Audit Office—ina way, its report advises those of us who are trying toscrutinise the design of financial assistance schemes—wasnot particularly complimentary about progress so far.According to the NAO’s commentary on the numbersthat DEFRA hoped would be signed up by differentstages of the process, the Department initially wanted5,000 to be signed up by the end of 2022, but thatdropped to 1,250. I wonder whether the Minister canconfirm what the numbers are now.

My contention is that such a system is not easy tocreate; it is hard. The right hon. Member for Scarboroughand Whitby made the important point that, sadly, underthe three-crop rule, parts of the country are now underwater,and farmers are rightly arguing for a derogation. On thedesign of financial assistance schemes, it has been suggestedthat payments should be based on outcomes. Many ofus would welcome that, but I wonder how difficult thatmight be in a time of floods. There are outcomes overwhich we have some control and outcomes over which,sadly, it appears we have much less control. I think thatis worthy of discussion in the context of how we designfinancial assistance schemes.

There is a kind of irony on page 22 of the environmentalland management document, where the authors, inasking themselves how to design financial assistanceschemes, rightly ask how we should define what it is wewant. Lo and behold: up turns our old friend the goodagricultural and environmental condition—GAEC—standards from the CAP years. Again, that seems ineffect to be the CAP coming back—I suspect the VoteLeave checker had lost the will to live by that stage anddid not scrutinise that paragraph—through the backdoor. I do not criticise that. Anyone would strugglewith that, because however they tried to design a financialassistance scheme, they would have to design somedefinition of how public money was to be allocated. Iam sure we can change the acronym, but the sameconundrums will arise.

The paper also contains—this is absolutely relevantto the design of the schemes—innovative, interestingsuggestions about how payments may be calculated,including some market-based price-setting mechanismsusing tendering or auctioning. I am not convinced thatthat is addressed elsewhere in the Bill. There is notmuch detail about it, and it is important that we tease

out the Government’s thinking. Of course, they concludethat it would not necessarily be appropriate in tier 1.I can see why. If we are talking about thousands andthousands of agreements—this goes back to my questionabout distribution across the tiers—that would look likea very bureaucratic mechanism indeed. It may makemore sense for the higher level, but any financial assistancescheme will have to deal with some of these points.

I return briefly to how the advice under these schemeswill be funded. I have to say that tier 3 looks good. Ithas some similarities with the pillar two LEADERschemes. It is also the first appearance I can see in theBill of the idea of devolving down a bit and involvinglocal communities in designing financial assistance schemes.That is a really important point, which I will return to.However, bringing people together, which is reallyimportant, requires resource. In the past local councilsplayed that role, but I am no longer convinced thatmany of them have that capacity.

If that is to work, we must answer the key questionabout any financial assistance scheme: where are theresources going to go? One assumption is that it will bederived from the savings that result from not makingdirect payments, or reducing them bit by bit, but thatquestion needs a light shone on it. At what pace will thisbe done, and how will we do it? Unless those things arespecified somewhere within a financial assistance scheme,it will be unclear who will have the resources to lead it.There is a potential danger that those who know how tomake these systems work for them, and have the resourcesand wherewithal to do so, will be the ones who will takeup the scheme. Its resources may not necessarily gowhere they are most needed, or where they will producethe best environmental benefit—as, to be fair, theGovernment have referenced.

12 noon

Finally—I am sure you will be grateful to hear that Iam coming to a close, Mr Stringer—there are someinteresting examples of potential public-private partnershipsnear the end of the document, which are very welcome.The other evening I was talking to one of the watercompanies, which explained how, by working with localfarmers and with support from outside, it was possibleto deal with some of the conundrums and unintendedconsequences arising from current farming practices forthe benefit of everyone. That seems very sensible, and Iwould strongly support that.

This has been a lengthy diversion, for which I apologise.However, I hope Members recognise that these arereally big questions, worthy of discussion in this Committee.If they are not resolved at a parliamentary level one wayor another, they will probably be resolved by civilservants, who will have a difficult task and may well endup copping the blame for what will not always bepopular decisions. When we are discussing such financialassistance schemes, we have a responsibility to at leastengage with some of these difficult issues. As I said, I donot underestimate the difficulty of engaging with them,but we should be doing so. These questions should notbe hidden away in discussion documents and resolvedlater in the day by means of quite complicated SIs. Thedocument actually says that it is the “cornerstone” ofthe new policy, so we tabled the amendment—and Ihave moved it—to make parliamentary scrutiny possible.


TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is a pleasureto serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer.While dealing with some of the points that the hon.Member for Cambridge has raised, I will try to stickclosely to the wording of the amendments.

However, I will start by saying that although this is acornerstone document, as the hon. Gentleman waskeen to point out, we are still at the beginning of thisscheme’s development. We are planning a major changein the way that farmers receive money from the state.We have done a great deal of work, as he was kindenough to acknowledge, but we are currently running aprogramme of tests and trials. The priorities of thatprogramme will become the building blocks for thenational pilot, which does not start until the end of nextyear and will not conclude until 2024. At this point, wesimply cannot answer many of the more detailed questionshe asks, nor would it be right for us to fetter thedevelopment of policy by doing so. The national pilotwill provide a real, living opportunity to test and refinethe scheme design before we roll it out properly at theend of 2024. That is a careful, sensible way to makepolicy.

However, I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said.I know he thinks deeply about these issues, and it isimportant that, wherever possible, we work together onthe development of these major changes. In that spirit, Ithank him for the amendment he has moved, and agreethat we must be transparent while establishing ourfuture financial assistance schemes and make sure thatParliament can scrutinise the use of public money. Wehave introduced new duties into the Bill that do exactlythat. As we said on Tuesday, these include the multi-annualfinancial assistance plans, which are a major changeand, to my mind, an improvement—many thanks, onceagain, to those who sat on the Committee of the previousAgriculture Bill. We have agreed to provide an annualreport setting out the financial assistance given underclause 1 and, importantly, reports on the impact andeffectiveness of the schemes.

Those plans and reports give Parliament the ability toscrutinise the Government’s plans, to check that futurefunding decisions under the Bill powers are aligned withthe Government’s strategic priorities as those develop,and to hold the Government to account on how muchthey are spending. Flexibility and collaboration areessential and we hope they will be embedded in futureschemes. We do not intend to impose policy from thetop down, but rather to work with farmers and landmanagers to develop schemes that can deliver achievableoutcomes. The word the Secretary of State likes to use is“iterative”.

I fear that the amendment may unintentionallyundermine that approach. Under the ELM scheme, weare planning a pilot that will enable us to learn andprepare for the full implementation of the scheme, oncewe have seen what works and what does not. Once thescheme is launched, we want to continue to have flexibilityto improve the scheme and be responsive.

For example, our current thinking is that for tier 2 ofELMS, payments could initially be based on actions,potentially offering top-up payments when results aredelivered. However, over time we might well want tomove away from payments for actions and start giving

results-based payments. We would want the scheme tobe able to adapt to that as we see whether it is reallyachievable.

We also want the ability to improve the scheme as ourunderstanding of the environment and technology develops.For example, we might wish to adapt how we monitorthe delivery of environmental outcomes, taking advantageof new technologies such as remote sensing and geospatialdata. Who knows where we will be going in the future?It is impossible for us to plan for everything at themoment.

The amendment as drafted would limit our ability torespond to what is effective and to what farmers andland managers tell us is working. It would put us backinto CAP-type inefficiencies, where there was noopportunity to review or change things if they were notworking. I am keen that we do not mirror that deficiencywithin our domestic policy.

When discussing these schemes, it is important toremind ourselves that farmers and land managers willbe the people most affected by these changes. I wouldnot wish them to be adversely affected by hold-ups inthe parliamentary timetable. Looking at clause 1 as awhole, we are discussing the potential for a great numberof financial assistance schemes.

If we were to pass the amendment, an appropriateSelect Committee might need to consider a vast numberof schemes in different areas, and then we would needto debate each one, no matter how broad or narrowthey might be, which would place significant demandson parliamentary time. Should there not be enoughtime, I am concerned that farmers would ultimatelysuffer, as payments would not be made in a timely way.We will launch our pilot in 2021, as well as productivitygrants and animal welfare grants. We do not wantconfusion, or farmers left in limbo for longer thannecessary, because of problems with the availability ofparliamentary time.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must allowParliament the chance to scrutinise our plans for providingfinancial assistance under clause 1. I hope I have set outwhere the Bill already provides for that. I therefore askhim to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I thank the Minister for her responseand I fully appreciate that it is difficult to respond to aseries of questions that are only loosely related to theamendment. I listened closely to what she said, but Istill think there is a potential problem. I do not thinkour intention is that every single local scheme would besubjected to parliamentary scrutiny; it is the overallfinancial assistance scheme that we are concerned about.I fully appreciate the notion of iterative and learningprocesses, but the difficulty in which we find ourselves isthat for farmers, the change effectively starts next year—wehave seen the Government’s announcement about the5% and so on—so real people will start losing realmoney quite quickly. Although it is wonderful to havetheoretical discussions about how best to develop policy,people out there need some certainty, as the Governmentkeep saying, which may partly be why the Secretary ofState ran into problems with the NFU yesterday. In the40 minutes of this debate so far, we have seen that, farfrom there being any certainty, there are a huge numberof uncertainties.


Obviously, if one is trying to make change and beambitious in moving to a different system, uncertaintyis almost inevitable, but the Labour party feel that thereneeds to be a little more clarity on some of those pointsto give people better opportunities to plan ahead, whichis a point that many people in this room, who know farmore about practical farming than I do, have made. Thetimeframes are not always easy for people, because theyhave to plan and will make decisions fairly soon, so notknowing even the most basic point about a financialassistance scheme and whether the Government expectit to apply to 5% or 95% of those who have been inreceipt in the past, is disappointing, to put it mildly. Ivery much hope that we will get more clarity at somepoint in the future, in discussion, correspondence orwritten answers.

The discussion has demonstrated a weakness in ourprocesses; I am not sure that many of the questions thatI have asked this morning have been answered. It wouldbe much more helpful if the Government had been ableto have an open discussion—perhaps not in Committee,but at some point—that would have been facilitated bythe existence of the Bill.

The amendment is a long, probing one, and it haslargely achieved what I wanted it to by establishing thatthere is no clarity on the schemes. I will not press theamendment to a Division, but I ask for an assurancefrom the Minister that we will get answers to ourquestions through one means or another. I beg to askleave to withdraw the amendment.



“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any personwho is not compliant with standards set out in regulations madeby the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulationsgoverning agricultural and horticultural activity].”

This amendment and NC9 provide a duty for the Secretary of State toset baseline regulatory standards governing agricultural and horticulturalactivity, which must be met by any recipient of financial assistance.


New clause 9—Duty and regulations governing agriculturaland horticultural activity—

(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish aregulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticulturalactivity for or in connection with the following purposes—

(a) the management of land or water in a way that protectsor improves the environment;

(b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside,farmland or woodland and better understanding ofthe environment;

(c) the management of land or water in a way thatmaintains, restores or enhances cultural or naturalheritage;

(d) the management of land, water or livestock in a waythat mitigates or adapts to climate change;

(e) the management of land or water in a way thatprevents, reduces or protects from environmentalhazards;

(f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfareof livestock;

(g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines orgenetic resources relating to any such animal;

(h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;

(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying onan agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity,their wild relatives or genetic resources relating toany such plant; and

(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provisionabout the standards to which activity for or in connection withall of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provisionabout enforcement, which may (among other things) includeprovision—

(a) about the provision of information;

(b) conferring powers of entry;

(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;

(d) about the keeping of records;

(e) imposing monetary penalties;

(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or afine not exceeding an amount specified in theregulations, which must not exceed level 4 on thestandard scale);

(g) about appeals;

(h) conferring functions (including functions involving theexercise of a discretion) on a person.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmativeresolution procedure.

New clause 22—Consultation on regulatory framework:enforcement—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within one calendar month ofthis Act being given Royal Assent, open a consultation on whatbody should regulate and enforce the regulatory frameworkunder section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural andhorticultural activity].

(2) The consultation shall seek views on whether an existingbody should carry out the regulation and enforcement undersubsection (1) or whether a new body should be created for thatpurpose.

(3) The Secretary of State must, in any consultation undersubsection (1), consult with persons or bodies representingpersons who he or she considers are affected by the functions ofthe proposed body.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses ofParliament—

(a) in summary form, the views expressed in theconsultation held under subsection (1), and

(b) a statement of how the Secretary of State intends toproceed, with his or her reasons for doing so.

Daniel Zeichner: We are moving on to a complexset of issues on baseline environmental standards.Amendment 36 reads:

“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any personwho is not compliant with standards set out in regulations madeby the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulationsgoverning agricultural and horticultural activity].”

New clause 9 reads:

“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish aregulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticulturalactivity for or in connection with the following purposes—



(c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains,restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;


[Daniel Zeichner]


(e) the management of land or water in a way thatprevents, reduces or protects from environmentalhazards;




(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying onan agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity,their wild relatives or genetic resources relating toany such plant; and

(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.”

Some will have noted that that reflects the wordingelsewhere in the Bill.

“(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provisionabout the standards to which activity for or in connection withall of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.







(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or afine not exceeding an amount specified in theregulations, which must not exceed level 4 on thestandard scale);

(g) about appeals;


(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmativeresolution procedure.”

12.15 pm

The Chair: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemanfor reading out the whole of new clause 9, but allmembers of the Committee have the new clause beforethem, so it is unnecessary. I would prefer it if hon.Members did not take up the Committee’s time byreading out new clauses and amendments.

Daniel Zeichner: My apologies, Mr Stringer. I quiteappreciate your direction.

The purpose of new clause 9 is to set baselineenvironmental standards across all farmed land, regardlessof whether the land manager has chosen to receivefinancial assistance for any of the clause 1 purposes. Tosome extent, that follows on from the discussion aboutthe previous amendment. There is a genuine concernabout the systems—it was referenced in the documentabout the design of the schemes, to which I referred.Uptake is a key issue, as we saw in relation to stewardship.The worry is that if the systems are too complicated,difficult and onerous, there will not be the levels ofuptake that we hope for. I asked the Minister about thenumbers that the Government anticipate will take upunder tier 1 because that is absolutely vital to ourdiscussion. I do not want to press the point, but Icannot believe that there has not been some discussionin the Department about where we hope to get to. There

must have been some discussion; there must be someidea of the scale that is expected. I would welcome aresponse on that point.

As part of the common agricultural policy, our farmershad to meet cross-compliance standards on EUenvironmental management, animal welfare and traceabilityto qualify for payments. Its onerousness and the factthat, to many, it seemed a bureaucratic system was thecause of justified complaint, but it is actually quitedifficult to design compliance systems that do not endup in that situation. That is not to say that we cannot dobetter. Again, had we had the opportunity to discussthe ELMS policy paper in detail, we would have seenthat there were some innovative suggestions in it. I willhave to continue to try to refer to them tangentially.

We have left the European Union, and our worry isthat there is a gap. We might well find that the Bill hasunintended consequences that will leave much more ofour countryside relatively unprotected. A point that Ihad hoped to make in the debate on the previousamendment, but which I will make now, is that therewas an astonishing statement in that document aboutwhether tier 1 payments should be dependent on regulatorycompliance. I cannot think of any other sector in whichthere would be an issue about regulatory compliance. Imay be missing something here—the Minister is a learnedlawyer, so I shall be careful—but it seems pretty odd tobe paying people to obey the rules. In any other sphereof life, I think people would find that surprising.

In the slightly odd world of the common agriculturalpolicy, the payment was an accepted part of the way wedid things, but it is certainly worth raising the questionnow, when looking at potential compliance issues, anddebating it. All members of the Committee, dependingon their point of view, either enjoyed or winced atGeorge Monbiot’s evidence last week. He put it prettyforcefully. I think many of our fellow citizens andconstituents would want to ask the question, too. It is areasonable point.

The Bill includes provisions to move away from cross-compliance, with clause 14 giving Ministers the scope tosimplify and amend the horizontal legislation that facilitatedthe operation of the CAP, including farmers’ compliancewith EU laws on environmental and animal welfarestandards—I apologise for diverting into eurojargon,but I am afraid the debate is constantly beset by it. I donot think that we have yet seen any long-term plan fromthe Government to replace that system, flawed thoughit may be, with the robust regulatory baseline that webelieve we will need to ensure that environmental andanimal welfare standards are met across the board inland management.

There is an irony in that. The Committee on ClimateChange issued a report in January titled, “Land use:Policies for a Net Zero UK”, which is a useful documentto inform our discussion. It includes a handy chart onpage 80 that outlines the current proposals for thereplacement of the common agricultural policy. If peoplewant a one-pager, it is pretty good. The only problem isthat its opening line says that the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes:

“The development of a new regulatory baseline reflecting the‘polluter pays’ principle.”

I am not sure that that is, strictly speaking, accurate. Weare looking for it, but we do not think that it exists,without our amendment.


The concern is that farmers may decide not to participate.When I first looked at this brief, one question thatstruck me was what percentage of people currently do.Most do, of course, because public money is on offer;it would be foolish not to. However, it was a simplersystem—a direct payment system—and people werehappy to take the money. If they are asked to do moreto get the money, it will be a different decision. I suspectthat some will decide that it all looks a bit difficult andcomplicated, going back to my point about uncertainty,and will operate outside it.

Returning to my point about numbers, a few farmersoperating outside the system may not be a problem, butmany doing so certainly would be. We would have torely—this goes back to my point about the interrelationshipbetween this Bill and the Environment Bill—on havingsome pretty strong legislation. Again, it is difficult forthe Committee, because many would argue that theBills are being considered in the wrong order. It mighthave been better to pass the environmental legislationfirst. We do not know what it will include. On the basisof what we have seen so far, as my hon. Friend theMember for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (LukePollard), the shadow Secretary of State, said last nighton Second Reading, we support much of it. We did notvote against it, but we think it needs to be greatlystrengthened. Not knowing whether it will be leaves usin a difficult position.

Some of a cynical disposition might say that theGovernment are left in almost a win-win position. Theyhave burnished their green credentials, setting up afantastic new environmental scheme, and have even gotthe money for it, which is quite unusual in politics; butthe scheme is such that most people will not take it up.Far from being a greener, pro-environment Bill, it willtherefore have the unintended—or possibly intended—consequence of saving the Government a lot of moneyand making them look good, but doing nothing toimprove the environment. That is a really serious issue,which is why the amendment is so important.

Part of the solution relates to the points I raisedabout take-up in the ELMS document. If there is masstake-up, which is the suggestion, everything is possiblyfine. If not, as I said, the downside is direct paymentsthrough the back door, and not getting the environmentallift we are looking for. I know the Government will notagree with that, but it is a risk. If we do not go thatroute and instead go the tougher route, there is also adanger of damaging the environment.

I do not deny that it is a difficult conundrum; it is onethat I would love to be dealing with as a Minister, ratherthan as shadow Minister. I suspect that if I were in thatposition, the Opposition would be making exactly thesame tough, robust points, because these are real-lifeconundrums. It is my job in the interim to make thepoints on behalf of our environment and our farmers.

We need to make sure that across all our agriculturalland, the baseline is land management that recognisesthe huge challenge of climate change, protects our soils,guards against flooding, encourages resilience in biodiversityand prioritises high animal welfare. We believe that wehave to set minimum standards across the board, sothat the Bill—this goes back to a point I was makingearlier—genuinely incentivises those that go above andbeyond. I still think that that is probably what theGovernment want to do, but the contradictions anddifficulties are being glossed over at the moment.

The Institute for European Environmental Policy, inits report, commissioned by a number of the witnessesthat we heard from in the evidence sessions, said thatthere are a number of gaps in legislation, which willhave real consequences, particularly for wildlife on ouragricultural land. The interaction between EU retainedlaw and our current legislation is tricky. The assumptionthat all these plans will necessarily work as we thinkthey will could well be open to challenge. We will returnto that wider point, but on this particular point webelieve, and the institute believes, that there may besome gaps in legislation that will result in there nolonger being protections for hedgehogs, nesting birdsand hedgerow habitats, partly due to some of the potentialchanges in the 2 metre wide buffer strip rules. Giventhat we have already lost 97% of our hedgehog populationsince the 1950s—a point that was made yesterday by theright hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)in the Second Reading debate on the EnvironmentBill—there is genuine concern. That is why we need tomake sure that we are covered.

There is also the point—I certainly would not say thisabout the current Ministers—that in future some of thefinancial assistance that is being redirected could bemoving towards productivity rather than environmentalprotection,andthat,too,couldcompromiseourenvironmentalsafeguards. That goes to the heart of what the Bill isreally all about. The “Health and Harmony” DEFRAconsultationpaper for theBilloutlinedthat theGovernmentwanted to embed the “polluter pays”principle throughout.As I have said, the danger is that we could end up, asGeorge Monbiot explained, paying the polluter not topollute, which is the other side of the coin. We do notwant that to be the outcome, and we have heard from anumber of key witnesses how important that is.

In conclusion, new clause 9 outlines that it should bea duty for the Secretary of State to establish a baselineregulatory framework “for or in connection” with thelisted purposes. It outlines that the regulations “mayinclude” provisions about enforcement and would besubject to the affirmative resolution procedure to ensurethat we continue to have robust debate and scrutiny ofthe most appropriate baseline regulatory framework.

Amendment 36 would ensure that those who receivefinancial assistance under clause 1 public goods aremeeting those baseline environmental standards as well,and will be rewarded for going above and beyond.

Victoria Prentis: The amendments would enshrine inthe Bill a legal duty to make regulations that governagricultural and horticultural activity and to restrictfinancial assistance to those who are compliant withthose regulations. In our view, the amendments areunnecessary, because we already have a regulatoryframework that manages agricultural and horticulturalactivity and protects the environment.

In our view, the amendments are unnecessary, becausewe already have a regulatory framework that managesagricultural and horticultural activity and protects theenvironment. With this Bill, we will enshrine in law ourcommitment to the environmental purposes that matterso much to us all.

12.30 pm

New clause 9 is unnecessary because it simply listspurposes, standards and enforcement mechanisms thatare already contained in domestic legislation. I can offer


the hon. Member for Cambridge another reassurance:we are reviewing the regulatory framework and we willwork with farmers and land managers to consider wherewe can improve it to deliver on our environmental goalsas the world moves on and we change our priorities.The challenge is that the current system is fragmented—Iunderstand that criticism—and often appears complicatedto those who use it. The new clause does not rectify thatproblem. I hope that our continued work to redesignour regulatory framework, in which I am happy toinvolve him if he wishes to have discussions about it,will deal with those issues in so far as it can. As he said,they are complicated matters.

On amendment 36, if we restrict access to financialschemes in that way, we might deter those who are unsureof their regulatory compliance. In addition, we mightdeter thosewhomayusefinancial schemesfor improvementsand enhancements to environmental and welfare standards.We could end up deterring individuals from accessingthe very support schemes that they might need to deliveron all the goals that we think are public goods.

Of course, the baseline is that we expect everyone tocomply with the law, irrespective of environmental schemesaccess. We will put in place effective enforcementmechanisms to ensure that that is the case. Our newapproach, however, aims to support people to achievepositive environmental outcomes, not just to punishthem for failing to achieve, as was a failure of theprevious regime.

We have left the EU and we now have the opportunityto transform our regulatory system. The amendmentwould keep us in the old familiar world of the commonagricultural policy, which would stop us making thosechanges and, with help, doing things better. I thereforeask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

New clause 22 would require us to consult on theappropriate body to regulate and enforce our regulatoryframework, and it would give us a month from the Bill’sRoyal Assent to start to do that. We will already have anonus to consult when we consider creating a new publicbody—that is absolutely sure—so we do not require aduty to be placed on the statute book to require us to dosomething that we are already required to do.

We have taken a proactive approach to engaging withfarmers and land managers on the measure. We willconsult again on our vision and priorities for the futureregulatory framework by the end of the year, as wecontinue to work in partnership with farmers and landmanagers. Our new strategy is being developed from theresponses that we received to the “Health and Harmony”consultation and from the review led by Dame GlenysStacey. As it is the first time I have mentioned her, Ishould say that she is my constituent and I workedclosely with her on probation issues in a previous life.

In the fullness of time, that work may lead us tocreate a new body. If we decide to do that, it will beunderpinned by consultation and collaboration withpartners across the field. We do not need a duty toconsult on enforcement bodies at this point. We haveone, we will, and we are already working on a newapproach to the new regulatory and enforcement system.

We want an effective regulatory system with a strongsuite of requirements, and of course we want to be ableto enforce it. We should not, however, consult on anisolated aspect of the system at the expense of considering

the wider vision of what we are trying to achieve. Thereis no need to rush to produce what would be a hurried,potentially ineffective and partial consultation, creatinga false sense of urgency when we already have a regulatorybaseline.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister forsetting out the reasons why she does not believe we needthe baseline. I neglected to make any comments aboutnew clause 22 in my opening statement, so I shall weavethose in to what I say at this point.

Of course we all agree that enforcement is critical.One of the things that has struck me in my relatively fewyears in this place is how often we pass legislation andthen struggle with enforcing it. That does not do ourreputation any good, and it certainly does not do ourconstituents any good. I have in the past reflected onthe fact that all it does is to make good, law-abidingpeople cross. It does little to dissuade non-law-abidingpeople from their actions. As the Minister says, it is aconundrum.

I was impressed by Dame Glenys’s report on the farminspection and regulation review and I echo many ofthe points that the Minister made. I am sure she did notneed to know that Dame Glenys is her constituent toreach the conclusion she did. I will just point out one ortwo observations from the report that reflect what Ihave said. I think that she said that current enforcementis nowhere near effective, and I am told that of the10,600 staff at the Environment Agency only 40 dofarm inspections. That seems extraordinary to me. Thereis thus only a one in 200 chance of being inspected bythe Environment Agency. Quite clearly it is pretty busyat the moment, so that is not a criticism of the agency,but it shows the scale of capacity that is needed. I gentlygo back to my earlier observations: it is great to beambitious but the Government have to think throughthe enforcement mechanisms that go along with that,and ask themselves whether they are prepared to bearthe costs.

Of course, there is quite a range of DEFRA-relatedbodies that deliver compliance with farm regulations,such as Natural England, the Forestry Commission, theAnimal and Plant Health Agency and, sometimes, localauthorities. It is not unfair to say that the Rural PaymentsAgency has not always covered itself in glory in thepast. We congratulate it on its improvements in recenttimes, but we know the historical difficulties that it hashad with, frankly, just doing the administration. I appreciatethat it is assisted by others in that, and my understandingis that Natural England has a lot of the expertisebehind it. Given some of the well documented pressureson that agency as well, however, the question arises ofwhere the resource to make everything work will comefrom. Maybe it will come from the money that wouldhave been going to farmers out of the direct paymentsscheme, but we do not know.

That is the problem with the entire debate. There ispotentially £3 billion to spend: how will it be used? Weneed some clarity from the Government. Our suggestionwas that the Secretary of State should, within a monthof the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, hold a properconsultation on the most appropriate body to enforceimportant baseline environmental regulations. We wouldthen want to require the Secretary of State to bringbefore Parliament the decision on the consultation andtell us how it is intended to proceed.


We know from the Stacey report that the currentpunitive compliance measures often do not have theeffect that we seek. We want not to punish people but tohelp them to do the right thing. One of the positivethings in the paper “Environmental Land Management”was about finding a way in which help can be given. Acommon complaint about the previous system was thatit was pernickety and that a minor transgression couldcause a disproportionate response. Those are things weall agree on, and would all like to get changed.

The one thing I am nervous about is that a bettersystem may require more people—or more technology,or whatever. The question is how it will be resourced.That is why we think we need a more comprehensiveframework to deal with it. I appreciate what the Governmenthave said about trying to implement the Stacey review’srecommendations, but we remain nervous that, withoutthe resources needed, we may not be able to achievewhat we are trying to do. We think that is key not onlyto supporting rural communities and people who workin producing food, but to achieving the environmentalgains that we wish to see.

Our worry is that without a comprehensive complianceregulatory system behind it, this move could lead tounintended consequences and possible environmentaldegradation rather than improvement. We think thatthat is so important that we will press the amendment toa vote.


Division No. 9]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria



“(3A) Financial assistance allocated to a scheme in aparticular year but not spent within that year may be carried overto a future year for spending on one or more schemes.”

This amendment would enable Ministers to “carry over” any moniesleft unspent at the end of a particular budget year for spending insubsequent years.

This is a more probing amendment and one that wedo not intend to put to a vote, so hon. Members can beat ease. Mr Stringer, you will be pleased to hear that Iwill not read out the amendment.

I may have misunderstood how DEFRA’s economicsworks, and I am ready to stand corrected. The Governmenthave not put it in legislation but have indicated that themoney will be available for the remainder of the Parliament.If not all that money is used in one year, what happensto it? All I am looking for is some explanation, as theamendment suggests, that it would be possible to carry

over money into subsequent years. That point has beenraised on a number of occasions by a number of people,and there may be a simple explanation.

When debating the statutory instrument on Mondayand looking back at our old friend regulation 1307/2013,it struck me that the current system has quite complicatedreserves that the CAP specifies for dealing with someissues around fines, compliance and so on. It goes intoconsiderable detail about how that should work. A similarsystem may be envisaged for us. I asked some questionsabout the issue during the debate on the statutoryinstrument, so perhaps when there is a reply there willbe some clarity.

Again, it has been said that this is a framework Bill.That is fine—we get that. But this is the opportunity forParliament to ask these questions. The headline figureof money is a concern to some in rural communities,and it may not be available if is not within the righttimeframe. I suppose I have a simple question.

Mr Goodwill: Is the hon. Gentleman talking aboutmoney allocated to a scheme in general that is then notused, or money allocated to a farm that is not used dueto some situation on that farm? Is he talking about thespecifics of money allocated to farms or the generalityof money allocated to a scheme?

Daniel Zeichner: That is a good point. Some of thisdiscussion has conflated the two things, which may notbe helpful for people. Actually, no money is allocatednationally. It is a political promise; it is not in legislation.Of course, no Parliament can bind future spendingallocations. We will watch with interest what happens inthe coming weeks, but the political promise has beengiven.

12.45 pm

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, weare thinking of the headline figure. We hope that the£3 billion will be available each year for the next fiveyears, as the Government have promised. Again—I amsorry to sound like a broken record—this is a keyquestion: if the uptake of applications is not highenough, the money will not be drawn down, as far as Ican see. As I said earlier, that could be a temptingposition for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr Goodwill: Is that issue not covered by clause 8,which allows for the extension of the scheme? When Icome to discuss my amendment 9, we can explore thematter. One could possibly freeze the switch from thebasic payment scheme to ELM schemes. I guess that thehon. Gentleman is discussing the situation in which theuptake of ELMS is not very high, because we are fairlysure that the uptake of the BPS will be pretty much 100%.Is this not already covered in that clause of the Bill?

Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman makes animportant point, but I am not sure that the issue iscovered; that is why I am seeking clarification. I amafraid these points are about a lack of certainty. We arelooking ahead a long way—seven years, potentially—forthe transition. We have some clarity on the 5% plus,capping and so on for the next year, but beyond that—I hate to go back to the ELMS document, but thereare timelines in there—some of it looks a touchoptimistic, frankly.


[Daniel Zeichner]

Given that the process was begun 18 months ago, Ihope that it will become clearer through the trials andtests, but we would like to pin down the finances. That iswhat we are trying to achieve through the amendment. Iunderstand why Government Ministers cannot concede,but I suspect that, as people look more closely, quite alot of them would agree with this position; if we aregoing to embark on these ambitious environmentalschemes, as we want to, we want as much money aspossible to be drawn from the Treasury. It is a veryunusual situation, politically, to have a pot of moneythat looks like it has been allocated before. Where doesit go in the future? That is what we are trying to pindown.

Victoria Prentis: As the hon. Member for Cambridgesaid, I suspect that many people in this room agree witha great deal of what he told us. On this side of theHouse, we are determined that UK farming should notsee a reduction in Government support at this importantand exciting time in British agriculture. That is why wehave pledged to guarantee the current annual budget inevery year of this Parliament.

As I said on Tuesday and again this morning, inresponse to the previous feedback from the Committee’slast sitting, we have now included clause 4 in the Bill. Itrequires us to prepare a multi-annual financial assistanceplan covering the seven-year transition period. Thatshows our commitment to planning our future expenditure,part of which will include minimising the likelihood ofany underspend from our financial assistance schemes.I am more optimistic than the hon. Gentleman: I expectvery high take-up of our new scheme—that is definitelythe aim. However, I recognise that underspends canhappen despite the very best financial planning.

Daniel Zeichner: I am sorry to press the Minister onthis point, but will she define “very high”? I would say ithas to be more than 50%; maybe it has to be more than75% to be “very high”.

Victoria Prentis: For all the reasons I mentionedearlier, I cannot possibly give the hon. Gentleman anymore detail than is in his favourite document, but I lookforward to working with him over the next seven yearsor more while we develop this marvellous scheme. Ithank him, because he is broadly supportive of many ofthe aims and objectives of the scheme, and he has beenmoderately polite about it. I agree with him: underspendscan happen.

The concept that the hon. Gentleman describes in hisamendment is, in principle, something beneficial thatwe would support. He has been kind enough to talkabout my legal experience; I am not sure that this is amatter for primary legislation. I would rather discussthe matter first with the Treasury as part of the spendingreview process, which is the correct way to deal with it. Ihope I have assured him of our interest in exploring theability to retain financial spend across different financialyears, and I therefore ask him not to push the amendmentto a vote.

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.



12.52 pm




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Eighth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 2 TO 7 agreed to, one with an amendment.

CLAUSE 8 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till Tuesday

3 March at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.


PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Monday 2 March 2020






† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)† Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)










(Afternoon)


Agriculture Bill

Clause 2

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: FORMS, CONDITIONS,DELEGATION AND PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION

2 pm

Amendment made: 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 31, leaveout from “to” to end of line 32 and insert

“the maker or operator of a third party scheme in connectionwith expenditure involved in establishing or operating the scheme(including the provision of financial support)”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

The amendment amends Clause 2(4), which permits the Secretary ofState to give financial assistance to a third party scheme, to spell outthat the assistance may relate to the costs of setting up or running thescheme or providing financial support under the scheme.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at endinsert—

“(4A) Financial assistance under subsection (1)(1)(f) forprotecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock shallonly be given to a person who satisfies the Secretary of State thatthey—

(a) achieve, or have undertaken to achieve, standards ofanimal welfare which exceed the minimumrequirements laid down by legislation governingwelfare of livestock,

(b) raise animals in such a way that enables them to carryout their natural behaviours,

(c) do not subject livestock to any prohibited procedure(within the meaning of section 5 of the AnimalWelfare Act 2006),

(d) do not kill livestock in any place other than in aslaughterhouse unless—

(i) a veterinary surgeon has certified that this isnecessary due to the animal’s poor health, and

(ii) the method of killing is humane, and

(e) do not, after IP completion day, export animals forslaughter or fattening unless—

(i) the livestock is exported from Northern Ireland tothe Republic of Ireland, and

(ii) it is made a requirement of sale that the livestockshall not be re-exported by the buyer.”

This amendment would set minimum baseline welfare standards for thereceipt of financial assistance for protecting or improving the welfare oflivestock.



“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under section1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the health oflivestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or of anyperson to whom functions relating to the giving of financialassistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or

improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher thanthat required by regulations made by the Secretary of Stateunder section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural andhorticultural activity].”

This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance forprotecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock todemonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of asignificantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9.

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, after“section” insert—

“‘fattening’ means the keeping of livestock for thepurpose of the livestock gaining weight in preparationfor slaughter,

‘humane’ shall be interpreted in accordance withparagraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Welfare of Animalsat the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015,

‘livestock’ has the meaning given in section 1(5) of thisAct,

‘IP completion day’ has the meaning given in section 39of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020,and”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.

Daniel Zeichner: Welcome back, everybody. Our aimwith this group of amendments is to highlight the needfor financial assistance in clause 1 to be provided for thepurpose of protecting or improving the health or welfareof livestock only if farmers go above and beyond currentanimal welfare standards.

I have already touched on this issue. We believe it isimportant to avoid a situation where public money ispaid for current welfare standards being met. I thinkthe public would find that curious, but it is a risk giventhe systems we have inherited. The nod of enthusiasmfrom the Minister confirms that the authors of the Billrather agree, although we say that it is still not entirelyclear. I think it is agreed that the taxpayer’s principalrole should be to provide funding for public goods thatthe market cannot deliver or can deliver only partially,such as high environmental and animal welfare standards.The funds available should be used not for marginalwelfare gains but to support best practice and farmerswho are willing to go substantially beyond the legalminimum requirements.

Of course, there is a whole series of potential issuesassociated with that. How much improvement? Do wewant to set standards to which we want people to movequickly? I am struck when I talk to people about thisthat I think the industry will do what it is asked to do.Clearly, however, if it is not directed and just respondsto the market, people will produce to different pricepoints. Again, that is an issue for the politicians to thinkabout. We had a discussion the other day with the righthon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby about whetherlabelling gets us there. There are different views, andthis is our view.

There are clear ways of identifying significant stepsup in welfare for different species of farm animals, andit is extremely important that we tailor our welfarestandards appropriately to what would achieve thoseoutcomes for each species. Let me make a few suggestionsfor the high standards we would like ultimately to beachieved across each sector.

For pigs, funding could be made available to farmerswho achieve intact—neither docked nor bitten—tails.There are schemes along those lines in other countries.


Getting pigs to slaughter with intact tails is recognisedby the Farm Animal Welfare Committee as a goodoutcome-based indicator of high welfare. This morning,in our discussion of the environmental land managementdocument—I am pleased to see it is now on the table forall to enjoy—we touched on whether payments shouldbe for what is done or what is achieved. I think thedebate about that is moving; many of us would like tosee outcome-based payments. At least in this area, wecan discuss the outcomes we are looking for, and Isuggest they are more easily measured. I am told—weheard this from witnesses, too—that such schemes alreadyexist in Germany.

As we outlined in a previous amendment, whichsadly was not taken up by the Government, we believethat the Government should encourage a move to freefarrowing systems. However, we acknowledge that thereis extra cost involved and we believe some paymentscould be made to cover a proportion of the capital costsinvolved in making that change. It is a decision for us asa country, as well as for consumers, as to where we wantto get to on these standards. This is a clear opportunity.

For laying hens, we would like to see funding madeavailable for farmers who use the best free range systems,such as low stocking density, low flock size, mobilehousing and provision of trees and bushes. Outcomemeasures that one could look at are not trimming hens’beaks, achieving low mortality and good plumage scores.Such outcomes can be measured; that is a decision wecould make. This Committee is a good place to havesuch discussions, which, over time, could attempt to liftwelfare standards in this country.

For broiler chickens, the key issue is often substantialovercrowding. Many UK broilers are stocked at 38 kgper square metre. As chickens in the UK often weigharound 2.2 kg at slaughter, that means approximately17 chickens are kept per square metre. Without goinginto the wider points, we know the British public wantto see higher welfare standards and many would probablybe shocked to see those conditions. As GovernmentMembers have pointed out, people want food at affordableprices. We agree with that, so there is a tension and abalance in this, but if one has £3 billion to spend, tosome extent one has choices.

At such high densities, sadly broilers can have highlevels of infectious pathogens, leg disorders, foot-paddermatitis and mortality. We believe that to be grantedfinancial assistance, the maximum permitted broilerstocking density could be reduced to a specific number.We have talked today about the long transition period,but on another day we will come to the more show-stoppingamendment on standards elsewhere in the world. Wehave to make decisions about where we want to get to,and then make sure we do not disadvantage our producers.

Funding could support the use of slow-growing breedsand low stocking densities, as scientific research showsthat these bring welfare benefits. As an outcome measure,receipt of funding could be contingent on achieving lowfoot-pad dermatitis scores, which could be measured atslaughter.

Moving to dairy cows, a key issue is those that arekept indoors. Around 20% of UK dairy cows are zerograzed—that is, they are kept indoors for all or nearlyall of the year. Again, funding could be made availablefor farmers who keep their cows in pasture during thegrass-growing season, except when the weather is too

wet. Such schemes already exist in Sweden. Researchshows that pasture-based cows have lower levels oflameness, hoof pathologies, hock lesions, mastitis andmortality than zero-grazed cows. A potential outcome-basedfunding opportunity could be made contingent on pasture-based farmers achieving low levels of lameness andmastitis. We believe grass-based beef and sheep farmerscould receive support for achieving low levels of lamenessand disease.

Different research projects sometimes produce differentoutcomes. It is vital to have effective research into theimpact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestockfarming. We need that to contribute to a betterunderstanding of what can improve animal welfareabove the baseline and what better welfare practices canbe promoted within the public goods element of theBill. Therefore, we will be tabling an amendment toinclude a requirement for the Secretary of State topromote the conduct of research into the impact ofhighly intensive livestock farming practices on animalwelfare, which, I believe, would be welcomed by manyconstituents and citizens.

Labour has argued in the past—and we continue tomake the case—for an independent animal welfarecommissioner, who would keep track of the most up-to-dateand evidence-based science on animal welfare, in orderto inform and update policy. We think that would bebeneficial. We have proposed it in the past and I hope itis something the Government might consider. I am notaware that the Government have indicated thus far thatthey might do that, but let us see.

We back the great sections of the British public whocall for an end to the use of cages on our farms onceand for all. The Bill represents a real opportunity forthe Government to get behind that call, if they can putin place the financial support needed for farmers tomove away from high-intensity farming methods towardsthose that are significantly more supportive of animalfreedoms and welfare. The Bill lacks detail on howfinancial assistance for improved animal welfare shouldbe used. I hope the Minister has given due considerationto the careful planning needed to ensure that thosereceiving money for the clause 1(1)(f) public good aretruly rewarded for achieving significant evidence-basedimprovements in animal welfare above the norm.Amendment 42 provides that financial assistance forthe purpose of protecting or improving the health orwelfare of livestock would be given only if the recipienthad exceeded a set of baseline regulatory standards, asestablished in new clause 9.

Amendment 4 provides an expanded alternative. Wehave a slight sense that the previous amendment maynot be carried, so it is good to have a second string. Itwould put in place a provision that financial assistancewould be provided for the public good of improvinganimal welfare and health only if the Secretary of Statewas satisfied that the recipient had gone beyond minimumrequirements and followed a number of important measuresto guarantee animal welfare, as set out in paragraphs (b)to (e). They include that the recipient has raised animals

“in such a way that enables them to carry out their naturalbehaviours”.

I suspect there would be considerable support for thatamong the wider public.


[Daniel Zeichner]

High animal welfare means taking into account scientificresearch that increasingly indicates that good animalwelfare helps not only the prevention of suffering butthe opportunity for animals to have positive experiencesand exhibit their natural behaviours.

Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con):The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Wouldhe consider, as some animal welfare campaigners do,that natural behaviour would be to allow a cow to keepher calf with her for perhaps the first six months? It isquite difficult to be specific about what natural behaviourmight be.

Daniel Zeichner: As ever, the right hon. Gentlemanasks a probing question. I made the point earlier thatthere are many levels of welfare to which we can aspire.Some are even contentious, in the sense that not everythingnatural is necessarily something that we want to happen.

Responding to consumer demand is complicated. Ifconsumers want the kind of standard of welfare thatthe right hon. Gentleman suggests, I would suggestthat, in the business world, it is a good idea to give themwhat they want—normally the argument made by theother side—but that is costly. There is a dilemma, again,for this mythical £3 billion pot we are all busily spending—[Interruption.] Well, it may not be £3 billion, we willsee. There is a dilemma about which sectors to support,which we will come back to, and what level of welfare isreasonable.

Beyond that, there is a further question. As the righthon. Gentleman suggested, there may be things that liftto a very high standard, but who makes that decision? Isuspect that, as ever, there will be a spectrum. There canbe very high standards, which we see with the plant-basedmilk alternatives people are choosing. I choose them inmy office, because my colleague does not drink dairymilk. We pay a premium, but we are happy to pay that.Consumers should be given the choice. That would bethe answer to his intervention.

Pigs need space; they need a quantity of bedding andmaterials to fill a range of species-specific behaviours,such as rooting, foraging, nesting and exploring. Providingfibrous materials, including straw, brown wood, mushroomcompost or natural vegetation, assists with comfort andcan reduce aggression. Similarly, systems for layinghens should allow for species-specific behaviours suchas nesting, foraging, dust bathing, perching and exercise,including walking, running and brief bursts of flying.

2.15 pm

Many years ago, when I lived in a rural area, Idiscovered a chicken that had come off a lorry, doubtlesson its way to not a happy place. I do not think Trevorever imagined she would be mentioned in dispatches inthe House of Commons, but it was astonishing to seehow quickly that bird went back to exhibit exactly thosebehaviours, given the environment we imagine she hadbeen in for many weeks. That was quite an eye-opener.

I think the British public would want to see many ofthese measures. The question is: are they prepared topay the price? That is part of the debate. It is not justanimal welfare enthusiasts who are asking for them.The Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the Government’sindependent advisory body, has stated:

“Achievement of a life worth living requires provision of ananimal’s needs and certain wants…Wants are those resources thatan animal may not need to survive or to avoid developing abnormalbehaviour, but nevertheless improve its quality of life.”

Tests of higher welfare standards should include aprovision that recipients of public money are not involvedin the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening.Of course, that is a long-running issue, which I willre-rehearse only briefly; I suspect the Committee isfamiliar with it.

At the moment, it is mainly sheep that are exportedfor slaughter, with most animals coming from England.Often, calves—mainly young dairy calves—are exportedlive, and put on a long journey to Spain or Italy forfattening for beef and veal. Those long journeys arestressful for the animals and, in some cases, result ingreat suffering due to overcrowding, high summertemperatures and injuries received en route. Calves exportedfrom Scotland are often taken by road to Ramsgate inKent and then by ferry to northern France, from wherethey can be driven all the way to Spain or Italy. I amtold that previous journeys that have taken calves viaIreland have lasted up to 135 hours.

The practice has been highly contentious for manyyears and we believe it should be ended once and for all.That would do a great amount of good and have only alimited impact on the industry, as only one Britishsheep in 300 is involved in such trade and only 1.5% ofBritish calves were involved in the export trade forfattening in 2017.

Mr Goodwill: Does the hon. Gentleman recognisethat the reason we can discuss this practice is becausewe have left the European Union and have the freedomnot to comply with single market rules?

Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutelyright, as he well knows. At the very least, it seemsevident that those involved in the live export tradeshould not be receiving public subsidy for good animalwelfare. There is probably widespread agreement onthat. Having said all that, there need to be exceptionsfor genuine cross-border movements from NorthernIreland to the Republic of Ireland, provided that theanimals involved are not re-exported from the Republic.We provide such an exemption in amendment 4.

Other requirements for receiving money for higherstandards should include that livestock are not subjectedto prohibited procedures such as mutilations, as definedin the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that livestockare killed only in the controlled environment of aslaughterhouse unless a veterinary surgeon certifiesit necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and themethod of killing is humane. Amendment 5 providesdefinitions for the practices outlined in amendment 4.

Mr Goodwill: I will be brief. Under clause 1, which wediscussed earlier in the week, the list of objectives forwhich financial assistance can be given includes, undersubsection (1)(f),

“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”.

Therefore, much of what the hon. Gentleman talksabout is already covered in the Bill. While I can understandhis wish to incentivise less tail docking and castration ofpigs, reduce the density of broiler chickens and phase


out farrowing crates, the intensive pig and poultry sectorshave not received funding through the common agriculturalpolicy system. My worry is that he is looking at ways ofswitching support from the farms that have relied on it—particularly extensive farms in the uplands, thosefarms that are producing the habitats and environmentalpublic goods that we want to protect—to the intensivesector, which already manages very nicely. Switching tosome of these more welfare-friendly methods on a largescale could mop up quite large amounts of the moneyavailable.

My second concern is about amendment 4’s proposednew subsection (4A)(d) to clause 2 of the Bill, whichtalks about killing livestock

“in any place other than in a slaughterhouse”.

I am a little worried about the practicalities of how thatrelates to sick and injured animals on farms. Theamendment states that a veterinary surgeon must havecertified that the animal should be put out of its miserybecause of poor health, and that

“the method of killing is humane”.

I read that to mean that on every occasion when afarmer wishes to humanely put an animal out of its painor misery, they must be observed by a vet. In our village,I have a neighbour whose farm has 16,000 laying hens.It is an extensive system; they go outside. They arebarn-raised hens produced under the very best welfarestandards, but from time to time a hen will be injuredor, in some cases, attacked by other hens and my neighbourwill need to euthanise it. I do not think it is realistic orpractical to expect that the farmer will call a veterinarysurgeon on every occasion that happens and incur a feeof maybe £40 or £50.

Similarly, on my own farm, until last Saturday wehad four hens. Unfortunately, a pet dog got into ourfield on Saturday afternoon and killed two of them, andwhen I went on Sunday morning to let the two remaininghens out of the shed, one of them was obviously in avery bad way. The tail feathers that we thought hadbeen pulled out by the dog were hiding quite a nastyinjury, and I had to kill that hen myself. It would nothave been realistic for me to take that hen to the vet, orto call a vet out. There are many instances in which ananimal is in great distress, maybe because it has abroken leg, and waiting for a vet to come would not bepractical, even if it were economically feasible.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I donot support his amendment, because I do not think hehas looked into the practicalities of animal welfare on afarm when animals are sick. I think back to when weused to keep a load of sheep. Sometimes sheep were in avery bad way; perhaps they had had difficult lambingand were haemorrhaging. This might be taking place at2 o’clock in the morning, so the most humane thing todo was to put them out of their misery straightaway,without any delay and certainly without waiting for avet to come, even if that were practical. If the hon.Gentleman wants to come back with similar amendmentson Report, I hope he will look at paragraph (d) again,because most practising farmers would look at it andsay, “This is not going to help animal welfare. This isgoing to mean animals dying in suffering, particularly ifby breaking these rules I lose all my subsidies.” I thinkmany farmers would be very worried about that, so Ihope the hon. Gentleman understands the practicalities.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is a pleasureto follow my right hon. Friend, who as ever makes somevery valid points. Animal welfare is important to us all,and I am proud that, broadly speaking, it is also veryimportant to farmers in this country.

Touching briefly on the issue of live exports, as Iimagine the hon. Member for Cambridge knows, theGovernment has a manifesto commitment to end excessivelylong journeys for animals going for slaughter or fattening.We have said to date that we are actively looking at thisimportant issue, and I understand that a consultation isplanned imminently for this spring, so that we can takeit further as quickly as possible.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman very clearly, andnot just by nodding, that there is no intention thatpayments will be issued to farmers for achieving basicwelfare standards. The Government are world leadersin animal welfare, and are committed to retaining thatstatus by maintaining and strengthening our standards,as part of a comprehensive series of measures to improveanimal welfare. Using the powers in this Bill, we aredeveloping a scheme that aims to improve welfare. Aspart of that, we are exploring a one-off grant systemthat will help farmers to improve welfare on farms, andmight well include some of the suggestions made by thehon. Member for Cambridge, which we discussed earlierin our consideration of the Bill.

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): For clarification,would that grant system be for capital expenditure tochange the animals’ accommodation? If so, does theMinister envisage that there will be ongoing revenue-typesubsidies to maintain the higher welfare standards, or isit just capital that is being looked at?

Victoria Prentis: I envisage the specific grants that Iwas just talking about as payments to enhance buildings,for example, or for other welfare issues. However, thehon. Member is right to mention other means of payingfor welfare, and it is true that the Bill is currentlyflexible. I expect that we will get into the detail of thatsort of issue as we progress with devising the schemes toimprove animal welfare. She is right to highlight thatissue, and should make whatever points she wants to aswe devise the schemes. We are exploring a payment-by-results scheme, under which farmers could receive ongoingpayments for delivering specific animal welfareenhancements that are valued by the public but, as thehon. Member for Cambridge said, not yet sufficientlyvalued by the market. The hon. Member for BristolEast is therefore right to continue to make whateverpoints she wants to in that space.

The amendment would restrict in primary legislationwhat will be included in the new scheme before thoseinvolved in the industry, as well as the Animal WelfareCommittee, have had the opportunity to have their say.What defines enhanced animal welfare must be designedin consultation with those involved, so that the schemesdeliver the best possible outcomes for consumers, theindustry and, most importantly, the animals themselves.Our understanding of animal welfare today is far aheadof where it was when I was growing up on a farm, or20 or 30 years ago. It would be short-sighted of us to setout requirements in legislation for payments, as it would


[Victoria Prentis]

restrict our ability to develop or amend schemes, suchas the enhanced animal welfare scheme, when moreevidence becomes available.

Turning specifically to amendment 42, improving thehealth of the national livestock, herd or flock, requireswidespread co-ordinated action. We intend to launchthe first schemes to improve the health of farmedanimals from 2022 to 2023, concentrating on endemicdiseases. We are co-designing schemes with farmers andvets, prioritising cattle—both dairy and beef—sheep,pigs and poultry, with the intention to widen participationto other species. Previous experience has shown that,without action being taken by the majority of farmers,efforts to control disease and improve health do notachieve very much.

That action does not have to be significantly abovethe legal standards to be very effective, but it does needto be part of a concerted effort on the part of farmersand others, which can, of course, include centralGovernment. We are worried that the amendment wouldrestrict us to providing financial assistance only, ineffect, to better-performing farmers. Actions such astackling endemic disease are best done when a largeproportion of farmers and livestock owners are involved.If we limit the number of those who can benefit from ascheme, we will not be as successful in achieving ourgoals.

The hon. Member for Cambridge teased out thequestion of what constitutes a significantly higher standardof animal health. There is no single measure of animalhealth at the moment, and different actions to improveit will have different levels of public and private benefits.I am sure that we will continue to discuss such matters.At the very least, the amendment would make an importantpart of the financial clause difficult to work in practice,and could go so far as being counterproductive. I thereforeask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

2.30 pm

Daniel Zeichner: That was an interesting and illuminatingdiscussion that, as ever, probably raised as many questionsas it answered, sadly.

I will start with the points made by the sharp-eyedright hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I amsorry to hear about his unfortunate incident with thedog at the weekend.

Mr Goodwill: It was our favourite.

Daniel Zeichner: I am sorry to hear that. The righthon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I fully concedethat this was not a drafting error; I am not sure weguided those doing the drafting in quite the right way. Iaccept that we could improve on that. What we aretrying to tease out, however, relates to the questions andpoints that I have already raised about what the publicwant from the Bill. He implied that he was tempted tosupport one of the amendments. I would like to tempthim to support the other one, which does not have thoseobjections attached to it, but I fear that I shall bedisappointed.

We are pushing for a commitment to much higherstandards. The Minister made a series of importantpoints. On live animal export, we absolutely support

using the opportunities available and we hope that theGovernment will get on with it. We would all like that tohappen.

The point relates to some of the earlier tensions. Ithink the Minister said that there is no intention to payfor basic welfare standards, which I understand. Page 20of the policy discussion document—I hate to keepreferring to it, but it makes the point and has illuminatedthe discussion—asks what tier 1 could pay for and givesa wide range of examples. There is a tension betweenwhat she said and some of those examples, not leastbecause what it could pay for depends on exactly what isbeing paid for on what unit. Farms are not all the same;some are mixed farms.

The cross-compliance regulations that we had underthe European Union made it incumbent on the wholeenterprise to conform to rules and regulations, but wedo not know, frankly, how that will work in this newset-up and whether one part doing one thing disqualifiesor qualifies. Those are exactly the reasons why wewanted a more detailed discussion, because we do notknow the answers.

I understand the Minister’s predicament, but it is allvery well for her to say, “Ah well, these things aredifficult. It’s going to take time. The world’s going tochange,” and all the rest of it, but it ain’t going tochange for the people who are farming next year. Theywill have to deal with this, alongside the reductions thatare coming, like the sword of Damocles over them, atan unspecified pace. I am afraid that I do not think thatis good enough. We need to sort out some of thethinking behind it.

I hear the Minister’s point about the potential unintendedconsequences when one is trying to apply a measure toentire herds, but I am not convinced that it is impossibleto frame it in such a way that we could do that and stillinsist on high welfare standards for public money. Thisis a matter of huge public interest, which is reflected inthe amount of correspondence that most MPs get on theissue. If the Government want popular support forthese policies, this is exactly the kind of amendmentthat they would do well to look at. On that basis, I willpress the amendment to a vote.

The Chair: Would you like to press amendment 4 oramendment 42?

Daniel Zeichner: I would like to press amendment 42and withdraw amendment 4. I beg to ask leave towithdraw the amendment.


Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, atend insert—

“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given undersection 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving thehealth of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State orof any person to whom functions relating to the giving of financialassistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection orimprovement effects a standard which is significantly higher thanthat required by regulations made by the Secretary of State undersection [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticulturalactivity].”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance forprotecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock todemonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of asignificantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9.




Division No. 10]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria



“(4A) No more than 5% of the financial assistance giventhrough a financial assistance scheme in any particular financialyear shall be spent on administration or consultancy.

(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary theproportion of financial assistance specified in subsection (4A).”

This amendment, along with Amendments 45,46 and 47 would place a5% limit on the amount of financial assistance which can be spent inany year on administration or consultancy.


Amendment 45, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after“subsection” insert “(4B) or subsection”



“(10A) For the purposes of this Act, “administration orconsultancy”includes money spent on “administration or consultancyother than in connection with the purposes in section [Financialassistance: duty to provide advice].”


Amendment 47, in clause 5, page 6, line 13, after“year”, insert

“, and (c) the amount of money spent on administration orconsultancy, within the meaning of subsection (10A) of section 2”


Daniel Zeichner: Amendment 44 is another probingamendment. We are seeking to establish what protectionsthere are against the financial assistance schemes’administration costs being able to swallow large swathesof the budget. This is slightly difficult, since we still donot fully understand how they work; we are in a trickyposition, but we think it is important that this issue beaddressed.

We have talked already about the importance ofhaving comprehensive enforcement measures in placethat work to support compliance with the financialassistance schemes. However, I suggest that it is just asimportant to ensure that the bureaucracy associatedwith that does not take over the schemes at the expenseof money going to farmers to deliver environmental publicgoods. The issue is clouded by the fact that we still do

not know where the money is coming from—we canmake assumptions, but it is not clear: how much will itcost and whose budget is it coming from?

There are plenty of unknowns, and we are trying toencourage the Government to share their thinking withus. We would not necessarily disagree with them, butknowing that would mean that we could query howeverything should work. There is a worry that, given theambition and complexity of some of the schemes, itcould all end up costing a considerable amount ofmoney.

If the system is not properly regulated and controlled,there could be opportunities for people for whomenvironmental goals may not be the chief concern.Even if that is not the case, employing people to carryout these complicated works could consume a lot oflegal time and effort—many of those people do notwork on the wages that farm workers do, so it wouldprobably be quite expensive.

Of course, there is a delicate irony to all this: one ofthe chief complaints about the current system is thebureaucracy associated with it. I think we all probablyshare that frustration. The question is whether thebureaucracy has grown for reasons of its own, or whetherthere is actually a good reason for it. The Oppositionthink there is often a good reason for regulation andoversight, and we think there has been too muchderegulation over the years. There will probably be aslight difference of opinion on this issue. I suspect thatthe world is changing a bit now that we have seen thedangers of just dismissing bureaucracy as somehowbeing a problem; many of us who have worked inbureaucracies think there is quite a good reason forenlargement in some cases.

The Opposition are looking particularly at the clause 3measures on checking, enforcing and monitoring financialassistance. The Government want the Bill to be simple,but they also want a comprehensive system for checkingthat it is working. I suggest there is a tension there,which we would like to know a bit about. We are leftwith a lot of unanswered questions about how any ofthis will work. Again, it goes back to the detail in theenvironmental land management document. As I saidearlier, it is laced with good intentions but also manyquestions.

The Minister will doubtless say, “Well, we’ve gotseven years to sort it out and it’s an iterative process,”and so forth. I suspect that, among hon. Members whoare still in Parliament in seven years’ time, some mightwell look back and say, “Maybe people should haveasked a few more questions.” To cover my back againstthat possibility—not that I necessarily assume that Iwill be here in seven years’ time—I am trying to shedsome light on this issue.

Looking at the complex web of organisations involvedin all these processes—the Environment Agency, NaturalEngland, DEFRA itself and so on—it is fair to askwhose budget any financial assistance will come from. Iimagine that argument is going on behind closed doors.Everyone can see there is a pot of money, and presumablyeveryone thinks they will be given the resources needed.As I have already hinted, there is a real danger that thepot of money will diminish if everyone gets the budgetnecessary to do what they want. It could be the poor oldfarmer, or the local rural area, that finds the money hasgone somewhere else.


[Daniel Zeichner]

The Government need to tell us a bit more abouttheir estimates of how much all this will cost. We havesuggested a 5% cut, which is not an informed figure—wecan come up with an informed figure only if we havemuch more information on what the Government arethinking. Our concern is that, in the first year, it wouldlook as though there is some headroom from the 5%cut. One would imagine that setting up some of thesethings will be quite expensive in the first place. We canenvisage a situation in which the 5% in the first yeardoes not go towards environmental improvements atall.

I used to be a software programmer, and I know howwell most computer systems work. People are filled withconfidence and enthusiasm but things do not work outin quite the way imagined, not least because the poorpeople designing the systems have the same problem: ifit is not clear what we are trying to do, we cannot alwaysprovide a system that fits. My point is that a lot ofmoney might need to be spent upfront. [Interruption.] Ithought the Minister was about to intervene and tell methe answer, but she is not.

We certainly need clarity, which goes back to anotherfairly basic philosophical point: in other policy areas,we are familiar with the difficulty of targeted schemesin one way or another. The argument about universalismversus means-testing, be it for the BBC licence fee orany of the welfare payments, is well rehearsed. We knowthere is a considerable overhead with running thesekinds of schemes. That was part of the reason for thereforms to the CAP some years ago—people had gotfrustrated with the costs, overheads and bureaucracy.

To return to EU regulation 1307/2013, on directpayments to farmers, we want to make the systemsimpler. Everybody wants to make it simpler until itcomes to designing the system. These things have ahabit of growing, so we want to tie it down and geta commitment from the Government. I am not weddedto 5%—I would be very happy to hear a differentsuggestion—but that is our starting point.

2.45 pm

If I were to explain what we are talking about todayto my colleagues who are not watching the AgricultureBill daily, many of them would think about constituentscoming to their surgery—I am sure all hon. Membershave experienced this—to discuss how the personalindependence payments system works, or somethinglike that. In those cases, there is extraordinary bureaucracy.I am sure we have all encountered cases of peoplesaying, “I did manage to walk 10 yards across the roombecause I was really trying,” which means that they fail.Most of us agree that we do not want people to be putthrough that, but that is where we get to with these veryprescriptive schemes if we are not careful.

That is the challenge, the basic philosophical point,for the Minister and I wish her well with it. It would behelpful to her, frankly, if a tight limit were set so thatofficials could be exercised in trying to work it all out. Ihope people see what we are trying to do. We do notwant the public to come back to us and say, “Come on!All you have done is taken money away from localcommunities and farmers, and passed it on to outsideconsultants.” Amendment 44 proposes 5%. We have

tried to frame it in a way that we think might work,making sure it is spent within that year. We have alsobeen generous enough to suggest that the Secretary ofState could vary that via regulation in the light of theiterative process.

Amendment 45 would subject those regulations tothe affirmative resolution procedure so that properparliamentary debate could be had about the changes.The Secretary of State would then be able to makethe case for why the proportion may well be higher atthe beginning. That might not be unreasonable, but theamendment would provide a method of proper discussionand scrutiny. We think the advice to farmers is important,and we support that, so amendment 46 excludes from“administration or consultancy” any money spent onadvice supplied to farmers. We genuinely appreciatethat this system is not going to work without that kindof advice.

Amendment 47 would add into the annual report onfinancial assistance, which clause 5 obliges the Secretaryof State to produce, how much money had been spenton administration or consultancy that year. We aretrying to create a framework—this is a frameworkBill—for proper reporting that is open to scrutiny andtransparency. It is almost like a nutcracker getting somepurchase or bite on a nut; I suspect that some farmersthink that they are already subjected to a nutcracker invarious ways. We want to give the Secretary of State theability to really drive down on administrative costs.

Victoria Prentis: As the hon. Gentleman knows, wepledged to guarantee the current annual budget tofarming in every year of this Parliament. I want tomake it completely clear that that commitment is separatefrom the funding that the Government requires toadminister future financial assistance schemes, whichitself is determined through Government spendingreviews—behind closed doors, as he puts it. To make itcrystal clear, the running costs for DEFRA and theDEFRA group are considered separately from the paymentsmade to beneficiaries. I hope that clears up one of hisquestions.

As we continue to develop the future schemes, wemay find that we need to include some administrationcosts for third parties, such as those incurred to runfarm clusters or other groups that bring together multiplefarmers and land managers to provide some of theschemes envisaged in the hon. Gentleman’s favouritenew document. At this stage, we are unwilling to lockourselves into saying how much will be spent onadministration and consultancy. It will vary enormouslyfrom scheme to scheme.

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to makesure that we remain transparent about the costs ofrunning our schemes, and I reassure him that we arededicated to remaining open and honest about ourproposals and their costs. The purpose of the ELMdocument that we have heard so much about today is tostart the discussion and to seek input from farmers,foresters and other land managers in co-designing thepolicy, and to give a demonstration of the open andtransparent way in which we are going to be designingthe schemes.

Similarly, the new clause we introduced that commitsus to publishing annual financial reports on schemeexpenditure will enable the public to examine how muchwe are spending. Those reports could include a breakdown


of administration and consultancy costs, if the Secretaryof State so desires—I thank the hon. Gentleman for hissuggestions on that. The public, and Parliament actingon their behalf, have a right to expect that public fundswill be used wisely and so we will, of course, be followingthe rules under the Treasury’s “Managing public money”guidance.

I reassure members of the Committee that we recogniseand are committed to delivering value for our taxpayers.Indeed, that is partly why we wish to keep such flexibility—to ensure that financial assistance is always deliveredin the most streamlined and efficient way. I thereforeask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: The Minister has given a welcomeclarification. The obvious rejoinder is: where is theheadroom in the DEFRA budget for these very ambitiousplans? I suspect we will return to that question. I wasjust flicking through my favourite document, butunfortunately could not find the appropriate line.[Interruption.] I know; it is a shame. I am pretty surethat there is a suggestion somewhere in there that someof the money saved from basic payments could be usedfor some of this work. We can return to that pointanother day.

I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful response. I begto ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Amendment made: 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, leaveout“or operated on behalf of”

and insert “by”.—(Victoria Prentis.)This drafting amendment is intended to clarify the exclusion offinancial assistance schemes made by the Secretary of State from thedefinition of a third party scheme and also to achieve consistency withother references in the Bill to things done by the Secretary of State. Asa matter of legal interpretation a reference to something done by theSecretary of State will pick up things done by others acting in the nameof or on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at endinsert—

“(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for any act oractivity in pursuit of a purpose under section 1 if the land onwhich that act or activity is to take place is to be used by theapplicant, or by a person acting with the consent of the applicant,for hunting of a wild mammal with a dog, whether or not thathunting is exempt under section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004.”.

Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance canbe given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (includingexempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under theHunting Act.


“(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for a purposeunder section 1 if land on which any act or activity is to takeplace in pursuance of that purpose is land on which—

(a) an offence has been committed under section 1, 3 or 5of the Hunting Act 2004, or

(b) exempt hunting, within the meaning of section 2 of theHunting Act 2004, has taken place since 18 February2005.”.

Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance canbe given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (includingexempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under theHunting Act.

Ruth Jones: It is a pleasure to serve under yourchairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am very pleased to havethe opportunity to speak to amendments 49 and 50.Mindful of the Chair’s previous exhortations, I will notread out the amendments, but I remind colleagues thatboth amendments ensure that no financial assistancecan be given for land that is to be or has been used forhunting, including exempt hunting, or on which anoffence has been committed under the Hunting Act.

These are important amendments. I hope the Ministerwill think carefully about the need for us to showleadership and for this Parliament to pass legislationthat is bold and strong and enshrines our values. Thosevalues mean that I am especially pleased to speak to theamendments.

Colleagues on this side will not need to be reminded,but I want to reiterate to the Minister and her BackBenchers that Labour is the party of animal welfare.The Conservative party likes to talk about the lastLabour Government—so do I: we should rememberthat, when in government, Labour brought forward thelandmark and history-making Hunting Act 2004.

Mr Goodwill: Is the hon. Member talking about themost recent Labour Government or the actual lastLabour Government?

Ruth Jones: I will pass on the semantics, but I thankthe right hon. Gentleman.

The Conservative party has an appalling record onanimal welfare in government. Announcements are oftenpiecemeal, weak and kicked into the long grass when itcomes to the advancement of animal welfare in everysense, including providing financial assistance for landon which hunting takes place.

Many colleagues have repeatedly raised concerns aboutthe use of trail hunting as a cover for illegal hunting.The weight of evidence from independent monitors andnon-governmental organisations shows that trail huntingis not a genuine activity. Indeed, a poll commissionedby the League Against Cruel Sports found that only onein six rural residents believes that hunting with dogsreflects countryside values; more than nine in 10 thinkthat observing nature reflects true rural values.

The Bill needs to show that we care, that we will leadby example and that legislation made in this House isrelevant and sensible. Wildlife crime continues to blightmany of our rural and green spaces, and many animalspecies across the country. There can be little confidenceon the Government Benches that wildlife crime is beingtackled effectively when the National Wildlife CrimeUnit now has only 12 members of staff: they are requiredto cover the entirety of its UK operations. We need toget our house in order, and provide adequate resourcesto ensure that we can enforce legislation.

I mentioned the successes of the last LabourGovernment.

Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): Mentionsome more!

Ruth Jones: I will. This month marked 15 years sincehunting with dogs was banned in England and Wales—twoyears after a ban was introduced in Scotland by the then


[Ruth Jones]

Labour-led Government of my noble Friend, LordMcConnell, through the Protection of Wild Mammals(Scotland) Act 2002. The 2004 Act, which bannedhunting in England and Wales, was a landmark momentin the fight against animal cruelty, but there is still muchto do to end the scourge of fox, deer and hare huntingin the British countryside.

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

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

As the system of agricultural support payments shiftstowards payment for public goods, we must ensure thatpublic money does not support a cruel sport that shouldhave been consigned utterly to history long ago. Itcannot be right for public money, designated to fundreal public goods such as animal welfare, could end upbeing be paid to places where land is also used forhunting with dogs. The amendments would rule thatout, and should be accepted by the Government.Landowners are an important link in the chain. Huntsneed land to operate on, and the more they are denied itthe less opportunity there will be to flout the law.

If we make every effort to remove the temptationsand opportunities to hunt, we will be doing what we canto stop the illegal killing of innocent animals. That wasrecognised by the Labour group of NottinghamshireCounty Council, which passed a motion calling for theend of hunting, including exempt hunting, on council-owned land. I pay tribute to colleagues on the councilfor their activism and campaigning, and for standing upfor what is right. By preventing support payments beingpaid to landowners convicted of knowingly allowingillegal hunting to take place, which we can do by supportingthe amendments, we will ensure that landowners thinktwice before allowing hunting on their land, and provideadded impetus to police and law enforcement authoritiesto pursue charges when they suspect landowners tohave broken the law.

I am pleased that the new Minister has been appointed.I genuinely look forward to working with her on the Billand working with her in the months and years ahead.When I was preparing this speech, I visited her websiteto see her views on hunting and what she said when shewas an enthusiastic and conscientious Back Bencher.Like all good pupils, I found some interesting material.Under a section called “Victoria’s views”, the now

Minister, then Back Bencher, noted that some of herconstituents would disagree with her support for therepeal of the Hunting Act 2004. I confess that thatapplies to me too.

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

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

She is now part of the Government, so she can listen tothe experts and support amendments that demonstrateour commitment to strong, secure and effective animalwelfare policies.

Opposition Members are committed to ending thehunting of animals with dogs once and for all. The endgoal is clear, but it requires us to be on our guard andalive to the new opportunities that may arise to continuethe chasing and killing of animals. Amendments 49 and50 would be an important step on the way to meetingour end goal. I hope that hon. Members on both sidesof the Committee will support them.

3 pm

Mr Goodwill: Again, I worry about the unintendedconsequences of the amendments that have been putforward for understandable and, for a large section ofthe community, well-meaning reasons. The explanatorystatements say that the amendments,

“would provide that no financial assistance can be given for landwhich is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempthunting), or on which an offence has been committed under theHunting Act.”

When one interrogates section 2 of the HuntingAct 2004 and the exemptions listed in schedule 1 to findout what is defined as exempt hunting, one reads thatthat includes flushing using no more than two dogs, sothat animals such as rabbits can be shot. In many cases,it says, that can be done to protect the biological diversityof an area or to obtain meat for human consumption.

My key concern is that there is a long list underexempt hunting—I am not talking about trail hunting—including using just one dog, whereas the Act refersonly to using more than two dogs. Amendment 49 talksabout using “a dog”. The hon. Member for NewportWest can correct me if I am wrong, but from what Ihave read, if a terrier has killed a rat on a farm at anytime since 2004, that farm will be exempt from gettingany agricultural support. I would hazard a guess thatthat would cover at least 95% of the farmland in thiscountry, if not 100%.

When the hon. Lady talked about land, she was notspecific about whether she meant the bit of land wherethe offence may or may not have taken place, the entirefarm or the land in the ownership of that particularfarmer or landowner, or whether the exemption stillapplies if the land is sold or the tenant who controlsthat land gives in the tenancy and it goes to a newtenant. My worry is that the amendments leave us withmore questions than answers. If they are taken at facevalue—the Minister is a lawyer, so she is good at takingthings at face value—and adopted, we could end upwith maybe 100% of land in this country being exemptfrom getting any support at all.


Daniel Zeichner: I was rather anticipating that wewould have a discussion about this issue. This is publicmoney for public goods. We are trying to reflect whatwe believe is the strong view of the British public thatthey would not want public money to be used to supporthunting. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that weshould try to reflect the will of the people?

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) rose—

Mr Goodwill: I will take the other intervention, whichI suspect may be on the same subject, before I reply tothem both, if I may.

Alicia Kearns: If this legislation is meant to be pragmatic—if it is there to support farmers and ensure they act inthe right way to steward our environment and ourcommunities—should we not therefore be doing pragmaticthings, rather than virtue signalling? We should recognisethat cats have every right to hunt down mice if that iswhat they want to do, and therefore restricting what farmerscan do in this way is neither sensible nor the place oflegislation; rather, it is the place of press releases.

Mr Goodwill: My hon. Friend makes a good point,which answers the shadow Minister’s point very well.He has talked about the will of the people: the will ofthe people was expressed on 12 December last year,when they elected a majority Conservative Government.

I conducted an extensive survey of my constituentsprior to my election. We got about 20,000 replies to thatquestionnaire, which asked lots of questions, includingone about hunting. The Whitby part of my constituencywas about 60/40 in favour of hunting; in the Scarboroughpart, it was about 60/40 the other way. I went to aprimary school not long before the election, and as weall do when we visit schools, I talked about the issuesthat the children wanted to talk about. Hunting didcome up, and one child who came from a farmingfamily made it very clear that she took a dim view offoxes, and the fact that they had been in her family’s hencoop and were taking newborn lambs. She underlinedthe need to control foxes.

We are not revisiting the hunting legislation in thisCommittee; rather, we are looking at what the practicalimplications would be if this amendment were on theface of the Bill, with its provisions being retrospectiveand applicable to exempt activities such as one dogkilling one rat or two dogs being used to flush a rabbitto be shot. If those exemptions were removed, almostevery farm in the country would be covered by thatretrospective application.

Daniel Zeichner: I fully accept that we can alwaysimprove the drafting. What I am trying to get at iswhether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that publicmoney—taxpayers’money—should be supporting hunting,in whatever form. We are trying to get at that to buildon the landmark legislation that has been so popular.As we know, the Government are fairly reluctant to getback into this debate.

Mr Goodwill: My first point is that if the hon. Memberfor Newport West had drafted the amendment herself,she might have looked in a bit more detail at whatschedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 actually says andwhat exemptions should be referred to, rather thanmaking a general reference to exempt practices. We all

rely on pressure groups and lobby groups to help withour work, but taking things at face value is not alwaysthe best way forward. Secondly, the objective of the Billis not to support people killing rats with terriers, orpeople conducting legal activity within the context ofthe Hunting Act; it is to support our agricultural industryin a way that also achieves the green environmentalobjectives that we all want to meet.

The hon. Member for Cambridge will not be surprisedto hear that I will not be supporting these amendments.Whether or not Members agree with hunting is almostbeside the point, because the amendments are draftedin such a way as to destroy the objective of the Bill,which is to give support to farmers, particularly in someof the most challenging parts of our country—thoseareas where farming is most difficult to make economicallyattractive, where predation from foxes and rats areproblems, and where other types of pest control need tobe carried out. The exemptions within the Hunting Actexist to allow those legal activities to take place, and myguess is that using the amendments to take them out ofthat Act and make those farms exempt from supportwould take out nearly 100% of the farmland in theUnited Kingdom. Even farmers farming National Trustland where hunting is not allowed by the landlord willbe carrying out rabbit and rat control, which is one ofthe exemptions that the hon. Member for NewportWest is seeking to bring back in.

Victoria Prentis: Environmental land managementwill, as we said earlier, be most successful if the highestnumber of participants are enabled to join in. As myright hon. Friend has just made clear, I fear this amendmentwould limit uptake of our exciting new schemes, andtherefore limit the environmental benefits that we allhope will flow from them. For example, under thesuggested tiers 2 and 3 it will be vital for farmers andland managers to work together across a wide area, todeliver the environmental benefits we hope for, such asimproving the status of habitats. Excluding some landfrom being eligible could prevent us from deliveringthose benefits.

I am concerned that the amendment might penalise legalactivities. For example, exempt hunting is, by its nature,exempt from the Hunting Act 2004, and is a legal activitywith clearly defined restrictions. No one should bepenalised or have financial assistance withheld for carryingout or allowing lawful activities on their land.

Amendment 50 concerned me because it would exemptfrom financial assistance those on whose land huntinghad been carried out without their knowledge. Forexample, hare coursing, which many hon. Members willhave had difficulty with in their constituencies, is anoffence under the Hunting Act, and is often undertakenwithout landowner or land manager consent, often byillegal trespassers.

I am also concerned that exempting land that hasbeen used for hunting since February 2005, as my righthon. Friend said, including legal hunting activities,could mean that we are exempting financial assistancefrom being awarded to lawful landowners or managers,who had no control over what had happened on thatland previously.

I hope I have made clear the difficulties in seeking torestrict financial assistance in such a way. I thereforeask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdrawthe amendment.


Ruth Jones: I thank hon. Members for their interventionsand the Minister for her comments. I thank the righthon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for hisadvice about not taking things at face value. I promisehim that I have spoken at length to farmers in myconstituency about hunting, as well as pest control andvermin control, which are two very different things.

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about thepotential unintended consequences of the amendments.We are willing to work with others in this room toensure that the amendments are drafted soundly andsafely, but we wish to put forward the basic spirit of theamendments today. He has gone to extremes by suggestingthat no landowner in the country would ever get anymoney again. The hon. Member for Rutland and Meltonmade the point about cats killing mice and rats. My catskilled mice and rats, but I am not seeking public moneyfor public good. That is the difference.

Mr Goodwill: Cats are exempt from the Bill, so thatwould still be allowed.

Ruth Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman forthat, but the point is, if one is not seeking public moneyfor public good, it is not a problem.

We need to work together to ensure that theseamendments come through. Everyone is aware of thepressure groups. There is the idea that hunting is asport, and it has been taken up as a sport over hundredsof years. We, as a civilised society, should look to closethat down. We have no problem with controlling vermin.The right hon. Gentleman made the point about foxes,which I completely understand, having had friends whohave had chickens decimated by foxes, which, as heknows, do not eat them, but leave them.

We have no problems with controlling pests andvermin, but hunting is a massive game in the countrysideand people do not want to see animals being putthrough this insecure and frightening sport. The evidenceof the unintended consequences of hunting is clear: catsand dogs are killed as a result of trail hunting. It isimportant that we mitigate to stop that. While we arehappy to work together on the wording of theseamendments, it is important that we work together toensure they are accepted. The spirit of them is veryclear and I hope the Government will accept that.



Division No. 11]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


The Chair: I have not had any notice that the Oppositionwant to press amendments 50, 45, 64, 46 and 5. Is thatcorrect?

Daniel Zeichner: I think that is correct.

3.15 pm

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of theBill.


New clause 18—Financial assistance: duty to provideadvice—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to securethe provision of training, guidance and advice to personsreceiving financial assistance under this Act, for the purpose ofenabling those persons to deliver the purpose or purposes forwhich the financial assistance is given.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision foradvice on matters which include but are not limited to—

(a) the impact of any practice upon the environment,

(b) business management, including the development ofbusiness plans,

(c) the health and welfare of livestock,

(d) the safety and health of workers in any agriculturalsector,

(e) innovation, including alternative methods of pest,disease and weed control,

(f) food safety, insofar as it relates to the production offood or any activity in, or in close connection with,an agri-food supply chain,

(g) the operation of any mechanism for applying for, orreceiving, financial assistance under this Act, and

(h) marketing of any product falling within an agriculturalsector under Schedule 1.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmativeresolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provisionfor training, guidance and advice to be made available to personsreceiving financial assistance.

New clause 23—Consultation on financial assistanceschemes and multi-annual financial assistance plans—

“(1) Prior to framing any financial assistance scheme undersection 1 or to preparing a multi-annual financial assistance planunder section 4, the Secretary of State must carry out aconsultation on the design of the scheme and how it relates to theGovernment’s strategic priorities for giving financial assistance.

(2) In the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary ofState must consult—

(a) such persons, or representatives of such persons, asappear to the Secretary of State to be representativeof interests substantially affected by the scheme,

(b) such persons, or representatives of such persons, asappear to the Secretary of State likely to apply forfinancial assistance,

(c) any relevant authority under section [Consultation ongiving of financial assistance],

(d) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of Stateconsiders appropriate.”

New clause 24—Consultation on giving of financialassistance—

“(1) Financial assistance under section 1 may only be given toa person following consultation with—

(a) the relevant authority under subsection (3) for the areain which land for which financial assistance beingclaimed is situated,

(b) the owner, or representative of an owner, of any landadjacent to that for which financial assistance isbeing claimed,


(c) any water undertaker under section 6 of the WaterIndustry Act 1991 whose area includes land forwhich financial assistance is being claimed,

(d) such persons, or representatives of such persons, asappear to the Secretary of State to be representativeof interests substantially affected by the giving of thefinancial assistance,

(e) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of Stateconsiders appropriate.

(2) The consultation under subsection (1) may seek views on—

(a) the amount of financial assistance to be given to aperson,

(b) the purposes for which a person is to be given thefinancial assistance,

(c) the outcomes which the person in receipt of financialassistance should be expected to deliver, and

(d) the potential for giving financial assistance in connectionwith a third party scheme under section 2(5).

(3) For the purposes of this section and section [Consultationon financial assistance schemes and multi-annual financialassistance plans], a “relevant authority” is—

(a) a parish council, or

(b) where there is not a parish council—

(i) a principal authority in an area with a single tier oflocal government as defined by section 1 of theLocal Government and Public Involvement inHealth Act 2007, or

(ii) a district council or London Borough Council in anarea other than in subsection (3)(b)(i).”

Victoria Prentis: Clause 2 establishes certain aspectsof how financial assistance provided under chapter 1may be administered. It provides for funding to besubject to conditions and makes it clear that fundingmay include conditions under which it can be recovered.We recognise that the expertise of individuals outsideGovernment can play an important role in delivery. Forthat reason, the clause allows financial assistance to begiven to those who operate their own schemes andenables the Secretary of State to delegate functionsin relation to giving financial assistance. To ensuretransparency, the clause also creates a power for theSecretary of State to make regulations to require thepublication of information about payments.

Turning to new clause 18, I welcome the opportunityto discuss the types of support that we will look to offerthose in receipt of financial assistance under clause 1.This is an important topic.

We recognise that there must be an effective advisoryservice to support ELM and other schemes establishedunder clause 1. In the discussion document, aboutwhich we have heard so much, we have invited contributionson key topics, including on advice and guidance, andsome of our tests and trials are focused on this area. ForELM, the tier that farmers, foresters or other landmanagers take part in could affect the type of advicethat they need. For example, some may need advice atthe scheme application stage; others may need help andsupport in planning their interventions. How muchadvice and guidance they require may change, dependingon their level of experience. Therefore, the advice andguidance framework for ELM will be flexible and ableto adapt to the specific requirements of the participantsand the outcomes that they are seeking to deliver. Thenew clause would restrict that necessary flexibility.

We are considering a range of approaches for deliveringthe advice—for example, one-to-one advice and supportdirect to land managers. That could include, as we havediscussed, agronomists visiting farms to give specialistadvice. We are also considering group training, telephoneand online support, and peer-to-peer learning.

We are still exploring different mechanisms for providingadvice for all our schemes, but we would not want tolock ourselves into providing advice that may becomeout of date in the future and we are keen to retainsufficient flexibility to adapt how we provide advice aswe continue to learn. We want to break away from thecommon agricultural policy’s rigid and inflexible approach.We are firmly committed to offering a range of supportivemeasures to ensure that our farmers and land managerswill have access to good-quality advice, guidance andtraining.

I come now to new clause 23. We recognise theimportance of engaging with farmers, foresters andother land managers as we start to implement ourreforms. Consultation and co-design are at the heart ofwhat we will do. We have extensive plans for, and a trackrecord of, working with industry, experts and otherinterested parties.

The Department published our consultation on proposedreforms to farming in February 2018 and received morethan 40,000 responses, each of which was read andconsidered. We can see the effects of that consultationthroughout the policy document that we produced earlierthis week. We will also consult on the detailed ELMscheme design after the pilot has started. That consultationwill build on what we have learned from the tests andtrials, as well as the national pilot, and will help us torefine and finalise our scheme design before the launchof the full scheme in 2024. These activities, I hope, willdo exactly what new clause 23 seeks to achieve. We willalso seek additional views and opinions from farmers,foresters, land managers and other interested partiesthrough various special events and roundtables heldthroughout the country.

New clause 24 would require us to consult inan inflexible manner before giving financial assistance.Requiring the Government to consult neighbouringlandowners and local authorities before any payment ismade could prove problematic and introduce significantextra administration and delay into the system. Forexample, in the case of our animal health schemes, thereare around 67,000 registered livestock holdings alone.While we would not make payments to all these, consultingon every payment to a small proportion could make thedelivery of the scheme burdensome and possiblyunworkable.

Daniel Zeichner: This goes to the heart of the problem.We do not know how many of these schemes will beadministered. Until we know, it is very hard for us tocomment.

Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman and I have hadthis discussion several times today already. Having newduties to consult, such as this, could result in unintendedconsequences, which I am keen to avoid. For example, ifwe need to respond to an emerging environmental issue,such as a novel disease or tree pest blight, having toconsult widely on a new financial assistance schemewould make the grant less useful and effective.


Daniel Zeichner: This is both interesting and important.It again goes to the intended relationship between thetiers. Tier 3 schemes, at the catchment-area level, couldhave a big effect on the local landscape. Even if theMinister does not like our suggestion for tier 1—I seeher point, if it would apply to large numbers—surelythere is a case for tier 3.

Victoria Prentis: There will certainly be a case, withthe wider tier 3 schemes, to involve more people, becausethe aim is to cross farm boundaries in order to provide apublic good over a wider area. However, we do not wantto tie ourselves to an inflexible consultation. Believeyou me, I have been involved in DEFRA for under twoweeks and I am amazed by the level of consultationwith which DEFRA is prepared to engage. I really thinkthat we do not want to tie ourselves to inflexible amountsof consultation, or consultations of the type that do notenable us to react quickly when needed. Responding ina timely manner may be important, such as when dealingwith a disease or blight to a particular plant. I amconcerned that the new clause is too inflexible.

I agree that the new clauses raise important issues,but I think we should take a flexible but reasonable andproportionate approach to consultation, in line withthe Cabinet Office consultation principles. Requiringengagement in legislation is not necessary or, indeed,appropriate, and could result in our going back to thedifficult days of delays in payments, which we all workedso hard to get over.

The Government have proven our commitment tojoint working and consultation repeatedly, and we intendto continue that. I hope I have reassured the hon.Member for Cambridge and the Committee that we willbe taking appropriate action on engagement to ensurethat financial assistance schemes are delivered in thebest way possible. As such, I ask him to withdraw theamendment.

Daniel Zeichner: Today’s discussions have been mostilluminating and interesting and have shown the benefitof giving the proposals detailed scrutiny. To refer to myearlier comments, it would be so much easier with thedetail before us. I think we are genuinely having adialogue that explores some of the tensions and issues.

I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that thereis a case for wider involvement. Earlier, she acknowledgedthat maybe tier 2 and certainly tier 3 had some similaritieswith some of the previous pillar 2 schemes. Those of uswho have been involved in rural development overmany years will be familiar with the European UnionLEADER schemes. My understanding and recollectionfrom when I was involved is that there was local authorityinvolvement, and that is the bit I am worried is missing.

It does not seem to have come up in discussion much,but we are talking about public money being spent inrural, semi-rural and sometimes urban areas—my cityof Cambridge has a farm—yet the bit that seems to bemissing is the public voice, or even the voice of individualmembers of the local community. I get what the Ministeris saying. I was a parish councillor. I started my gloriousascent many years ago on Dickleburgh parish council.As a district councillor, like many others, I used toregularly attend parish councils. In fact, my partnerseemed to think that, as far as she was concerned, therewas a parish council meeting for every night of theweek. There are pros and cons for our parish councils.

My strong sense is that local councils are not partypolitical, by and large. People there are absolutely motivatedto ensure the best for their local communities. They arenot always as representative as they should be, in myview—I do not think the farming community have toworry about that; in many cases they are well representedon those bodies—but they know their patch inside-out.I remember many discussions about gullies and culvertsgoing long into the night. Sometimes it was hard tokeep up. They know their local patch. If we are usingpublic money for transformative schemes for local areas,I think these people have something to add.

I understand the tension with wanting to respondswiftly, but it is important that local communities aretaken along in that, and I think there are dangers if theyare not, frankly. It is not something that is easily resolved,but I hope that people will go away and think aboutsome of that. To some extent, local councillors are anunused asset and an unused store of local knowledge.There are difficulties, because some of them might haveconflicts of interest. In the end, the Minister’s suggestionthat consultation is a bit slow and tedious—perhaps Iam being unfair—is something we all struggle with,but that is what democracy is like. We are the countrywe are because we are prepared to spend that timehaving that discussion with people. I hope I have notmisrepresented her.

Victoria Prentis: Yes, you have.

Daniel Zeichner: Oh, I have. In which case, I withdrawthat suggestion. I understand what the Minister is saying.She is trying to find a balance between an appropriatelevel of involvement without squandering the opportunityto act. I also have to say that a lot of the environmentalgoods we are talking about are not tackling an immediatecrisis. In some cases, they are making long-termtransformations, and it is important that local communitieshave their voice.

Going back to where I was going to start, I made itclear in my comments on a previous amendment thatwe are strongly committed to the advice-giving role. Infact, I just do not think that any of these things can bedone without that offer of advice and help. On Tuesday,I did suggest that with slightly naive optimism. I am anaive optimist and perfectly up for that, some of thiswill be a bit more difficult than some of the policypapers suggest. We are asking people to change the waythat many of them have operated for a very long time.The incentive we are giving them is basically a stick, bysaying, “You are going to lose your money.” Somepeople respond positively to that, which is great—I amsure those are the farms that we are generally shownaround.

3.30 pm

My recollection from my days as a district councillorin a very rural area is that there were also plenty ofother farmers, and I am not sure that all of them will bequite so easy to work with. It will need advisers whohave a whole range of skills, not just farming-relatedskills. In moving people from where they are now towhere want them to be—this goes back to my earliernarrative, and we will probably pick this up when wedebate the clause on delinking—there is a risk that a lotof people will just decide, “It’s not for me.” In fact, I


have already heard people say that. That is another bigdecision we have to take and it could be the way we go,but is that we want to do? I am not convinced that it is.

We need to ensure that we have the resources nowthat the Minister has finally conceded that the budgetwill not come out of the moneys from direct payments.On one level, that is very welcome. Given that it is notparticularly easy, however, it prompts questions abouthow much it will cost, where the money will come from,and whether we will have the skilled people to do it. Iworry about smaller farms. Big farms, which have theresources and are used to dealing with the system, willprobably be able to make the transformation. Theymight not all be enthusiastic, but they will be able tohave a dialogue. I worry about smaller farmers, and I donot think it unreasonable to suggest that—going backto my earlier point—there might be a bigger plan. Iwonder whether that plan includes smaller farmers inmany parts of the country, because there is potentially abig social impact.

Looking back at the previous environmental schemes—which is one of the good bits of the document—theevidence clearly shows that having access to an advisermakes a big difference to their success. It is well worthproviding advice to farmers on how they can meetenvironmental outcomes, navigate the often difficultpaperwork—I suspect it is probably now done on acomputer—and request money from these schemes,because such advice can help to address gaps in theskills, knowledge and motivation of farmers and landmanagers. It can help to build confidence, ultimatelyleading to better outcomes than for people who are notsupported by advice. That is something we have heardfrom stakeholders and from witnesses in Committee.

We finally learnt from the aforementioned document—Ithink the Minister referred to it—that the Governmentare thankfully considering a range of different modelsfor the provision of advice, including one-to-one supportprovided directly to land managers, group advice andtraining, telephone and online support, and facilitationof peer-to-peer learning. All of those are welcome, andwe would strongly support them. It is also very welcometo read in the document that it is anticipated that there willbe provision of extensive written information—I am surewe are delighted to hear that—both online and offline.

Victoria Prentis: I am sure the hon. Member willenjoy that.

Daniel Zeichner: I will read it; I promise.

Guidance will be provided to everyone who participatesin ELMS, including guidance on how to deliver theenvironmental outcomes that they will pay for. Havinglooked at the 139-page document on how to apply forthe basic payment scheme, including the delightful colourfuldrawings of buffer strips and what a field looks like, Ido not underestimate how complicated the previoussystem was. The challenge is to see whether it can betrimmed down. Based on previous experience in thiscountry, it may be an ambitious hope, but I am sure thatis where we all want to get to. As I said earlier, thedifficulty is that we still do not really know how it willbe paid for.

I want to pick up on an observation from the earlierdiscussion. A huge number of people would have beenmade ineligible by one of our previous amendments.There is nothing in the documents or the Bill to stop the

entire budget going to one project, which it could do. Itcould be argued that that might be the most environmentallysustainable thing to do, but there lies the problem. Thesystem being replaced is one under which people basicallyhad almost an entitlement to public support by virtueof owning land—we were very critical of it, although ifit had been applied properly and was subject to properenvironmental improvement, there was a possibility tomake it work—but we have no idea about the distributionof resources under the new framework. We do not evenreally know what the Government think would be agood outcome. Part of my worry about all this is thatthere is too much that we do not know.

Advice will need to be made available to farmersabout a broad range of areas to incentivise take-up,which we hope to see, and to support them in deliveringthese environmental public goods. We will need reallygood information and explanations about why particularpractices that people have perhaps been doing for awhile are not approved of. We will need really goodtargeted help for people, with proposed innovationstowards better animal welfare practices or alternativemethods of pest, disease and weed control. We needclear guidelines on how the various financial assistanceschemes work, and support with business managementplans, to make the transition to ELMS work for eachfarming unit. I am still not clear about how we willmake sure it is properly resourced and funded, or thatwe have sufficient people with the capacity to do this. Togo back to the question of how many will be in tier 1, ifadvice is offered to all those people, that will be a bigjob. We will probably be pursuing the matter of howmuch that is likely to cost on another occasion throughwritten questions.

If it is the Government’s intention to do all this, itwould have been helpful to have a bit more detail in theBill, rather than an ambitious but rather vague list ofplans. That goes back to one of my themes: if we aretrying to offer certainty to people in a time of change,we need a bit more than this.

With new clause 18, we propose including a requirementin the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulationsto provide training guidance and advice to those receivingfinancial assistance to help to enable them to deliver theclause 1 public goods. I think we have outlined a decentrange of activities. There are no restrictions on suggestions.The Minister says that it is too prescriptive, but she isfree to add as many extra suggestions as she likes. Thatwould be helpful. Given that the Government are clearlymoving in this direction in general, I am sure theMinister would recognise the importance of sending astrong signal to farmers that the Government really aregoing to be there to support them. I hope that, on thatbasis, they will consider supporting that amendment.

New clause 23 says that, prior to framing any financialassistance scheme, the Secretary of State must carry outa consultation on its design and consult the relevantauthorities. I have already spoken about the potentialrole of parish councils. It does not have to be parishes,because there are areas that are not parished, but wewant it to be the lowest tier of local government inorder to ensure that the local community has a role. Ihave hinted that that must be the case for tier 3 andpossibly for tier 2. Much depends upon how broad tier1 actually is. On that basis, I support these new clauses,which I understand will be voted on later, Mr Stringer.


The Chair: They will be voted on later. Does theMinister wish to respond?

Victoria Prentis: No.


Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to standpart of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

MULTI-ANNUAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PLANS

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 4,page 5, line 14, after “period” insert

“, and

(d) set out the budget for each financial assistance schemeunder sub-paragraph (c)(i) or (c)(ii) for the durationof the plan period”.

This amendment and Amendments 38 and 39 provide that the Secretaryof State’s multi-annual financial assistance plan must include a budgetinformed by the Office for Environmental Protection to be establishedby the Environment Bill.



“(9A) For each financial assistance scheme, the Secretary ofState must have regard to any advice provided by the Office forEnvironmental Protection, after it is established, about thefunding required to achieve the strategic objectives of financialassistance for the duration of the plan period.”


Amendment 39, in clause 5, page 6, line 10, after“scheme,” insert—

“(aa) any opinion provided by the Office forEnvironmental Protection, after it is established, asto whether the financial assistance given wassufficient to meet the strategic objectives of thefinancial assistance,”.


Ruth Jones: These important amendments call for theSecretary of State’s multi-annual financial assistanceplan to include a budget informed by the Office forEnvironmental Protection, which is to be established bythe Environment Bill.

The Environment Bill received its Second Readingyesterday and many important points were raised onthe Floor of the House. They will receive their ownscrutiny, and I will not touch on that legislation today—wecertainly have enough to be going on with here. However,there are some important links to the Bill before us,particularly when it comes to the Office for EnvironmentalProtection.

The fact that there are three big environmental Billsgoing through the two Houses at the same time showsthat the Government have realised that they are runningout of time to prepare for our ultimate departure fromthe European Union and that they need to get to gripwith the challenges facing this important sector. They

are running out of time to prepare our farmers, ourfarm workers and the agricultural sector more generallyfor the years ahead.

Our amendments call for the Office for EnvironmentalProtection, for which the Environment Bill makes provision,to influence what Ministers do when it comes to themulti-annual financial assistance plan and the budgetcontained within it. We believe that the Office forEnvironmental Protection must be independent. It mustbe strong and it must be clear about its remit and theexpectations upon it. It must push for higher standards,it must push for non-regression and it must push formeasures to tackle the climate emergency. If it doesthose things, then it makes sense for the multi-annualbudget to be informed by the scope, remit, strength andinspiration of the Office for Environmental Protection.

We hope that these probing amendments will encourageMinisters and Government Members to develop strongand clear mechanisms that make for long-term andorganised funding structures. They are designed to fillthe gap in the Bill’s proposal for multi-annual financialsettlements. The Bill is silent on how the budget orfunding envelopes are set in the first place. We havealready had much discussion on that and I look forwardto any clarification the Minister can give on thosepoints.

Many stakeholders have raised concerns and calledfor clarity and further thinking on this point. Whateverproposals are finally agreed and provided for, let us beled by the facts and the experiences of those out thereon the farms in our rural communities in all parts ofthe United Kingdom. That is why the amendments areso important.

The Opposition are giving voice to the concernstoday, but it is not just we who are worried. GreenerUK says that it wants to see a stronger and enhancedframework for long-term funding in the Bill, which willinspire confidence and demonstrate to the sector thatthe Government understand the pressure on it, and theneed for us to support it wherever we can. The NatureFriendly Farming Network supports calls for greatercertainty about long-term funding and notes the needfor the Bill to be as strong and effective as possible. I sayto the Minister that we should be listening to theexperts. That is not just my view; it is the view of theright hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green(Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He noted the other day thatwe need to listen to experts, and do you know what? Iagree with him.

It is clear to me that the more certainty Membershave and the more certainty the people out in ourcountry have, the better. There are many people rightnow who are concerned that we do not have muchcertainty past 31 December 2020. Admittedly, therehave been commitments to maintaining the currentlevel of funding, but so far they are just commitmentsand they do not necessarily sit well with some of thecomments and press coverage on payments to farmersthat we saw in the weekend press. I am sure the Secretaryof State would attest to the strength of feeling heencountered at his meeting this week.

Clarity, transparency and respect are going to be keynow and into the future. Let us make it so and supportthese amendments today.


Victoria Prentis: It is always good to discuss fundingfor agriculture further. I begin with amendment 37. TheGovernment faced a fair challenge from parliamentarianson the previous Agriculture Bill about the funding theywere expecting to receive. The Government respondedto that challenge and included what I am going to startcalling the MAFA plan—the multi-annual financialassistance plan—in clause 4, which covers the seven-yearagricultural transition period. This will describe theassistance schemes that are in operation or are expectedto come into operation during that period.

Subsequent plans will run for at least five years,rather than seven, and the Secretary of State will have aduty to ensure that plans do not expire without areplacement in place, which is important. However, werecognise that the sector needs clarity on the budget,which is why we guaranteed the current cash total foreach year of this Parliament, giving much-needed certaintyfor the next five years.

3.45 pm

On amendments 38 and 39, as the hon. Member forNewport West said, the Environment Bill already providesthe Office for Environmental Protection with functionsto scrutinise the Government’s environmental commitments.These were rehearsed at length yesterday, and I do notpropose to go into them all here. I understand that wehave three major Bills going through Parliament atonce, which of course have synergies, and where necessarywe will refer to them, but the Environment Bill is theproper place to discuss the OEP at length. Having saidthat, it is right in this context to say that the OEP’sreports will be published and laid before Parliament,and that the Government will be required to publish aresponse and lay that before Parliament.

In addition to OEP scrutiny, the reporting processenvisaged in the Bill provides for a high degree of publicand parliamentary scrutiny. For example, through itsscrutiny of the Government’s environmental improvementplans, the first of which is the 25-year environmentplan, the OEP may consider that the Government couldmeet one or more of the goals within the 25-year plansooner—for example, if additional funding was providedto deliver the purposes set out in clause 1.

Under the Environment Bill, the Secretary of Statewill receive the OEP’s reports and will have to respondto them. The reports and responses will be publiclyavailable so that parliamentarians can question how theOEP’s advice is considered. Any opinion provided bythe OEP will already be in the public domain andtherefore be available for the Secretary of State andParliament to consider.

We listened to and reflected on feedback from theprevious Agriculture Bill Committee, and as a resultthis version of the Bill provides much more opportunityfor the Government’s plans to be scrutinised, includingby the EFRA Committee. I therefore ask the hon. Ladyto withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I welcome much of what the Ministersays, but our concern and our reason for tabling theamendments is that, positive though her comments are,this is such a big change that we think it right andproper that there is more regular analysis of it, informedby the OEP. I fully understand why she does not want torehearse the OEP discussion.

As I have said, our view is that the Bills have beenintroduced in the wrong order, which puts us at somethingof a disadvantage. However, if the prime, driving purposeof this legislation is to tackle the environmental crisis,as we think it should be, we do not think that theproposed structure—welcome though it is, and it is animprovement—quite matches that sense of urgency. Iperhaps should have said more on this earlier. Sevenyears is a long time for a transition. While we understandwhy that is beneficial from the industry’s point of view,from my constituents’ point of view, some want it nextweek, frankly. People are pushing very hard. At thegeneral election, my party committed to a much earliernet zero date, and we know that the NFU is pushing fora much earlier date than the Government’s. However,there is not that sense of urgency, which our amendmentswould help to bring forward.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport Westsaid, it is not only us saying this; many conservationorganisations share our concerns and worries. Theirworry is partly that a considerable sum of public moneyis available and, as I have alluded to before, we want toknow how the prioritisation will work. Will it be done ata local or national level? The document that we havebeen referring to throughout the sitting hints at an issueabout prioritisation.

I somewhat mischievously suggested that the moneycould all go to one scheme, but that is not actuallyimpossible, which is why we want a structure where theOffice for Environmental Protection could say, “Thisis where your big gains are going to come from. This iswhere you’re going to get the difference.” There is atension, however, between what would get the bestenvironmental gain, what is most effective, and whatwill, out there in the world, be perceived as fair in atransition phase from the current system to a new one.That is why we think our amendments would provide abetter structure.

We understand that there is tension because theDepartment wants flexibility; I am sure that if we wererunning the Department, we would want the same. It isour job as the Opposition, however, to remind theGovernment that they voted to acknowledge the climatecrisis and to try to hit net zero in 2050. In every piece oflegislation that is brought forward, we want to see a realcommitment to making that happen. We think theamendment would contribute to that.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her honestyabout the current funding uncertainties and the issues. Iappreciate that she has a massive job on. I am glad to beon this side of the room.

Victoria Prentis: We’re glad too.

Ruth Jones: The Minister is quite right that there willbe lots of new acronyms—OEP, MAFA—and we arefrantically learning them, so she must bear with us. Sheis honest in the way that she has expressed her concerns.

We accept that there will be a lot of co-operation—hopefully—as the Bill progresses, because it is importantthat this is not about us and them. It is not adversarial;a lot of this should be consensual. We should worktogether to make sure that we get the best for theagriculture sector across the UK—in all four countries.


[Ruth Jones]

We look forward to lots of probing questions not justfrom Opposition Members, but from hon. Members onboth sides of the House. We look forward to developingand fully understanding the complexities and intricaciesof the Bill. With that in mind, I thank the Minister forher comments and beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.



Clause 5

ANNUAL AND OTHER REPORTS ON AMOUNT OF

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GIVEN

The Chair: Two amendments to clause 5, amendments 39and 47, have been debated. Do the Opposition wish topress either of them to a vote?

Ruth Jones: No.

The Chair: If no, we move on to the clause stand partdebate.


The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussnew clause 2—Annual assessment of funding for purposes—

(1) The Secretary of State must report on financial assistancefor each purpose listed in section 1.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be made for eachfinancial year and must be laid before both Houses of Parliamentno later than 31 October in the financial year following thefinancial year to which the report relates.

(3) The first report shall be made by 31 October 2021 and shallrelate to financial assistance in the 2020-21 financial year.

(4) A report under this section must record, on the basis ofbest data available—

(a) the total sum of financial assistance for each purposein section 1,

(b) the source of any element of financial assistance undersubparagraph (a) which comes from public funds,and

(c) the sums from each source under subparagraph (b).

(5) The Secretary of State must include in each report underthis section—

(a) a statement of their opinion on whether any sumrecorded under subsection (4)(a) is sufficient to meettheir policy objectives in relation to each purpose;and (b) a statement of the Secretary of State’sintentions if, in their opinion, a sum recorded undersubsection (4)(a) was not sufficient to meet theirpolicy objectives in relation to a purpose.

(6) For the purposes of this section, “financial assistance”means financial assistance either allocated or given in any formlisted in section 2(1).

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annuallyon the financial assistance given or allocated to each of the purposes ofthe Bill, on its sufficiency to meet policy objectives and on the Secretaryof State’s intentions if in their opinion funding for any purpose was notsufficient.

Victoria Prentis: Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretaryof State to prepare a report each financial year, which Ihave spoken about extensively already. The report willdetail the financial assistance given under clause 1. Thefinancial reporting provisions seek to provide greater

transparency and certainty about the amount of publicfunding allocated under clause 1. That includes informationon the extent to which the financial assistance meetsany obligations or commitments under the terms ofeach scheme.

Mr Stringer, perhaps you can guide me. Should I turnto new clause 2 now?

The Chair: Speaking to new clause 2 is in order.

Victoria Prentis: Thank you, Mr Stringer. I am sosorry to have to keep checking such matters.

Turning to new clause 2, the introduction of themulti-annual financial assistance plans has been welcomedby agricultural stakeholders, including the NationalFarmers Union. Clauses 4 to 6 will ensure that publicstakeholders and parliamentarians have plenty ofopportunities to scrutinise the Government’s spendingon agriculture, as well as the impact of that spending.Were the new clause to succeed, Ministers would haveto return each year to report on every purpose underclause 1. That could have the perverse outcome ofschemes being designed to meet the report, rather thanactivities achieving outcomes in the best way.

Instead, our approach will ensure that we look tomeet the outcomes in the most beneficial way—forexample, by planting trees, the positive environmentaleffects of which may not show up for many annualreports but would be felt over a much longer period. Werecognise that farms and land managers need certaintyover future funding arrangements. That is why we havecommitted to a seven-year transition, starting in 2021,and have introduced a legal requirement to set out ourstrategic priorities for the transition period before theend of the year. We have also pledged to continue tocommit the same cash total that is currently spent foreach year of the Parliament.

I recognise the need for certainty, and it is right thatthe general public should be able to scrutinise ourspending; however, the Bill already gives plenty ofopportunity to do that. I therefore ask the hon. Memberfor Newport West not to press the new clause.

Ruth Jones: I am pleased to speak to new clause 2,which would require the Secretary of State to reportannually on the financial assistance given or allocatedto each of the purposes of the Bill, on its sufficiency tomeet policy objectives, and on the Secretary of State’sintentions if, in their opinion, funding for any purposewas not sufficient.

This is an important part of our deliberations, becauseit is about how we ensure that funding for each publicgood is adequate and effective. We accept that theGovernment have a majority in the House, so we mustensure that whatever system they design will work forour farmers, planters, growers and all the livelihoodsand communities dependent on a thriving and well-fundedagricultural sector. The new clause is about certaintyand predictability, ensuring that the Bill provides for asustainable, effective and transparent funding structurethat helps rather than hinders this important sector inour economy.

There is a degree of understanding that no Governmentcan say how much money there will be and where it willcome from, but we can have a mechanism that can be


reviewed every year. In fact, the system should bereviewed every year, too. Now that austerity is supposedlyover, the Government could say to our farmers thatmoney will be available to do all the wonderful thingsthat they promised them during the referendum. That iswhy it is so important that the new clause is added tothe Bill.

If the Minister does not accept the approach set outin new clause 2, what approach will the Governmenttake to providing clarity, to ensure that there is atransparent and genuine approach to funding, andmaintaining a detailed annual update on the state ofplay? I recognise that times will change, and in thefuture a new Minister will sit on the Treasury Bench.There will be a new Prime Minister at some point, too. Iknow that the Government cannot commit to moneythat future Governments will spend, but the Ministercan commit to the mechanism. We ask the Governmentto look closely at the new clause, and we hope that theylisten to us, and all those crying out for clarity andcommon sense.

We have already learned that the British Governmentspent about £3 billion on the common agriculturalpolicy in recent years, as members of the EuropeanUnion. We are now starting the process of leaving theEuropean Union, and are sitting in a transition period.I worry that the period will run out far sooner than theGovernment realise, especially given the announcementabout the forthcoming talks concluding this June. Weare now on the outside, and those funds can be divertedto delivering public goods to improve the quality of oursoils and water; protect, maintain and enhance thenatural beauty of our landscapes in all parts of theUnited Kingdom; and tackle the climate emergencyand protect vulnerable communities and industries fromthe most brutal and deadly effects of climate change.The storms in the past couple of weeks are a very clearexample of that.

4 pm

I mention our membership of the European Unionbecause when we were members the Government wererequired to follow the mechanism whereby the Councilof Ministers signed off the budget. Crucially, that budgetwas reported to Members of this House and, importantly,our farmers and farming organisations across the UnitedKingdom. Much of Government Members’ reasoningfor leaving the European Union was that it was abouttaking back control. We heard that mantra many times.It was about making decisions here in this place, removingthe influence from afar and so on. The fact that theannual budget was determined by the Council of Ministersand reported shows that we did have influence, we didhave a say and we were in the room. We cannot allowour departure to result in a backwards move ontransparency, accountability and honouring ourcommitment to some of the most hard-working peoplein our economy.

Mr Goodwill: The hon. Lady refers to the EU budget.May I ask her how many times in the past 20 years it hasactually been signed off?

Ruth Jones: Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman hasfar more technical knowledge than I do on the subject. Iwill not give a figure for fear of its being wrong. I accept

that he has a lot more information. All I would say isthat we were actually at the table and were part ofdiscussions. We were not excluded; we were very muchincluded. Even Margaret Thatcher agreed that we werepart of those discussions, so I accept that.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is making a verygood speech, but I cannot resist joining battle with theright hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, whorefers to an old canard about the European Union. Ofcourse we all wanted the auditing to work better, but arewe so sure that it works so well here? If he is confidentthat it does, he would support the amendment, which isan opportunity for us to show that we can do it so muchbetter. I invite him to join us today.

The Chair: Order. We are straying some way fromclause 5 and new clause 2, so I ask the hon. Lady tocome back to them.

Ruth Jones: Thank you for your valuable advice,Mr Stringer. I intend to get back to the subject, withoutthe sparring, which would be very interesting.

Our farmers deserve a funding and reporting systemthat they can understand and is fit for purpose. In fact,they deserve to have a system in place, full stop. Farmersacross Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotlandare very worried indeed. They have let us know in nouncertain terms exactly how concerned they are, and Ishare their worries. If a mechanism for reporting annuallyis not in place, a future Government of whatever colouror persuasion could in effect just say, “Well, there isn’tenough money, so we are making large cuts, includingto all those wonderful schemes we talked about and toldyou we would keep.”

I say this to the Minister. This is a time not for emptywords or—dare I say it?—hot air, but for common senseand for the Government to recognise that they have aresponsibility to farmers and farm workers across ourcountry. That is why new clause 2 should form part ofthe Bill, and I hope Members from across the Housewill reflect, consider and give their support to it.

Daniel Zeichner: My apologies, Mr Stringer, for strayingslightly from the detail of the amendment. This is animportant amendment, because it says that the publicshould be able to go through the list of extremely goodaspirations in clause 1, on which there has been nodisagreement, and see how much money has been allocatedto each of those categories, including managing land orwater in a way that protects or improves the environment—Iwill not go through the whole list. That begins to makeit real for people. It is fair to say that it was pretty hardto see how the money that they were putting into theEuropean Union was being spent.

This is a great opportunity for the Government. Imaginethe Secretary of State or the Minister being able tostand up next year and say, “For each of these categories,this amount has been spent.” The Opposition will beable to do the opposite: we will be able to point tosubsection (1)(f) and say, “Actually, it appears that nomoney at all has been allocated to protecting or improvingthe health or welfare of livestock.” The goal is to makeit simpler and more immediate, like the excellent movesmade some years ago by, I think, Lord Whitty to get


[Daniel Zeichner]

some transparency about how the money was spentthrough the CAP in the first place. That transparencyallows any of us to look through the statistics on theDEFRA website and see just how much money is beingallocated locally and to which organisations, and I amsure some of us have done so.

David Cameron always said that sunshine was theway to throw light on something—to open it up andmake it more transparent. I should have thought thatthe Government would be keen to do so and trumpettheir achievements in that way. However, it appears thatwe are still lost in this slightly opaque, internal world ofmoney effectively being allocated behind closed doors.This amendment opens that world up, gives people theopportunity to ask questions, and gives the Governmentthe opportunity to trumpet their achievement. I cannotfor the life of me understand why they do not want todo that—other than that, of course, it is never whatGovernments do.

The Chair: Minister, do you want to come back in?

Victoria Prentis: No.


Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

THE AGRICULTURAL TRANSITION PERIOD FOR ENGLAND

AND THE TERMINATION OF RELEVANT PAYMENTS

Mr Goodwill: I beg to move amendment 9, inclause 8, page 8, line 5, after “extending” insert

“or pausing the transition process and”.

It is my pleasure to move this amendment, although Iam hopeful that the Minister will be able to satisfy methat it is superfluous. As we have already heard, theGovernment’s plan is to switch over from the basicpayment scheme, which pays farmers for being farmers,to a system of environmental land management thatpays farmers for delivering public goods. That will be aseven-year graduated transition, which I hope will besmooth and go according to plan.

However, clause 8(3) allows a degree of flexibility ifthings do not go entirely according to plan. There are anumber of reasons why that might happen—some withinthe Government’s control and some beyond their control.We have heard that the environmental land managementpilots will be concluded by 2024. We have been slowgetting started with those—partly because of theparliamentary inertia over the past three and a halfyears; I will not suggest who might be to blame for someof that—but we are now in a position where we canmove forward. The British people have given us amajority and our marching orders, which are for aquick march towards the ambition of delivering theseobjectives for our farmers.

We may not have all the evidence we need to fullydevelop and deliver every aspect of environmental landmanagement at the time we hope to start doing so.Therefore, this amendment will allow us to not waste

public money on a scheme that has not been fullyproven with the evidence, including scientific adviceand ecological evidence, that we need. There may besome administrative glitches in the introduction of thenew system; Governments do not have a good trackrecord of delivering big IT systems on time—or, indeed,on budget. There may also be external factors relatingto weather or disease and the impact they may have onfarming, so it makes sense to have the flexibility thatclause 8 allows for.

I hope the Minister can give me some clarity abouthow this may work in practice. If the process is to beextended and the seven-year transition ends up being,for example, a nine-year transition, will that take placein nine equal steps, or will we be able to—as my amendmentallows for—pause the transition and start a little bitlater? Could we stop the clock on the transition fromBPS to ELM, and then resume after a one-year ortwo-year pause? I am sure that the Minister will be ableto reassure me that that is perhaps not intended butallowed within the flexibility of the clause without myamendment. However, the reassurance would be veryhelpful to me, because I suspect that the existence of theclause in the Bill just might have something to do withthe time that I spent at DEFRA last year.

Daniel Zeichner: I certainly would not want to intrudeon a private argument on the Government side, but ourview is that this is symptomatic of the problem of justhow slow the process has been in coming forward. Wehave before us, of course, a Bill that has been delayed.The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitbymade suggestions as to where the responsibility mightlie, and we can all argue about that one. I suggest thatthere would have been a simple solution, but I am surethat he would not agree. The trouble is that a hugenumber of questions are left unanswered, as we havebeen highlighting throughout the day, and the suggestionthat there might be further delay is cause for greatconcern.

It is worth highlighting what the National FarmersUnion says:

“The NFU believes that with less than a year to go, time israpidly running out for the government to have all of the necessarylegislation and implementation decisions and process in place forthis timescale. There are still many aspects of the transition andthe successor future farming support policy which remain unclearand the concern is that there will be a ‘gap’ before alternative andeffective schemes are in place and the start of the phasing out.”

As I think has become apparent in this Committee,we very much share those doubts: we have been talkingabout the reasons pretty much all day. We understandhow ambitious many of the things that the Governmentare trying to do are. In the document to which we havebeen referring for much of the day, there are timelines,although I have to say that they are a bit like Mr Barnier’saccount of the trade position of various countries. Thetimelines are not entirely clear in terms of where we arelikely to be at a particular point.

We would be worried about a further pause, becauseas I have said we just cannot afford it. We are in aclimate and ecological emergency. There is no pausebutton there. The Bill has already been delayed. If weare to reach net zero more quickly than 2050—mysuspicion is that the Government would like to do so,although that date is what they are committed to—we


will have to move more quickly, so any pause or delay toa more sustainable and environmentally supportive systemof land management is disappointing.

We recognise the delicate balance, because if what weare discussing proves as difficult as I am suggesting itmight be, there is then a dilemma for the Government.One of the gaps in the explanations today has beenabout the period, probably post 2024, as we go throughthe next part. It is one thing to do tests and trials andthen to move to a national pilot, but to then move it onto a national scale is challenging, for many of thereasons to which I have referred.

We would want to go more quickly—[Interruption.]The Minister enjoys the fact that I am in the privilegedposition of being able to say that in opposition, butbasically this entire institution should be bending itself,at every opportunity, to find ways of moving morequickly to challenge the climate crisis. That is what wewould be doing.

The Bill needs to be stronger and quicker. We needthe clearer targets. I am therefore inclined not to supportthe amendment. I think the message that needs to goout after today’s discussions is that we need much moreclarity, and providing more clarity would actually helpthe Government to achieve what we all want, which isto move to a new system more quickly and more efficientlyand ensure that it works for all those in rural communities.

4.15 pm

Victoria Prentis: Yes, speed is important, but so arecertainty and good government. I know that manypeople in this room will agree with me that directpayments are poor value for money and untargeted andcan and have inhibited productivity and environmentalimprovement in the past. We have therefore been clearin our intention to phase out direct payments in England.We know that farmers need certainty. That is why wehave been clear about the length of the agriculturaltransition. As has been rehearsed many times today, weare pressing ahead with plans for our ELM scheme.

In the meantime, a simplified countryside stewardshipscheme will continue to provide funding for farmers,woodland owners, foresters and land managers.

Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister give way on thatpoint?

Victoria Prentis: I can anticipate what the hon.Gentleman will ask. It will be a domestic grant schemewith a more transparent administration process andregulation and enforcement regime, to encourage moreapplicants and simplify the application and paymentprocess. It is designed to enable a smooth and efficienttransition for land managers from CAP payments toELM payments.

I also reassure hon. Members that phased reductionsto direct payments during the transition period will beset in regulations under the powers in clause 11 forpayments under the basic payment scheme and in clause 12for delinked payments. There is no obligation in the Billfor reductions in every year of the transition. We haveallowed for flexibility, as I have explained.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member forScarborough and Whitby, who was a great Minister inthis role and has been enormously helpful to me duringmy speedy learning process as I have tried to get readyto take this Bill through Committee. I reassure him that

if there are unforeseen exceptional conditions, such asthose that he outlined earlier, that would have an adverseimpact on farmers, clause 8 already contains the powerto extend the transition period, if necessary. There is noneed to make a decision now. There is sufficient flexibilityin the Bill—we can make a decision later if necessary.But his point has been heard.

In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated that theseven-year transition period set out in the Bill providesfarmers with certainty and enough time to adapt to lifewithout direct payments.

Daniel Zeichner: On this point, the Minister did notquite anticipate me. On the question of what happenswhen, I think I heard the Minister say that there is noguarantee that there will be further cuts to direct paymentsin any particular year. Surely there is a danger of ourreaching a point where there will be a dramatic change.Things could be gently phased, but if this is not done inthe first few years and we try to get to 100% in sevenyears’ time, the maths is obvious. There is a real riskhere. If it is all backloaded, people will face a dramaticcliff edge at some point. Surely we want to smooththings out.

Victoria Prentis: That is why we are going slowly, orrelatively slowly. That is why we have a seven-yeartransition period. I refer the hon. Gentleman to theback page of his favourite document and the policydocument published on Tuesday, which gives an indicationof the likely timeline. It is important that we retainsome flexibility.

We have included in the Bill the ability to set reductionsat an appropriate rate during the transition and, ifcircumstances deem it necessary, to extend the transition.I ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 9.

Mr Goodwill: I am conscious that I have broken mygolden rule of not intruding on my successor’s policyareas for at least 12 months after leaving a Department,but we must thank the usual channels for the fact that Iam here and able to participate.

I thought it a little ironic for the Opposition to becriticising us for the delay, given that they are, by andlarge, the architect of that delay—together with some ofmy former colleagues, who have sadly departed thisparish following the general election. I have heard theMinister’s comments. I do not think my amendmentwill be necessary to maintain the flexibility I wish to see.She has reassured me in that regard.

The Minister has also underlined the fact that wealready have very good stewardship schemes in operation,so it is not a case of having to wait for better environmentalobjectives to be met: we already have schemes in placethat are delivering on a day-to-day basis. I beg to askleave to withdraw the amendment.



4.20 pm

Adjourned till Tuesday 3 March at twenty-five minutespast Nine o’clock.


Written evidence to be reported to the House

AB48 Prof. Nigel Maxted (University of Birmingham)

and Julian Hosking (Member of UK PGR Group and

former member of UK FAnGR Committee)

AB49 Greener UK/Wildlife and Countryside Link furthersubmission

AB50 The National Trust

AB51 Tessa Burrington

AB52 The Wildlife Trusts



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Ninth Sitting

Tuesday 3 March 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 8 TO 26 agreed to, one with an amendment.


PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Saturday 7 March 2020






† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)† Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)







285 2863 MARCH 2020Public Bill Committee Agriculture Bill



(Morning)


Agriculture Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: Before we continue with line-by-lineconsideration of the Bill, I remind Members to switchoff electronic devices or put them on silent. Tea andcoffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection listfor today’s sitting is available in the room.


Clause 9

POWER TO MODIFY LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE BASIC

PAYMENT SCHEME


The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis):It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again,Mr Stringer. Clause 9 provides the Secretary of Statewith the power to modify, for England, the legislationgoverning the basic payments scheme, which includesthe greening and young farmer payments. We will removethe unnecessary bureaucracy. From the responses to theextensive consultation that the Department undertookin 2018, and further consultation with stakeholders, wethink that that will be welcomed by farmers up anddown the country.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): It is a pleasureto continue our discussion with you in the Chair,Mr Stringer. I want some clarification from the Minister.The clause is obviously quite apposite, as it will give theGovernment powers to simplify the system, and it istopical, given that the three-crop rule is controversialand unpopular, and something on which many farmerswould like urgent action.

Farmers Weekly reported that Minette Batters, thepresident of the National Farmers Union, said at itsconference last week that farmers were hugely frustrated:

“We have left the EU, half the country is under water and…weare still going to abide by the three-crop rule and process thousandsof force majeure applications. It just seems absolutely extraordinary.”

The Secretary of State explained the complex situationwe find ourselves in, but I ask the Minister to explainwhy we cannot move more quickly, given that we havenow left the European Union.

Victoria Prentis: The situation is under consideration,and I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the Departmentto consider the matter further. Farmers are undoubtedlysuffering because of flooding in their fields and concernedabout whether they will be able to plant their crops.There are, for them, many other mechanisms for asking—whether by force majeure or otherwise—for the three-croprule not to apply.

The position is under active consideration and I amhappy to talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the confinesof the Agriculture Bill, which refers to future payments—so

probably this is not the place to be having the conversation.I want him to be clear that the Department is lookingcarefully at the next steps for this year.

As to future years, it might help if I say that we intendto make some minor simplifications in 2020 on greeningpayments, if I can use that terminology, using ourexisting powers. We intend to simplify the penalties forsmall overclaims of land, for example. We are alsoremoving some of the paperwork connected to theyoung farmers scheme, which I think will be widelywelcomed. We plan to introduce further simplificationsfor the 2021 scheme, such as removing some of, orpossibly all, the greening rules, so watch this space.




Clause 11

POWER TO PROVIDE FOR PHASING OUT DIRECT PAYMENTS


Victoria Prentis: The clause allows the Secretary ofState to make regulations to apply reductions to farmers’payments under the basic payment scheme in Englandso that we can phase them out. We plan to start reducingpayments in 2021. Clause 11 concerns reductions to beapplied to direct payments under the basic paymentscheme; de-linked payments are dealt with in clause 12.

We will apply the reductions fairly, with higher reductionsinitially applied to amounts in higher payment bands.All farmers will face some reductions from the start ofthe transition. That reflects strong calls from industrystakeholders and many farmers for the reduction to beshared across the sector.

We have set out the maximum reductions that weintend to apply in 2021. We will set the reductionpercentages for subsequent years taking account of ourdetailed plans for future schemes—which, as we haverehearsed many times, we do not yet have—and thewider perspective of Government spending. I reassurethe Committee that regulations setting out the reductionswill be made using the affirmative procedure, so therewill be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise anddebate them carefully.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful for that explanation.We had quite a discussion of some of these issues lastweek. Unfortunately, it appears that there is a secondpolicy paper, which I am not sure every Committeemember was entirely aware of last week. The Ministerwill be delighted to know that it is my new favouritedocument.

Victoria Prentis: Oh good!

Daniel Zeichner: But before people start applyingcold compresses to their heads, I assure the Committeethat I will not subject that document to detailed scrutiny.Some of it would have been helpful in our discussionslast week, but it is as it is.

The document, which is entitled “Farming for thefuture: Policy and progress update”, sets out at page 36the approach that is going to be taken to phasing outdirect payments. As the Minister said, the reduction will


be 5% for payments up to £30,000, and so on up to 25%for payments of £150,000 or more, so there will besignificant reductions.

I have a genuine question, which I would like toexplore. It is not clear to me what constitutes a paymentin this sense. Can one simply look at recipients? Thedatabase shows that some recipients get a £1 millionpayment. Do these figures apply to that amount or toall the smaller payments that go to make it up? Therewould be a significant difference between the two.

I sought advice from one or two people, who werealso puzzled, so I do not necessarily expect the Ministerto know the answer this minute. However, it seems tome that it makes a huge difference, both to the peoplewho receive payments and to the amount of moneyavailable in the system. If we cannot get an immediateanswer, perhaps we can come back to that point later inthe day, because it is key to the discussion.

Victoria Prentis: I hesitate to behave like a lawyer, butit seems to me that what is specified under subsection (2)is the power to reduce basic payment scheme paymentsand, of course, any regulations made in the past underthe basic payment scheme. I hope that is a sufficientanswer for the hon. Gentleman. If not, perhaps we cantake the conversation offline and I can talk him throughwhat is planned. I accept that this is difficult. One of theproblems with the common agricultural policy is that ithas been accused of being not very transparent anddifficult to manage, and it has different pillars, but Iassure him that we are talking about BPS payments.

Daniel Zeichner: I understand the difficulty, but Ithink this is a pretty important point. This is a frameworkBill, but people are looking for certainty over the nextcouple of years and will want to know how much theystand to lose. There could be a huge difference, dependingon how the figure is calculated. Someone in the Departmentmust know the answer to that question. I am notnecessarily expecting it this minute, but it is importantthat we find it out.

Victoria Prentis: I am reassured by the departmentalstaff present that the reductions will be applied to thetotal basic payment, including the greening and youngfarmer allowance. That is my understanding of thescheme and I hope that is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman.I am not sure that I fully understand his question, sothis is possibly not the most productive place to havethis conversation. We could discuss the matter on ourown or exchange letters, if he is still confused.



Clause 12

POWER TO MAKE DELINKED PAYMENTS


Victoria Prentis: The clause provides the Secretary ofState with the power to make regulations to enablede-linked payments to be introduced in England for theremainder of the transition period. De-linked payments

will remove the requirement to farm land. Once introduced,de-linked payments will replace the basic payment schemefor all farmers in England.

De-linked payments benefit from further simplificationduring the agricultural transition period. Farmers canaccess payments for the remainder of the transitionwithout the bureaucracy of the basic payment scheme.Instead, farmers will have maximum flexibility to planfor the future, choosing to spend the money as best suitstheir circumstances. That should help those who wish toretire to do so, freeing up land for new entrants.

The clause allows us to introduce de-linked paymentsfrom 2022 at the earliest. Alternative enforcementmechanisms will be introduced before direct paymentsare de-linked, so that we can maintain agricultural andenvironmental best practice.



Clause 13

POWER TO PROVIDE FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENTS IN LIEU

OF RELEVANT PAYMENTS

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 74, inclause 13, page 11, line 8, leave out subsection (4) andinsert—

“(4) Regulations under this section shall make provision forcircumstances in which an eligible person may receive a lumpsum under this section.

(4A) The circumstances under subsection (4) shall include acommitment by the eligible person to use the lump sum to—

(a) make a change or changes to practice in managing landin such a way as to deliver one or more of thepurposes under section 1(1) or 1(2); or

(b) make land available to other persons or bodies whoundertake to manage the land in such a way as todeliver one or more of the purposes under section 1(1)or 1(2).”

Before making my comments on the amendment, Iwould like to point out that I am not confused aboutthe previous issue; the Government are the ones whohave the confusion. We will seek that out, I am sure.

Victoria Prentis: Okay, we will discuss that.

Daniel Zeichner: We will do that.

Turning to clause 13, de-linking is significant for ourfarmers and there is a worry around it. The House ofCommons Library briefing talks about the effect andthe responses to the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs summary last year. A lot of respondentsfelt this was a less popular option than retaining andsimplifying the existing scheme. More significantly, theDEFRA evidence and analysis paper, “Agriculture Bill:Analysis and Economic Rationales for GovernmentIntervention”, says:

“Most farm businesses will be able to make modest costreductions in order to improve efficiency, which will be requiredwhen Direct Payments come to an end.”

That is strong statement. A lot of people will feel that itis not going to be easy to make those changes.

The analysis that DEFRA published alongside thepaper notes that the impact of the removal of directpayments on overall profit margins is likely to be “non-negligible”. That is a wonderful civil service word that


[Daniel Zeichner]

can be synonymous with “considerable”. I urge theGovernment to be cautious. De-linking has some positives,but the reductions are challenging for many.

The Bill outlines the seven-year agricultural transitionperiod during which direct payments will be phasedout, which is a significant change. It means there will nolonger be a requirement to farm the land in order toreceive the payments. In some ways, that is the gist ofthe Bill. Some will remember that, on Second Reading,a Government Member said, “Surely not!” because thecommon agricultural policy used to reward people fornot farming. This is CAP on steroids in that case,because it completely breaks that link and is a significantchange, and it is something that needs to be thoughtabout.

In clause 14, we also look at how someone whopotentially wants to come out of farming can request tohave their remaining de-linked direct payments put intoa lump sum. We understand the attraction of that forsome, giving some flexibility and, as the Governmenthave said, a route out of farming and the possibility ofsetting up a new business or diversifying, if they do notwant to transition into the new world of environmentalland management schemes. As the Minister said, theGovernment’s policy statements have made it clear thatthe intention of that is to increase opportunities for newentrants. In a wonderful, idealised world, this is all onewould hope to happen—but the world does not alwayswork in the way one expects.

Without a condition requiring farmers to make theirland accessible to new entrants or to encourage transitionon their land to a more sustainable way of farming, webelieve the Bill poses a risk whereby retiring farmerscould simply take lump sum payments and possibly sellthe land to a larger holding or move out of farmingaltogether. That may be part of the Government’sunderlying intention, but there are significant consequencesto it. It is not entirely obvious that that will lead directlyto new entrants.

I have mentioned the additional policy paper we havediscovered. I point to page 39, which Members willprobably not have to hand but which I will quote:

“Receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipientfrom applying for payment under our new schemes, including ourEnvironmental Land Management system.”

I ask the Minister whether the intention of that is as itseems to me to be read. Many of my constituents onbenefits would love to continue getting their benefitswhen they got a new job, but no one would think thatremotely reasonable. There is potential for double paymenthere and I ask for some explanation on that.

Going back to where the de-linked system has beeninitiated, we could conceivably be left in a situationwhereby the provision of de-linked lump sum paymentshad incentivised a reduction in the amount of landbeing farmed in accordance with the aim of securingenvironmental public goods. It takes the land, which weare hoping will be managed in a more environmentallyfriendly way, out of the framework. I am sure theMinister gets the drift of where I am going with this.

That concern was raised by a number of witnesses inCommittee, particularly the Landworkers Alliance intheir written evidence. We think that that would be not

only a detrimental and unintended consequence,environmentally speaking, but an unjust and politicallyunacceptable use of public funds, as it would handpublic money to farmers who might already have a largecapital asset in the farm and the house.

I have already said that the double payment point isan issue. How are we making sure that land will be putto continued use and deliver the environmental publicgoods at the heart of the Bill? There is a danger that theland will be left to the market with no guarantees thatnew entrants will take over and farm in an environmentallyconscious way.

That is why amendment 74 would help the Governmentto tackle this conundrum by making the receipt of alump sum de-linked payment conditional on eithertransitioning the farm to being run according to purposesoutlined in clause 1(1), delivering public goods, or inclause 1(2), improving productivity, or on making landavailable to new entrants or for community ownershipto ensure it continues as farmland. We think that wouldallow the Secretary of State to make regulations thatstipulated that retiring farmers wishing to sell their landmust offer it for sale to new entrants or the localcommunity for a fixed period before offering it on theopen market.

9.45 am

We are not trying to be difficult here; we are trying tomake some suggestions to avoid what we think could bethe unintended consequences. Farms and farmland couldbe placed on a national register of land for sale with anestablished time period for its availability before goingto the open market. That would give local people—community land trusts and cooperatives—the opportunityto raise the capital to buy the land. It would also allowfor flexible options for how farmers receiving lump sumpayments who do not simply want to sell their landcould move forward in the way that is helpful to newentrants.

The Landworkers Alliance pointed to some key examples:farmers who wish to pass their land on to a new entrantbut also want to retain involvement in the businesscould enter into a farm partnership, enabling them topass on their skills and knowledge while providingopportunities for new entrants to access land and getstarted in farming.

For those who want to keep their farm and stay intheir house but retire, private land could be made availableto rent as a series of rental units on a farm. The farmerwould remain the owner of the farm, but its house andbuildings, and lump sum payments, could be investedinto conversion to a series of units for rent. That wouldprovide the farm owner with a retirement income. Thoseunits could include horticultural units, micro-dairies,and land and buildings for a beef or sheep enterprises,as well as housing for farm workers.

Farmers who do not wish to retire could use the lumpsum to transition their farm to become run alongagroecological principles. The agricultural transitionperiod could be used to fund the capital investmentrequired to change the direction of their farm business,including infrastructure, machinery and new livestock.

The flexibilities and possibilities reflect the fact thatfarmers and their families will be in a wide variety ofcircumstances. There are huge differences across the


sector, and many farmers are not driven solely by profit.It is not just a business; it is their life. This change willbe hard for many. Some may wish to release capital byselling their land, but others will want to retain aninvolvement. That is what we are trying to frame. Theseproposals would help farmers who do want to be able tomove out to retire with dignity. If they wish, both theirskills and their attachment to their farm could be managedas it is transitioned to a new generation.

Amendment 74 does not go far beyond the Government’sintentions as already explained: clause 13 already stipulatesthat the Secretary of State has the power to “makeprovision” for these lump sum payments via regulationand that any recipient must meet criteria as set out inthese regulations, which the Secretary of State has thepower to choose. Amendment 74 simply adds to that,with the clarification and guarantee that the criteria forreceiving these lump sum payments will be to ensurethat the land is genuinely made available to new entrants,or that the money is used to improve farm holdingwithin the purposes of the Bill.

Many questions arise from the general provisions forde-linking and making lump sum payments in and ofthemselves, and I have already alluded to one or two ofthem. There is uncertainty over whether farmers will geta lump sum from their total, de-linked payments overthe transition period. The document “Farming for thefuture” is vague on the issue: it says that the Governmentwill look at offering farmers

“the option of taking a one-off lump sum payment”

that is “subject to affordability”. That is a pretty bigcaveat. It partly goes back to my earlier question abouthow much money will be in the system to allow for thesethings. It then says that the rules for receiving thesepayments, which will be consulted on, will cover whowould be prioritised for these payments

“if we need to prioritise applications to manage affordability”.

That is not a concrete promise or explanation for whatcould be a complicated and controversial set of issues.If this is as attractive as I have made it sound, there maywell be a rush.

This is a framework Bill and I understand that, but Irefer back to my basic point: farmers want to knowwhat they will be faced with in coming years. We need alittle more detail. There are a great number of questionsto be answered about the general issue. What measuresare in the Bill to ensure that the land will be managed inline with environmental principles once payments havebeen de-linked in the transition period with no cross-compliance measures to EU environmental standards?Those receiving de-linked payments will be eligible toapply for the ELMS—the double payment point I madeearlier—but there is no guarantee or likelihood that allwill wish to do so. It goes back to the need for strongbaseline environmental standards, as raised last week.

A statement on page 40 of the policy document says:

“We will confirm the tax treatment of lump sums, as well asdelinked payments, in due course.”

This is a framework Bill, but gosh, there are hugeimplications as to how attractive or not that may be. Aswe all know, the tax issues are pretty significant, andpeople will be pretty uncertain about how the systemwill work in practice. In the light of all that uncertainty—and, from the taxpayers’ point of view, how much it

might cost—it would be sensible to amend the clause todeliver better what is intended and encourage the take-upof farms by new entrants.

Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hiscomments and the spirit in which he made them. Wewill certainly all have to work together on perfecting thenew schemes for the benefit of us all. The amendmentseeks to apply conditions on those opting for a lumpsum. Given the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks,it would be helpful, with your leave, Mr Stringer, if Imade a few comments about de-linked payments andthe definition of de-linked payments and lump sumpayments. It is important to be clear about that.

De-linked payments, once introduced, will replacethe basic payment scheme for all farmers. They will notbe paid as a lump sum. A lump sum payment will becompletely optional for farmers; it is something theycan apply for. Such payments will replace any futurebasic payment scheme or other delivered payments thatthey would have been entitled to receive under a previouspayment regime. De-linking payments from the landwill allow farmers to access their payments easily and,we hope, bring much simplification.

Along with the phasing out of direct payments, de-linkingsends a clear signal that we are leaving behind thecommon agricultural policy. It will give farmers greaterflexibility to plan for the future, because they will beable to choose how to use the money they receive to bestsuit their circumstances. Some farmers may choose touse it to contribute to their retirement from farming,which would help new entrants get into the industry,while others may use it to adapt or expand their business.

When clause 12 becomes effective and we introducede-linked payments, those payments will replace thecurrent basic payment scheme for all farmers in Englandand be paid each year during the remainder of theagricultural transition, rather than as a one-off lumpsum. Separately, clause 13 provides the power to makeregulations to offer farmers the option of taking aone-off lump sum payment in place of future payments,whether BPS or de-linked payments, during the agriculturaltransition.

On the hon. Gentleman’s points about regulation andthe current cross-compliance regime, we have a strongdomestic legal framework for enforcing environmentaland animal health and welfare protections, but we will,of course, keep those powers under review to check thatthey are adequate. We will maintain strong regulatorystandards and introduce a new approach to monitoringcompliance and enforcement.

Currently, as the Committee has rehearsed, checkingtakes place in only a small number of cases. We hope tomove to our new system as we go through the transitionperiod. We hope for improved co-ordination betweenauthorities, better data sharing and greater use of earnedrecognition. Enforcement will be proportionate andfair, and those who do not comply with regulations canexpect to be sanctioned in future.

The Government want to see more public goods andfarming to become more productive. The amendment iscounter to the purpose that underpins lump sums: itwould tie lump sums to financial assistance under clause 1,but the whole point of lump sums is that they areseparate from that.


[Victoria Prentis]

As the Secretary of State outlined in his speech to theNational Farmers Union last week, we are looking toprovide a means for older farmers to leave the professionwith dignity. We are committed to phasing out directpayments and doing so in a way that helps those in theprofession to adjust. Lump sums could bring manybenefits. They could increase the ease for new entrantsand those existing farmers who wish to expand andacquire land. They could also help those remaining inthe industry to invest in their businesses.

The Bill gives the opportunity to move away from thehighly bureaucratic and complex rules in the CAP. Theamendment would go against the thrust of the desire tomove to lump sum payments, by adding conditions tothe receipt of funding without any consultation.

The clause would allow the Secretary of State toattach conditions on those opting for a lump sum, butwe want to get it right. Therefore, it is important for theGovernment to consult the industry, so that a lump sumscheme is effective in achieving our aims, withoutintroducing needless bureaucracy. I heard what the hon.Gentleman had to say about specific ideas. I would likehim to rest assured that we will take those into accountand that we are also very keen to discuss with him anyfurther ideas he may have about the lump sum scheme.

Our commitment to the farming industry and to theprovision of greater public goods is clear, but lump sumpayments are different, as is this chapter. It is aboutphasing out direct payments. Lump sum payments areone way that we are going to help farmers during thetransition, alongside our other plans to deliver realsimplification of the scheme. I therefore ask the hon.Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I have listened closely to the Minister’sresponse. Although I recognise some of the points shemakes, she has not addressed our fundamental concerns.All Governments talk of spending public money wisely.There is a real risk that it will be hard to keep track ofhow the system is working, and that public moneymight not be used for the hoped for outcomes. That iswhy we are cautious and will press the amendment to avote. It is important to get more clarity.

We keep coming back to the same point. The Ministerwants to set out options for the future, go to an iterativeprocess and learn from it. The truth is that, once itstarts, unless there are protections in place, there are therisks we have outlined. There are also risks aroundtaking away some of the cross-compliance rules. Theirony is that it could inadvertently allow for lowerenvironmental standards rather than the higher onesthat we are all keen to achieve.

I do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty,and I understand why the Government would not wantto be constrained by extra suggestions put at this point.However, it is not clear that we will be able to exercisemuch leverage further down the line. The Governmentare asking for a huge amount of trust to go and designthese systems and schemes, taking away many of theprotections, both regarding money and the environment.

I do not think I heard the Minister address thedouble payment issue, which I would like to know about.Many people outside will not necessarily be following

this closely. I say to the Minister that Governments arerarely rewarded for the successful bits of policy but aretripped up on the bits that the media can alight on andask why they are happening.

The Government might want to look at the issue andbe ready to explain to the public why that might happen.We are facing huge pressures on public expenditure ingeneral and this could look very generous to thoseoutside. I have nothing against being generous; I wouldlike the Government to be more generous in general. Ijust think there are potential problems in this area. Onthat basis, I would like to press the amendment to avote.

10 am



Division No. 12]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria



Victoria Prentis: I will say a few words, not leastbecause I hope they will answer the hon. Gentleman’spoint. Clause 13 provides the Secretary of State withthe power to make regulations to give farmers greaterchoice, by offering them the opportunity to apply for aone-off lump sum payment. That lump sum paymentwould be instead of receiving basic payment scheme orde-linked payments during the remainder of the agriculturaltransition. I hope that answers his question. We feel thatlump sums would provide extra flexibility and choicefor farmers.

Daniel Zeichner: I am afraid that does not answer thequestion. I will repeat what the policy document says onpage 39:

“receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipientfrom applying for payment under our new schemes, including ourEnvironmental Land Management system”.

It seems to me that there is a risk there. That is not to dowith the lump sum, but with de-linking in general. Isuspect we will go around in circles on this, and I do notintend to go any further now, but that is why I haveraised a concern.




Clause 14

GENERAL PROVISION CONNECTED WITH PAYMENTS TO

FARMERS AND OTHER BENEFICIARIES

Victoria Prentis: I beg to move amendment 43, inclause 14, page 11, line 45, leave out “any”.This drafting amendment removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3)for consistency with other similar provisions of the Bill.

As the explanatory statement says, this drafting amendmentremoves an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) forconsistency with other similar provisions in the Bill.


Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of theBill.


Clause 17

DUTY TO REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON UK FOOD

SECURITY

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 7, inclause 17, page 14, line 20, leave out “five years” andinsert “year”.

I am very happy to move this amendment; as keen-eyedMembers might notice, it was originally tabled in thename of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce),so this is probably a circumstance that neither of uswould ever have predicted. We entirely agree with theproposal to make this extremely important change tothe clause 17 food security provisions and amend thetiming of the reports from once every five years toevery year.

We are all glad that the Government paid heed tothe warnings of stakeholders and our predecessors onthe previous Bill Committee and included a duty in therevised Bill to report to Parliament on UK food security.It was widely commented at the time that it seemedcurious that an Agriculture Bill’s purposes would notinclude producing food. I think that the clause is theGovernment’s response to that. It is unthinkable thatfood security provisions—particularly the Government’sintentions with respect to the proportion of food to beproduced domestically or imported—should not be includedin discussions of the post-Brexit future of our agriculturesector. Clause 17 is welcome, but the stipulation that theSecretary of State must prepare a report on an issue asimportant as the state of the nation’s food security onlyonce every five years seems weak.

Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab):I completely agree with my hon. Friend about thefive-yearly reports. There should be annual reporting.The guidelines in the Bill are not clear, so does he agreethat there should be clear targets and actions, and thatthe Bill should say what needs to be carried out to lookat food security?

Daniel Zeichner: I agree with my hon. Friend. Weneed much more clarity. The clause is clearly not strongenough, at a time when food security has the potentialto become a major cause of uncertainty and concern aswe leave the EU and negotiate our own trade deals. It isof course an extremely topical matter, given many ofthe discussions going on at the moment.

Our food security in terms of self-sufficiency is alreadyin long-term decline. We now produce only 61% of ourown food, which is down from 74% around 30 yearsago. It is a matter of strategic national interest to ensurethat our country can, as far as possible, feed itself. Areasonable level of domestic production in a volatileworld is a critical aspect of food security. It is a hugelycomplicated and contested issue. The modern worldthat we live in is highly interconnected—somethingthat, as we speak, is looking increasingly difficult, forreasons we are all aware of. Those things raise questions,and different approaches are taken in different countries,but this is a good time to be discussing them.

There is still a huge amount that we do not knowabout the impact that the Government’s new trade andimmigration policies will have on domestic food productionyear to year. Last week I quoted the concerns fromsome sectors—particularly the poultry sector—aboutour ability to continue without the people to do thework. We do not know whether the Government willmake good on their as yet empty promises and protectour domestically produced food from being swampedby imports of a lower standard. That is the—I wasgoing to say “the elephant in the room”, although I amnot sure that we are farming elephants. This is a hugeissue, which we shall obviously be coming to in the nextfew days, and, I suspect, returning to on Report andThird reading. It is one of the top issues at the moment.We do not know what the impact will be of any outcomeswith respect to trade deals, but I suggest that theyshould be informed by a view on what we are trying toachieve overall. This Committee is a place where we canhave at least part of that discussion.

I guess that some of those advising the Governmenthave rather let the cat out of the bag over the weekend. Iam sorry that the right hon. Member for Scarboroughand Whitby is not here, as he has had problems withcats in the past, although I was not going to tease himabout it too much. The Sunday newspapers, of course,were full of the press scoop that one of the new Chancellor’stop economic advisers thinks that our entire food sectoris not critically important to the UK.

I recognise that the comments of one adviser do notGovernment policy make, but for many of us it feedsinto a concern about where these policies are going. It isalso part of the argument I made last week—that thereis a real risk that we are looking at a much smaller,albeit high-quality and environmentally friendly, foodsector in this country than we have now. That is somethingon which we really need clarity from the Government.

It was not just agriculture; the adviser also talkedabout fisheries, and suggested that maybe we shouldfollow the example of agriculture in Singapore. We are avery different nation from Singapore. We are hugelydifferent geographically, because they do not have mucharable land in the way that we do, so they rely almostentirely on imports of food. I would go further thanthat and say that this is part of the debate about what itmeans to be English or British. Our rural heritage is akey part of our country, and the suggestion that we donot need some of it is, frankly, deeply shocking.

I am sure the Minister will disassociate herself fromthat kind of comment, but, given the extraordinaryturmoil going on within No. 10 at the moment, thisseems a classic example of taking advice from weirdosand misfits. I am afraid that the frivolous musings of


[Daniel Zeichner]

people in such positions have very real consequences onthe good work that the Minister is trying to do on a Billsuch as this, and I am sure she did not welcome some ofthe publicity over the weekend. I would gently impresson her the importance of paying heed to something thatwe on the Opposition side have been trying to warn herabout throughout this Bill Committee: that this Billneeds to be strengthened to guard against exactly thiskind of approach, which undermines many of the worthyintentions behind it.

Going back to the food security report itself, thedanger in that, under this clause, we will not even seethe first one until after the next election, when we willhave been out of the EU for half a decade. To us, itseems extraordinary that we would wait so long. Webelieve it needs to be done much more frequently. Giventhe kind of dramatic changes we are seeing around theworld with the climate crisis, flooding and so on, wethink that having reports on our food security annuallywould be a vital tool in the Government’s toolkit,enabling them to react to trends as they develop year onyear and to address them. A further weakness of thefood security report approach is that we can have areport, but we then need some tools to respond to whatthe report is telling us.

There is considerable consensus, not just among thehon. Members who have signed the amendment previouslyand on this occasion, but across the sector. We haveheard from the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association,and from the environmental organisations Greener UKand the Nature Friendly Farming Network. It is unusual;we have seen remarkable consensus on a number ofthese points, but on this point there is real consensus. Ihope that the Minister has been paying attention to thefact that the original proposal came from her Government’sown Back Benchers. There is now a cross-party effort toshift the Government on this.

This is the first time in more than 40 years that aSecretary of State has been directly responsible for thenation’s food security. It is vital that we get this right, sowe welcome the cross-party support for the amendment—not necessarily from the Government, but from theirBack Benchers. Five years is simply too long to wait forthese important reports. I hope the Minister has notedthe strength of feeling. It is not going to go away, andthat is why we will push this amendment to a vote.

10.15 am

Victoria Prentis: Although the issue of standards isnot entirely on-topic, I will deal with it briefly. I referthe hon. Gentleman not to leaks from Downing Streetadvisers but to a speech in the Chamber last night bythe Secretary of State for International Trade, who saidvery clearly that

“we will not lower our standards. We will maintain our foodsafety and animal welfare standards and will not lower them aspart of this free trade agreement. We decide which standards weabide by here in the UK. We have exceptionally high standards ofanimal welfare”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 649.]

I am sure we will come back to that later in ourconsideration of the Bill.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about theamendment and its cross-party origins, and I understandwhy it may appear to be an attractive proposition.

However, I will explain the clause’s proposed frequencyof reporting “at least” every five years and why we thinkthat will provide for both a more meaningful report onfood security in the medium and longer term and asounder basis for any relevant and appropriate policyresponse.

Food security is a complex issue that cannot bemeasured or defined by a single metric. The Governmentwork closely with the food industry to ensure that wehave a secure food supply. As the hon. Gentleman says,this is very important at this important point of changein our farming practices, and it may well be that it isappropriate to have a report before the five years is up.However, I would like to maintain the provisions in thatallow the Government to decide that this is appropriate“at least” every five years.

I also ask the hon. Gentleman to view this in context.There has not been a food security report since 2010. Ithink we all agree that a report is a positive step. We aremaking an important new commitment to analyse andpublish a regular report on this important subject. Thereport will use a set of core measurements for each keytopic area, so that we can consider the trends over time.These will be drawn from a blend of national andinternational data sources. Sources that we expect todraw on include trade and domestic production dataand statistics on energy, household expenditure, foodand food safety. Many of those sources are in the publicdomain already and can be considered by anybody whowishes to consider them in between reports, but wepropose that we do a really substantial report not on anannual basis but within a longer period, and at leastonce every five years.

The frequency of reporting every five years was includedto balance the commitment to regularly report with theneed to allow sufficient time to observe key trends fromthis vast variety of sources. I hope that explains whythe clause is in the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman towithdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: The Minister makes a fine attempt,but I am afraid that this is a basic issue of trust.Governments are rarely trusted, however hard they try.She asks us to take this on trust, and frankly we do not.As we will come back to time and again, we hearMinisters repeatedly say this, in which case they shouldput it in the Bill. That would solve the problems. Ofcourse, we know that they will not, because this is allpart of the new macho-posturing negotiating worldthat we now live in post Brexit. We used to have acivilised approach to the world, but no longer. This isthe new world, but these questions are not answered.

Food security reporting is particularly interesting,and our further amendments will tease more of thisout. The Government could reassure people by sayingroughly what they expect the future to look like for foodsecurity. By not so doing, they absolutely stoke thescepticism of people who look at that adviser’s commentsand think that that is actually where some of thesepeople want to go. I invite Government Members tothink hard about whether they are actually in the loopon this. I think some people out there have a very clearidea about where we should want to go. That is why theGovernment are reluctant to issue a food security statement.That would give some idea of what they hope for infuture. If they do not have an idea, that is also pretty


scary. There are plenty of reasons why Oppositions andthe country do not always trust Governments. Sadly,experience often suggests they were right to be sceptical.

It is absolutely right to ask these hard questions,particularly because the Minister said that it would beat least once every five years. We are being asked to trustthe Government. If the Government have stuff to hide,which I suspect they have, they are not going to do thatvery often. Five years is far too long. I agree with theBack-Bench Government Members on the side whotabled the amendment and clearly share my concerns. Iwant to see a much clearer outcome, which is why I willpress the amendment to a vote.



Division No. 13]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah

Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria



“(aa) the impact of food production upon global resourcesustainability (including global carbon emissions,impacts on biodiversity and water usage);”


(ba) food poverty and progress towards achievement ofthe UN Sustainable Development Goal on hunger,malnutrition and food poverty (SDG 2);”

Daniel Zeichner: We believe there are a number ofmissed opportunities to strengthen clause 17 to provideadequate reports on food insecurity. Very little has beenrevealed in the Government’s “Farming for the future”policy document about what those reports might involve.It merely repeats the provisions in clause 17 that thereports may include global food availability; supplysources for food, including the availability to the publicof food from domestic and other sources; the resilienceof the supply chain; household expenditure on food;and food safety.

All of those are important, but we believe there couldbe much clearer requirements relating to the degree ofthe nation’s food security derived from domestic production.That is a point I have already alluded to. There shouldalso be a clear commitment to prevent any furtherdecline in self-sufficiency. That prompts the question ofwhether one considers the current position to be theright one. I am happy to engage in a debate on that.

As a starting point, we believe that a further declinewould be unwelcome. All I am trying to find from theGovernment is whether they agree, which they ought tobe able to tell us. The clause could also have included arequirement to specify food security targets and toidentify the actions to be prioritised if those targets arenot being met. That goes back to my point that it is allvery well to produce a report but, if it is to be used as atool for change and action, levers will also be needed.We believe amendment 75 would help with that.

Entirely absent from this clause is the contribution ofour agricultural workforce to food security, and howimmigration changes will affect that. It is fairly clear tothose of us who are close to the sector and know what itis talking about that, as it stands, there could be quitesubstantial changes. They could be unintended, butchanges there would be, and we need to know how theywill be dealt with.

I turn to amendment 76. It is disappointing that theremit of the proposed report does not include thataspect of food security: not just supply, but whetherpeople can access that supply. It is worth noting that theEnvironmental Audit Committee’s January 2019 report“Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up”found that

“Food insecurity is a significant and growing issue in the UK,with…levels…among the worst…in Europe, especially for children.”

Avid watchers of “Countryfile” will have noticed thatthis weekend one of the lead reports was on food banksin rural areas.

The report—the Environmental Audit Committee’sreport, not the “Countryfile”report, although “Countryfile”is more fun in some ways; I really should not ad libwhen I have notes—explicitly highlighted how the

“Government has failed to recognise and respond”

domestically, allowing these issues fall between the cracks.The Committee recommended that the Governmentappoint a Minister for hunger, but they have not respondedto that sensible suggestion. The fact is that, sadly, foodpoverty is now all too rife in this country. The statfrequently quoted is that there are now more foodbanks than McDonald’s outlets, and we know howmany of those there are.

In “Countryfile”I was struck by the Frome communityfridge. There is also an excellent one at the Edge Café inCambridge. We did not previously have to concernourselves with such things, because there was a presumptionthat policy in general would ensure that we had aplentiful supply of affordable food; that is, of course,part of the aim of the common agricultural policy. Thatgoes to the heart of our discussion of the Bill, becausefor too many of our people that is not the case. Althoughit is wonderful that people make the effort to try to dealwith this problem, in a rich country we should not be insuch a situation. Food is an essential and basic humanright, and it is shocking that the country is not performingbetter on that. It is therefore right that that aspectof reporting on food security should be included inthe Bill.

The recording of household expenditure on food, assuggested in the Government’s new policy document,will not properly record the free, charitable provision offood that has become a core staple for so many people. Iurge the Government to consider expanding their proposedreport to include the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition


[Daniel Zeichner]

among the population, and the extent and distributionof food bank demand and provision. I suspect that, notmany years ago, many of us would have thought ithighly unlikely that in 2020 we would have to be discussingthe need to report on hunger and malnutrition. It doesnot reflect well on the Government’s record that wehave to ask for that, but we must do so if we are toeliminate this problem.

The amendment seeks to address that by stipulatingthat UK food security reports include analysis of foodpoverty and our progress towards achieving UN sustainabledevelopment goal no. 2, which is to end hunger, achievefood security and improve nutrition, and promotesustainable agriculture. The Government signed up tothat goal, and they probably thought we would neverseek to apply it here, because we had assumed that itwould not be necessary. Sadly, it is, and we are signed upto it, so the Government should not have any problemincluding those provisions in their flagship post-BrexitBill on their commitment to food and food production.

The themes that the food security reports will coverare remarkably similar to those of the UK food securityassessment carried out by the previous Labour Governmentin 2009. In fact, it looks like much of that has beencarried forward. In stipulating that the reports mayinclude data about

“global food availability…supply sources for food…the resilienceof the supply chain…household expenditure on food”

and “food safety”, the Bill and the recent policy documentadopt every area covered by the previous LabourGovernment’s report on food security, except one: globalresource sustainability.

10.30 am

That area was explicitly included in Labour’s reporton food security to provide a global environmentalcontext to UK food security, to ensure that we werepaying sufficient attention to longer term environmentalchallenges that could impact food production, particularlyclimate change and agricultural intensification, and toenable us to understand the impact of our own foodproduction on natural resources in order to preventissues such as soil degradation and resource depletion.It is puzzling that in a Bill about reforming our agriculturalsystem to take greater account of such ecological andclimate concerns, the Government have left out thatarea in their provisions to provide reports on foodsecurity. It would be interesting to know the thinkingbehind that decision.

It is particularly frustrating because, as we haveestablished, there is nothing strong enough in the Bill toguarantee the measurement of the Government’s progressin what they are trying to achieve by financially supportingthe clause 1 public goods that focus on sustainability.We know the Bill includes a requirement for the Secretaryof State to have regard to the need to encourage theproduction of food in an environmentally sustainableway, but there is no requirement to report regularly onwhether they are achieving that.

The Bill stipulates that the Secretary of State must,from time to time, produce multi-annual financial assistanceplans laying out their strategic priorities for providingassistance for the clause 1 public goods that focus on

sustainability issues—we discussed that at length lastweek—and monitor and report on the impact of eachfinancial assistance scheme. According to the explanatorynotes, that could include an assessment of the extent towhich public goods have been delivered. However, theSecretary of State has complete discretion over thenumber and frequency of these reports, and no requirementto act upon them.

The Government have rejected our amendments thataimed to pin down the multi-annual financial assistanceprogrammes, and to stipulate that the opinion of theoffice for environmental protection should be sought asto whether the financial assistance given under the Billhas been sufficient to meet the strategic objectives ofthe funding. The provisions lack the consistency requiredto make them robust enough to secure those worthyobjectives, to which we all subscribe. The Bill has loftyaims, which are welcome, but lacks a strong overarchingframework for measuring progress and success, or evenfailure, in order to ensure the aims are achieved.

The inclusion of global resource sustainability in theGovernment’s food security reports could have been asimple way—entirely following the precedent set inprevious UK food security reporting—to ensure thatwe considered the impact of global issues, such as theclimate crisis and water use, on our food security. Notonly that, but it could provide a way of measuring thesuccess of the Bill’s overarching aim of supportingsustainability in our agriculture by considering ourimpact on global resource sustainability. Therefore, wethink global resource sustainability should be includedin the areas covered by the Secretary of State’s foodsecurity reports.

Victoria Prentis: Self-sufficiency has only ever beenone part of food security in this country. We supplementour produce with a range of other products from aroundthe world that are difficult to grow and rear here. Ourhigh degree of food security is built on access to a rangeof sources, including robust supply chains across a widerange of countries in addition to domestic production.It is important to view the debate on food security inthat light.

I begin with amendment 75. I reassure the hon.Gentleman that we are planning to include in the foodsecurity report a theme relating to global food securityand how it affects food security in the UK. I have asummary of some of the reports that we might considerin the section on global food availability, which mayreassure him. However, I do not want him to think thatwhat I will say is conclusive or relates to other issuesthat will be considered in the report; this is just aboutglobal food availability, which relates to amendment 75.We would expect to look at global output per capita,cereal yield per region, commodity price analysis, countryconsumption data and country commodity tradeproportions. In addition, I suspect many other reportsand factors will be considered, many of which will bepublicly available between reports.

We will include consideration of the sustainability ofglobal resources, but I hope the hon. Gentleman willunderstand that we do not intend to list in the Bill allthe indicators and data sources that we intend to use inthe preparation of the report, because doing so wouldmake the Bill unwieldy—one can imagine a situation inwhich one of those data sources becomes unavailable


between reports. That is why the clause is structured asit is. It is not that we will not look at those sources; it isjust that we do not want to list them. In producing thereport, we will set out our analysis of the wide range ofstatistics relating to food security in the UK, fromglobal UN data to UK national statistics. I thereforeask him to withdraw amendment 75.

On amendment 76, I reassure the hon. Gentlemanthat we already intend to address food insecurity in thereport. The Government are committed to achievingthe principles set out in the UN sustainable developmentgoals. We plan, under subsection (2)(d) of clause 17, toreport on how the UK is performing against thosegoals. As part of that theme, we intend to consider allthe key indicators that will help us to understand theimpact of household food insecurity, including datafrom the Office for National Statistics.

As I said last week, food insecurity is an issue that weshould all take very seriously, and the Government arecommitted to having a strong safety net for those whosuffer from food insecurity. I will politely say again thatthe £95 billion welfare budget is the first port of call forpeople who suffer from food insecurity. It is proper thatwe consider food insecurity as part of this report—wehave said that we will do so—but the welfare system isthe place for people with food insecurity, and that iswhere they should go. I do not denigrate in any way theefforts and the great achievements of food banks andfood fridges around the country.

I hope that I have suitably clarified our intentionsand explained why it is not necessary to include specifictext in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman towithdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: We will not withdraw these amendments.I hear what the Minister says about the welfare system,but the welfare system is failing. That is why people arehungry. It did not use to be the case and it does not haveto be the case, but that is the case. That is why it is rightthat the Government set out their position and theOpposition say, “Frankly, you are wrong, and we willnot accept this.”

This is a Bill about agriculture, which many of us stillthink is as much about food as environmental protections,although we want to ensure we do that they are of thehighest standard. Those things should not be contradictory.If we are talking about food, we must talk about accessto it. It was striking to see people on “Countryfile” whoare on such low wages that they can barely afford to buythe food that they are producing. There is somethingseriously wrong here. We do not think this is a big ask,given that the Government have signed up to the sustainableand millennium development goals.

I am afraid it is, again, a question of trust. TheGovernment want a vague framework. I am grateful tothe Minister for making some points about global foodproduction, because they are now on the record, sowhen we come to rehash this argument, when we do getsome of these food reports, we will hold her to that. Inthe meantime, it is essential to press this amendment toa vote, because too many people across this country—thousands every week—use food banks. It would be adereliction of duty on our side not to press this toa vote.



Division No. 14]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah

Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 62, in clause 17, page 14, line 32, at endinsert—

“(f) food insecurity.

(3) For the purposes of this section ‘food insecurity’ means aperson’s state in which consistent access to adequate food islimited by a lack of money and other resources at times duringthe year.

(4) Before laying a report under subsection (1) the Secretary ofState must—

(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, therelevant Northern Ireland department, and suchother persons as the Secretary of State considersappropriate, and

(b) have due regard to international best practice on foodinsecurity, including but not limited to the UnitedStates Household Food Security Survey.

(5) A report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of trends in food insecurity, brokendown by different parts of the United Kingdom anddifferent regions of England, and

(b) a summary of actions to be taken in areas of high foodinsecurity by the UK Government, the ScottishGovernment, the Welsh Government or the NorthernIreland Executive.

(6) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers,the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Irelanddepartment before preparing a report under subsection (1).

(7) In this section—

‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as thatused by the Office for National Statistics.”

Amendment 62 was initially tabled in the name of myhon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs EmmaLewell-Buck), but it has support from at least threeparties. I pay tribute to her and the work she did on theall-party parliamentary group on hunger with the formerMember for Birkenhead, which led to the establishmentof Feeding Britain and its offshoots, such as FeedingBristol. I am pleased to have been involved in that.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shieldsintroduced a private Member’s Bill a while ago, and as aresult of that pressure the Government agreed to measurehousehold food insecurity as part of the family resources


[Kerry McCarthy]

survey. The first data will be available in 2021. In arecent press release, she referred to the amendmentsaying that“there is no commitment…that the measure will continue forfuture years, nor that the results of the survey they are conductingwill be laid before Parliament for scrutiny.”

The point of amendment 62 is to try to give somecertainty. As she says, we have seen“devastating levels of hunger right across the UK”

and the UK has been“dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing to measure foodinsecurity”

but we do need a degree of certainty about it.

As to the Minister’s comments on the welfare system,a Department for Work and Pensions Minister in theHouse of Lords said yesterday that there is “no doubt”at all that universal credit has driven people towardsusing food banks. Many people who use food banks areexperiencing in-work poverty. We have had examples ofpeople who work for Tesco selling cheap food but whoare still not being paid enough, particularly if they arecasual workers or on zero-hours contracts, and thewelfare system is not flexible enough to adapt to that.Clearly we have a crisis. As my hon. Friend the Memberfor South Shields says:

“It is clear urgent action is needed. To keep ignoring thisissue is a shameful dereliction of duty.”

We need firm data. Amendment 62 would give theGovernment the tools they need to identify the keydrivers of food bank use in detail, as well as whichgroups in our society are most likely to request emergencyfood parcels. It will shine a light on the number ofpeople who, year-on-year, go several days without food,as well as on others who skip meals due to lack ofmoney or parents who sacrifice their own meals to feedtheir children—not all of them will be food bank users.In the past, the Government have been sceptical of dataproduced on food bank use by, for example, the TrussellTrust. That is all we have been able to rely on. It hasbecome a proxy measure for hunger and food insecurity,but there will be many families who rely on broaderprogrammes of support. Feeding Bristol had a holidayhunger programme to compensate for the fact thatchildren do not get access to free school meals duringthe long summer holidays. That would not necessarilybe picked up by the food bank data, because fooddistributed with play schemes and so on.

10.45 am

I was privileged to take part into the children’s futurefood inquiry last year. The chief executive of the ChildhoodTrust, Laurence Guinness, told the inquiry:

“We have spoken to children who have shoplifted for food,scavenged for food from bins, eaten tissue paper to fend offhunger, bartered for food at school, sold drugs for food, andmugged other children for money for food.”

I am sure some of those issues are familiar to hon.Members here today. It is essential that we try to pindown what we are doing as a country to tackle foodinsecurity and food poverty, and that Ministers have ayearly duty to monitor those trends in people who arefood insecure.

In some cases, people may not need to rely on foodbanks yet, but they may be only one crisis away. I alwaysthink that when people rely on very low incomes, all it

takes is for the fridge or the washing machine to stopworking, or for there to be some sort of flooding andthe house to not be insured, for “just being able tomanage” to become “not being able to manage at all”.

This amendment would not only mean that we havethe data and a clearer understanding of the problem,but enable the Government, when they make the reportto Parliament, to set out the actions they would take torelieve food insecurity in the areas where it is highest. Itis the whole package of measures. I will conclude bysaying that the amendment is supported by FeedingBritain, the Food Foundation—established by a formerConservative MP, Laura Sandys, who has done greatwork there—Sustain, the Independent Food Aid Networkand the Food Ethics Council.

Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab): I wouldlike to speak in favour of amendment 62, tabled by myhon. Friend the Member for South Shields . I commendher tireless work on food poverty and insecurity, andher considerable knowledge and expertise in the area.

In February last year, the Government agreed tomeasure household food insecurity and to report on itby March 2021. I welcome the fact that the Departmentfor Work and Pensions has included food insecuritymeasurement questions in the family resources survey,but this breakthrough, and the duty to report on thesurvey results, must be enshrined in law. We have anopportunity to do just that, so that the measurementhappens routinely.

As it stands, the Government’s commitment fails toensure that the measurement will continue for futureyears, or that the results of the survey will be laid beforeParliament for scrutiny. Amendment 62 would alsoserve to make the Government’s pledge morecomprehensive, by expanding the definition of foodinsecurity to consider whether everyone in the UK canget access to or afford the food available.

The definition of food security in the Bill currentlycovers only global food availability, where food comesfrom, the resilience of the supply chain and data onhousehold food expenditure, food safety and consumerconfidence. It does not include any measure of foodpoverty or household food insecurity, contrary to aninternationally agreed definition of food security. Yearafter year, charitable food banks have provided evidenceof the gigantic increase in the number of our constituentsrunning out of money for food. Teachers tell us ofchildren in their classes struggling because they aregoing hungry. Local authorities are cancelling meals onwheels services due to unprecedented cuts in their budgets.

For too long, the problem of food insecurity, whichaffects children and adults in all corners of the UK, hasbeen overlooked. It leaves lifelong scars on health andwellbeing. Food banks and other food aid providerscannot be left to continue to pick up the pieces anddistribute increasing numbers of emergency food supplies.We need the Government to commit to regular foodinsecurity measurements and to the resulting data beingscrutinised.

Victoria Prentis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon.Lady, and I welcome her to her place. I thank the hon.Member for Bristol East for the amendment, and I recognisethe commitment of the hon. Member for South Shields


in her important work around food insecurity and inensuring engagement with the devolved Administrationson the amendment.

We are planning to include a theme on household foodsecurity, which is clearly set out in subsection (2)(d). Aspart of that theme, we will be considering the keyindicators that help us take a view on food insecurityand why it happens. I hope that the hon. Member forBristol East will understand that we do not intend to listin the Bill all the data sources we will use in the report,as it would make the Bill unhelpfully unwieldy.

As I said on a previous amendment, our purpose inproducing the report is to set out our analysis of thewidest relevant sets of statistics relating to food securityin the UK, ranging from global UN data to UK nationalstatistics. Many of those data sets are only published atUK level, so breakdown to the devolved Administrationarea or regional level will not be available in all instances.We will not commit at this stage to the precise data wewill use, but all available relevant data will be considered,including breakdown by devolved Administration areaif appropriate.

It is our intention that the report will inform discussionand debate about UK food security, both acrossGovernment and with wider stakeholders—that is whywe are doing it. I assure the hon. Lady that we will ofcourse consider the themes covered in the report, andthe analysis, evidence and trends within it, with all sortsof stakeholders, including the devolved Administrations.We have well-established forums for discussion of thatnature. Introducing a more formal requirement for aconsultation for Ministers with Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland before the report is even laid is thereforeunnecessary.

I hope that clarifies the intention of the clause andprovides the hon. Lady with sufficient assurance. I askher to withdraw the amendment.

Kerry McCarthy: The problem with subsection (2)(d)is that it just talks about

“household expenditure on food (including in comparison toexpenditure on other items)”.

As we have outlined today, that does not go anywherenear looking at the scale of the problem and the manyfactors that contribute to food insecurity. I am notprepared to withdraw the amendment.



Division No. 15]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah

Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria




Clause 19

EXCEPTIONAL MARKET CONDITIONS: POWERS AVAILABLE

TO SECRETARY OF STATE


Victoria Prentis: In the health and harmony consultation,the majority of respondents suggested that Governmentintervention is essential in extreme circumstances, identifyingmarket interventions in times of extreme price volatilityas an area of particular concern. However, a highproportion of responses argued that farmers shouldself-manage risk. While the Government understandthat there are events that even the most resilient offarmers cannot provide for, the agricultural industrymust be sufficiently dynamic and self-reliant to survivein a free market. The clause tries to balance those twofactors by creating new powers for the Secretary ofState to provide financial assistance to farmers in Englandand to run public intervention and private storageschemes during exceptional market conditions.

Daniel Zeichner: Before speaking on the clause, I givethe Minister advance notice that I will also say a wordon clause 22, on data. I draw attention to paragraph 170of the explanatory notes to the Bill. This is potentially abig issue and goes back to our philosophical discussionslast week on what the common agricultural policy hadbeen for, to some extent. Of course, it was there to dealwith extreme volatility and difficulty and so on. TheGovernment make the fair point of questioning whetherthat is appropriate in a modern, more complicatedworld. However, I urge a slight note of caution to thosewho imagine that this is pretty much a carry-over of thecurrent system.

There is a pretty clear cautionary note in paragraph 172of the explanatory notes, where the Government say:

“Analysis suggests that public intervention and private storageaid are not required to enable farmers to manage their risks.”

That is quite a strong sentence. The notes continue:“They can have negative effects, encouraging more risky farming

practices and crowding out the development of futures markets,innovative contracts and private sector insurance products. Suchmarket intervention schemes, if available routinely rather than ingenuinely exceptional circumstances, run counter to the image ofa dynamic and self-reliant agriculture industry.”

That could lead to many an academic paper, becauseit is a huge subject for discussion and debate. Many ofus will think that it is probably fair enough that riskshould be transferred on to the agriculture sector itself.During the foot and mouth crisis almost 20 years ago,many commentators made exactly that point. In particular,those from the manufacturing sector, who had seentheir sector decimated by market forces, wondered whyit was different for others. The reason is that food is abasic human need. This goes almost back to the discussionwe were just having about food security. We may be ableto live without some widgets, but we cannot live withoutfood.

This is a really big, substantial issue, but is tuckedaway in a subsection. I suspect that some farmers willlook at it and think not only that the future will hold nosupport and a much more complicated—in the view ofsome us—move to environmental land managementsystems, but that they will also have to deal with“futures markets, innovative contracts—


[Daniel Zeichner]

I think a lot of us know what “innovative”often means—

“and private sector insurance products.”

I raise that just to sound a warning note. I am not surethat the matter has been discussed sufficiently.

11 am

Abena Oppong-Asare: I completely agree with myhon. Friend’s points. The Tenant Farmers Associationhighlighted the same matter in its written evidence,saying that the clause mentions only “‘acute’ hardshipor difficulty” and would not be invoked for “‘chronic’ orlong-lasting difficulties”, which, as has been mentioned,would include foot and mouth disease or epidemicdiseases. In the current climate, we should look at thatand make sure that agricultural producers are extremelyresilient, and that they have that level of support, particularlywhen such crises happen, because they are expensive.There could be a big impact, particularly on the agriculturalcommunity and on consumers, especially in the face ofthe economic challenges of Brexit.

Daniel Zeichner: That is an important intervention,and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning theevidence of the Tenant Farmers Association. There is abigger debate to be had—the Minister is nodding—althoughI am sure that we can leave that for another day. Theissue is important and I hope that it will be looked atmore closely.

Victoria Prentis: By creating a new power we aremoving away from the crisis measures that were designedwith the EU market in mind and allowing schemes to becreated that are tailored to our domestic conditions. Itis important that farmers feel the Government are ableto help where necessary. However, it is equally importantthat those financial assistance and intervention powerswill not be seen as a panacea for any issue in agriculturalmarkets. They are intended for use in exceptional situations.

The discretionary nature of the power will, I hope,reassure the sector that the Government will be able tohelp should extreme circumstances come to pass, bytaking action and tailoring it to those exceptionalcircumstances. It will also ensure that intervention inthe market and financial assistance will be limited tooccasions when they are really necessary.




Clause 22

MEANING OF “AGRI-FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN”


Daniel Zeichner: I apologise, Mr Stringer, for notlisting the clause earlier as one on which I wanted tomake an observation. I should declare—I am a bit of adata person—that I run the all-party parliamentarygroup on data analytics. The Minister sighs, but thedata is important and has huge potential. We are in anera of precision agriculture where we seek to be able toprovide, now and in the future, the correct nutrients forthe individual Brussels sprout plant. That is an exciting

possibility and many people in Cambridge are workingon it. Agri-tech East is a powerful force for innovationand, I hope, good—but alongside all the politics withdata there are one or two caveats.

The House of Commons Library briefing says—Iimagine this has been deduced from the Bill:

“Data would normally be published in anonymised form”.

Evidence from elsewhere suggests that data anonymityis really hard to achieve. What we have seen withartificial intelligence and all the rest of it suggests thatthe power is there to trace anything back, so I urge aword of caution on that.

The reason I am cautious is that my reading ofclause 22(4), dealing with people who are “closelyconnected”, raises a few anxieties in my mind aboutwhether data is going to be collected on people workingin agriculture. That is not always a force for good, I amafraid, and I want to make sure there are proper protectionsfor people.

The Bill mentions vets, and there may well be goodreasons for that related to animal health. However, wealready have a workforce who are, in my view, oftenpoorly paid and who face some serious and relentlesschallenges. I worry that further scrutinising them througha monitoring and data system would create a series offurther problems, so I would welcome the Minister’sobservations on that, and ask whether she shares myconcerns. I am not sure there is much we can do aboutthis issue in the Bill at the moment, but monitoring isclearly being set out as a way forward, and I hope wecan make sure that we protect the people involved.

Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Gentleman forwhat he has said, and I do not wish in any way to makelight of his concerns about data. How we obtain andhold data is extremely important, and I am very happyto answer any concerns that he has on this subject.

The clause seeks to provide clarity about who mightbe required to provide information. A fairly broadscope has been outlined within the clause, and I thinkthe drafters were trying to take a common-sense anddown-to-earth approach to what sort of people wemight need to get data from. For example, farmers,abattoirs, vets, wholesalers and retailers might well be inscope, but would not by any means always need to be inthe frontline of data collection; it depends on thecircumstances. It is important to note that those connectedto the agri-food supply chain include people undertakingactivities capable of affecting the health of creaturesand plants in that food chain, or the safety of products.

Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate how difficult it is toframe these things, but that would include pretty mucheverybody who is involved, as far as I can tell. I cannotthink of anybody who is not going to be caught by thatdefinition, which is really my concern. Obviously, we allhope these powers will be used for the right purposes,but it is easy to see how they could become a newtyranny if every tractor had a camera in its cab andpeople were being monitored.

Victoria Prentis: That is not at all the intention. Theintention is that where it is necessary to collect datafrom those in the food chain, the clause gives us theability to do so. That is not at all to say that we willroutinely connect data from all these actors, only that


the power is there to enable us to do so when required.For example, with the coronavirus outbreak, it is possible—although I very much hope this is not the case—thatfurther down the food chain, we will need to know whois touching the food that we eat or is responsible forvarious areas of it. I can foresee a situation in which itmight be possible to ask people who seem far away fromthe farm gate to provide their data, although I verymuch hope that does not happen.

Before any data requirements are imposed, a draftproposal must first be sent to all relevant parties. If asupply chain member believes that such a request is notappropriate, they will be provided with at least fourweeks to notify the Secretary of State of their reasoning.

Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister confirm whetherthose interested parties include the relevant trade union?

Victoria Prentis: I am not sure that under the draftingof the clause trade unions would be included; in fact, Ithink they would not. However, it is open to membersof a trade union to consult that union as necessary, andI would not seek to stop them doing so.

The idea is that an actor will receive the draft proposal.One example is that if a small-scale blackberry growerdoes not think it appropriate for them to provide dataon productivity, which it may well not be, they will beable to submit that in response to the Secretary of State.The Secretary of State will then review whether it isnecessary to carry out the initial requirement for datacollection.

It has been difficult to draft this clause. The hon.Member for Cambridge understands that the need forpublic safety and food security along the supply chainhas to be balanced with the need to protect people’sprivacy and not to overburden them with regulation. Ihope he feels we have broadly got the balance right.



Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.


11.13 am




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Tenth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 27 AND 28 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 1 agreed to.

CLAUSE 29 agreed to.


CLAUSES 30 TO 34 agreed to, some with amendments.

SCHEDULE 3 agreed to, with amendments.

CLAUSE 35 agreed to.


CLAUSES 36 TO 39 agreed to, one with amendments.

Adjourned till Thursday 5 March at half-past Eleven o’clock.


PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Saturday 7 March 2020






† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)† Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)


† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead)








(Afternoon)


Agriculture Bill

Clause 27

FAIR DEALING OBLIGATIONS OF BUSINESS PURCHASERS

OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

2 pm

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 77, in clause 27, page 22, line 4, leave outlines 4 to 7 and insert—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the periodof 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed,make regulations—

(a) imposing obligations on all business purchasers ofagricultural products in relation to contracts theymake for the purchase of agricultural products fromall qualifying sellers;”


Amendment 78, in clause 27, page 22, line 11, after“fair” insert “dealing and fair”.


“(2A) The Secretary of State may also make regulations forthe purpose set out in subsection (2) in relation to the purchaseof agricultural products in one or more of the sectors listed inSchedule 1 by business purchasers from qualifying sellers.”

This amendment would ensure that there is an overarching requirementfor fair dealing across the whole agricultural industry, with the abilityto develop sector specific regulations to address any particular areas ofunfair practice.

Ruth Jones: It is a pleasure to serve under yourchairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I am pleased tospeak to these important amendments.

Over recent weeks, as we have worked our way throughthe Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeand I have moved and spoken to a number of amendments,and I have noted not only the importance of thislegislation, but the potential that accompanies it. As weapproach this stage in our consideration of the Bill, it istime that we reminded ourselves of the motives andheadlines around it.

Before she was sent to the Back Benches, the formerSecretary of State, the right hon. Member for ChippingBarnet (Theresa Villiers), said that the Agriculture Bill

“will transform British farming, enabling a balance between foodproduction and the environment which will safeguard our countrysideand farming communities for the future.”

I am sure Members will agree that those are aspirationaland noble aims—a vision that nobody could disagreewith. I just wish that the content of the Bill matched themedia lines published by officials at the Department.However, I say to the Minister that we can deliver thatvision together on a cross-party basis if the Government

accept our ideas, our advice and our suggestions. Thereis no better time to start doing so than now, by acceptingamendments 77, 78 and 79.

The amendments reflect a great deal of interest frommany of the relevant external bodies, and we havereceived many thoughtful and reflective commentariesfrom organisations including the National Farmers Union,the Tenant Farmers Association and Greener UK. I amgrateful to them all for the hard work they are doing onbehalf of their members and sectors, which includes acollective welcoming of the fact that fairness is requiredin the supply chain; we need to ensure that there istransparency and openness, too. The Bill is particularlyweak in those areas.

The Government need to rethink and revisit thesupply chain provisions designed to secure a fairer priceto farmers for the food they produce. Those provisionshave been broadened in this iteration of the Bill, butthere is still no duty to use them, and the Governmenthave not published anything about how they intend touse the powers and who would be enforcing, using andsafeguarding them. Our amendments would providesome clarification on those questions.

We note that the NFU believes there should be anobligation on a Secretary of State to introduce regulationsto ensure a baseline of fair dealings between businesspurchasers and producers across all sectors, and thatthose regulations should be brought forward within12 months of the Bill’s coming into force. They are rightto call for speedy implementation of the measures thatwould give effect to the fairness we all want, so I supportthose calls from the NFU.

We have heard from a number of stakeholders aboutthe need for a strong and meaningful overarching body,and they are right. We need the Minister to providesome clarity about who that regulator will be, how itwill work, and what it will look like. It is clear to us onthe Labour Benches that the Government have a vitalrole to play, and our amendments will help ensure thatthis role is carried out. We should nail down today thefact that the regulator should be the Groceries CodeAdjudicator. The Bill as it stands leaves hanging thequestion of who the regulator should be, and the lastthings anyone in the real world needs at this time areuncertainty, indecision and confusion.

The elephant in the room—we spoke earlier aboutone elephant in the room, but this is another elephant—isour departure from the European Union. There willsoon be tough and competing demands on the Governmentfor resources, focus, scrutiny and implementation, but Ihope that in the weeks ahead, this Bill will receive thestrong and guaranteed focus of Ministers on the TreasuryBenches.

Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con):Does the hon. Lady accept that there are some areas inthe agricultural trade, such as the grain market, wherethere is no market failure? There are lots of buyers andlots of sellers in that area, and it operates very well.

Ruth Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for hisintervention. Of course, he is an expert in this area and Ibow to his superior knowledge, but what we are sayingis that we need to clear the matter up for the whole industry,not just for certain sectors that already work well.However, I appreciate his intervention.


I hope that the amendments have shown the Governmentthat there is widespread support for this action. Theyare about not partisan advantage, but clarity for thesector and an improved set of circumstances and conditions.I am proud to have tabled them.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): What a pleasureit is to have you back with us, Sir David! I thank the hon.Lady for the amendments, which reflect an obviousdesire to ensure that all farmers and producers arespared from unfair trading practices. We absolutelyshare that goal; our only disagreement is the meansproposed to achieve it.

Essentially, we believe in the principle of a targetedsolution for a specific problem, and we are keen to takethe time to get the solution right. No two agriculturalsectors are the same, and neither are the contractualissues that they face. Certain sectors, such as the poultryand grain sectors, may, as my right hon. Friend theMember for Scarborough and Whitby reminded us, beso well integrated that contractual problems do notoften arise.

We should have targeted solutions where they areneeded, but we need to avoid burdensome new requirementswhere they are not. To ensure that, the specific detail ofeach code will be developed in consultation with industryand set out in secondary legislation. Enforcing a timelimit on the creation of fair-dealing obligations wouldprevent regulations accounting for the complex natureof our agricultural market.

Turning to amendment 78, I assure the hon. Memberfor Newport West that all types of agreement to purchaseagricultural products can already be protected by theclause, and the position of farmers in the supply chainwill be protected under the current drafting. The clauseallows us to regulate for the purposes of fair contractualdealing. That goes beyond a formal, written contract.As the hon. Lady no doubt knows, a contract constitutesany agreement of sale, whether it is formally writtendown or not. In the dairy sector, it is commonplace towrite things down; in other sectors, there are moreinformal, word-of-mouth arrangements, particularly inthe red meat world and parts of the arable world.However, the clause covers all agreements, written orotherwise.

On amendment 79, we deliberately designed the clauseto be as flexible as possible. That is a change since theprevious iteration of the Bill. Having listened to commentsmade at the time, we severed the link to the list ofsectors in schedule 1 so that future regulations are nolonger bound by it. It remains very much our belief thateach sector is different and requires a tailored approach.We intend to be forensic in establishing what the needsof each sector are. That will include detailed engagementwith industry.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I am thinkingback to our earlier discussion on data throughout theentire system. Why do some sectors need to be treateddifferently here, but did not when it came to the collectionof data?

Victoria Prentis: During our earlier conversation, itwas clear that we will have to be forensic and tailored inour approach to data collection. This is very much part

of the same theme. We do not want to treat all sectorsthe same when they raise different issues and come to uswith very different current practices.

If issues that are consistent across multiple sectorsare revealed, and if they could be addressed under new,comprehensive regulation, we absolutely have the powerto deliver that. I therefore ask the hon. Member forNewport West to withdraw the amendment.

Ruth Jones: I listened very carefully to the Minister. Iagree that we do not disagree on the broad principles,but I am seeking to get the regulations tied down so thatthey are clear and comprehensive for everybody in theagricultural sector. It seems reasonable that the GroceriesCode Adjudicator should be the regulator. I do not seeany dissent from that, but it would be helpful if we couldtie things down in writing rather than, as the Ministersays, in verbal agreements.

Imustapologisetotherighthon.MemberforScarboroughand Whitby—I misheard his earlier intervention; I thoughthe was talking about the “grey” area, not the “grain”. Imisunderstood completely. I apologise, and will washout my ears.

I welcome the Minister’s assurances—she is listeningand wants to make things run as smoothly as possible.However, given this time of general unclarity, as weleave the EU, with all the uncertainty that is throwingup, we need things set in writing now for the monthsand years ahead, to prevent any misunderstandings oranything going wrong in that respect. I accept that theMinister has described the Bill as a new iteration, andwe accept that it is improved, but at the same time westill need clarity, transparency and openness. We willtherefore press the amendment to a vote.


Division No. 16]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): Ibeg to move amendment 19, in clause 27, page 22, line 9, atend insert—

“(1A) Regulations under this section containing provision thatextends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of theScottish Ministers.”

This amendment would require that regulations containing provisionsthat extend to Scotland may be made only with the consent of theScottish Ministers.


“(10A) Before making regulations under this section, theSecretary of State must consult persons—


(a) who are representative of—

(i) qualifying sellers of, or

(ii) business purchasers of,

the agricultural products to which the regulations willapply, or

(b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.”

Deidre Brock: It is, as always, a pleasure to serve underyour chairmanship, Sir David.

It might help the Committee if I lay out briefly a littleof the SNP’s reasoning behind our approach to the Billand to the amendments. Scottish agriculture has alwaysfollowed a different line from UK agricultural policy.Different circumstances—very different, in many cases—demanded that. Agricultural policy had administrativedevolution long before the modern era of democraticdevolution.

In the days before the Scottish Parliament wasreconvened, the old Scottish Office, which I am sure youremember, Sir David, had responsibility for agriculturalpolicy in Scotland, just as it did for many other areasof policy. It was administratively devolved, and there-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999simply democratised that devolution. In fact, stories tellof Scottish Ministers of old doing battle with their UKcounterparts on such issues, arguing the case for thatdevolution settlement to be respected, way back as faras Mrs Thatcher’s Government and George Younger’sding-dongs with colleagues.

The SNP is simply seeking to protect the decision-makingpowers of the Scottish institutions in the Bill, to ensurethat the policies applied can be the best fit for thefarmers and crofters concerned. That is why we haveargued and continue to make the case for the ScottishParliament and its Ministers to hold the powers forScottish agriculture and food production. That is why Iam in Committee now: I will make a case that somepresent might not give two hoots about. Despite all that,I will continue to argue it.

Amendment 19 specifically mandates that ScottishMinisters retain their devolved powers and that when,and only when, regulations made under the clauseextend to Scotland, the Scottish Government will haveto consent to them. I have been following the Toryleadership election in Scotland; I understand that thecurrent Scottish Tory leader intends to be the next FirstMinister, so enshrining that principle in legislation wouldclearly be a big help to him. Perhaps the Minister willbear that in mind. It would also have the benefit ofbeing the right thing to do, and it respects the devolutionsettlement. I certainly hope the Government will supportthe amendment.

Amendment 20 would sensibly ensure that the businessesmost closely affected by the regulations are consultedbefore the regulations are created. That is an extremelysensible way to conduct Government, and it helps toensure that unintended consequences are kept to thebare minimum and that the industry buys into theregulations. It seems to be a sensible and measuredamendment, and I hope the Minister will support it.

2.15 pm

Victoria Prentis: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s cleardesire to ensure that any statutory codes are fit forpurpose, and we are equally committed to ensuring

just that. We want to see consistent protection againstunfair trading practices for farmers wherever they are inthe United Kingdom. We continue to consult widelyand meaningfully with everyone who will be affected byour new codes of conduct, including the devolvedAdministrations and producers in those territories. Theirviews will be listened to and respected.

Amendment 19 is designed to require the consent ofScottish Ministers in respect of the regulations, therebypotentially preventing the UK Parliament from developingcodes of conduct that would apply across the UK. Wedo not think it appropriate, nor is it in line with thedevolution settlement. The objective of clause 27 is topromote fair contractual dealing and to prevent theabuse of a dominant market position. The Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sought a viewfrom the Competition and Markets Authority on whetherthat is a devolved matter. The CMA’s view is that thepurpose of promoting fair contractual dealing is definitelyrelated to the regulation of competition. Competitionis a matter reserved to the UK Parliament. As such,clause 27 is reserved and we should not be seekinglegislative consent to exercise powers that are reservedto the UK Parliament. Amendment 20 deals with theobligation for broader consultation, and we are committedto using those powers in the most effective and leastburdensome way possible.

We fully acknowledge that it is crucial for any newcodes to be the product of a deep partnership betweenGovernment and industry. Thorough consultations willbe conducted prior to the design and introduction ofthe new statutory codes. However, placing a requirementto consult in primary legislation would be burdensome,especially for regulations that make only minor andtechnical changes. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to considerwithdrawing the amendment.

Deidre Brock: I thank the Minister for her response,but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. Itis very much the SNP’s view that these competenciesrest with Scottish Ministers. Where common frameworksare to be decided on, they should be agreed, not imposed.That lies at the heart of what we are talking about. Iappreciate the Minister’s honesty on this issue, but I willask for the amendments to be pushed to a vote.



Division No. 17]

AYES

Brock, Deidre Doogan, Dave

NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Debbonaire, Thangam

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jones, Ruth

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Prentis, Victoria

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel


Amendment proposed: 78, in clause 27, page 22, line 11,

after “fair” insert “dealing and fair”.—(Daniel Zeichner.)



Division No. 18]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 82, inclause 27, page 23, line 15, leave out “a specified person”and insert “the Groceries Code Adjudicator”.



‘(8A) The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 is amended,by inserting after section 2 (Arbitration)—

“2A Fair dealing: determination of complaints allegingnon-compliance

(1) If a complaint relating to alleged non-compliance is referredto the Adjudicator under section 27(8)(a) of the Agriculture Act2020, the Adjudicator must determine the complaint.

(2) In determining any allegation of non-compliance undersubsection (1), the Adjudicator must act in accordance with anyregulations made under subsection (1) of section 27 of theAgriculture Act 2020 which make provision for investigation ofcomplaints, imposition of penalties or a requirement to paycompensation, as specified by subsection (8) of section 27 of thatAct.”’

Amendment 80, in clause 27, page 23, line 25, after“any” insert “competent and appropriate”.

This amendment would ensure that the role of regulating agriculturalcontracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitativeassessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.

Amendment 81, in clause 27, page 23, line 26, after“provide for a” insert “competent and appropriate”.

This amendment would ensure that the role of regulating agriculturalcontracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitativeassessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.

Ruth Jones: I will speak to all the amendments together.Being mindful of time, I will not read out the wordingof the amendments. I know that hon. Members aregrateful for that.

The amendments would ensure that the role of regulatingagricultural contracts is given to a body that is competentto undertake qualitative assessments, such as the GroceriesCode Adjudicator’s office. That sensible suggestion wouldensure that effective and authoritative oversight andassessment takes place.

External organisations such as the Tenant FarmersAssociation believe that the Government have a vitalrole in the face of significant market failure in agricultureand food supply chains, but it is concerning that theGovernment do not see that as forming part of an expanded

role for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It has beenproposed instead that the Rural Payments Agency wouldbe an appropriate regulator. The Government need toexplain why they think that the RPA has sufficientexpertise in that area; I look forward to the Minister’sexplanation on that specific point. There seems to be noreason why the responsibility should be placed anywhereother than with the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

The Government have previously decided not to broadenthe scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Thosedecisions suggest that, without a clear duty, they willcome under pressure from retailers to row back on theprovisions. We need to be focused and tenacious in howwe monitor the assessment process, including the criteriaused. Importantly, the amendments would provide theclarity and certainty that are desperately needed by ourfarmers and the agricultural sector more generally.

We need to drill down to the detail and explicitlyidentify which regulatory body will be in charge andwhat expertise and experience the Government expect itto have. When will the Government see fit to provide aclear answer on that? I look forward to the Minister’sresponse to these probing amendments.

Victoria Prentis: We are committed to tackling supplychain injustices, and an effective enforcement regime isa crucial part of that process. It is important to statethat no decisions have yet been made about the natureof enforcement or the body responsible for it. We intendto listen to the ideas and concerns of the industrybefore any decisions are made, and we will of courseexercise due diligence in designing the enforcement regimewhen we appoint the regulator.

I understand the attraction of replicating the successof the GCA elsewhere in the food supply chain, but it isimportant to recognise that the GCA works so wellbecause it has a very targeted focus on the behaviours ofextremely large retailers that deal with their direct suppliersand have a good understanding of how that particularsupply chain works.

A 2018 Government review found insufficient evidenceof widespread problems further down the groceriessupply chain to justify extending the remit of the GCAto indirect suppliers. The issues that the review identifiedwere sector-specific and are best addressed with theproportionate and targeted interventions contained inthe Bill.

No decisions have yet been made about enforcement.Although the RPA has undoubtedly had difficultieswith direct payments in the past, it has a wealth ofexperience in the agricultural markets. We will take ameasured approach to arrive at the best possible decision.I ask the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to avote.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her explanation.Obviously, external bodies and stakeholders will beactively encouraged to lobby the Government on thematter, and I hope that they will take the opportunity todo so. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.



“(10A) Before making regulations under this section, theSecretary of State must consult persons—


(a) who are representative of—

(i) qualifying sellers of, or

(ii) business purchasers of,

the agricultural products to which the regulations willapply, or

(b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.”—(Deidre Brock.)



Division No. 19]

AYES


NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Debbonaire, Thangam

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jones, Ruth

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Prentis, Victoria

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel



Clause 28

Producer and interbranch organisations etc:application for recognition

Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 21, inclause 28, page 23, line 42, leave out

“to the Secretary of State”.


Amendment 22, in clause 28, page 24, line 12, leave out


Amendment 23, in clause 28, page 24, line 20, leaveout


Amendment 24, in clause 28, page 24, line 38, at endinsert

“(6A) An application under subsection (1), (3) or (5) is to bemade to and determined by—

(a) the appropriate authority for the part of the UnitedKingdom in which the applicant has its registeredoffice or principal place of business, or

(b) where the applicant is made up of producers, producerorganisations or, as the case may be, businesses operatingin more than one part of the United Kingdom, theappropriate authority for any of those parts.”

Amendment 25, in clause 28, page 25, line 5, leave out“The Secretary of State” and insert

“The appropriate authority to which an application is madeunder this section”.


““appropriate authority” means—

(a) in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland,the Secretary of State,

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;”

This amendment, together with Amendment 25 would requireorganisations of agricultural producers, associations of recognisedproducer organisations, and organisations of agricultural businesses toapply for recognition to the appropriate authority in the country of theUK where the applicant is principally based.

Amendment 27, in clause 29, page 26, line 9, leave out“the Secretary of State” and insert

“an appropriate authority (within the meaning given insection 28(13))”.

This amendment would require the delegation of functions to requirepermission from the appropriate authority.

Amendment 28, in clause 30, page 26, line 16, leaveout “the Secretary of State” and insert

“an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section28(13))”.

This amendment would allow regulations to give the power to delegatefunctions to be made by an appropriate authority.

Deidre Brock: I will speak to all of these amendmentsvery briefly; they are completely self-explanatory. Again,they are about respecting the devolution settlement andthe current powers of the Scottish Parliament andGovernment. Ensuring that Scottish organisations applyin Scotland rather than in Whitehall would help to keepthe task off Whitehall’s desk, saving unnecessary efforton the part of UK Ministers and officials, which theMinister might want to keep in mind.

2.30 pm

Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtfuldesire to progress with these amendments, to ensurethat Scottish farmers are effectively and appropriatelysupported. We are committed to ensuring that the provisionsare applied effectively in all the nations of the UnitedKingdom.

Recognition as a producer organisation, associationof producer organisations or inter-branch organisationautomatically activates exemptions from competitionlaw. That has been the case under the EU regime sincethe omnibus regulation, which amended several CAPinstruments at the beginning of 2018.

That approach will continue under the new domesticPO regime. The act of granting recognition thereforerelates directly to competition law, which, as I saidearlier, is reserved to the UK Parliament. However, Iwill take this opportunity to assure both the hon. Ladyand Scottish Ministers that this merely reflects thestatus of competition law as an area reserved to the UKParliament. The PO regime will continue to operate asit always has. We have no intention of introducingjarring changes that will undermine its functioning. Itwill continue to be administered by the RPA, as iscurrently the case. We will consult thoroughly, bothwith the devolved Administrations and with farmers, inevery part of the UK, during the development of ourbespoke UK regime. I ask the hon. Lady to withdrawthe amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: A number of these amendmentsrelate to wider devolution issues; my comments areapplicable to a number of them, in particular those thatwe are discussing at the moment.

We are going to need clarity on how we will worktogether in the future, because the structures being setup are quite complicated. For some, it would be entirelyreasonable for the powers to be passed to the devolved


organisations, but there needs to be a detailed discussionabout the merits in each case. At the moment, I am notconvinced in this instance. I was actually persuaded bythe Minister’s arguments about whether, as we stand,passing these matters down to the devolved nationswould be the right way to go. Although I certainlywould not rule out considering doing that further infuture, because we want to ensure that we devolve asmuch power as possible, there are issues around competitionlaw—we will come to further amendments where issome interaction with World Trade Organisation rules,general agreement on tariffs and trade rules and so on,which make it difficult to do that. While supporting theGovernment on this occasion, I want to put down amarker to say that in future we would want to devolvewhere possible.

Deidre Brock: I am very interested to hear the hon.Gentleman’s comments. Clearly, there are discussionsto be had—before Report, perhaps—on this and manyother issues. However, I am afraid this still comes backto the point that, in our view, these decisions are moreproperly reserved to Scottish Ministers, and so we willbe pushing the amendment to a vote.



Division No. 20]

AYES


NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Debbonaire, Thangam

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jones, Ruth

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Prentis, Victoria

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel



Schedule 1 agreed to.



Clause 30

REGULATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 28 AND 29

Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 29, inclause 30, page 26, line 29, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under section 28 or 29 containing provisionthat extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent ofthe Scottish Ministers.”

This amendment would ensure that regulations under section 28 or 29containing provision that extend to Scotland may be made only with theconsent of Scottish Ministers.

This amendment would ensure that the ScottishAdministration is involved in decisions on devolvedareas, which seems sensible—I would be interested tohear support from Labour in certain regards. The Ministerwould surely approve of the amendment, given how

much Ministers have worked with Scottish Ministers onthe Bill so far, so I look forward to seeing her supportfor the amendment.

Victoria Prentis: The amendment seeks to give ScottishMinisters discretion in respect of the regulations, potentiallypreventing the UK Parliament from creating a UK-wideproducer organisation scheme. As I noted previously,the act of granting producer organisation recognitionrelates directly to competition law, which is reserved tothe UK Parliament. We absolutely look forward toworking collaboratively with our colleagues from thedevolved Administrations when designing the new UK-widedomestic scheme, but given the circumstances outlined,I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Deidre Brock: The amendment gets to the heart ofthe issue. This is designed to be a common framework.As many will recall from when we heard evidence, andfrom the previous Agriculture Bill Committee as well,where common frameworks were to be agreed acrossthe UK, all the NFUs were in favour of decisions beingagreed, not imposed. I see this as part of that outlook,which is not one that we are willing to support, so wewill push this amendment to a vote.



Division No. 21]

AYES


NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Debbonaire, Thangam

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jones, Ruth

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Prentis, Victoria

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel



Clause 31

FERTILISERS

Victoria Prentis: I beg to move amendment 51, inclause 31, page 28, line 48, leave out

“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 (2020anaw 1) changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymruor the Welsh Parliament”. This amendment and Amendments 52 to 61are consequential amendments and they follow the new practice in theEnglish language version of devolved Welsh legislation of using theWelsh name only when referring to the Welsh legislature.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendments 57 to 60, 52, 53, 61, and 54to 56.


Victoria Prentis: Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections(Wales) Act 2020 changes the name of the Welsh legislatureto “Senedd Cymru”—I hope the hon. Member for NewportWest will correct me if got that wrong, although myWelsh relatives would not forgive me—or “the WelshParliament”. Amendments 51 to 61 are technicalconsequential amendments. They follow the new practice,in the English language version of devolved Welshlegislation, of using only the Welsh name when referringto the Welsh legislature.

Ruth Jones: These are simple amendments that reflectthe strengthened importance of Wales as an equal partnerin the four-way relationship that makes up the UnitedKingdom. Labour will support them, as they are clearlya tidying-up exercise. However, we should not be clearingup on matters of respect, so I caution all Ministers to bemindful and respectful.



Clause 32

IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY OF ANIMALS

Amendments made: 89, in clause 32, page 30, line 5, after“England” insert “or Wales”.This amendment treats Wales in the same way as England in terms ofthe future application of section 8(1)(a) of the Animal Health Act1981, once the provisions of European law mentioned in clause 32(3)and (4) cease to apply in England and Wales.

Amendment 90, in clause 32, page 30, line 7, leave out“Wales or”.This amendment is consequential on Amendment 89

Amendment 91, in clause 32, page 30, line 10, leaveout from “under” to end of line and insert“subsection (1)(a) made by the Secretary of State or the WelshMinisters”.

This amendment limits the proposition inserted in section 8 of theAnimal Health Act 1981 by clause 32(2)(b) to provision made undersection 8(1)(a) about the means of identifying animals. It also securesthat the Welsh Ministers, as well as the Secretary of State, can makeprovision under section 8(1)(a) that binds the Crown.

Amendment 92, in clause 32, page 30, line 16, after“England” insert “or Wales”.This amendment alters the words inserted in Regulation (EC) No1760/2000 by clause 32(3) in order to treat Wales in the same way asEngland in disapplying Title 1 of that Regulation.


“, and

(b) in Article 22 (compliance)—

(i) in paragraph 1 at the end insert—

‘The fourth, fifth and sixth subparagraphs do notapply in relation to England or Wales.’, and

(ii) in paragraph 2 at the end insert—

‘This paragraph does not apply in relation to Englandor Wales.’”

This amendment makes changes to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000which are consequential on the disapplication by clause 32(3) of Title 1of that Regulation in relation to England and Wales.

Amendment 94, in clause 32, page 30, line 21, at endinsert “or Wales”.—(Victoria Prentis.)This amendment alters the words inserted in Council Regulation (EC)No 21/2004 in order to treat Wales in the same way as England indisapplying that Regulation.


Clause 33

RED MEAT LEVY: PAYMENTS BETWEEN LEVY BODIES IN

GREAT BRITAIN

Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 30, inclause 33, page 31, line 32, at end insert—

“(10) The first scheme under this section must come into forceno later than 1 April 2021.”

The amendment is basically all about ensuring thatequitable distribution of the red meat levy moneys ismade timeously. I want that to be done as early andsmoothly as possible. It has been waited on throughoutthe UK for a considerable time, but I certainly imaginethat Ministers in the various Administrations have discussedit. If the Minister could assure me that that is happening,and that we are looking at an implementation date inApril next year, I would not see any need to press theamendment to a Division.

2.45 pm

Victoria Prentis: I am grateful to the hon. Memberfor raising the issue of the red meat levy with heramendment. I recognise that there is an inequalityarising from the current system of producing the redmeat levy. Indeed, our Parliamentary Private Secretaryhas been assiduous in bringing that to our attention.

The clause is designed to provide a permanent solutionto this long-standing issue. In the meantime, the threelevy bodies—the Agriculture and Horticulture DevelopmentBoard, Quality Meat Scotland and the HCC, which Iwill not even begin to pronounce—[Interruption.] Thehon. Member for Newport West must bear it in mindthat I have a vast number of Welsh relations who wouldnot appreciate it if I did not get my pronunciationperfect. The three levy bodies are working collaboratively,using the interim fund, to benefit the red meat industryacross the whole of Great Britain. Adequate time mustbe allowed for the full and careful development of aredistribution scheme, allowing for due considerationand consultation in order to provide a workable solution.

The amendment moved by the hon. Member forEdinburgh North and Leith would provide a shorttimeframe in which to create a new scheme. Imposingsuch a deadline is not appropriate, because it is importantthat we consult properly on how the redistribution ofthe red meat levy is delivered, and the Administrationsmust have time to agree the scheme. The interim fundcontinues to be available in the meantime. I thereforeapologise that I cannot give her every assurance sheseeks at this point, but she knows that we have workedhard to put right this wrong, and will continue to do so.In that spirit, I ask that she withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I will be brief, but the clause issomething that we can all welcome. There has been along-running difficulty and it reflects changes in theavailability of local abattoirs in particular. Many of uswould like to see measures elsewhere to try to redressthat. In the absence of that, the world has changed andit is welcome that the Government are responding positively.If it is pressed to a vote, we will be happy to support theSNP’s position.


Deidre Brock: I confess that I am disappointed by theMinister’s response, because this situation has beenongoing for years. Many people have been waitingpatiently, for the most part, to get a decision taken onthis. It is extremely disappointing to hear that we cannoteven get an assurance that this will be available andimplemented in April 2021. In the light of that, I willpress the amendment to a vote.



Division No. 22]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

Debbonaire, Thangam

Doogan, Dave

Jones, Ruth

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria



Victoria Prentis: The clause will address the currentinequality in the distribution of the red meat levy withinGreat Britain caused by the complex movement of pigs,cattle and sheep when animals cross from one countryto another for further rearing and finishing and forslaughter. The levy is collected at the point of slaughterand can only be spent to benefit that country’s industry.The clause will allow for a scheme to redistribute someproducer red meat levy between the levy boards ofEngland, Scotland and Wales. It will sit beside thecurrent legal framework and allow the transfer of levy.




Schedule 3

AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 87, in schedule 3,page 50, line 15, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 88, in schedule 3, page 50, leave out lines 27to 29 and insert—

“the landlord’s consent to a matter on which the landlord’sconsent is required,”.

Ruth Jones: Amendment 87 is designed to make it arequirement for the Government to bring forwardregulations to provide a framework for tenants to objectto their landlord’s refusal to allow them to enter arelevant financial assistance scheme. As drafted, the Billprovides the power for the Government to introduceregulations, but it is not a requirement. There is a trend

in the Bill for the Government to use the weakestlanguage possible or to take the most timid of approaches.In our view, it is essential that tenant farmers are givenfull certainty in this situation.

Tenant farmers have welcomed the recognition thatthey require and deserve additional measures to protectthem, and this is one of the areas that we highlightedduring discussions on a previous version of the AgricultureBill. We are pleased that our probing has produced aframework of protection for tenants, but it is essentialthat the provisions are used. If they are not used, whatis the point of having them in the Bill? If it is theGovernment’s intention to use the provisions, it will notbe a problem to change them from a “may” to a “must”.That is one of our big points on the Bill—we wouldstrengthen the weak wording. We want to strengthenup, not level down.

The Minister’s predecessor, now the Secretary of State,has shown a willingness to listen, engage and reflect onOpposition amendments. I hope that the Governmentwill go further, listen harder and deliver for tenant farmers.

Amendment 88 is about action. It would close apotential loophole in the Bill about the consent of thelandlord. Currently, it sets out the circumstances whereany regulations will apply in respect of a landlord’sconsent. They are defined as circumstances where eitherthe agricultural tenancy legislation or the contract ofthe tenancy requires the tenant to have the landlord’sconsent. What that appears to have missed out—I amsure it is inadvertent, but it has done so—is where theprovisions of the financial assistance scheme itself requirethe tenant to obtain the landlord’s consent.

As an example, the current countryside stewardshipscheme requires all tenants occupying land under theAgricultural Holdings Act 1986 to have their landlord’sconsent, even though those tenants will have security oftenure. The amendment would ensure that tenants haverecourse to the regulations in every case where thelandlord’s consent is required. I am sure the Ministerwould not want any of the provisions or effects of theBill to create difficulties for tenants in accessing publicmoney for public good, which is obviously the Government’sfavoured system for replacing the basic payment scheme.

I place on record my thanks to all those organisationsthat have made representations on the issue. I think ofthe Tenant Farmers Association and their chief executiveGeorge Dunn as an example of strong and effectivecampaigning.

These are simple, arguably technical, but importantand empowering amendments. The Government havedemonstrated a willingness to listen and engage to adegree, but I call on them to go further—to take theplunge and deliver on what is a cross-party and all-UKcommitment to empowering and supporting our farmers.The Bill needs to be joined up, it needs to be smart andit needs to be fit for purpose. The amendments help inthat purpose. I hope the Government, and indeed thehon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, will supportthem.

Victoria Prentis: Agricultural tenancies are a vitalpart of our farming industry, accounting for nearly athird of all farmland in England and Wales. I want tosee a thriving tenant farming sector in the future. Thatis why we have included provisions in the Bill to moderniseagricultural tenancy legislation.


[Victoria Prentis]

Turning first to amendment 87, the Committee hasalready considered at length the use of the words “may”and “must” in legislation. I do not intend to go overthose arguments again. As I said last week, the use ofthe word “may”is entirely consistent with other legislationin this sphere. I assure the hon. Member for NewportWest that there is absolutely no doubt that the Governmentintend to use the powers to make these importantregulations and that we will move quickly to do so.Plans are already under way to meet industry representativesfor discussions on their scope and content.

I understand the drive behind amendment 88, whichseeks to broaden the scope of the dispute provisions tocover any situation where the tenant may need thelandlord’s consent to undertake an activity. However,the intention of these provisions is to provide tenants ofthe older Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 agreementswith a mechanism to challenge outdated restrictions inthose agreements. In some cases, they were written 30 or40 years ago, when there was a very different policy andcommercial environment. That is why it is importantthat the procedure for referring requests to disputeremains clearly linked to the terms of the tenancyagreement. To broaden the scope further to include anyissue or activity where landlord consent is required risksunintended consequences and opens up the potentialfor misuse of the provisions, which could damage landlord-tenant relations.

The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support inour public consultation. They have been shaped toensure that the interests of both tenants and landlordsare considered. We will continue to consult the industrygenerally, including members of the tenancy reformindustry group, as we develop the supporting regulations.I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West towithdraw the amendment.

Ruth Jones: Again, the Minister and I share the samebroad aims and principles, which is great. However, wehave not changed our minds about “may” and “must”,and the need to strengthen this legislation and beef it upto give people the protection they require. I am gladthat the Minister has agreed that stakeholders will havethe opportunity to lobby and that she will be consultingwidely as the Bill is developed. I accept the history ofthe tenancy agreement Acts, but we will press theamendment to a vote.



Division No. 23]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Amendments made: 57, schedule 3, page 51, line 37,leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert“Senedd Cymru”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Amendment 58, schedule 3, page 54, line 9, leave out“the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “SeneddCymru”.


Amendment 59, schedule 3, page 54, line 14, leave out“the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “SeneddCymru”.


Amendment 60, schedule 3, page 54, line 19, leave out“the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “SeneddCymru”.—(Victoria Prentis.)


3 pm

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 3,page 55, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) In subsection (1) leave out “section” and insert“sections 28A and”.”

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 86, in schedule 3, page 55, line 31, at endinsert—

26A After section 28 insert—

“28A Disputes relating to requests for landlord’s consentor variation of terms

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a tenant under a farmbusiness tenancy has made a request to a landlord for thepurposes of—

(a) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevantfinancial assistance or relevant financial assistance ofa description specified in regulations under subsection (2),or

(b) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory dutyof a description specified in regulations undersubsection (2), applicable to the tenant,

and the request meets such other conditions (if any) as may bespecified in regulations under subsection (2).

(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations makeprovision for a tenant under a farm business tenancy to refer forarbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 a requestunder subsection (1) if no agreement has been reached with thelandlord on the request.

(3) Subsections (2) and (4) to (6) of section 19A of theAgricultural Holdings Act 1986 (as inserted by paragraph 7 ofSchedule 3 to the Agriculture Act 2020) shall apply to anyregulations made under subsection (2) of this section.

(4) In this section—

“appropriate authority” means—

(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State,and

(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;

“relevant financial assistance”means financial assistanceunder—

(a) section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (powers ofSecretary of State to give financial assistance),

(b) section 19 of, or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to,that Act (powers of Secretary of State andWelsh Ministers to give financial assistance inexceptional market conditions), or

(c) a scheme of the sort mentioned in section 2(4)of that Act (third party schemes);


“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru;

(c) retained direct EU legislation.””

Ruth Jones: I will speak briefly to both amendments.Like all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends andme, they are important, and I hope they will receive afair hearing. They cover the elements of the Bill thatlook at powers available to tenants, succession rules andguidance around rent reviews. Anybody who has beento a farm or has a farm in their constituency will knowthat, although those areas are niche, they are incrediblyimportant.

Amendments 85 and 86 would ensure that tenantsrenting land under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995can object to a landlord’s refusal to allow access tofinancial assistance. The Bill currently omits cover forthose tenants and we need to address that. That lack ofprotection is odd, given that, as the Minister has said,nearly half the land in the tenanted sector in England isnow let under 1995 provisions. In Wales, the figure ismore than a quarter of the land.

Over time, that area of land will grow and it will beimportant to ensure that those tenants are protected asmuch as those under the 1986 Act. Given that these aremore modern agreements, which will have had the fullattention of the legal profession in their drafting, theyare more likely to include more restrictive clauses thanthose under the older legislation. That will cause problemsfor tenants if they do not have adequate recourse toobject to the use of those restrictive clauses within thenew policy framework.

It will be a significant failure if we cannot provide thesame level of protection to tenants under the 1995 Actas we are seeking to provide to tenants under the 1986Act. That is a simple but important point. I hope thatthe Minister will receive it warmly, in the spirit that it isintended.

Victoria Prentis: I receive all the hon. Lady’s amendmentswarmly. She has again raised an important issue. Farmbusiness tenancies are a vital part of our farming industry.They provide a flexible way for established farmers toexpand their business, by renting additional parcels ofland. Crucially, they also open the way for new entrants,with no family connection to the land, to get a footholdin the sector.

As I have already stated, I want a thriving tenantfarming sector. That is why we have included provisionsin the Bill to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation.Although I recognise concerns that the new disputeconditions do not include farm business tenancy agreements,there are very important reasons for that.

Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister give way?

Victoria Prentis: Shall I set out some of my reasonsfirst? Then, if necessary, I will give way to the hon.Gentleman. First, evidence from the public consultationon this issue in England does not support extending theprovision to include farm business tenancies. That isbecause, as the hon. Member for Newport West said,they are more modern, commercial agreements, negotiatedmore recently than agreements under the 1986 Act.They are shorter term and reviewed more regularly, sothat tenants have the opportunity to renegotiate and

vary the terms to fit changing commercial conditions,and ensure that they can access future financial assistanceschemes.

Secondly, the legal framework governing farm businesstenancies already provides for enabling the parties toagree terms, so that the tenant can continue to deliverdiversified activities, such as environmental schemes,alongside farming. Thirdly, extending the provisions toinclude farm business tenancies risks undermining landlordconfidence in tenancy agreements that had been freelyand relatively recently entered into by both parties. Thatcould lead to landlords withdrawing from the let sectorin favour of contracting or farming in hand, whichwould reduce opportunity for tenant farmers.

The aim of the provisions is to provide a disputemechanism specifically for tenants of 1986 Act agreements,because those are lifetime agreements that were negotiated30 to 40 years ago in a very different world. They oftencontain outdated restrictions that could act as a barrierto tenants meeting modern statutory requirements and,in England, accessing future farming schemes that weare setting out.

Daniel Zeichner: This is a complicated set of issues,and I seek clarification. Some lack of clarity aboutpost-1995 holdings has been raised with me. The questionis, going back to the financial assistance schemes, whowould make the decision to de-link? Who would get thelump sum? Is it the tenant in post-1995 cases?

Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman and I haveundertaken to have a specific conversation later aboutde-linking and lump sum payments. I tried to set out theposition this morning. Once a decision has been madeto de-link payments, they may continue to be paid tothe tenant. Indeed, the person farming the land—so thetenant—would apply for any lump sum. However, thetwo are separate, as I set out this morning. I hope thatanswers his question.

The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support inthe public consultations in England and Wales. Theyhave been shaped to ensure that the interests of tenantsand landlords are considered. We will continue to consultindustry widely, including members of the TenancyReform Industry Group, as we develop future regulations.I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West towithdraw her amendment.

Ruth Jones: I welcome the Minister’s commitment toa thriving tenancy sector—that is great news. I thankher for the explanation and for her commitment to havean ongoing dialogue with my hon. Friend the Memberfor Cambridge. I look forward to the outcome of thosediscussions. We still have reservations about this importantarea, but we will not press the amendment to a vote.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35

MARKETING STANDARDS

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 84, inclause 35, page 31, line 38, leave out “may” and insert“must”.This amendment would make it a duty for the Secretary of State tomake regulations as to labelling as to method of production.


[Daniel Zeichner]

We welcome the fact that subsection (2)(g) enablesthe Secretary of State to make regulations on marketingstandards regarding farming methods. We believe thatit opens the door to looking properly at the labelling offarmed products. Under the clause, however, the Secretaryof State once again has a power rather than a duty andso has no actual obligation to take the matter forward.That bothers us.

We therefore believe that the Bill should be strengthenedto require the Secretary of State to make labellingregulations requiring meat, milk and dairy products,including those produced intensively, to be labelledas to farming method. That would be an importantdevelopment and helpful to consumers. A great stepforward for consumers would be to know what they arepurchasing across the board in terms of animal products.Consumers could then make decisions based on thosehigher animal welfare and environmental considerations.

I am reaching back to find my favourite document, orthis week’s favourite document—never to hand when Iwant it, of course—[Interruption.] I am delighted—theMinister obviously loves the document too.

Victoria Prentis: I love it too.

Daniel Zeichner: Of course. Last week, we had aninteresting discussion about labelling. I take Membersback to that because on page 16 of the document is atheoretical discussion of the effect of labelling. TheGovernment tell us:

“Tapping into the consumer willingness to pay begins withunderstanding the value-action gap”—

which I am sure is being discussed on every omnibusaround the country—and that“it is possible for someone to derive positive value from the factthat animals are being well cared for as a result of another’spurchasing decision. Those not buying animal products shouldbe included in any assessment of public value, one person’sholding of this value does not detract from another’s.”

I find that a puzzling suggestion. I tried it out on mypartner—I will not say what she said, but she was notconvinced that, basically, other people buying poorlyproduced food somehow does not detract from thewider public good. That is a theoretical discussion theGovernment may want to go back to. The following pagestates:

“Addressing consumer understanding, and understanding howpurchasing decisions are made in practice in the retail environmentand online, are also key elements…It is important to note thatimproved transparency alone can only address information asymmetry,and does not capture the public value held by non-consumers.”

I am not sure what any of that means, and I am surethat the public have little idea of what it means. I thinkit shows that labelling is not simple; there is a bigdiscussion to be had. Is it enough to use labelling? Theright hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and Ihad an exchange on that last week; there are sincerelyheld differences of opinion about it.

Back in the simpler, empirical world, we have seen thepositive impact that labelling can have on eggs. Since2004, when EU law began to require eggs and egg packsto be labelled to highlight production method, there hasbeen a considerable move in the market towards free-rangeeggs and away from caged egg sales. I am told thataround 52% of all UK eggs come from cage-free systems,which is welcome.

It is not the same in other sectors. Consumers are stillvery much in the dark about the production of meatand milk. It is hard to find meat or dairy products thathave a labelled method of production. For meat, thereis some labelling of free range and organic, but notmuch else. There is even less information about thefarming methods of milk. Most milk is pooled together,making it difficult to distinguish between pasture-basedand intensively produced milk. From personal experienceperusing the supermarket shelves, it seems the world isbecoming more complicated these days; there is a greaterrange, but we need to go further. I find it confusing. It isconfusing for consumers and it does a disservice tofarmers who are already producing to higher standardsbut do not have any means of distinguishing theirproducts because of labelling ambiguities.

A lot of marketing and packaging borders on themisleading. Intensively produced meat and dairy products,where animals may have seen very little of the outsideworld, are packaged in pretty green packets featuringrolling hills and what looks like a welfare-friendly world.That does not help consumers make informed choices,and it does not help producers extract the higher valuethat they deserve from their products. Proper labellingwould work in everyone’s interests.

The production methods highlighted would differ fordifferent products, but mandatory labelling could beused to indicate on the packet whether the product hasbeen produced intensively indoors or extensively outdoors,with the full range of production methods in between,so that consumers can make a decision in the shopabout what they want. That is something that theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committeerecommended twice to the Government in 2018, and itmakes a lot of sense.

At the moment, any consumer demand for lessintensively produced meat and dairy is impeded by thelack of clear information at the point of sale about howthe products have been produced. Informing consumersabout methods of production allows them to make thatchoice. We could see important shifts in the markettowards the production of food that is less intensive,more environmentally sustainable and based on higheranimal welfare.

A good labelling system could also play an importantrole in further incentivising farmers to take upenvironmental land management schemes and deliverthe public goods that we discussed last week underclause 1, particularly those who seek to promote higheranimal welfare measures, by giving them the recognitionthey deserve for using less intensive production methods.If the consumer has no idea what farmers are doing, itstands to reason that farmers will see the benefits ofmaking positive changes only in the direct paymentsthey receive, rather than in any changes in consumerdemand. There needs to be a way for farmers to demonstratethat they are delivering food in a way that consumersmay choose to pay for.

International debate is moving quickly in this area.We heard evidence of the number of schemes that arebeing looked into across Europe. The Government havetalked big talk about using the new opportunity postBrexit to improve our animal welfare standards andmodernise our farming processes. It is important thatwe do not miss key opportunities to adopt mechanismsthat can help support that. A relatively simple change of


wording would give this clause the strength it needs todeliver the Government’s aim of achieving an impactwe all support.

Mr Goodwill: I note that the amendment would substitute“must” for “may” in subsection (1), but all the othersubsections contain the word “may” too. Has not thehon. Gentleman made an omission by not seeking toinsert “must” in all the others? Surely having “must” insubsection (1) would be completely counteracted by allthe “may”s in the rest of the clause.

3.15 pm

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the right hon.Gentleman, who unfortunately was out of the roomthis morning during one of my earlier attempts to baithim. He never fails to please. His deft and diligentexamination of the wording may well have identified aminor drafting error from our point of view, but I amsure he gets the thrust of the argument. On that basis,I very much hope he supports us on this occasion.

Victoria Prentis: Again, we broadly share the samevalues and principles, but—I am sorry to be tediousabout the law and the drafting, not that I would everaccuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarboroughand Whitby of being tedious—it is important that welook at what the amendment would actually do.

I welcome this opportunity to further clarify the purposeof the clause. The proposed amendment seeks to changethe wording of the clause to include “must” instead of“may”. We have been through this many times in the pastweek and I do not propose to do so again. There is noneed to add a duty here, as regulations concerning themarketing standards already exist in EU law. Using powersin the withdrawal Act, we will retain the current EUmarketing standards and roll them over into UK law,ensuring continuity for farmers and the farming industry.

The power in subsection (1) will provide an opportunityfor the current standards to be amended when it isappropriate to do so, to ensure that they deliver domesticstandards. It will also allow us to introduce new standardsshould that be deemed necessary. We anticipate that thepower will be used to respond to developments inproduction. The amendment could create a situation inwhich new marketing standards regulations must be made,regardless of whether they were needed.

I should add that marketing standards do not applyto all food products and so would not be the appropriatevehicle for any general changes to food labelling rules,such as those about stating allergens on labels. That isalready covered by existing food information and foodsafety laws.

I hope I have given some explanation of why theclause is drafted in the way it is. I ask the hon. Gentlemanto withdraw the amendment.

DanielZeichner:Thatissodisappointing.TheGovernmentshould have more ambition to do these things. That iswhy we are pressing and encouraging them. This is suchan opportunity; to us, it seems like a win-win.

I fully accept that there may be some points ofdrafting or direction—I do not blame the people whodrafted the amendment—on which we could improve,but it would be wonderful if the Government acceptedthe thrust of the argument. This is a bit like hustings

events during a general election campaign: by the timewe come to the end, we all know one another’s lines.What the Minister said was not a surprise to me, and itwill be no surprise to her to hear me say the same thingagain.

This is partly a question of trust, I am afraid. It isalso a question of wanting to move quickly to take upthese opportunities. I think there is real desire out thereamong consumers to make informed choices, despitethe slight difference of opinion expressed by the righthon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby last weekabout the role of labelling in making the changes wewant. If we are going to go down the labelling route asthe driver for change, for goodness’ sake push on withit. Do it soon. The Government should tie themselvesto it. If they accepted our amendment, they would bebound to do it and there would be no backsliding. Myguess is that we will be discussing this in many months’time and we will find it has not moved as quickly asmany of us would have hoped. On that basis, I am notprepared to withdraw the amendment; we will press itto a vote.



Division No. 24]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria




Clause 36

ORGANIC PRODUCTS


Victoria Prentis: The clause will allow the Governmentto modernise organic regulations. I appreciate theopportunity to say a few brief words to clear up previousmisunderstandings.

The Committee should note that the EU will bring innew organics regulation 848/2018 on 1 January 2021.Since that is after the end of the transition period, thecurrent organics regulation, 834/2007, will form part ofretained EU law. The clause allows us to amend organicsregulations so that they work for our producers, exportersand consumers. The organics sector is at the forefrontof sustainable agriculture. The powers in the clause willensure that the sector can continue to thrive, whileenhancing our precious environment.




Clause 37

Organic products: supplementary

Amendments made: 52, in clause 37, page 35, line 15, leaveout

“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.


Amendment 53, in clause 37, page 35, line 16, leaveout “that Assembly”and insert “the Senedd”.—(VictoriaPrentis.)See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.




3.24 pm

AdjournedtillThursday5Marchathalf-pastEleveno’clock.


Written evidence reported to the House

AB53 The Food Foundation

AB54 Essex Local Access Forum

AB55 Northern Ireland Environment Link

AB56 Feeding Britain

AB57 Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

AB58 The British Horse Society

AB59 Independent Food Aid Network

AB60 Soil surveyors - Former members of the SoilSurvey of England and Wales and Soil Survey andLand Research Centre

AB61 National Farmers’ Union (NFU) Cymru

AB62 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Eleventh Sitting

Thursday 5 March 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 40 TO 43 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 5 agreed to, with amendments.

CLAUSES 44 AND 45 agreed to.





New clauses under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this

day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Monday 9 March 2020








Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)

† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)

(Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)† Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)

† Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con)† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)† Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of







(Morning)


Agriculture Bill

11.30 am

The Chair: Good morning everyone for what mightbe the last day of consideration in Committee of theAgriculture Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting isavailable in the room.

Clause 40

POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS FOR SECURING

COMPLIANCE WITH WTO AGREEMENT ON

AGRICULTURE: GENERAL

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): Ibeg to move amendment 31, in clause 40, page 36, line 20, atend insert—

“(1A) Regulations under this section containing provision thatextends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of theScottish Ministers.”

This amendment would require that the power to make regulationsextending to Scotland can only be exercised with the consent ofScottish Ministers.


“(1A) No regulations may be made under this section unlessthe Secretary of State has consulted each devolved authority on adraft of the regulations.”

Deidre Brock: I will be brief, because this is basicallya rerun of arguments I have made in Committee onearlier amendments on Scottish Ministers getting a sayover areas of devolved competence. We are concernedthat the views of Scottish Ministers might be overlookedor overruled in future. In our view, the agreement ofScottish Ministers should be sought in all areas ofdevolved competence. Again, I cannot see why it ispossible in other Bills being scrutinised by this Parliamentto insert that the agreement of the devolved Administrationsis required, not simply that their views will be taken intoaccount, only for that perhaps to be subsequently ignoredby this or future Secretaries of State. I will leave it there,but our views on the issue are particularly clear. I aminterested to hear what the Minister has to say inresponse.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is a pleasureto be back for a busy day in the Agriculture Bill Committee.

We do not dispute that agriculture is a devolvedmatter. However, this particular provision is about ensuringUK-wide compliance with an international agreement.That responsibility is, rightly, reserved to the UKGovernment. This is not about whether the devolvedAdministrations have the competence to implementand observe international agreements; it is about ensuringUK-wide compliance in an international sphere.

We therefore maintain that the clause is reserved, andwe cannot concede that the regulations may be madeonly with consent from Scottish Ministers, because thatwould impinge on our powers to ensure our compliancewith the World Trade Organisation agreement. We recognisethat devolved Administrations have significant interestsin these matters, and we are working closely with thoseAdministrations on the draft regulations. We have madea firm commitment to consultation now and in future inthe making and operation of the regulations.

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

Agriculture is devolved in the UK, so eachAdministration will decide their own future policy onfarm subsidies. The clause allows each Administrationto do that, but it gives the Government powers toensure UK-wide compliance with WTO obligations. Wewill continue to work closely with devolved Administrationsofficials, as we have been doing for more than a year. Iam assured that the relationship is good and that thatwork is going well. It is important to ensure that allparties’ views are properly considered.

An agreement between the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Governmentcontains commitments that the draft regulations will bepresented to the UK’s four Agriculture Ministers withthe aim of securing agreement, followed by an exchangeof letters. In that context, I ask that the hon. Ladywithdraw her amendment.

Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): I rise tospeak—I am double hatted—not as a Whip, but as ashadow Minister with responsibility for European affairs,formerly Brexit, which I still am at the moment.

I shall speak to amendment 99, which I hope willoffer a balance. The Minister obviously understandsthat we recognise that WTO compliance is a reservedmatter, but also that agriculture is devolved. We thereforefeel that placing requirements on the devolved legislatures,without a corresponding requirement on the Governmentto at least consult them, is not fair. This is a delicatebalance to strike, and we feel that amendment 99 is abalanced way forward.

It is interesting that clauses 40 to 42 will mean that wehave to adhere to WTO rules—specifically, the agreementon agriculture. They bind us to supranational rules,which is an interesting take on where we are as acountry, given that so many Ministers and Brexit-supportingMPs have for many years made the Brexit case bystating, and in fact restating, their devotion to sovereigntyand their desire for the UK Parliament to have completecontrol of our laws, borders and money, to use a phrase,which they appeared to want. However, here we areputting into legislation the requirement to adhere to asupranational, unelected body, with its own court ofdispute resolution, the findings of which we will all bebound by. I want to make sure that Government Membersare aware of that.


Victoria Prentis indicated assent.

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

Signing up to an international treaty is not a loss ofsovereignty—clearly the Government agree in relationto the WTO, which is quite interesting—but an exerciseof it. We believe that co-operation with other nationstates is good. Contrary to what some have said, nationsdo not do better when they isolate themselves fromsupranational co-operation; I definitely heard a Ministersay that recently.

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

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

WTO means tariffs on some products and a regimefor which our farms are not ready. The amendmentcannot fully ameliorate the potential damage to oureconomy and farms from reverting to a WTO-onlydeal, but it would at least mean that the devolvedlegislatures were properly involved.

During the evidence session, I asked the WelshGovernment’s director of environment and rural affairswhether he wanted a requirement for the Secretary ofState to consult the devolved legislatures on the operationof those provisions. I said:

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

He said:

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

I am absolutely sure that that is true—

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

He also said that

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

that is the previous Minister, who is now Secretary ofState—

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

presumably, this now means the new Minister—

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

He wanted there to be a way that any opposition by adevolved legislature could be presented to the House ofCommons. He said:

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

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

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

Exchange of letters is a good thing, but it is not legallybinding. Bilateral conversations, again, are a good thing,and I have absolutely no doubt that DEFRA, the WelshGovernment and other devolved Administrations areconsulting properly, but we want this in the Bill, becausean exchange of letters is not adequate. It relies on thegood will of Ministers. I have no doubt that the Ministerhas good will towards all the devolved nations, but wewant to ensure that that good will is bound into law witha modest requirement to consult the devolved legislatures.

I ask Government Members, and the Minister, tonote that the backdrop to these clauses is that the WTOnow appears to be no longer just the backstop, but thefrontstop—I do not know whether there is such a thingas a frontstop, but this seems to me to be a problem,because that is the worst of all the possible optionsidentified by the previous Government. At the veryleast, we should be ensuring that our devolved legislaturesare properly consulted.

Victoria Prentis: Very briefly, the hon. Lady hasmade an entertaining speech, in which, I politely suggest,she is trying on this particular issue to have her cake andeat it. The reason we cannot agree to these amendments—though we share her views on the importance of talkingto and consulting with devolved Administrations; I donot think there is any doubt in this room about that—isthat we keep as a reserved matter compliance withWTO rules. We are absolutely part of the WTO; she isright on that. I take on the chin her sharper commentsabout whether that is fully understood, but it is certainlyunderstood by those on the Government Benches, andshe should be in no doubt about that.

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

Thangam Debbonaire: I completely understand thatagriculture is devolved and compliance is reserved. Thatis why our amendment would require consultation totake place. It would not be a veto on the part of the


[Thangam Debbonaire]

devolveds, which I understand others might wish tohave. I would like the Minister to consider that as acompromise.

Victoria Prentis: We need to ensure that the provisionsmade under the clause are fair and proportionate. Wewant to involve devolved Administrations and I have setout how we intend to do so. In my view, that is adequate,so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North andLeith to withdraw her amendment.

Deidre Brock: I agree with the hon. Member forBristol West that power is being concentrated under thisclause towards the UK Government and the Secretaryof State. Once again—when there is a common viewamong the four National Farmers Unions of the fournations that any common frameworks covering anythingto do with agriculture must be agreed, not simplyconsulted upon—I fail to see why this quite reasonablesuggestion is continually disagreed with by Ministers.

I speak here, I suppose, on behalf of the ScottishGovernment, rather than every devolved Administration,because I would not presume to do that. However, Iassume that they feel exactly the same and follow theviews of their National Farmers Unions as well. Thepossibility exists within this clause and others for ourMinisters’ policy choices to be constrained. Those policychoices reflect closely the conditions of their own nations,and they must be taken into account. Their views mustbe listened to and their agreement sought.

That is why, although I agree with much of what thehon. Member for Bristol West has said, properly involvingthe devolved Administrations means respecting theirwishes and seeking their consent, rather than simplyseeking to consult with them but ultimately, perhaps,ignoring them. I will therefore push the amendment toa vote.

11.45 am



Division No. 25]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria



“(1A) No regulations may be made under this section unlessthe Secretary of State has consulted each devolved authority on adraft of the regulations.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.)



Division No. 26]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Brock, Deidre

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria




Clause 42

REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 40: CLASSIFICATION OF

DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 32, inclause 42, page 38, line 17, leave out from “support” toend of line 19.

This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State asfinal arbiter in dispute resolution.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 33, in clause 42, page 38, line 20, leave outsubsections (4) and (5).

This amendment would remove the requirement to provide informationto the Secretary of State.

Deidre Brock: These amendments once again go tothe heart of the devolved settlement, and the questionof whether for Scotland, “taking back control” meansactually taking back control. The principle is that Scotlandshould be the arbiter of her own schemes and provisions,and should decide what is covered in them. Thereshould be no role for a Secretary of State in the UKGovernment to be an overlord for Scotland’s agriculturalsector, or for its support schemes. It makes sense forScottish Ministers, overseen by the Scottish Parliament,to make those decisions.

I appreciate that, as we have already heard, the opinionof the UK Government is that compliance with theWTO agreement is an international obligation, and thatthe final decision should rest with them. I remind themthat the Scottish Administration have had cases wherethey have been held liable for infringements of internationalagreements. I argue that Scotland’s Government shouldnot be reliant on the UK Government to get thosedecisions right in order to avoid being stung by theconsequences. Scotland is more than capable, I assureall hon. Members, of getting these things absolutelyright on its own.

Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con):It seems somewhat ironic that with all those policies, theScottish National party would abdicate the decisions to


Brussels; certainly on agriculture and fisheries policies,particularly those involving trade, Brussels would bemaking the important decisions.

Deidre Brock: I am not really inclined to rehearse allthe arguments of the Brexit situation back and forth—theyhave been ongoing for some time. I am certain the righthon. Gentleman is well aware of the Scottish Government’sviews on these issues, as well as those of the SNP groupat Westminster.

I will refrain from pointing out that the WTO isfalling apart at the moment, unfortunately, as a result ofthe actions of the US President, because that would bebeneath my dignity, but it should be borne in mind thatwithout a tribunal system, the WTO simply does notfunction. The point of the amendments is simply toensure that Scotland has the freedom of movement toensure that it complies with the agreements, whether ornot the UK does. That seems a very fair and equitableway to do things. I hope the Minister will take that intoconsideration and agree to my proposals.

Thangam Debbonaire: I wish to make a few remarks onamendments 32 and 33. We will not support amendment 32because it provides a veto for Scotland on the reservedmatter of WTO compliance. The hon. Lady is rightabout the WTO; we could have a whole discussionabout why and how we have ended up with the WTOand where we seem to be going, but today is not the dayfor that.

On amendment 33, we still feel that our amendmentto clause 40 would have provided a good compromise ofa consultation process, whereas the SNP amendmentremoves the requirement on the devolved Administrationsto provide that information. It would have been betterto be more balanced. We will not vote against thatamendment, but we wish the Minister to take intoaccount the fact that we offered a compromise inamendment 99, and we urge her to consider that at alater stage.

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

Clause 42 provides for a decision-making processthat will, quite properly, involve all four nations of theUK. That will be set out in regulations made under theclause. Where a decision cannot be reached throughthat process, the UK Government, as the hon. Memberfor Bristol West said, must ultimately be responsible forthe final decision, but we hope that agreement can bereached. The amendment would remove the safeguardof final decision making from the Secretary of State

and potentially impede our ability to comply with WTOobligations where we cannot reach agreement, althoughwe hope that we will.

Turning to amendment 33, the whole clause must beread in the context of “securing compliance” with theWTO agreement on agriculture, which is incontrovertiblya reserved matter. We need to be able to reassure WTOmembers that, despite the unusual degree of agriculturaldevolution in the UK, we have the means to ensure thatwe will have the relevant data to be able to comply. Theamendment would remove the Secretary of State’s abilityto make regulations for securing, from any part of theUK, the information necessary for the UK Governmentto meet those international obligations. I therefore askthe hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith towithdraw the amendment.

Deidre Brock: I heard what the Minister said and weare clearly having great difficulty in coming to an agreementbetween the two Governments and between us on theCommittee. From my point of view, decision-makingpowers that allow not for agreement but simply forconsultation do not seem fair or equitable, so I willpress the amendment to a vote.



Division No. 27]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Debbonaire, Thangam

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jones, Ruth

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

McCarthy, Kerry

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel


Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 42, page 38, line 20,leave out subsections (4) and (5)—(Deidre Brock.).

This amendment would remove the requirement to provide informationto the Secretary of State.


Division No. 28]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jones, Fay

Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria





Schedule 5

PROVISION RELATING TO WALES

Amendments made: 65, in schedule 5, page 58, line 18,leave out from “scheme” to end of line 20 and insert

‘, so far as it operates in relation to Wales, for or in connectionwith making changes the Welsh Ministers consider would serveany one or more of the following purposes—

(a) simplifying the administration of the scheme or otherwisemaking its operation more efficient or effective;

(b) removing provisions which are spent or of no practicalutility;

(c) removing or reducing burdens, or the overall burdens,on persons applying for, or entitled to, directpayments under the scheme or otherwise improvingthe way that the scheme operates in relation to them;

(d) securing that any sanction or penalty imposed underthe scheme is appropriate and proportionate;

(e) limiting the application of the scheme to land in Wales only.’.

This amendment and Amendments 66 and 67 amend the powers of theWelsh Ministers to make regulations modifying legislation governingthe basic payment scheme in relation to Wales. The amendments takeaccount of changes to clause 9, which confers similar powers on theSecretary of State in relation to England.

Amendment 66, in schedule 5, page 58, line 23, leaveout from “Wales” to end of line 24 and insert

‘so long as that provision does not reduce the amount of a directpayment to which a person would have been entitled had theprovision not been made.’.


Amendment 67, in schedule 5, page 58, line 24, at endinsert—

‘(2A) In this paragraph, “burden” includes—

(a) a financial cost;

(b) an administrative inconvenience;

(c) an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability.’


Amendment 68, in schedule 5, page 59, line 12, after“modify” insert

‘the following legislation so far as it operates in relation to Wales’.

This amendment and Amendments 69 to 73 amend the powers of theWelsh Ministers to make regulations modifying certain legislationgoverning payments to farmers and others as it operates in relation toWales. The amendments take account of changes to clause 14, whichconfers similar powers on the Secretary of State in relation to England.

Amendment 69, in schedule 5, page 59, line 16, leaveout “the purpose of” and insert

“or in connection with making changes that the Welsh Ministersconsider would serve any one or more of the following purposes”.


Amendment 70, in schedule 5, page 59, line 18, leaveout “in relation to Wales, or”


Amendment 71, in schedule 5, page 59, line 19, leaveout paragraph (b) and insert—

‘(b) simplifying the operation of any provision of suchlegislation, or making its operation more efficient oreffective;

(c) removing or reducing burdens, or the overall burdens,imposed by such legislation on persons applying for,or in receipt of, payments governed by the legislation,or otherwise improving the way that the legislationoperates in relation to such persons;

(d) securing that any sanction or penalty imposed by suchlegislation is appropriate and proportionate.’.


Amendment 72, in schedule 5, page 59, line 21, after“paragraph” insert—

‘“burden” includes—

(a) a financial cost;

(b) an administrative inconvenience;

(c) an obstacle to efficiency, productivity orprofitability;’.


Amendment 73, in schedule 5, page 59, line 26, at endinsert—

‘(c) the legacy regulations.

‘(3A) In sub-paragraph (3), the “legacy regulations” meansretained direct EU legislation relating to the financing,management and monitoring of the common agricultural policythat preceded Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 and includes—

(a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May1999 on the financing of the common agriculturalpolicy;

(b) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for theimplementation of Council Regulation (EC) No1698/2005, as regards the implementation of controlprocedures as well as cross-compliance in respect ofrural development support measures;

(c) Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for theimplementation of Council Regulation (EC) No1698/2005, as regards the implementation of controlprocedures as well as cross-compliance in respect ofrural development support measures.’.


Amendment 61, in schedule 5, page 61, line 30, leaveout “the National Assembly for Wales”and insert “SeneddCymru”.—(Victoria Prentis.)See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.





Clause 47

REGULATIONS

12 noon

Amendments made: 54, in clause 47, page 41, line 3, leaveout“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Amendment 55, in clause 47, page 41, line 16, leaveout“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Victoria Prentis.)See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.



Clause 48

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: 56, in clause 48, page 41, line 46, leaveout“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Victoria Prentis.)See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.




Clause 50

POWER TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL ETC PROVISION

Amendment made: 95, in clause 50, page 42, line 31, atend insert—

(ia) section 32(3) and (4), so far as relating toWales,”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment makes the Welsh Ministers responsible for makingprovision under clause 50 in connection with clauses 32(3) and (4) asthey apply in relation to Wales.



Clause 53

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: 96, in clause 53, page 43, line 35, leaveout paragraph (c).This amendment removes clause 53(2)(c) which is superseded by thewords proposed to be inserted in clause 53(2)(d) by Amendment 97.


(ia) section 32(3) and (4),”.

This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to commenceclause 32(3) and (4) to those provisions as they apply in relation toEngland.


(ia) section 32(3) and (4),”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment makes the Welsh Ministers responsible forcommencing clauses 32(3) and (4) as they apply in relation to Wales.



New Clause 1

IMPORT OF AGRICULTURAL GOODS

‘(1) Agricultural goods may be imported into the UK only ifthe standards to which those goods were produced were as highas, or higher than, standards which at the time of import appliedunder UK law relating to—

(a) animal welfare,

(b) protection of the environment, and

(c) food safety.

(2) “Agricultural goods”, for the purposes of this section, means—

(a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5),

(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section22(6),

(c) any product derived from livestock, plants orseeds.’—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would set a requirement for imported agriculturalgoods to meet animal welfare, environmental and food safety standardswhich are at least as high as those which apply to UK producedagricultural goods.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to move,That the clause be read a Second time.


New clause 4—Import of agricultural goods after IPcompletion day—

‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods importedunder a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK onlyif the standards to which those goods were produced were ashigh as, or higher than, standards which at the time of importapplied under UK law relating to—

(a) animal welfare,

(b) protection of the environment,

(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and

(d) plant health.

(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UKproduction standards, to be updated annually, to which goodsimported under subsection (1) would have to adhere.

(3) “Agricultural goods” for the purposes of this section,mean—


(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section22(6),

(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.

(4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 ofthe European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’

New clause 7—International trade agreements:agricultural and food products—

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of aninternational trade agreement before Parliament undersection 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act2010 unless the agreement—

(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’srights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and

(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom ofagricultural and food products in relation to whichthe relevant standards are lower than the relevantstandards in the United Kingdom.

(2) In subsection (1)—

“international trade agreement” means—

(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—

(b) an international agreement that mainly relatesto trade, other than an agreement mentionedin sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);

“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as inthe Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;

“relevant standards” means standards relating toenvironmental protection, plant health andanimal welfare applying in connection with theproduction of agricultural and food products;

“SPS Agreement” means the agreement on theApplication of Sanitary and PhytosanitaryMeasures, part of Annex 1A to the WTOAgreement (as modified from time to time);

“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishingthe World Trade Organisation signed atMarrakesh on 15 April 1994.’

This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect thequality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that importedfoodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs areheld to.

New clause 30—Prohibition on the sale of certainanimals and animal products: substances—

‘(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall sell orsupply for human consumption any animal—


(a) which contains or to which there has beenadministered—

(i) a Class I prohibited substance listed in paragraph 1of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

(ii) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

(iii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or

(iv) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

unless that substance was administered in accordance withsubsection (4);

(b) that is an aquaculture animal to which—

(i) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

(ii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or

(iii) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

has been administered;

(c) which contains a substance specified by the Secretaryof State in regulations under subsection (5)(a) at aconcentration exceeding the maximum residue limit;or

(d) to which a medicinal product has been administered ifthe withdrawal period for that product has notexpired.

(2) No person may sell or supply for human consumption anyanimal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animalthe sale or supply of which is prohibited under subsection (1).

(3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(d) shall prohibit the sale beforethe end of the withdrawal period of any high-value horse towhich has been administered allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist inaccordance with regulation 5 of the Animals and AnimalProducts (Examination for Residues and Maximum ResidueLimits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015, provided thatthe type and date of treatment was entered on the horse’spassport by the veterinary surgeon directly responsible for thetreatment.

(4) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not applyto the sale of an animal, or of an animal product derived whollyor partly from an animal to which has been administered acompliant veterinary medicinal product—

(a) containing testosterone, progesterone or a derivative ofthese substances which readily yields the parentcompound on hydrolysis after absorption at the siteof application, if the administration is in accordancewith regulation 26 of the Animals and AnimalProducts (Examination for Residues and MaximumResidue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations2015;

(b) containing allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist, if theadministration is in accordance with regulation 27 ofthe Animals and Animal Products (Examination forResidues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Englandand Scotland) Regulations 2015;

(c) having oestrogenic action (but not containing oestradiol 17βor its ester-like derivatives), androgenic action orgestagenic action, if the administration is in accordancewith regulation 28 of the Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum ResidueLimits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015.

(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) specifying for the purposes of subsection (1)(c)maximum residue limits for pharmacologically activesubstances, and

(b) adding one or more substances to any of the classes ofprohibited substances in Schedule [Prohibitedsubstances].

(6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made bystatutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument may notbe made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before,and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

a veterinary medicinal product is a compliantveterinary medicinal product if it complies withthe requirements of Regulation 25 of the Animalsand Animal Products (Examination for Residuesand Maximum Residue Limits) (England andScotland) Regulations 2015), and

“withdrawal period” shall have the meaning given inRegulation 2 of the Animals and AnimalProducts (Examination for Residues andMaximum Residue Limits) (England andScotland) Regulations 2015).

(8) Regulations 9 and 10 of the Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 are revoked.’

New clause 31—Prohibition on sale: hygiene—

‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any animal which has beentreated for the purposes of removal of surface contaminationwith a substance other than potable water.

(2) No person shall sell or supply any animal product which isderived wholly or partly from an animal which has been treatedfor the purposes of removal of surface contamination with asubstance other than potable water.’

New clause 32—Prohibition on sale: stocking densities—

‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any chicken, any part of achicken or any product which is partly or wholly derived from achicken unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The condition is that the stocking density in any house inwhich the chicken was reared—

(a) did not exceed 33 kilograms per m2 of usable area, or

(b) did not exceed 39 kilograms per m2 of usable area ifthe requirements of subsection (3) were met.

(3) The requirements of this subsection are that the keeper must—

(a) maintain and, on request, make available to theSecretary of State, documentation in the housegiving a detailed description of the productionsystems, in particular information on technicaldetails of the house and its equipment, including—

(i) a plan of the house including the dimensions of thesurfaces occupied by the chickens;

(ii) ventilation and any relevant cooling and heatingsystem (including their location), and a ventilationplan, detailing target air quality parameters (suchas airflow, air speed and temperature);

(iii) feeding and watering systems (and their location);

(iv) alarm and backup systems in the event of a failureof any equipment essential for the health andwell-being of the chickens;

(v) floor type and litter normally used; and

(vi) records of technical inspections of the ventilationand alarm systems;

(b) keep up to date the documentation referred to insubparagraph (a);

(c) ensure that each house is equipped with ventilationand, if necessary, heating and cooling systemsdesigned, constructed and operated in such a waythat—

(i) the concentration of ammonia does not exceed 20parts per million and the concentration of carbondioxide does not exceed 3,000 parts per million,when measured at the level of the chickens’ heads;

(ii) when the outside temperature measured in theshade exceeds 30°C, the inside temperature doesnot exceed the outside temperature by more than3°C; and


(iii) when the outside temperature is below 10°C, theaverage relative humidity measured inside thehouse during a continuous period of 48 hoursdoes not exceed 70%.

(4) In the case of a chicken reared in a house which is not inthe United Kingdom, it shall be a requirement upon the importerto demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Statethat—

(a) documentation equivalent to that specified insubsection (3) was maintained by the keeper and wasavailable for supply to the appropriate regulatoryauthority, and

(b) the conditions under which the chicken was rearedwere equivalent to, or better than, those set out insubsections (2) and (3).

(5) For the purposes of this section, “chicken” shall mean aconventionally reared meat chicken.’

New schedule 1—Prohibited substances—

1 Class I prohibited substances

Aristolochia spp. and preparations thereof

Chloramphenicol

Chloroform

Chlorpromazine

Colchicine

Dapsone

Dimetridazole

Metronizadole

Nitrofurans (including furazolidone)

Ronizadole

2 Class II prohibited substances

Thyrostatic substances

Stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters

Oestradiol 17β and its ester-like derivatives

3 Class III prohibited substances

Beta-agonists

4 Class IV prohibited substances

Substances having oestrogenic (other than oestradiol 17βor its ester-like derivatives), androgenic or gestagenicaction.

Daniel Zeichner: It is a pleasure to continue servingunder your chairmanship, Sir David. I am afraid thatwe will not be rattling on at quite the pace you havemanaged so far.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee willbe delighted that today we are going to unleash, as thePrime Minister would say, the full talents of the shadowFront-Bench team and Labour Back-Bench Members.Again, I encourage the Government to do the same.Yesterday morning, while eating my porridge, I enjoyeda thoughtful contribution on the “Today” programme—territory currently uninhabited by Ministers of course—from the hon. Member for Devizes. It is an odd world whereBack-Bench Members are free to speak on national mediabut are constrained on detailed scrutiny. The Governmentlove power but may be less keen on responsibility.

A document relevant to our discussion has onceagain been released in the middle of a morning. Thistime, it is a 109-page document on bovine TB. Althoughit is another favourite document of mine, hon. Memberswill be grateful that I will not subject it to rigorous scrutiny,but one of my hon. Friends will talk to it this afternoon.

Let me get to the core business. Throughout theCommittee, we have said that it is crucial that, in anyfuture trade deals, imported agricultural goods meetour animal welfare, environmental and food safety standardsto protect our consumers and prevent our farmersbeing undercut by lower-standard imports. The Billimproves the standards that we set ourselves by reducingenvironmental impacts and incentivising public goods,such as high welfare standards. If we do not havecoherency between our agricultural and trade policies,however, the Government might as well make the entireBill null and void.

Hon. Members will have noticed in the oral evidencesessions that I asked almost every witness the samequestion. Although they put it in different ways, they allgave similar answers and agreed that it is the key issue.The Government have said that they are committed notto allow future trade deals to weaken our food standards—Ianticipate the Minister’s response—but the problem isthat we have yet to find anyone who believes that. Isuspect the same goes for most Government Members.There is a simple solution, which we will say again andagain: put it in the Bill. I am tempted to follow thePrime Minister’s lead and get Opposition Members tochant, but I think that is a bit naff, so we will not dothat. We will try to do better.

We are sceptical because the actions of the Governmentand the Prime Minister seem to point in a differentdirection. On Sunday, the Secretary of State had theopportunity, but again refused to rule out chlorinatedchicken and hormone-treated beef being imported fromthe US under a new deal.

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): Does thehon. Gentleman not recognise that we have put it intolaw that we cannot import chlorinated chicken? Wewould require primary legislation for that to be removedonce we have left the EU, so it is not up for discussion.It is in the legislation. All hon. Members will have achance to vote on that.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government aregiving all the signs of having no interest in protectingstandards, but did he not note Liz Truss’ announcementof our red lines, which are standards? That has reassuredmy farmers locally, who are very happy for all amendmentson trade standards to go into a trade Bill, not theAgriculture Bill.

Daniel Zeichner: I am delighted that we are gettingsome rumbustious debate. I will come to the point laterof the exact legal position on the current status, which Isuspect is not nearly so clear. I am not convinced thatmany are as reassured by the Secretary of State forInternational Trade’s document, which I have startedreading, as the hon. Lady has, but I am glad that someof her constituents are satisfied, because many are not.

We know that the Prime Minister will not prioritisealignment with EU standards in the upcoming EUtrade deal. When asked last month about lower-standard


[Daniel Zeichner]

American products coming to the UK, he describedsuch fears as “hysterical” and “mumbo-jumbo”. Givenhis past record, as I take that as, “Yes, we should be veryworried indeed.”

If the Minister is in any doubt about the need toinclude a safeguard for our production standards in theBill, I point to the comments made by a Governmentadviser on food strategy at the weekend, which revealthat the iconoclasts running the show have little regardfor protecting our farmers and the domestic productionof food. The Mail on Sunday article was a classic of itstype, including comments such as

“Britain doesn’t need famers,”

according to the adviser, and

“the food sector is not ‘critically important’ to the economy.”

It concluded with the memorable message from theMail on Sunday to the Government:

“Britain doesn’t need farms? Find another box to think outside!”

Alicia Kearns: Does the hon. Gentleman recognisethat that email was sent in a personal capacity by anadviser? It is MPs and Ministers who make legislation,not advisers—I am pretty sure about that. [Interruption.]I do not know who that individual adviser is, so clearlyhe is not advising my views. The Secretary of State forInternational Trade, the Secretary of State for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs and the Prime Minister have allmade it clear that the points the adviser makes are notGovernment policy. We can either listen to nonsensicalpersonal emails or pay attention to what those on theFront Bench are saying. I think they have been clearthat the Mail on Sunday story was complete nonsense.Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

The Chair: Order. I remind hon. Members that whenthey refer to other hon. Members they need to use theirconstituency titles.

Daniel Zeichner: I have to say that I do not normallyfind myself in agreement with the Daily Mail, but onthis occasion there may be something in it. The importantpoint is that there are clearly people close to Governmentwho have dramatic views that seem different to those ofthe vast majority of Conservative Members, as well asLabour Members. It is a question for the Governmentto decide who they choose to seek advice from, but itcan hardly be denied that it is out there.

Mr Goodwill: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that inan earlier evidence session George Monbiot advocatedfor precisely those points, and argued for desisting inthe production of sheep and cattle on the uplands andplanting them with trees? Does he subscribe to thatview, as espoused by The Guardian?

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the right hon.Gentleman, but there is a subtle difference betweenwitness evidence and the evidence that has been given inthe important Dimbleby review on our future foodpolicy. I think there is a difference, but, as always, Irespect his observation.

Moving on from jousting about newspapers, it isimportant that to have a discussion about levels of foodsecurity, as I have mentioned. It is an intellectuallyplausible position to say that we do not have to produceour own food and that we could become like Singapore.That is an important political debate that should be hadtransparently, not in private emails between advisers.Without proper legal protection in place, many peoplewill feel that whatever the Government say will just bewarm words.

To go back to the point raised by the hon. Memberfor Rutland and Melton, at the last DEFRA questionsthe previous Secretary of State said pretty much whatshe just said. She said:

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

We were interested by that statement. Can the Ministerclarify further the statement that they are “already inlaw” by providing the details of the legislation wherethose standards can be found? Can she explain whatmechanism would be used if the Government are requiredin a trade negotiation to amend or remove any of thestandards and describe, in that scenario, the level ofparliamentary scrutiny that would apply?

That should be good ground for the Minister as she isan esteemed lawyer. I am neither esteemed nor a lawyer,so I was grateful that, after the exchange at DEFRAquestions, the shadow Secretary of State sought advice.We have advice from the House of Commons Libraryand—guess what?—it is complicated. Inevitably, tryingto unravel the complexity of bringing EU law intodomestic law and the overlaps is difficult. I suspect thelaw would need to be tested and, as ever, differentlawyers would give different advice; that tends to happen.Some think that EU-derived domestic legislation coveringthese matters could, in some circumstances, be changedby the Government using delegated powers in the FoodSafety Act 1990, without the need even to seekparliamentary approval, let alone primary legislation.

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

12.15 pm

Farming and environmental groups are, as far as Ican see, pretty unanimous in their agreement that weneed that guarantee. We have heard reference in theevidence sessions and in some previous discussions tothe 60-plus farming, environmental, animal welfare andfood industry organisations that have all written to thePrime Minister, calling for that safeguard. As I am surewe are all aware, in a couple of weeks we expect manyfarmers to be lobbying Parliament on just that issue.


Interestingly, that is a consensus not just acrossorganisations, but across the party divide in the Chamber.The words of the new clause are not ours, not Labour’swords, but the exact same words tabled in the amendmentof the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Tivertonand Honiton (Neil Parish), the esteemed Chair of theSelect Committee on Environment, Food and RuralAffairs. I suspect the words of one of the senior membersof a previous Committee at the end of Second Readingare still ringing out—he certainly expected to seeimprovements, and if we cannot deliver those today,they will certainly be introduced on Report.

To add to the evidence, the cross-party EFRA Committeeclearly concluded in its scrutiny report of the earlierAgriculture Bill in 2018 that, in its collective opinion:

“The Government should put its money where its mouth is andaccept an amendment to the Agriculture Bill stipulating that foodproducts imported as part of any future trade deal should meet orexceed British standards”.

This is that amendment.

The direction could not be clearer. I ask the Ministerto take a long think. Are the concerns of that wide rangeof organisations, almost every witness seen by this BillCommittee and the Government’s own Back Benchersreally as hysterical as the Prime Minister seems to think?Or could it be that there is actually a serious issue?

What would be the point of the Bill if all its goodwork inencouraging farmers toadopthigherenvironmentaland animal welfare standards is undermined on day onebyimportswithlowerstandardsfloodinginandundercuttingthem? If farmers have to face that competition from cheaperfood produced to lower standards than those they willrightly be expected to work to in the environmental landmanagement schemes, the real danger is that they will beforced to walk away from delivering those public goodsentirely. That has a further consequence. The danger isthat all the environmental improvements we are hopingfor from the Bill would be undermined. In fact, ourenvironmental standards could fall. That danger was raisedrepeatedly by the witnesses the Committee heard from.

The Government have already rejected our amendmentcalling for proper baseline environmental and welfarestandards, so the reality we will be faced with, if they donot respond positively to our new clause, is that the newgreen world of farming that we had hoped for will beone where the environmental public goods are notdelivered, where our farmers are forced to produce foodat lower animal welfare and environmental standards,and where we will have imports of chlorinated chickenand hormone-injected beef on our supermarket shelves,which we do not wish to see.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): My hon. Friend ismaking a powerful speech. Does he agree that it isstrange that the shadow Minister wrote to the nowMinister on 19 February on the specific question ofstandards already in law and, as of today, we have stillhave had no response?

Daniel Zeichner: It is, because it was made clear thatthere would be a clear response. I suspect that the issueis complicated and people are working on it, but Iabsolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern. This is somethingwe need clarity on.

Mr Goodwill: I absolutely understand and sympathisewith the hon. Gentleman’s objectives. His new clausetalks about “agricultural goods”, which presumably

includes animal feed. It is pretty much accepted thatenvironmental standards in Brazil, Argentina, the UnitedStates and Canada are lower than ours. Would the newclause ban the importation of all agricultural feed,including soya beans and maize, into the United Kingdom,should the exporting country’s environmental standardsnot be as high as ours, given that those products aremixed, so it could not be done on an individual farm basis?

Daniel Zeichner: I fully accept that the provisionwould need to be thought through and worked throughin future. My point is that in general we must be carefulabout such changes, because I do not want our agriculturesector to be put at a disadvantage.

We do not want what I have just been outlining tohappen. I suspect that the Minister and the vast majorityof her colleagues do not want it to happen either. Imentioned the chlorinated chicken and hormone-injectedbeef, and it is worth spending a moment to remindourselves of the exact nature of the kinds of low-standardfood imports that we need to guard against.

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

If we start going to the US, where they still use sowstalls and inject pigs with ractopamine, both of whichare rightly illegal in UK pig farming on animal welfaregrounds, we completely undermine our moral commitmentsagainst those practices, and allow undercutting of ourfarmers, who are committed to such higher standards. Iremind members of the Committee that ractopamine isa feed additive used to manipulate growth in pigs, whichhas been shown to be highly detrimental to pig welfare,causing lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness ofbreath. There is a reason we do not use it. It is the samefor hormone-treated beef, which is produced in the USby injecting cattle with growth hormones to generategreater mass more quickly. That is banned in the EU onanimal welfare and public health grounds.

The issue with the chlorinated chicken produced inthe US is that the chickens have been kept in suchdismal and intensive conditions that the chlorine isrequired to wash off the pathogens that they havebecome infected with during rearing and slaughter. Theprinciple is animal welfare, but there is also a realquestion over food safety. Of course, we heard evidenceon that. It is fair to say that there is dispute about thecomparative rates of food-borne illnesses in the US andthe UK but, as we heard from Professor Keevil of theUniversity of Southampton, there are now studies thatsuggest that chlorine washing is not as effective as wasonce thought, and can make pathogens undetectablewithout actually killing them, so that they may remaincapable of causing disease.

I feel strongly that those are not products that wewant on our shelves or in our freezer cabinets. I willecho the words of the president of the National FarmersUnion, who last week delivered this statement to aclearly discomfited Secretary of State:


[Daniel Zeichner]

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

I might not have used exactly the same words, but I agreewith the sentiment, and I think that the Secretary ofState was discomfited because he knows that she isright.

It is crystal clear that we need a safeguard. How onearth do the Government expect to negotiate their wayout of this, when the US Secretary of State MikePompeo has clearly said that chlorinated chicken mustbe part of any UK-US trade agreement? Why not comeclean and admit that in the negotiations there will betrade-offs, one of which, sadly, could be selling out ourfarmers and our environment?

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

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

We were particularly struck by what these new clausesseemed to be looking to achieve. Members of theCommittee will agree that they deal with complex andtechnical matters on which a degree of expertise isneeded in matters of animal health and veterinarypharmaceutical practice. Our understanding is that theaim here was to place in primary legislation many of theprotections and safeguards on food safety and animalwelfare that already currently exist in secondary legislation,both retained EU and domestic. The force of the proposalswould be to ban the sale of animals or products fromanimals that have been treated with a range of compoundswhose use is currently illegal in this country, except inrestricted circumstances where they are being used underveterinary supervision for veterinary therapeutic purposes,and only then if residues are acceptably low.

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

Most interestingly, new clause 31 would prohibit thesale, for hygiene reasons, of any animal product thatcomes from animals being treated with any substanceother than potable water for the purpose of removingsurface contamination. By my understanding, that wouldessentially preclude the sale of chlorine or oplactose-acidwashed chicken in this country.

Mr Goodwill: New clause 31 does not actually refer topost-slaughter use and, as it is sloppily drafted, wouldapply to the washing of show animals at shows, the useof saline solution for washing eyes or, indeed, the use ofdiluted sheep dip after docking of sheep. Does the hon.Member recognise that the new clause needs tighteningup? It refers to an animal during its entire lifecycle.

Daniel Zeichner: As ever, I am hugely grateful to theright hon. Member, whose drafting skills I would happilydraw on in trying to improve the amendments. He willreflect that the new clause was sloppily drafted not byOpposition Members, but by the current Secretary ofState. We are very happy to work with the right hon.Member on improving it, but I think he knows whatwas being referred to in those circumstances.

It seems to us that the Government are currentlyrefusing to include in the Bill a ban on food importsproduced to lower standards than our own. They havealso dodged amendments to the Bill that were suggestedpreviously by the current Secretary of State himself,which seemed to aim to ensure the exact same thing—banning the sale of animal products in this country thathad been subjected to chemicals and processes that wedo currently allow here.

What exactly has been going on? The Minister needsto come clean on this. The Secretary of State did notinclude these prohibitions either in the previous Bill orin the current Bill, even though he was the Minister incharge of both Bills. What came over him when he brieflyleft the Government? What conditions was he made toaccept when he agreed to come back and then tobecome Secretary of State? Does this whole episode notshow that, in his heart of hearts, he probably agreeswith us that the only way to safeguard our animalwelfare and food safety standards and to prevent ourhard-pressed British farmers from being undercut bycheap, sub-standard imports, is to put these provisionsin the Bill?

We believe that new clause 1 is the crucial amendment.It would not just strengthen the Bill but safeguard itscore aims. We make no apology whatever about pressingit to a vote. I urge the Minister to listen closely to theunanimity of voices on this amendment and to recognisethe need for this addition to the Bill. I appreciate thatthis is a tough moment for Government Members. Asthey vote, they must be aware that the future of many oftheir constituents is on the line. I want to safeguardtheir future, our countryside and our food safety.


12.30 pm

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I rise to supporteverything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgehas said on new clause 1. I shall also speak to newclause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for NorthDorset (Simon Hoare), with the support of many of hisConservative colleagues. At the moment, I am the onlyLabour Member whose name has been added to it, but Iam sure that many others would join me on Report.

Some of us sat on the Committee that considered thefirst draft of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament.I was also on the Environmental Audit Committee andthe Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,as well as part of as various all-party parliamentarygroups, and there were also debates on these matters inthe Chamber and at oral questions. Ministers, includingthe then Secretary of State for the Department ofEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, the FarmingMinister and, at various points, the International TradeSecretary, gave us verbal reassurances.

There was a bit of a trajectory, because in the earlydays, we could get Ministers to say only that UKstandards would be protected. Eventually, after lots ofprompting on our part, some of them—although certainlynot on the International Trade side—said that that alsoapplied to imported goods. The Minister needs to reflecton why it is very clear, as my hon. Friend the Memberfor Cambridge said, that those assurances are not believed.The absolute fact of the situation is that everyone, fromthe NFU to environmental and consumer groups, wantsthose things enshrined in law, as do the ConservativeMembers who have signed the new clause.

The Minister has talked about including those assurancesin a trade Bill, but when the Trade Bill was introducedto Parliament, we were fobbed off. We tried to getsomething in there, but were told that it applied only tocurrent trade agreements and not to future ones, althoughsome legal opinion said that it did. When we tried todiscuss that during the passage of the European Union(Withdrawal) Bill and all the discussions about Brexit,we were told that it would pop up somewhere else. Thatgame of musical chairs just does not wash with people.We want to see this measure in the Agriculture Billbecause it specifically relates to food standards andanimal welfare, as we have heard in detail.

I remember trying to bring the matter up duringarguments about the Transatlantic Trade and InvestmentPartnership, way before Brexit. The then Member forStreatham, who was our shadow Business Secretary,made great play about the NHS being at risk underTTIP. When I started trying to talk to him aboutchickens, he looked at me as if to say, “What on earth isshe on about now?” Now, the chickens have come hometo roost—metaphorical chickens—and everyone knowsabout the issue, but nobody is convinced that theGovernment are willing to support preventive measures.

We spoke earlier about articles in the Daily Mailand The Guardian. I will quote a Guardian article from6 March—hon. Members are probably ready to sneer atit—which said:

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

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

“Its livestock sectors often suffer from poor husbandry, whichleads to more prevalence of disease and a greater reliance onantibiotics”,

which we know is an issue.“Whereas we have a ‘farm to fork’ approach to managing

disease and contamination risk throughout the supply chainthrough good husbandry, the US is more inclined to simply treatcontamination of its meat at the end with a chlorine or similarwash.”

The article continues:“In the US, legislation on animal welfare is woefully deficient.”

That article was penned by the now Secretary of Stateat the Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs, during the brief hiatus after he left the Governmentin February 2019. He immediately turned to The Guardianto make known his views on just how worried he wasabout US animal welfare.

Mr Goodwill: Does the hon. Lady understand thatthe US actually consumes most of its own beef? Onlyabout 13.5% of its beef is exported, mainly to Japanand the far east. There is not a great stockpile ofAmerican beef looking for a market, either in the UKor the EU.

Kerry McCarthy: I am not sure that that is particularlyrelevant. At the moment there is a ban on hormone-pumpedbeef entering our markets. The UK is the third biggestmarket in the world for food imports. It is clear that ifthe doors were open, there would be a potential markethere and the US would be very keen to get into it. Mostof the discussion on trade deals so far has not beenabout the beef sector anyway.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge hasalready said, at about the time that the now Secretary ofState wrote that article, he also tabled what are now newclauses 33, 34 and 35 to the then Agriculture Bill. Whywould he do that? He had made the arguments inpublic. He did a sterling job trying to defend theGovernment’s position during the first sitting of theAgriculture Bill. He came across as reasonably sincere,but the moment he had the freedom to say what hereally thought, he went to the press and wrote an articlein The Guardian outlining clearly and eloquently whathis concerns were. He did not seek verbal reassurancesfrom the Government; he sought legislative reassurances.So if it is good enough for the Secretary of State whenhe is allowed free rein to say what he feels, I am sure theMinister can understand why many of her colleagueson the Conservative Back Benches and OppositionMembers also agree with him.

Deidre Brock: I agree with much of what the previousspeakers have said. New clauses 1 and 4 are grand intheir way and I will support them, but we have to gofurther. I want to see the standards of the EU maintained,but perhaps that is for a different debate. However, it ispossible to write it into domestic law that imports haveto match the sanitary and phytosanitary standards ofthe WTO.

The WTO agreement on the application of sanitaryand phytosanitary measures is clear that science has tounderpin the standards to protect human, animal or


[Deidre Brock]

plant health. The agreement allows states to protecttheir food supplies and the imports of supporting productsto the benefit of citizens. I know the argument willbe that Ministers seek to protect citizens, but we do notknow that that will always be the case. We should seekto ensure that citizens have the confidence to believe inthis measure and in future Governments, and in thecommitment to protecting foods and health. Citizensshould also have the right to understand how Governmentsintend to do that and should have the ability to challengethem if necessary.

The SPS agreement allows standards to be set, so weshould have them set. That would have allowed Ministersto assure the public that animal welfare and planthealth would be maintained, and that imported foodwould be of a standard that we could rely on for healthand the protection of life. As NFU Scotland recentlypointed out, assurances around priorities in negotiationswork only if the US upholds its side of the bargain. Itstated:

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

I therefore support new clause 7.

Thangam Debbonaire: I will make a few brief remarkson behalf of the shadow European affairs team. As weleave the European Union, we want to make sure we donot lose anything in terms of our high standards andthat we try to spot the places where there is potential forloopholes, which I hope none of us wants.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East admirablymade the case that the Secretary of State’s real views arein alignment with ours. We therefore present theGovernment with an opportunity to vote for the Secretaryof State’s actual views. We in the European affairs teamfeel we are here to make sure that the transference ofEurope-wide rules to UK standards is not underminedby trade agreements with other parts of the world. Wesimply want to safeguard that. So, on behalf of theshadow European affairs team, I want to add my supportto the case made by Opposition Front and Back Benchers,which, after all, reflects the Secretary of State’s views.

Victoria Prentis: I thank hon. Members for tablingthese new clauses. I genuinely appreciate the opportunityto talk once again about the importance of food standards.The hon. Member for Bristol East will never find mesneering at or questioning the importance of food standards.This is an important debate, and it is right that we haveit here, and while considering other Bills, as we move toa new world where we have left the EU and hopefullyhave free trade agreements with many other countries.

I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’scommitment to not lowering our standards as we negotiatenew trade deals. The Prime Minister has consistentlystated that we will not compromise our high environmental,food safety or animal welfare standards now that wehave left the EU. We made that commitment in ourmanifesto, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Statefor International Trade reaffirmed that commitment tothe House earlier this week in respect of a US trade deal.

Kerry McCarthy rose—

Victoria Prentis: I will give way, but I have a longspeech and a lot to cover.

Kerry McCarthy: I am sure the Minister does, but theproblem is that I suspect I know what she will say. Tocut to the chase, given that it would make everybody somuch happier if that commitment was in the Bill, whatis the reason for its not being?

Victoria Prentis: I will set out the Government’sposition on that. The hon. Member for Cambridge waskind enough to say that I was an esteemed lawyer. I donot know whether that is true, but I am certainly a veryexperienced Government lawyer, and I gently say thatthe purpose of primary legislation is not about makingpeople happy, although the purpose of the policy behindit might well be that. We come at this from the sameplace: we all like high standards in British agricultureand want to support our farmers. However, I will set outwhy the Government have come to this conclusion, whichwill take some time, I am afraid, and I will deal with thepoint made by the hon. Member for Bristol East.

To deal with the point made by the hon. Member forBristol West, we are retaining existing UK legislation,and at the end of the transition period, the EuropeanUnion (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert on to theUK statute book all EU food safety, animal welfare andenvironmental standards. That will ensure that our highstandards, including import requirements, continue toapply.

The hon. Member for Cambridge said I was anesteemed lawyer—who knows?—and also that he waswaiting for a letter from the Department. I am certainlyan experienced enough lawyer not to wish to interfere inthat process. If a letter is being drafted, I will make sureto look at it. However, he asked specifically abouthormone-treated beef and washed chicken. I will givehim the directives and the way they are transposed intoBritish law as I see it. The top line is that all EU law onfood safety standards was carried over by the 2018 Act.

EU Council directive 96/22/EC, as amended, whichbans the import and production of hormone-treatedbeef, was transposed into UK law through nationallegislation. It is found in various regulations, includingthe Animals and Animal Products (Examination forResidues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England andScotland) Regulations 2015; Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(Wales) Regulations 2019; and the Animals and AnimalProducts (Examination for Residues and MaximumResidue Limits) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. Iwill write to the hon. Gentleman on that, because Ido not expect him to take a note of all those, or theSecretary of State will write to the shadow Secretary ofState. I do not want to interfere in that letter-writingprocess.

On the washing of poultry, European Union controlson the surface decontamination of poultry—regulation 853/2004—will be retained through the 2018 Act, and havebeen made ready to be carried over into UK lawimmediately after the transition period through theSpecific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004)(Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which willmaintain the status quo that no product other thandrinking water is currently approved in the EU todecontaminate poultry carcases. That will remain thesame in the UK. I will write to the hon. Gentlemanproperly about that, so that he has the details. It iscomplicated, as he says.


The regulations I have mentioned include artificialgrowth hormones for domestic production and importedproducts, and we would require legislation to changethose regulations. Both hormone-treated beef and washingof poultry are covered. The Government have said thatany future deals must respect our regulatory autonomy,which means that we will not sign agreements thatthreaten our ability to set our own high standards, ofwhich we are proud. Our standards are driven by consumerand retailer demand and frequently go above currentregulatory standards; most of us would welcome that.The Agriculture Bill will help to ensure that we continueto maintain those high standards in line with the needsof our farmers, retailers and consumers.

12.45 pm

The Government take the view that banning importsunless all domestic standards are met is not alwaysappropriate. For animal welfare, some domestic legalrequirements can be assessed and enforced as part ofinspections considering the holistic welfare of animalson farms, but those standards will be unsuitable metricsfor decisions on individual imports. Indeed, we wouldhave no way to enforce such restrictions or to check onthe position of farms abroad.

Accepting new clause 1 would create considerableuncertainty about whether current imports—on whichwe rely for food security, particularly at times of worry—including those from the EU, could continue. Our significantconcern is that the new clause would put current tradeagreements at risk and threaten our vital agri-foodexport trade. For example, 23% of our whisky exportsare covered under current trade agreements that we areseeking to transition at the end of this year, and we wouldnot want to put those at risk. The UK already ensuresthat, without exception, all imports of food meet thestringent food safety standards that are required of ourdomestic producers. The independent Food StandardsAgency will continue to ensure that that remains the case.

The World Trade Organisation allows for traderestrictions in very specific circumstances, such as forfood safety or to protect public morals. It is not clear tothe Government that the requirements of new clause 1would meet the WTO criteria, and we are concernedthat we would risk significant challenge from it. That iswhat I was trying to say, in a slightly flippant way, to thehon. Member for Bristol West earlier about having ourcake and eating it. As she said, we are signed up to theWTO; as such, we must abide by its rules. We areconcerned that the new clause would affect the trade ofthe more than 160 WTO members. It could draw achallenge from any of them, if they believed our importmeasures were arbitrary, discriminatory or a disguisedform of protectionism.

Thangam Debbonaire: Is the Minister not making mycase that the WTO is therefore the lowest commondenominator? It is a real problem that we have ended upheading in this direction.

Victoria Prentis: I feel that the hon. Lady was partlymaking my point: we have to stick to WTO rules. Ithink she and I agree that we want to comply with WTOrules. As a lawyer with many years’ experience, I amexplaining my concern that the new clause would possiblynot comply with WTO rules—I put it no more stronglythan that.

Prior to the start of negotiations for each new freetrade agreement, the Government will publish—indeed,we have done so this week—our approach to negotiations,including our negotiating objectives and other explanatorymaterial. We did so on 27 February ahead of the startof negotiations with the EU, and on Monday this weekfor the US negotiations. Right hon. and hon. Members,and the general public, have a chance to scrutinise thosedocuments and the Government will rightly be held toaccount. Once negotiations are under way, we willcontinue to keep the public and Parliament informed.We believe that that approach strikes the right balanceof allowing Parliament and the public to scrutinise thetrade policy, while maintaining the ability of Governmentto negotiate flexibly in the best interests of the UK.

I turn to new clause 30 and new schedule 1. As severalhon. Members have said, the provisions were tabledwhen the previous Agriculture Bill was before the Houseduring the last Session. The hon. Member for Cambridgewill recognise that domestic legislation already providesfor a prohibition on the use of substances listed in newclause 30, and for maximum residue limits for substancesto be specified. My response to the comments about thenew clauses that were tabled by the current Secretary ofState is this: are we not fortunate to have a Secretary ofState who is a champion of standards in our food andagricultural sector? Quite frankly, to turn around thewords of the hon. Member for Bristol East, the Secretaryof State wholly supports the Agriculture Bill as drafted.He has been reassured that this is not needed in primarylegislation, and if it is good enough for the Secretary ofState, it is good enough for me.

To go into detail, as the hon. Member for Cambridgedid, new clause 30 does not refer to the operabilityamendments and other provisions in the exit legislationmade last year—obviously, because it was drafted beforethat. That legislation deliberately took a flexible approachto the specification of maximum residue limits, ratherthan the more onerous scrutiny that the new clause wouldlead to. The legislation will come into force at the end ofthe transition period. Setting a maximum residue limitfor a particular substance does not overturn the legislativeprohibition on the use of substances as growth promoters.

Parliamentary scrutiny is, of course, important. But,as was explained in debates on the exit statutory instrumentslast year, a non-legislative approach when setting maximumresidue limits ismoreefficientandlikely toavoidunnecessarydelays, which might have financial implications for industryand make the UK less attractive to pharmaceuticalcompanies looking to market veterinary medicines. Ifthat were to lead to a reduction in available medication,it could have a significant impact on animal welfare. Assuch, although we recognise that there are argumentsfor increasing the level of parliamentary scrutiny, theGovernment prefer to maintain the approach set out inour exit legislation—of course, it was not around whenthe amendment was drafted—that was considered andapproved by Parliament at the end of last year.

Turning to new clause 31, I hope the hon. Memberfor Cambridge can agree that there are instances inwhich substances other than drinking water are alreadydeemed appropriate for the specified purposes, havingbeen subject to rigorous risk analysis processes. In fact,the EU has approved lactic acid for treating beef carcases,recycled hot water for carcases of certain species and


[Victoria Prentis]

clean water—not drinking water—for fishery products.I hope we can agree that it would be regressive to undowhat are already considered safe practices. The unfortunateeffect of the new clause would be to stymie any processfor considering new substances for use in the UK infuture. It could restrict the potential for innovation torealise new hygiene benefits.

The wording of new clause 31, whether intended ornot, goes much further than existing restrictions—I donot want to talk about sloppy drafting, but I am concernedthat such a provision could result in serious animalhealth and welfare implications. Live animals could nolonger be effectively washed or treated with antiparasitictreatment, as my right hon. Friend the Member forScarborough and Whitby said, such as sheep dips.Udder washing is a perfectly normal practice to stopmastitis, and we would not want to interfere with that.Maintaining safety and public confidence in the foodwe eat remains a high priority for the Government, andthe current regulatory framework ensures that.

New clause 32 would prevent meat and other productsfrom conventionally reared meat chickens from beingsold or supplied in the UK unless they are produced toa stocking density no greater than 39 kg per squaremetre, which is our current maximum in Great Britain.Northern Ireland has set a maximum stocking densityof 42 kg per square metre. As such, the new clausewould mean that meat chicken legally produced inNorthern Ireland over 39 kg per square metre could notbe sold in the UK. I am sure that was not the intentionwhen the new clause was drafted.

Further, although we have a strong domestic sectorproducing around £2.4 billion of poultry meat per year,in 2018 we imported £2.1 billion of chicken meat andchicken products. Some of those, including importsfrom some EU member states, do not meet our stockingdensity requirements. Imposing a restriction of this kindon imports might result in food security issues, and itwould certainly impact cost. We all want to move in thesame direction on animal welfare, but we may not beable to do so by means of new clause 32.

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

Daniel Zeichner: I have listened very closely to theMinister addressing a range of complicated issues. Inresponding, I will work backwards.

We fully accept that drafting the detail in these proposalswas a complicated process, and we pay tribute to thecurrent Secretary of State for the work he did in attempting

to deal with this conundrum. I have to say that I thinkthe Bill—this is the part the Minister was not really ableto address—in effect takes apart what the Secretary ofState was trying to do, which we think was reallyimportant. I invite the Minister to reflect on whether itwould be possible to work cross-party before we get tothe next stage of the process to amend some of thedetail. That would seem to me to be a good wayforward, and it would reflect what I suspect we canprobably all agree on. Knocking this down on the basisthat there are problematic points of detail—I do notdispute that it is complicated and difficult—is not theright way to go.

That leads us to the Minister’s point about ourrelationships in the WTO. We know that the WTO is atroubled organisation at the moment, but we also knowthat there is plenty of opportunity all the time forpeople to challenge. The question is why they do it atsome times and not others. That goes back to the pointsmade by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West.

There is a political set of questions about how tradingblocs deal with disputes. The sad truth is that weare now outside one of the big trading blocs and we donot have the power of an umbrella that would probablyprevent others from making challenges that we mightnot think reasonable. We have seen that in the new worldorder, with Trump and so on, quite spurious challengesmay be made that generate a whole raft of legal procedures,which take time and are difficult to deal with. A smallplayer is much more vulnerable than a big player tobeing picked off, because big players have more resourcesin their armoury to fight back with.

I am afraid that is the difficult situation that theGovernment have got us into. On the WTO rules, Irecognise that there is some potential for challenge, butthat is where we are at. We must ensure that we doeverything we can to protect our people in this newworld. The clearest and most helpful way of doing thatin negotiations would be to put what we have proposedin the Bill; if we did so, the others in the negotiationswould know it was non-negotiable.

That goes back to the basic point that the Ministermade at the beginning of her speech. I am afraid theharsh truth is that when the Prime Minister makes aseries of promises, they are not believed. My hon.Friend the Member for Bristol East made some excellentpoints: for all the reasons we have heard about today,including the piece that the current Secretary of Statewrote all those months ago, how can we believe thePrime Minister when—

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(JamesMorris.)

1 pm




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


AGRICULTURE BILL

Twelfth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

New clauses considered.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.


PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Monday 9 March 2020








† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)

† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)

(Con)Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)† Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)

† Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con)† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)† Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of




377 3785 MARCH 2020Public Bill Committee Agricuture Bill



(Afternoon)


Agriculture Bill

New Clause 1

IMPORT OF AGRICULTURAL GOODS

‘(1) Agricultural goods may be imported into the UK only ifthe standards to which those goods were produced were as highas, or higher than, standards which at the time of import appliedunder UK law relating to—

(a) animal welfare,

(b) protection of the environment, and

(c) food safety.

(2) “Agricultural goods”, for the purposes of this section,means—


(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6),

(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.’—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would set a requirement for imported agricultural goodsto meet animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards whichare at least as high as those which apply to UK produced agriculturalgoods.

Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed(this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

2pm

Question again proposed.

The Chair: I remind the Committee that with this weare considering the following:

New clause 4—Import of agricultural goods after IPcompletion day—

‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods importedunder a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK onlyif the standards to which those goods were produced were ashigh as, or higher than, standards which at the time of importapplied under UK law relating to—

(a) animal welfare,



(d) plant health.






(4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 ofthe European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’.

Newclause7—International tradeagreements:agriculturaland food products—

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of aninternational trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1)of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unlessthe agreement—




“international trade agreement” means—


(b) an international agreement that mainly relatesto trade, other than an agreement mentionedin sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);

“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as inthe Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;

“relevant standards” means standards relating toenvironmental protection, plant health and animalwelfare applying in connection with the productionof agricultural and food products;

“SPS Agreement”means the agreement on the Applicationof Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part ofAnnex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modifiedfrom time to time);

“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishingthe World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakeshon 15 April 1994.’.

This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect thequality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffsare held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.

New clause 30—Prohibition on the sale of certainanimals and animal products: substances—

‘(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall sell orsupply for human consumption any animal—

(a) which contains or to which there has beenadministered—

(i) a Class I prohibited substance listed in paragraph 1of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

(ii) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

(iii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or

(iv) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

unless that substance was administered in accordance withsubsection (4);

(b) that is an aquaculture animal to which—

(i) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

(ii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or

(iii) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4of Schedule [Prohibited substances],

has been administered;

(c) which contains a substance specified by the Secretaryof State in regulations under subsection (5)(a) at aconcentration exceeding the maximum residue limit;or

(d) to which a medicinal product has been administered ifthe withdrawal period for that product has notexpired.

(2) No person may sell or supply for human consumption anyanimal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animalthe sale or supply of which is prohibited under subsection (1).

(3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(d) shall prohibit the sale beforethe end of the withdrawal period of any high-value horse towhich has been administered allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist inaccordance with regulation 5 of the Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(Englandand Scotland) Regulations 2015, provided that the type and dateof treatment was entered on the horse’s passport by the veterinarysurgeon directly responsible for the treatment.

379 380HOUSE OF COMMONSPublic Bill Committee Agricuture Bill

(4) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not applyto the sale of an animal, or of an animal product derived whollyor partly from an animal to which has been administered acompliant veterinary medicinal product—

(a) containing testosterone, progesterone or a derivative ofthese substances which readily yields the parentcompound on hydrolysis after absorption at the siteof application, if the administration is in accordancewith regulation 26 of the Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum ResidueLimits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;

(b) containing allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist, if theadministration is in accordance with regulation 27 ofthe Animals and Animal Products (Examination forResidues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Englandand Scotland) Regulations 2015;

(c) having oestrogenic action (but not containing oestradiol17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic action orgestagenic action, if the administration is in accordancewith regulation 28 of the Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum ResidueLimits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015.

(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) specifying for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) maximumresidue limits for pharmacologically active substances,and

(b) adding one or more substances to any of the classes ofprohibited substances in Schedule [Prohibited substances].

(6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by statutoryinstrument, and any such statutory instrument may not be madeunless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approvedby a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

a veterinary medicinal product is a compliant veterinarymedicinal product if it complies with the requirementsof Regulation 25 of the Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum ResidueLimits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015),and “withdrawal period” shall have the meaning givenin Regulation 2 of the Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum ResidueLimits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015).

(8) Regulations 9 and 10 of the Animals and Animal Products(Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 are revoked.’.

New clause 31—Prohibition on sale: hygiene—

‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any animal which has beentreated for the purposes of removal of surface contaminationwith a substance other than potable water.

(2) No person shall sell or supply any animal product which isderived wholly or partly from an animal which has been treatedfor the purposes of removal of surface contamination with asubstance other than potable water.’.

New clause 32—Prohibition on sale: stocking densities—

‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any chicken, any part of achicken or any product which is partly or wholly derived from achicken unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The condition is that the stocking density in any house inwhich the chicken was reared—

(a) did not exceed 33 kilograms per m2 of usable area, or

(b) did not exceed 39 kilograms per m2 of usable area ifthe requirements of subsection (3) were met.

(3) The requirements of this subsection are that the keepermust—

(a) maintain and, on request, make available to the Secretaryof State, documentation in the house giving a detaileddescription of the production systems, in particularinformation on technical details of the house and itsequipment, including—

(i) a plan of the house including the dimensions of thesurfaces occupied by the chickens;

(ii) ventilation and any relevant cooling and heatingsystem (including their location), and a ventilationplan, detailing target air quality parameters (suchas airflow, air speed and temperature);

(iii) feeding and watering systems (and their location);

(iv) alarm and backup systems in the event of a failureof any equipment essential for the health andwell-being of the chickens;

(v) floor type and litter normally used; and

(vi) records of technical inspections of the ventilationand alarm systems;

(b) keep up to date the documentation referred to insubparagraph (a);

(c) ensure that each house is equipped with ventilationand, if necessary, heating and cooling systems designed,constructed and operated in such a way that—

(i) the concentration of ammonia does not exceed20 parts per million and the concentration of carbondioxide does not exceed 3,000 parts per million,when measured at the level of the chickens’ heads;

(ii) when the outside temperature measured in theshade exceeds 30°C, the inside temperature doesnot exceed the outside temperature by more than3°C; and

(iii) when the outside temperature is below 10°C, theaverage relative humidity measured inside the houseduring a continuous period of 48 hours does notexceed 70%.

(4) In the case of a chicken reared in a house which is not in theUnited Kingdom, it shall be a requirement upon the importer todemonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that—

(a) documentation equivalent to that specified in subsection(3) was maintained by the keeper and was availablefor supply to the appropriate regulatory authority, and

(b) the conditions under which the chicken was reared wereequivalent to, or better than, those set out insubsections (2) and (3).

(5) For the purposes of this section, “chicken” shall mean aconventionally reared meat chicken.’

New schedule 1—Prohibited substances—1 Class I prohibited substances

Aristolochia spp. and preparations thereof

Chloramphenicol

Chloroform

Chlorpromazine

Colchicine

Dapsone

Dimetridazole

Metronizadole

Nitrofurans (including furazolidone)

Ronizadole

2 Class II prohibited substances

Thyrostatic substances

Stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters

Oestradiol 17β and its ester-like derivatives

3 Class III prohibited substances

Beta-agonists

4 Class IV prohibited substances

Substances having oestrogenic (other than oestradiol 17βor its ester-like derivatives), androgenic or gestagenicaction.


Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Sir David, youwill be glad to hear that earlier I was mid-sentence butclose to my conclusion. All I was going to say was, whenwe come to conclude our discussion, the simple answeris to put it in the Bill.

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):The important point about new clauses 1, 4 and 7 is thatthey would allow us to set standards high to protect thefood chain and therefore the consumer. The Ministermight, and indeed I am sure she does, have a commitmentto maintaining high standards, and she might evenbelieve that her colleagues have a similar commitment.However, as we all know, Governments change—we arestill within five years of David Cameron’s last electionvictory, after all—and the current Ministers will notalways be in post. I would hate to think of the Minister,in the far-off days of her declining years, staring at aplate of questionable food in front of her, wishing thatshe had taken steps to guard against it when she couldhave done. We should take those steps to safeguard ourfood standards, protect our food producers and maintainthe health of consumers, who are, after all, the peoplewho send us here. The SNP therefore supports newclauses 1, 4 and 7.

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


Division No. 29]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 4

IMPORT OF AGRICULTURAL GOODS AFTER IPCOMPLETION DAY

‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods importedunder a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only ifthe standards to which those goods were produced were as highas, or higher than, standards which at the time of import appliedunder UK law relating to—

(a) animal welfare,



(d) plant health.






(4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 ofthe European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’—(Kerry McCarthy.).


Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—


Division No. 30]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 5

SMALLHOLDINGS ESTATES

‘(1) Every smallholdings authority which immediately beforethe commencement of Part 1 of this Act holds any land for thepurposes of smallholdings shall review the authority’s smallholdingsestate and shall, before the end of the period of eighteen monthsbeginning with the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, submitto the Minister proposals with respect to the future managementof that estate for the purposes of providing—

(a) opportunities for persons to be farmers on their ownaccount;

(b) education or experience in environmental landmanagement practices;

(c) opportunities for increasing public access to the naturalenvironment and understanding of sustainable farming;and

(d) opportunities for innovation in sustainable landmanagement practices.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “smallholdings authority”has the same meaning as in section 38 of the AgricultureAct 1970.’—(Kerry McCarthy.).

This new clause would require local authorities to review theirsmallholdings and submit proposals for future management to provideopportunities to extend access to farming, education, and innovation.


Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I beg to move,That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussnew clause 26—Smallholdings estates: land management—

‘(1) A smallholdings authority which immediately before thecommencement of Part 1 of this Act holds any land for thepurposes of smallholdings shall review the authority’s smallholdingsestate and shall, before the end of the period of eighteen monthsbeginning with the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, submitto the Secretary of State proposals with respect to the futuremanagement of that estate for the purposes of—

(a) providing opportunities for persons to be farmers ontheir own account;

(b) providing education or experience in environmentalland management practices;


(c) providing opportunities for increasing public access tothe natural environment and understanding of sustainablefarming;

(d) contributing to a mitigation of climate change, includinga reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,

(e) providing support for innovative food production techniques(including techniques which do not involve managementof land), and

(f) providing opportunities for innovation in sustainableland management practices.

(2) No land held by a smallholdings authority as a smallholdingimmediately before commencement of Part 1 of this Act is to beconveyed, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of otherwisethan—

(a) in connection with the purposes listed in subsection(1); and

(b) in accordance with proposals submitted under subsection(1).

(3) For the purposes of this section, “smallholdings authority”has the same meaning as in section 38 of the AgricultureAct 1970.’.

This new clause would limit the disposal of smallholdings (“countyfarms”) by local authorities and would require local authorities toreview their holding and submit proposals for future management toprovide opportunities to extend access to farming, education, and innovation.

Kerry McCarthy: This revisits something that wediscussed when the previous Agriculture Bill Committeemet, but there have been some positive moves from theGovernment in respect of county farms since then. I ampleased that there have been quite a few indications ofsupport, but we could do more, which is why I havetabled the new clause.

County farms are an undervalued national asset, andthey could play a significant role in the future of UKfarming. I have the support of the Campaign to ProtectRural England, Sustain and the Landworkers Alliancefor the new clause, which is aimed at rejuvenating thecounty farms project and improving the informationthat the Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs holds on the estate. It would require councils tosubmit a report to the Secretary of State within 18 monthsof this Act’s becoming law, saying how they wouldmake best use of their smallholdings to support newentrants to farming. We have heard, and it is generallyaccepted, that the price of land in particular can act as areal deterrent to new entrants.

The new clause also looks at promoting sustainableland management practices, sharing knowledge of thosepractices, and increasing public access to the naturalenvironment and farming. The new clause is neededbecause there has been a steep decline in the countyfarm estate over the past 40 years, and that sell-offappears to be continuing. Between 2010 and 2018, thesize of England’s county farm estate fell by more than15,000 acres, with 58% of that sold between 2016 and2018. If we want to reverse that trend, it is clear that weneed a fresh approach, rather than business as usual,and I hope that the new clause will kick-start that.

There was a session—I think it was of the Environment,Food and Rural Affairs Committee, but I get confusedsometimes, because we also discussed this at the all-partyparliamentary group on agroecology for sustainablefood and farming—where Cambridgeshire County Councilwas spoken of. It does really good work on this front.Its estate generates a substantial income for the councilof more than £4 million each year, and since 2009, the109 new tenants who have joined the estate have anaverage age of 30, which is half the UK average.

We spoke earlier—I think it was when we were talkingabout de-linked payments and other things—about theaverage age of farmers in this country and how wereally need to bring a new generation on board. Countyfarms seem to be doing that in Cambridgeshire. Theestate is also supporting a pioneering agroforestry farmer,Stephen Briggs.

At the very least, I hope the new clause will encouragecouncils to look favourably on including enhancedmanagement and environmental obligations as part ofthe tender process and management. This is about notonly allowing access to land through the county farmmovement, but encouraging people to farm in a certainway. CPRE’s recent report on county farms highlightedthe fact that a number of councils already view theirestates as a crucial lever in responding to the climateemergency.

As I said at the beginning, we have had some promisingwords from the Government, but we have not had actionyet, and the Bill is still completely silent on this. Thenow Secretary of State told us in the Agriculture BillCommittee back in October 2018 that he was consideringwhether to use funds under the productivity strand ofthe Bill to refresh the model. In January 2019, I chaireda session at the Oxford Real Farming Conference,interviewing the then Secretary of State on stage. Itmust be said that all the promises he made then wentdown very well.

One of those promises was to announce a new packageof financial support for county farms in the comingmonths. He reaffirmed that promise in a letter to theEFRA Committee in March 2019, stating his desire to

“create a financial incentive for local authorities who want toinvest in their council farms”.

In September, that promise was repeated, this time inresponse to a written question that I asked the currentSecretary of State.

While I warmly welcome the statement in the “Futurefor Food, Farming and the Environment”policy statementpublished last week that the Department

“will offer funding to councils…who want to invest in creatingnew opportunities for new-entrant farmers”,

when can we expect some firm detail on the timetable offinancial assistance that will be offered? In the meantime,based on the language in the policy statement, I see noreason that the new clause, which is designed to encouragenew entrants and sustainable farming, would not helpthe Government to achieve their desired outcome.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis):I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for tabling thenew clause and look forward to working with her onhow we can support smallholding authorities to investin, and commit to, their county farms. We want to helpthem to provide more opportunities for new entrantfarmers and to continue to offer the wider environmentaland public benefits.

I am concerned that the new clauses would constrainsmallholding authorities’ ability to manage their estateseffectively and would create an additional administrativeburden. Rather than legislating, I would prefer to workcollaboratively with smallholding authorities. We wantto support them to manage their estates so that they canprovide more opportunities for new farmers and existingtenants, as well as for the benefit of the wider public.


[Victoria Prentis]

I hope that the hon. Lady is assured by the documentpublished last week and that she will continue to talk tome. We will continue to talk to smallholding authoritiesabout how we can take things forward. I therefore askher to withdraw the motion.

Daniel Zeichner: New clause 26 is broadly similar tonew clause 5, which my hon. Friend has just moved. Shespoke powerfully about the plight of our county farms.She did mention, of course, successes in Cambridgeshire.I rarely find reason to praise Cambridgeshire CountyCouncil, but on this occasion, I think that it is doinggood work.

As farms owned by local authorities that can be letout at below-market rents—I suspect that there is agreementon this—they are a vital means to encourage young andfirst-time farmers into the sector. They provide a keyway in for those who have not had the good fortune toinherit or are lacking the capital required to buy or rent.As well as offering a sustainable income stream for localauthorities, these farms have been recognised as particularlywell placed to deliver locally driven social and environmentalgoods, ranging from tree planting and local educationinitiatives on farming to public procurement of locallyproduced food.

As we have heard, however, county farms have beenleft in serious long-term decline. An investigation lastyear by Who Owns England? showed that the acreagehas halved in the past 40 years—first driven by theprivatisation drive and cuts to county budgets andpowers under the Thatcher and Major Governments,and by the austerity agenda in recent times. Cash-strappedlocal authorities making difficult decisions have beenforced to take cost-saving measures, and 7% of England’scounty farms estate was sold off between 2010 and2018, with three quarters of all smallholding authoritieshaving sold parts of their estate.

As we have heard, some authorities, such as my ownin Cambridgeshire, have recognised the importance ofcounty farms and have increased the number of acres inthe past decade. Interestingly, they are now bringing ina sustainable income for the authorities. I am told that,in Cambridgeshire’s case, that is in excess of £4 millioneach year. However, the situation is not so good elsewhere.I am told that Herefordshire, for instance, has soldmany of its county farms; there has been a declineof 89%.

The Government’s recent policy document on farmingfor the future mentions that funding will be offered tocouncils with county farm estates, but we still have noclear detail on how much that would be and whether itwould be sufficient. It is rather surprising that in aflagship Bill on reforming our agricultural system—

Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con):Are there any examples of where local authorities havesold the farms but to the tenants so that they canbecome owner-occupiers—a sort of right-to-buy scheme—or are the farms being sold off outside the sphere ofthose tenants?

Daniel Zeichner: I do not know the answer, but I amhappy to go away and look for it, because that soundslike an interesting idea.

Let me explain what our worry is. We are here discussingmajor, flagship legislation for the future of the sector,and to us it would seem sensible to ensure that there wasprovision for this very important part of the sector,particularly when there was such an opportunity, throughthe local authorities, to deliver a range of public goods,including land management practices that mitigate climatechange; public access; and even the promotion of innovativefood production systems, such as vertical farms or cityfarms. If local authorities were to build into theirmanagement practices for their smallholdings the aimsof aiding nature recovery and carbon sequestration andof promoting biodiversity, county farms could be a veryuseful tool for local communities, particularly in areassuch as mine, where we have such interest in environmentalissues being promoted.

It is important that we stop the loss and refresh thepurpose of our county farms. I am not sure that thatmakes it easier for local authorities, because they aremaking difficult decisions, but it would make it harderfor them to make that particular decision.

2.15 pm

Last December, a report for CPRE by the NewEconomics Foundation, Who Owns England? and SharedAssets looked at what would need to be done to reviveour county farms. The report said:

“The government should protect the future of the county farmestate by legislating for a ministerial lock on their disposal, and arejuvenated purpose statement. A forthcoming Agriculture Actshould safeguard county farms from extensive disposal by makingit incumbent on councils to submit a report to the Secretary ofState for the Department for the Environment, Food and RuralAffairs (Defra). This should detail how they plan to best managetheir county farms to deliver on a range of stipulated social andenvironmental purposes, and - if they wish to sell off countyfarms - how doing so accords with these purposes.”

That is exactly what our new clause would achieve. Iinvite the Government to support the new clause becausethey believe in the importance of county farms and theynow have the opportunity to put that in the Bill.

As with new clause 5, which was tabled by my hon.Friend the Member for Bristol East, our new clause 6would require any authority with smallholdings to submitproposals on how they expected to manage their estateto provide opportunities for new farmers, provideeducational and environmental land management practices,ensure opportunities for increasing public access toland and understanding of sustainable farming, andprovide support for improved food productions, such asvertical or city farms.

Mr Goodwill: What does the hon. Gentleman thinkabout the example of Staffordshire County Council?When selling off farms, the council has given tenantsthe first opportunity to buy, but if that has not happenedit has sold the farms with sitting tenants. The tenantscontinue their tenancies, but the council can use themoney to spend on other priorities, such as schools,getting homeless people into housing and all the otherlocal authority priorities.

Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate what the right hon.Member says. We are not seeking to stop that kind ofprocess. We are trying to make it more difficult forcouncils to respond to funding cuts by selling countyfarms, which in some ways I do not criticise because


they face difficult choices. If that practice is not stopped,then, frankly, it will go on happening, unless there aresignificant changes in funding for local authorities.

In recognition of the key role that local authoritiescan play in incentivising these farms to be environmentalpublic goods, we would also require local authorities tosubmit proposals on how they intended to manage theirsmallholdings in a way that contributed to those variouspublic goods, including the mitigation of climate changeand reducing gas emissions. As discussed, our newclause would also limit the continued disposal of farmsby stipulating that no local authority smallholding wouldneed to have its ownership transferred unless that wasclearly in accordance with those purposes.

Victoria Prentis: I have already responded fairly fullyto the hon. Member for Bristol East and I feel that theLabour Front-Bench amendment is strikingly similar. Ihave said all I need to say on this subject.

Kerry McCarthy: I hope we can continue the dialogueabout county farms and that we can see some concreteaction from the Government. Given what the Ministerhas said, for once I will take her at her word that she hasleapt upon this and I will not push the measure to avote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

QUALITY SCHEMES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND

FOODSTUFFS

“(1) Subsection (2) applies to any function of the Secretary ofState under—

(a) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 21 November 2012 on qualityschemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (“theEU Regulation”),

(b) the delegated and implementing Regulations,

(c) any regulations made by the Secretary of State underthe EU Regulation, and

(d) any regulations made under section 2(2) of the EuropeanCommunities Act 1972 relating to the enforcement ofthe EU Regulation or the delegated and implementingRegulations.

(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the function only withthe consent of the Scottish Ministers.

(3) In subsection (1), the “delegated and implementingRegulations” means—

(a) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014supplementing the EU Regulation with regard tothe establishment of Union symbols for protecteddesignations of origin, protected geographical indicationsand traditional specialities guaranteed and with regardto certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rulesand certain additional transitional rules,

(b) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2014supplementing the EU Regulation with regard toconditions of use of the quality term “mountainproduct”, and

(c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014laying down rules for the application of the EURegulation.

(4) The references in subsection (1) to the EU Regulation andthe delegated and implementing Regulations are to thoseinstruments—

(a) as they have effect in domestic law by virtue of theEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and

(b) as amended from time to time whether by virtue ofthat Act or otherwise.”—(Deidre Brock.)


Deidre Brock: I beg to move, That the clause be read aSecond time.

The new clause is about protected geographical indictors.They are a vital part of the business plan of many ofScotland’s top food producers and many food producersin other nations. They are a guarantee of quality and ofthe care and skill that goes into their production.

I am sorry to say that I remain to be convinced that aUK system would be any kind of replacement or matchfor the EU system, but the UK Government still intendto create their own new system instead of sticking withthe EU system, as I understand they could have done. Ittherefore seems sensible to me to make sure that thenew scheme properly serves producers who have the fullprotection under the current scheme, and any newproducers wishing to get geared up for it.

To protect Scottish producers, it seems sensible toensure that there is input from the Scottish Governmentto the new scheme. The new clause would simply ensurethat the views of Scottish Ministers are properly consideredin the exercise of functions under the scheme. It reflectsand respects the devolution settlement and is measured.

Victoria Prentis: I see the good intentions behind thenew clause, and I understand the desire to ensure thatMinisters’ decisions on geographical indicators are madein the best interests of all stakeholders across the nations.However, that is not quite what the new clause woulddo. It would give Scottish Ministers a veto over Governmentdecisions, even when there was no Scottish interest inthose decisions. GIs are a form of intellectual propertylaw and are therefore a reserved matter, so it would notbe appropriate to go down the path proposed in the newclause.

Nevertheless, even though GIs are reserved, theGovernment recognise that the devolved Administrationshave always played an important role in these schemes—Scottish salmon, for example, is an important export—andI am keen for that to continue. I assure the hon. Memberfor Edinburgh North and Leith that my officials haveworked closely with colleagues from the devolvedAdministrations to agree a working-level arrangementto underpin very close co-operation in the new domesticschemes. That was agreed and signed by senior officialsin the devolved Administrations, including the ScottishGovernment, on 4 October last year. The arrangementensures that the devolved Administrations will be includedin the assessment of GI applications and will have a sayin the development of scheme rules. I believe that thisarrangement does what the hon. Lady seeks with hernew clause.

Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): I rise tosay on behalf of the shadow European affairs team—inthe spirit of transitioning from one state of affairs toanother—that Labour Front-Benchers have a lot ofsympathy with what the hon. Member for EdinburghNorth and Leith and the SNP are trying to do. Ofcourse, we want to protect GIs and people’s ability totrade using them, which is a strength. We particularly


[Thangam Debbonaire]

want to make sure that, given that—I have to reiteratethis—the prediction that moving to World TradeOrganisation trading rules will be the worst-case scenario,we do everything we can to protect our specialist foodproducers. However, the Labour party cannot supportthe new clause as worded because of subsection (2), whichwould give Scottish Ministers a veto. I will not go overold ground, but it is consistent with Labour policy thatwe could not support it because of that part, but wesupport the spirit of what the hon. Lady is trying toachieve.

I urge the Minister to work with all parties andproducers across the whole United Kingdom so that wecan protect our GI products. They are dear to us and toour sense of who we are, and as we leave the EuropeanUnion, they may matter even more. There are Membersacross the Committee who feel very strongly about GIsin their own constituencies.

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): Work isongoing on this exact issue. I encourage Labour Membersto join the all-party parliamentary group on geographicallyprotected foods, at which we will discuss this, so that wecan hold the Minister to account.

Thangam Debbonaire: What a wonderful invitation. Iwas mentally running through Government Committeemembers and trying to think of a geographical indicatorin the constituency of each one, and I think I did prettywell, actually. Probably all of us have a product in ourconstituencies whose GI status we want to protect, sothe hon. Lady’s offer is useful.

In that spirit, as I said, we support the sentiment behindthe new clause. We cannot support subsection (2), butin every other way we support making this law, becausewe need to do everything we can to protect our GIs. Iam sorry if that disappoints the hon. Member forEdinburgh North and Leith, but that is where we are atthe moment.

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

Leaving that aside for the moment, I stress howincredibly important protected geographical indicatorsare in Scotland and to those producers and areas fortunateenough to have been awarded membership of the scheme.There are many questions outstanding about thereplacement scheme. There are fears that it will be in noway strong enough to stand up to the US tendency toprefer a trademark system, which is a lot weaker thanthe European PGI scheme. Previously, a producer whocame across a good that made use of their brandinappropriately had the whole of the EU standingbehind them when they took action against the offender.We are not entirely sure what we will have instead.

This is something I feel very strongly about. I havedone quite a lot of work on PGIs. We have taken a lot ofevidence about them in the Scottish Affairs Committee,and I know how important they are, particularly particularto some of the further flung areas of Scotland. I hate to

use the word fragile when talking about rural areasbecause I know how it sometimes offends people wholive up there, but there is no doubt that PGI status iscrucial to maintaining people’s ability to stay in some ofthose areas, to work there and to keep the countrysidealive with people. I will press the new clause to a vote.



Division No. 31]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 7

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS: AGRICULTURAL

AND FOOD PRODUCTS

“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of aninternational trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1)of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unlessthe agreement—




‘international trade agreement’ means—


(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade, part ofAnnex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modifiedfrom time to time), or

(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the GeneralAgreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1Bto the WTO Agreement (as modified fromtime to time), or

(b) an international agreement that mainly relates totrade, other than an agreement mentioned insub-paragraph (i) or (ii);

‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in theMinisters of the Crown Act 1975;

‘relevant standards’means standards relating to environmentalprotection, plant health and animal welfare applyingin connection with the production of agricultural andfood products;

‘SPS Agreement’ means the agreement on the Applicationof Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part ofAnnex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified fromtime to time);

‘WTO Agreement’ means the agreement establishing theWorld Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on15 April 1994.”—(Deidre Brock.)

This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect thequality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffsare held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.





Division No. 32]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 9

DUTY AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING AGRICULTURAL

AND HORTICULTURAL ACTIVITY

“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish aregulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticulturalactivity for or in connection with the following purposes—



(c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains,restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;


(e) the management of land or water in a way that prevents,reduces or protects from environmental hazards;




(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying onan agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, theirwild relatives or genetic resources relating to any suchplant; and

(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provisionabout the standards to which activity for or in connection withall of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.







(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or afine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations,which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);

(g) about appeals;


(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmativeresolution procedure.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)




Division No. 33]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 10

IMPORT OF FOIE GRAS

“(1) Foie gras may not be imported into the UK.

(2) ‘Foie gras’, for the purposes of this section, shall mean aproduct derived from the liver of any goose or duck whichhas been force-fed for the purpose of enlarging its liver.”—(Nadia Whittome.)

This new clause would prohibit the import of foie gras into the UK.


2.30 pm

Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab): I beg tomove, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would ban the import of foie gras inthe UK. As I am sure many here will be aware, foie grasis a product made from the livers of ducks or geese thathave been repeatedly force-fed, by having a metal tubeinserted down their throats several times a day, whenthey are just 12 weeks old. It is effectively produced byrendering the animal diseased.

While the production of this so-called delicacy hasbeen banned in Britain since 2000, the fact that importsto the UK are allowed is an effective green light to thecontinued suffering and mistreatment of these animals.Shockingly, the UK imports around 200 tonnes of foiegras each year from mainland Europe. Today we havean opportunity to put a stop to that once and for all.

Some members of this Bill Committee may recall thatthe Labour DEFRA team tabled an amendment banningfoie gras imports during the Committee stage of theAgriculture Bill in 2018. It was extremely disappointingand embarrassing that the then Government chose notto accept that reasonable and common-sense amendment.I sincerely hope that they will not choose to repeat themistake today in voting against new clause 10.

We know that the Secretary of State has spokenfavourably of a ban. He is on record saying:

“When we leave the European Union, we do indeed have anopportunity to look at restrictions on sales”.—[Official Report,13 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 1052.]

That opportunity is today, and the time is now.


Deidre Brock: I support the new clause simply becauseit is the right thing to do. I appreciated the speech by thehon. Member for Nottingham East very much, and Ihope the Minister will see her way clear to coming tosome sort of agreement on this, because many of us arevery disturbed by this trade and would like to see itstopped.

Victoria Prentis: While allowed under EU law, theGovernment have made clear that the production offoie gras from ducks or geese using force-feeding raisesserious welfare concerns, as the hon. Member forNottingham East outlined. The production of foie grasby force-feeding is banned in the UK, as it is incompatiblewith our domestic legislation. After the transition period,there will be an opportunity to consider whether theUK can adopt a different approach to foie gras importsand sales in this country. I am afraid the time is notquite now; the time is after the transition period.

I understand the strength of feeling on the issue, butthis Bill is not about making provisions prohibitingimports. I reassure hon. Members that the Governmentwill use the opportunities provided through future freetrade agreements and, of course, our wider internationalengagements to promote high animal welfare standardsamong our international trading partners. I am afraidthe time is not yet, and I ask the hon. Lady to withdrawthe amendment.

Nadia Whittome: I must say I am disappointed in theMinister’s response. What she says on animal welfare isat odds with what is in the Bill. Therefore, I will movethis new clause to a vote.



Division No. 34]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 11

WHISTLEBLOWING: STANDARDS IN ABATTOIRS

“(1) The Food Standards Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 20 insert—

‘20A Whistleblowing: standards in abattoirs

(1) The Agency shall establish a method by which a person canmake a qualified disclosure under section 43B(1) of the EmploymentRights Act 1996 (as inserted by the Public Interest DisclosureAct 1998) to the Agency.

(2) A qualified disclosure under subsection (1) may relate toany act which, in the reasonable belief of the person making thedisclosure, tends to show that an offence has been committed, isbeing committed or is likely to be committed in England, Walesor Northern Ireland under—

(a) any of paragraphs 3 to 32 of Schedule 1 (additionalrequirements for slaughterhouses) to the Welfare ofAnimals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations2015 (S.I., No. 1782),

(b) any of paragraphs 3 to 32 of Schedule 1 (additionalrequirements for slaughterhouses) to the Welfare ofAnimals at the Time of Killing (Wales) Regulations2014 (S.I., No. 951 (W. 92)),

(c) any of paragraphs 3 to 32 of Schedule 1 (additionalrequirements for slaughterhouses) to the Welfare ofAnimals at the Time of Killing Regulations (NorthernIreland) 2014 (Northern Ireland Statutory Rules 2014No. 107), or

(d) any of sections 4, 5 or 7 of the Animal WelfareAct 2006, in relation to livestock.

(3) The Agency shall take steps to promote awareness of themethod established under subsection (1).

(4) The Agency may share with an enforcement authority(within the meaning of section 15(2) of this Act) informationreceived under a qualified disclosure.

(5) “Livestock” shall, for the purposes of this section, have themeaning given in section 1(5) of the Agriculture Act 2020.’”—(Ruth Jones.)

This new clause would require the Food Standards Agency to set up andpublicise a channel for whistleblowing about conduct in abattoirs.


Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to move,That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to continue under your chairmanship,Sir David. I am pleased to speak briefly to the newclause, which is about standards, animal welfare andwhat is right. It is about who we are and what we eat,although I am mindful of my hon. Friends from Bristol,so the last part applies only to some of us.

Sir David, we know that many people in SouthendWest, Newport West and right across the United Kingdomare concerned that Britain’s departure from the EuropeanUnion could lead to laws on the quality of meat standardsbeing relaxed to the point of impotency, purely so that adeal can be struck between the Prime Minister and theUnited States Government. Many Opposition Membershave loudly made the case that we cannot sell out ortrade off our high standards and practice, and many onthe Government Benches make those points in privatetoo. This morning, the Secretary of State for InternationalTrade made a strong comment in response to my questionin the House. She said that the Government would walkaway from any US-UK deal that did not protect our highstandards. Obviously, we will watch that very closely.

I commend Unison for commissioning a recent surveythat looked at the wider issues of meat standards. It isimportant for representative bodies such as Unison totake the lead in highlighting those issues. In Labour’s 2019manifesto, we pledged to introduce a formal whistleblowingprocedure through the Food Standards Agency, to enableemployees to report bad behaviour and practice inabattoirs. The new clause would make good on thatpledge, but more importantly ensure that malpracticeand impropriety had no place in abattoirs across thecountry. The new clause is sensible, and essentiallyself-explanatory. Surely the Government will have littleissue accepting it, and I call on them to do so.

Victoria Prentis: Whistleblowing is already protectedin legislation in Great Britain through the Public InterestDisclosure Act 1998, and the Food Standards Agencyalready has robust procedures in place to process


whistleblowing in relation to animal welfare offencescommitted in abattoirs. The Act provides procedures tosupport staff and workers to raise concerns regardingpossible past, current or future wrongdoing during thecourse of their work. That includes abattoir workers whoare concerned that animal welfare offences might havebeen committed by their employer. That legislation andthe FSA procedures provide a clear framework to handlewhistleblowing and encourage disclosure—not just withinabattoirs, but across the scope of work carried out bythe FSA.

Following the 2013 review into the integrity andinsurance of food networks, the National Food CrimeUnit was established in 2015, which allows anyone toreport any suspected food crime by calling Food CrimeConfidential on a dedicated number. That crime unit isstrengthening its capabilities and will be opening a fullyfunctioning in-house criminal investigations unit byApril 2020. I am sure that the hon. Member for NewportWest will agree that this is progress, so I ask her towithdraw her proposal.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her commentsand her affirmation of what is already going on. However,if this is already in law, it could do no harm to enshrineand reaffirm it in the Bill, so we will not withdraw thenew clause; we will push it to a vote.



Division No. 35]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 12

SOW FARROWING STALLS

“Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of the Welfare of FarmedAnimals (England) Regulations 2007 shall be omitted.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause and Amendments 40 and 41 would end the use of sowfarrowing crates (subject to a delayed commencement) and addimproving the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows to thepurposes for financial assistance in Clause 1.




Division No. 36]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 13

LIVESTOCK FARMING PRACTICES: RESEARCH

“(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) conduct,

(b) commission, or

(c) assist the conduct of

research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensivelivestock farming practices in England.

(2) The Secretary of State, in assisting in the conduct ofresearch under subsection (1)(c), must—

(a) provide financial assistance, and

(b) make available the services of any person or otherresources.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct orcommission research into the impact on animal welfare of highlyintensive livestock farming practices in England.


Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move, That the clause beread a Second time.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussnew clause 14—Livestock farming practices: duty topromote research—

“The Secretary of State must promote the conduct of researchinto the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestockfarming practices in England.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote theconduct of research into the impact on animal welfare of highlyintensive livestock farming practices in England.

Daniel Zeichner: These two new clauses would requirethe Secretary of State to conduct or commission researchinto the impact on animal welfare of highly intensivelivestock farming practices in England. We know thateffective research into the impact of highly intensivefarming practices is going to be vital to contributing toa better understanding of what we can do to improveanimal welfare and what better welfare practices can bepromoted within the public goods element of the Bill,which we will of course support.

As I outlined during the debate on some previousamendments regarding the need for baseline animalwelfare standards, we think much more could be doneto improve the lives of animals on our farms, lookingparticularly at species-specific needs. We think researchhas a big role to play in that, but unless that research isproperly co-ordinated and incentivised by the Government,we will be leaving it largely up to market forces to keepthe science up to date. We believe the welfare of ourfarm animals is too important to be neglected, and wewant to see action now. I appreciate that there is aquestion whether such a provision would be covered bythe Bill’s money resolution, so we have helpfully providedtwo versions. I very much hope that the Governmentmight find it in their heart to support one of them.


2.45 pm

Victoria Prentis: The Government are committed toanimal welfare. I reassure Members that high-qualityresearch and evidence from a range of sources willalways inform our animal welfare policy. Using thepowers set out in the Bill, we are developing a scheme,as the hon. Gentleman knows, that aims to improvefarm animal welfare in England. As part of that, we areexploring one-off grants that will help farmers to improvewelfare on farms, as well as a payment by results schemethrough which farmers could receive ongoing paymentsfor delivering specific animal welfare enhancements.

New clause 13 would make it a legal requirement forthe Secretary of State to conduct, commission or assistthe conduct of research that specifically considers theimpact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestockfarming practices in England. Although the new clauseis well intentioned, it fails to recognise the unintentionalconsequences that could occur as a result. Farm animalwelfare relies primarily on good stockmanship. TheAnimal Welfare Committee frequently concludes thatgood stockmanship is more important than the systemin which animals are kept when it comes to meetingtheir welfare needs. In addition, it is difficult to be clearabout what constitutes a highly intensive farming system,because the term is not defined.

The Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs already conducts internal and external researchinto farm animal welfare, and is supported by a rangeof evidence committees, such as the Animal WelfareCommittee. Although new clause 14 does not state whatis meant by “promote” and is ambiguous on whatwould fulfil that requirement, I reassure Members thatDEFRA already promotes animal welfare research in anumber of ways. However, we do not wish to be restrictedto focusing only on intensive farming systems, howeverdefined. DEFRA publishes details of current researchand development online, as well as the final reportsfrom internal and external research projects.

I hope that I have demonstrated that the Governmentshare the public’s high regard for animal welfare, andrecognise the need for animal welfare policy developmentand implementation to be very well founded in evidence.That will ensure that we remain at the global forefrontof animal welfare policy. I therefore ask the hon. Memberfor Cambridge to withdraw the motion.

Daniel Zeichner: I anticipated the question on thedefinition of highly intensive farming when I reread thenew clause over lunchtime. I rather thought that itwould be the right hon. Member for Scarborough andWhitby who raised that query, but the Minister got inthere first. I am pleased by her response. On that basis, Ibeg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.


New Clause 15

GROUSE SHOOTING AND MANAGEMENT: REVIEW AND

CONSULTATION


(a) commission an independent review of the economic,environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouseshooting, and

(b) consult on regulation of grouse moor management.

(2) The Secretary of State must make available the services ofany person or other resources to assist in the conduct of a reviewunder subsection (1)(a).

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a summary ofresponses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b).

(4) The Secretary of State must, no later than three monthsfrom the day on which—

(a) the review commissioned under subsection (1)(a) isreceived, or

(b) the consultation under subsection (2) closes,

whichever is the sooner, publish a statement of future policy ongrouse shooting and grouse moor management.”—(Ruth Jones.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission areview of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of drivengrouse shooting and publish proposals for regulation.


Ruth Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read aSecond time.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussnew clause 16—Grouse shooting and management: reviewand consultation (No. 2)—


(a) undertake a review of the economic, environmentaland wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting, and

(b) consult on regulation of grouse moor management.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish a summary ofresponses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b).

(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than three monthsfrom the day on which the consultation under subsection (2)closes, publish a statement of future policy on grouse shootingand grouse moor management.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct areview of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of drivengrouse shooting and publish proposals for regulation.

Ruth Jones: I am pleased to speak to new clauses 15and 16. We know that our planet and climate areexperiencing huge change, and the effects of the climateemergency are becoming an increasing feature of theworld in which we live, affecting not just humans, butour natural world and our wildlife. The new clauses callon the Government to think about biodiversity, theuplands, the fragile and insecure rural economy, and themany people who live and make their way of life in ourgreen and open spaces. The new clauses are also aboutthe welfare of our wildlife. My hon. Friend the Memberfor Bristol East has campaigned on such issues overmany years, and I pay tribute to her tenacity andcommitment to animal welfare and our environment.

The weight of the scientific evidence before us is suchthat we can see that driven grouse shooting damageshabitats, pollutes our water, increases greenhouse gasemissions, and involves the illegal persecution of birdsof prey. The practice also increases the risk of floods,which damage properties and green spaces and lead todevastating deaths of people and animals alike. Rightnow, flooding is an issue of real concern for manypeople up and down the country. Those of us who werepresent for yesterday’s Opposition day debate on floodingheard powerful stories illustrating the need for upstreamland management to prevent downstream flooding. Asshadow flooding Minister, I was delighted that theOpposition motion received support from both sides ofthe House, including the Government Benches. By votingwith us, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (AndrewPercy) showed that, sometimes, politics does not needto win but common sense can.


The new clause addresses the effects of a practice thatcuts across many different and important issues, andthe Minister can surely support it. It would allow us tolook at specific areas such our soil, drainage and hydrology,conservation, wildlife crime, and the wider concernabout sustainability. As legislation such as this Billpasses through the House, we have the chance to addressthe many issues that have fallen off the to-do list. Let ustake the opportunity new clauses 15 and 16 offer tocommission a review so that we can methodically, clearlyand carefully work our way through those importantissues. The future of our planet and our natural world isin our hands, so let us get on and save it.

Mr Goodwill: My North Yorkshire constituency includesabout two thirds of the North York Moors nationalpark and vast areas of heather moorland, which is aglory to behold in late summer when the heather is inflower. Indeed, many people flock to the area to see thenatural beauty of the landscape and to enjoy all theactivities that take place there.

A grouse moor is a fragile environment. Historically,much of the area was forest. It was only when the treeswere cut down for domestic fuel or to turn into charcoalto smelt with the limestone that was mined in the areathat the forest disappeared. If we do not look after theheather in the right way, we will not keep it for verylong. It needs managing not only for grouse, whichcannot be reared artificially—it is an indigenous speciesin this country and needs to be reared in the wild—butfor other species, particularly ground-nesting birds suchas golden plover and lapwing, which rely on that fragileenvironment.

I join hon. Members who condemn the illegal persecutionof raptors, but it is the case that by managing themoorland, the small mammals, birds’ eggs and otherprey that the raptors feed on are facilitated. When weconsider how to maintain those areas, it is important tolisten to the experts. In an article, the North YorkMoors national park ranger David Smith said:

“Controlled burning is used to manage the heather better.After 15 to 20 years the heather gets old and leggy and you needdifferent age structures for the wildlife that lives on the moor.

Grouse shelter underneath the older heather and the fresh newheather is more palatable for both sheep and grouse. What peopledon’t realise is that the North York Moors is a managed moorland.If you don’t stay on top of it, it would turn back to woodland,with birch and rowan trees quickly re-establishing themselves.”

The article continues:

“Cutting the heather, the alternative to burning, does work,but on very stony ground or uneven ground…it’s impractical”.

David Smith says:

“If you only cut the heather, you leave smaller vegetation closeto the ground, it doesn’t destroy everything which is needed togive the new growth a fresh start.

Controlled burns flash across the top of the moor. They don’tdestroy the seed bank. If you cut the heather, brash is left behindand smothers what’s underneath. It stops it from regeneratingand slows down regrowth.”

The article concludes:

“Another reason for controlling the heather is to allow thesheep to move about more easily”

and to provide tender young growth for the sheep,particularly the young lambs, to graze.

We have obligations regarding CO2 and we need toprotect our peat areas, but the deposition of new peatis glacial in pace. If we want to use those areas as a

carbon sink, we should follow the advice of GeorgeMonbiot and plant more trees. Perhaps we should plantmore trees, but not at the expense of our traditionalmoorland. We should also make a distinction betweenblanket bog, such as the bog on Saddleworth moor,which tends to occur in the west of the country, and thedry heathland found in other parts of the country,particularly in the east. We saw on the news the apocalypticscenes on Saddleworth moor when it was on fire inFebruary 2019. During the recent fires in Australia,much criticism was made of the absence of what theycalled back burning. I maintain that the controlledburning of small areas of the moorland, at a time ofyear when those fires are unlikely to get out of control,means that we have natural fire breaks. I suggest thatthe new clause is not needed.

I suggest that there are those in this country whooppose grouse shooting for reasons that are not particularlyenvironmental, but are to do with animal welfare orwith the people who go shooting, whom they may notlike. We should not use a false environmental argumentto stop the traditional management of the moorland.My wife’s grandfather managed a moor at Troutsdaleuntil he retired. That moor is not a moorland now;there are no grouse, there are no lapwings; it is brashand trees are growing rapidly. If it is not kept on top ofand managed, that type of habitat, which is unique inEurope, is not preserved. We need to protect it.

Victoria Prentis: It is a genuine pleasure and honourto be surrounded by so many knowledgeable and committedenvironmentalists. The Government consider that shootingactivities can bring many benefits to the rural economy,and in many cases are beneficial for wildlife and habitatconservation. We recognise that it is vital that wildlifeand habitats are respected and protected. We will continueto work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficialrelationship between shooting and conservation. Thereis no need for a commitment to review driven grouseshooting, as defined in the new clause, because we arealready considering these issues. If there were to be areview, it might be more efficient and effective to considerother forms of grouse shooting and wider moorlandmanagement where there are no grouse, alongside drivengrouse shooting.

The Government are already addressing rotationalburning associated with grouse moor management onprotected blanket bog. We have always been clear of theneed to end burning on protected blanket bog to conservevulnerable habitats, and we are actively looking at howlegislation could achieve that. Our intention has alwaysbeen to legislate if a voluntary approach fails to deliver.Real progress is being made in promoting sustainablealternatives, including consent for cutting of vegetationas an alternative to rotational burning, and removing ormodifying consents to burn as higher level stewardshipagreements are renewed. We have urged landowners toadopt those measures and continue to work with themconstructively.

The recently released Werritty review addresses thoseissues in Scotland. The group’s report recognised thesocioeconomic contribution that grouse shooting makesto Scotland’s rural economy, but made a number ofrecommendations that are currently being consideredby the Scottish Government. We will watch closely tosee how they respond. We do not rule out the possibilityof a wider review into grouse moor management in


[Victoria Prentis]

the future, but I would not want to restrict that just todriven grouse management. Once Scotland has announcedits plans, we will consider the benefits or otherwise ofregulatory alignment between the two jurisdictions. Itherefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clauses.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister and the right hon.Member for Scarborough and Whitby for their comments.I bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in thisarea; I accept his comments and I am pleased that heagrees with us at least in part.

The burning of heather is an emotive issue, and thereare many different expert opinions on it. It is certainthat careful land management is crucial to ensure thatwe achieve our environmental standards. That is why wetabled our new clauses. We all agree that tree planting isessential; the Government are already missing their owntargets by at least 70%, so we must keep pushing.

I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s commentsthat this is a false animal welfare issue—it is not. It is avery real issue, which is why we have tabled the newclauses, following advice from outside organisations. Iam pleased that the Minister is considering driven grouseshooting legislation, but let us start now and put it inthe Bill.

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


Division No. 37]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Courts, Robert

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 17

REPORT ON AGRICULTURAL PAYMENTS TO THE SCOTTISH

MINISTERS

“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than one month beforeIP completion day, lay before Parliament a statement of his or herpolicy on whether sums will be made available to Scottish Ministerseach year after IP completion day which are at least equivalent tothe sums made available to Scottish Ministers in the year prior toIP completion day for the purpose of expenditure under—

(a) the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, and

(b) the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Developmentas established under Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 17 December 2013 on the financing,management and monitoring of the common agriculturalpolicy.

(2) “IP completion day” shall have the meaning given insection 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement)Act 2020.”—(Deidre Brock.)


3 pm

Deidre Brock: I beg to move, That the clause be read aSecond time.

Briefly, what new clause 17 boils down to is ensuringthat Scottish farmers can plan ahead. It would ensurethat the resources that will be made available to supportScottish farmers are known about in advance of theimplementation period completion day. To be honest, Iam not sure that a month is long enough notice, but itwould at least be notice.

I am sure that the Minister could give that commitmenttoday, but I think we would all agree that it wouldbe much better written into the Bill. The Ministercan think of the new clause as a sort of love letter toScottish farmers, Parliament can think of things beingdone in the right way, and I would just be glad to have itconfirmed.

Farmers, just like any other business, do best whenthey have some clarity on their long-term planning—wehave heard the Secretary of State say that on severaloccasions. Providing that certainty and clarity—thathonesty and transparency—is the work of the Governmentin this instance, and that is what new clause 17 asks for.Scottish farmers need that certainty and therefore theScottish Government need certainty on funding. I wouldprefer farmers, crofters and Ministers to be told earlierwhether funds will be made available that are at leastequivalent to the cash that has been available to farmersand crofters up to now, but I look forward to theMinister telling us that the Government agree thatfarmers and crofters need that certainty and that theyaccept the new clause.

Thangam Debbonaire: We on the Labour Front Benchwould say that the new clause makes a reasonablerequest. There are lots of ways in which we could try todeal with the problem of divergence and the tensionbetween devolved and reserved matters and protectingregional interests, which we wish to do. There are variousalternatives that the Minister could commit to. Havingsomething from her on the record today, in Hansard,will be helpful.

Regardless of whether the new clause is agreed to, Iam sure that all of us on the Opposition Benches willhold the Minister to her word; she is a woman of herword. If she makes a commitment on the record thatthere will be some form of report, we will put it in ourdiaries to follow that up. If the new clause falls, but shehas made that commitment, we will be coming back tothis point a month before the implementation period isover, at the beginning of December. I hope that, in thatspirit, the Minister will consider making the commitmentand therefore, when the time comes, the relevant statementcan take place. It is completely reasonable that farmersacross the whole of the regions and nations—not justScotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom—canhave that continuity and some certainty at least.

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

Victoria Prentis: In my experience, farmers wouldmuch prefer a cheque to a love letter. Maybe I have metthe wrong ones. In that spirit, the only commitment I


am going to make is the important one, which is acommitment to guarantee the current annual budget inevery year of this Parliament, giving real certainty overfunding for the coming years. That is worth a great dealmore to farmers than a new clause that would merelyrequire the Secretary of State to make a statement onagricultural funding for Scotland.

I reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh Northand Leith that in recognition of the perceived injusticefelt by Scottish farmers over convergence funding, theScottish Government will receive an extra £160 millionover two years in 2019-20 and 2020-21. All Memberswill know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is ultimatelyresponsible for financial matters across UK Government.Treasury colleagues lead on discussions on all fundingmatters with Finance Ministers in the devolvedAdministrations. DEFRA will continue to work closelywith the Treasury and the devolved Administrations onfunding arrangements, but the Government have committedto year-on-year funding, and I am afraid that is the bestI can do.

Deidre Brock: I cannot say that I am not disappointedby the Minister’s response. Yes, the convergence fundingwas welcome, but that was after many years of tusslingover it, as Members will be aware. In our view, thatmoney was returned to us after it was wrongfully takenaway by the UK Government. We are delighted we haveit now, as are the many farmers and crofters who willbenefit from it, after it not being with them for someyears.

I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity over this, but Iwant to hear that the funds made available will be atleast equivalent to the cash. That includes such thingsas inflation, and I do not feel that her words aresufficient to provide that surety. Forgive me, Sir David,but—this is a commonly held view in this place—I donot have a great deal of faith in the Treasury and what itwill decide in the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol West for herkind words of support, because this important principleapplies not solely to Scotland, but to all the devolvedAdministrations. She is right about that. That surety isvital for all our farmers and crofters, and even beingable to put that into words in Committee would havebeen a helpful start. With that in mind, I will press thenew clause to a vote.



Division No. 38]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 19

REPORT ON IMPACT OF ACT UPON AGRICULTURAL

WORKERS

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within 18 months of RoyalAssent being given to this Act, lay before Parliament a reportcontaining an assessment of the impact of the provisions of thisAct on agricultural workers in England.

(2) The report under subsection (1) shall include assessmentsof the impact of the Act upon each of the factors listed insubsection (3).

(3) The factors are agricultural workers’—

(a) living standards,

(b) pay,

(c) conditions of employment, and

(d) accommodation.

(4) The report under subsection (1) shall include an analysis ofthe impact on each factor under subsection (3)—

(a) in each region of England, and

(b) in each agricultural sector, within the meaning given inSchedule 1.

(5) The Secretary of State shall, no later than three monthsafter the report under subsection (1) has been laid, open a publicconsultation on—

(a) the report laid under subsection (1) and any conclusionswhich it might draw or proposals which it mightcontain, and

(b) the merits of establishing a sector negotiating body tobe responsible for setting on an annual basisminimum—

(i) living standards,

(ii) pay,

(iii) conditions of employment, and

(iv) standards and terms of accommodation foragricultural workers.

(6) ‘Agricultural worker’ shall, for the purposes of this section,be taken to mean any person engaged in—

(a) agriculture, as defined in section 109 of the AgricultureAct 1947, or

(b) forestry.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on theimpact of the Act on agricultural workers in England, and to consult onthe findings of that report and the merits of establishing a sectornegotiating body.



I preface my comments by declaring that I am amember of Unite, the trade union that represents manyagricultural and rural workers. Given that the Bill is onagriculture, and we have been speaking about it formany hours, it is disappointing that we have got so farwithout talking about the people who work in theindustry. In 2017, 474,000 people were working inagriculture across the UK, so the Bill will affect almosthalf a million people. It is disappointing that we havehad so little mention of workers so far, and no considerationof the current challenging conditions that many ofthem face, or of what impact the new provisions mayhave on employment conditions—let alone how we willensure that we have the workforce to keep our farmsrunning.

Our discussion so far has been in marked contrast tothe excellent report last year by the Food Farming andCountryside Commission of the Royal Society for the


[Daniel Zeichner]

encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.That report is elegantly and beautifully produced, andmany of the top-line quotes are about the impact onrural workers.

Many of those working in the sector face particularlychallenging mental health issues. I suspect that theGovernment will say that the Bill is about agriculture,but in my view it must also be about the people whowork and live in our countryside. We need an impactassessment for the Bill’s provisions to help to ensurethat new policies affecting workers will result in makingworking in farming an attractive prospect for workersof all skill levels, from here and from overseas.

That is vital economically, because currently just 0.6%of those who harvest the UK’s crops are British. Owingto the toxic atmosphere and uncertainty around Brexit,our farmers are already seeing a significant shortage ofworkers from overseas. Last autumn, we saw fruit cropsrotting in fields due to farmers not having enoughpeople to pick them. We know that the Government’sseasonal workers pilot, limiting farmers to hiring up to10,000 workers this year, will not provide the labourneeded, even if it is increased a little.

Our farms require around 80,000 seasonal agriculturalworkers every year. According to the Office for NationalStatistics, 99% of those workers come from countrieswithin the EU. The Government have spent a long timeworking out the detail of an Agriculture Bill that maybecome rather academic if we do not have the labour towork on our farms. We need to look seriously atemployment rights and conditions, because the agriculturalsector presents some particular challenges for workers.Many jobs in farming are physically hard, seasonal, lowpaid and precarious, with too few of the employmentbenefits that people working in other sectors take forgranted.

The national minimum wage simply does not coverthe specific and unique conditions associated with land-based workers, who are often in isolated rural situations,face significant mental health challenges, and need specificissues covered such as accommodation, living standards,sick pay, and even extra tools. Agricultural workers arealso among the most vulnerable to being paid below theminimum wage, as so many workers are from abroad. Iftheir English skills are not particularly strong or theyare unfamiliar with the law, they are unlikely to bringclaims against employers about underpayment. Yet inEngland, agricultural workers now lack any efficientand effective collective sector bargaining body to improvethose conditions.

The agricultural wages board that the LabourGovernment introduced in 1948 was scrapped by thecoalition Government in 2013. I remember those campaignsvery well. I was often there on the marches, and thewarnings that the trade unions and others made aboutthe consequences have been largely borne out. That actof coalition vandalism—the Liberal Democrats wereentirely complicit; my recollection is that the measureswere actually driven through by a Liberal DemocratMinister—broke a career structure with six clear paygrades linked to skills, qualifications and experience,and ended a history of pay and protections with statutoryunderpinning.

Those protections covered the many thousands ofworkers on which the industry has depended. Indeed,DEFRA’s 2012 impact assessment of the abolition ofthe AWB identified that workers would lose more than£140 million in wages, £97.8 million in annual leave, and£8.7 million in sick pay. Predictably enough, surveysshow that since the abolition of the wages board therehas been a reduction in pay awards and increasedworking hours. Workers have seen worsening terms andconditions, including the absence of sick pay.

The fact is that England is now the only country inthe UK without an effective collective bargaining bodyfor our agricultural workers to have a voice over theirpay and working conditions. Wales has an agriculturaladvisory panel, and both Northern Ireland and Scotlandhave agricultural wages boards, although their functionsare relatively limited and focus on rates of pay. Webelieve that this cannot be right, and it is disappointingthat a Bill on our agricultural sector does not evenpropose to look into this. I am afraid it speaks volumesabout Conservative attitudes to workers in general.

3.15 pm

Had Labour won the general election in December,rural workers could have been looking forward to abetter future. Sadly, we will have to wait for that time,but I can assure hon. Members that it will come. In themeantime, new clause 19 would require the Secretary ofState to report on the impact of the Act on agriculturalworkers in England. It would require the Secretary ofState to open a public consultation on the report and itsconclusions, and to include in that consultation aconsideration of

“the merits of establishing a sector negotiating body”

for agricultural workers, which would be responsible forsetting a minimum basis for their living standards, pay,conditions of employment and terms of accommodation.

Victoria Prentis: It is a key priority of the Governmentto ensure not only a successful and effective agriculturalsector, but one in which workers are treated fairly. Inrecent years there has been enormous change to wideremployment legislation, which protects and benefitsworkers in all sectors of the economy. Given that thenational minimum wage has started and the new nationalliving wage has been introduced, we continue to believethat there is no justification to have a separate employmentregime for agricultural workers.

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, workingwith partner organisations, already investigates seriouscases of labour market exploitation across the whole ofEngland and Wales. We remain absolutely committedto monitoring the impacts of the Agriculture Bill acrossrelevant sectors, including on workers. That will beachieved through a mixture of Government and third-partyevaluation. We therefore believe that new clause 19 isunnecessary.

Daniel Zeichner: I have to say, I am very disappointedby that reply. It is complacent about what is going on inthe countryside, and it does not address the very realissues that employers will face if we are unable to attractmore people to the industry. It is to everybody’s benefitthat agriculture becomes a higher-paid, higher-skilledindustry. One of the ways we do that is by ensuring thatpeople have proper rights and the confidence to lookafter not only themselves, but their colleagues.


I am also disappointed that we have not found anyprovision in the Bill to tackle the mental health crisis inthe agricultural sector. People are working on their ownor under pressure, and it is a real issue. We could haveaddressed it through new clause 19, and I can assure theMinister that we will come back to this in the future. Iwish to push new clause 19 to a vote.



Division No. 39]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 20

MONITORING PESTICIDE USE AND ALTERNATIVES

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of RoyalAssent being given to this Act, publish proposals—

(a) to monitor the use and effects of pesticides in themanagement of livestock or land, to conduct researchinto alternative methods of pest control and to promotetheir take-up,

(b) to conduct research into alternative methods of pestcontrol and to promote their take-up, and

(c) to consult on a target to reduce the use of pesticides.

(2) The proposals shall include steps to measure—

(a) the effect of pesticides on environmental health,

(b) the effect of pesticides on human health,

(c) the frequency with which individual pesticides areapplied,

(d) the areas to which individual pesticides are applied,and

(e) the take-up of alternative methods of pest control byland use and sector.

(3) “Environmental health” in subsection (2)(a) includes thehealth of flora, fauna, land, air or any inland water body.

(4) “Human health” in subsection (2)(b) means the health offarmers, farmworkers and their families, operators, bystanders,rural residents and the general public.’—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publishproposals to monitor the impact of pesticides, to conduct research intoalternative methods of pest control, to promote their take-up, and toconsult on proposals to set a target to reduce the use of pesticides.



Picture this: it is a lovely sunny day and everyone isoutside. Kids are playing in the park, with their mumsand dads looking on. What we do not often think aboutwhen we picture these happy scenarios, because we donot look for them, are herbicides, fungicides and insecticides.They may well be blowing in on spores and from nearby

crops or, more directly, kids may be playing on grass ina park that has been treated with pesticides or weed-killingchemicals.

Quite rightly, we are now being told every day becauseof coronavirus that we need to wash our hands and nottouch our mouths, eyes or nose. In more usual times, weare perhaps a bit more slack about possible transferenceof dangerous substances into our bodies—and thesesubstances can be dangerous. A selection of the labelson pesticide products used in the UK contains warningssuch as “Very toxic by inhalation”, “Do not breathespray/fumes/vapour”, “Risk of serious damage to eyes”,“Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects throughinhalation”, “May cause cancer by inhalation”, andeven “May be fatal if inhaled.” Cornell University’swork on pesticides points to the risk of deformities,mutations, cancer and poisoning of the nervous system.These are dangerous chemicals, and we need to keep aclose eye on their impact.

Children and pregnant mothers are more exposed tothe potential impact of pesticides than most of us,because they have a higher exposure rate. Childrenabsorb pesticides more easily through their skin: notonly is a child’s skin more permeable than an adult’s,but their skin surface area is higher relative to theirbody weight. That makes it easier for them to absorbhigher rates of pesticides; in fact, infants will absorbaround three times more pesticides than adults fromsimilar exposure episodes. Children take in more air,water and food than adults relative to their body weight,which also increases their exposure. As an example, thebreathing rate of a child in its first 12 years is roughlydouble that of an adult, and as a result the amount ofairborne contaminants reaching the surface of the lungcan be much higher.

Not only is exposure likely to be higher, but thatchild’s ability to cope with pesticide poisoning willdiffer from that of an adult. The systems in our bodiesused to deal with toxins are less well developed inchildren, which can make them less able to cope withsuch substances than adults. As they grow, children’sbrains and bodies undergo complex changes that affecttissue growth and organ development. Incidents of exposurethat would be tolerated by adults can cause irreversibledamage to unborn babies, infants and adolescents. Whatis worrying about this Bill is that not only does itcompletely omit any requirement for the protection ofhuman health and the environment from pesticides, butit does not make a single recommendation for simplymonitoring pesticides or their effects.

Mr Goodwill: One of the ways in which farmers canreduce their reliance on pesticides is by using newvarieties derived though gene editing. Potatoes can beengineered to be resistant to blight, for example. DoLabour Front Benchers support that innovative technologythat will reduce our reliance on pesticides?

Daniel Zeichner: Aha! As ever, I am grateful to theright hon. Gentleman. He has touched on a subject thatis of some interest to me, as I chair the all-partyparliamentary group for life sciences. I look forward tohaving a detailed conversation with him about CRISPR-Cas9 and other exciting techniques.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, weare absolutely interested in looking at ways in which wecan reduce pesticide use. As I indicated earlier, I am well


[Daniel Zeichner]

aware that farmers do not use pesticides without duecaution, or without bearing in mind the current safetyregulations and the costs involved. Having said that, webelieve there should be additional measures in this Bill.We fully accept that pesticides are needed in somesituations, but other new technologies might be available,including drones and satellite images that have thepotential to make the application of these chemicalsmuch more targeted and less damaging. I am told thatthose techniques are already being used in other countries,but if we are not monitoring pesticides and their impact,there is no way that we will be able to encourage orassist farmers to adopt more selective and less damagingtechniques.

All Members present have been repeatedly promisedby Ministers that when we left Europe, we would bringin stronger human and environmental protections, or atleast equivalence. The Labour party believes that that isan absolute minimum, we should monitor what impactpesticides are having; where that impact is concentrated;and whether children, mothers and babies have beenaffected, especially in rural communities where exposureis likely to be higher. This amendment does not bananything. It does not stop any farmer who needs to usesafe pesticides on their crops, or to use them to increasetheir yields, from doing so. It simply states that we arenot averting our gaze, but keeping our eyes open to theknown risks; that we look to reduce those risks; andthat we will particularly protect women and children inrural communities. On that basis, I ask that the clausebe read a Second time.

Victoria Prentis: I assure the hon. Gentleman thatour eyes are very open when it comes to ensuring thatthe use of pesticides is minimised, and that pesticideusage and its effects are carefully monitored. Currentpolicies address these points already. Strict regulationonly allows pesticide use when scientific risk assessmentspredict that there will be no harm to people and nounacceptable effects on the environment. Existingmonitoring schemes cover each of the points proposedin the amendment. They report on the level of usage ofeach pesticide and on residue levels in food. They alsocollect and consider reports about possible harm topeople or the environment.

The Government support good work to research,develop and promote means to move away from pesticides,which I am sure is our collective aim. These include:plant breeding for pest-resistant varieties; the use ofnatural predators; the development of biopesticides;and the use of a variety of cultural methods to reducepest pressures.

The Government intend to continue to develop andrefine our approach to pesticides. The 25-year environmentplan is where the hon. Gentleman will find most ofthese details. The plan emphasises the importance ofintegrated pest management. That means not only thatpesticides are used well, but that the approach to farmingminimises the need for pesticides and that alternativemethods are used wherever possible. Where these practicesare shown to help to deliver public goods, they may wellbe funded under the new environmental land managementschemes. We will determine in more detail whichELMS will pay for what as we develop the schemes inthe future.

The approach set out in the 25-year environmentplan is the right one and we hope that it will minimisepesticide use, help to reduce risks and strongly encouragethe uptake of alternatives to pesticides. Alongside themaintenance and development of effective monitoring,this approach will deliver the main outcomes sought bythe hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I listened closely to the Minister andthere was much that I probably agree with. However, Iwould have predicted that we would return to the vexedquestion of which piece of legislation this proposalwould sit in, and we believe that it would be inappropriateto have a piece of major agricultural legislation withoutreference to it. On that basis, I will push the new clauseto a vote.



Division No. 40]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 21

LICENCES TO CULL BADGERS FOR CONTROL OF

TUBERCULOSIS: REPEAL

‘(1) No licence may be granted to kill or take badgers, or tointerfere with a badger sett, for the purpose of preventing thespread of bovine tuberculosis.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(g) of section 10 of the Protection ofBadgers Act 1992 is accordingly amended by omitting “disease”and substituting “any disease other than bovine tuberculosis.”’—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would end the provision under which a licence can begranted to kill badgers for the purpose of preventing the spread ofbovine tuberculosis.



Thank you, Sir David—[Interruption.] There is someconfusion on this side; I apologise. I blame the latepublication of the 109-page document.

Victoria Prentis: In fact, why don’t the Governmentjust stop? [Laughter.]

Daniel Zeichner: Why does it take the Government solong—since 2018—to respond, and why do they finallyrespond on the day that we discuss this issue in Committee?We probably all know the politics behind these things,but it is disappointing when it involves such an important


subject, discussion of which has been so eagerly awaitedby so many people, because it is a highly controversialsubject. The science involved is complicated.

In the spirit of sharing the responsibilities across theshadow team, I will pass over to my hon. Friend theMember for Nottingham East in a moment—I hopethat she will be called to speak. However, the LabourFront Bench welcomes the Government’s belated response.We also find some things in the response helpful, andwe think the Government are changing direction, butnot quickly enough. We will make a more consideredand detailed response when we have had time to considerit in detail, but our belief is that far too many badgershave been unnecessarily killed. The science is not clearand there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is asmuch transmission from cattle to cattle. It is not asimple issue. We fully recognise the huge damage, economiccost and distress that bovine TB causes in many areas.As I say, we welcome the direction of travel, but webelieve that it should be much swifter.

3.30 pm

Nadia Whittome: The Government’s much-delayedresponse to the Godfray report, published this morning,finally concedes to implement more effective methodsof containing bovine TB, such as cattle and badgervaccinations. Of course, scientists, activists and politicianshave been saying that for years. Can the Minister explainwhy it has taken the culling of an estimated 130,000 badgersfor the Government to come to the same conclusionthat most of us came to years ago? Will she provide anestimate of the number of badgers that will be killedbefore the switch to vaccinations and other non-lethalpreventive measures?

The Government’s U-turn on the badger cull is welcome.I would like to think that it is because the PrimeMinister knew that my hon. Friend the Member forCambridge and I were going to speak to the issue, but Isuspect there is someone else he listens to more. It issimply inexcusable, however, that further inhumane killingof this iconic species will continue for several years,especially as the Government have conceded that thatis not the most effective strategy for containing bovine TB.

The former Government adviser Professor RanaldMunro recently said that a large number of badgers arelikely to have suffered “immense pain” during culls. It isevident that the correct thing for the Government to dowould be to bring forward the ban and start implementingnon-lethal alternatives without delay.

Mr Goodwill: Is the hon. Lady not aware that we donot yet have a vaccine that allows us to identify thedifference between a vaccinated animal and an infectedanimal? Until we have that type of vaccine, it will not bepossible to make the switch.

Nadia Whittome: I thank the right hon. Gentlemanfor that intervention, but the state of the science doesnot prevent the new clause from being made. Newclause 21 provides the Government with an opportunity,on the day that they released their long-awaited responseto the Godfray review, to urgently put an end to theinhumane and ineffective badger cull, rather than allowingit to continue for another five years.

Victoria Prentis: Bovine TB is one of our most difficultanimal health challenges. It costs the Government about£100 million a year and industry around £50 million a

year. Tackling it is important. It imposes a tremendouspressure on the wellbeing of our cattle farmers and theirfamilies. Many Committee members, including me, representconstituencies that are exposed to the misery of bovineTB on a daily basis. Left unchecked, bovine TB also posesa threat to public health although that is, to a large extent,mitigated today by milk pasteurisation. My grandfatherdied of tuberculosis, so I have always taken a close personalinterest in the subject. It is a peculiar and complicateddisease that it is important for us to take seriously.

No single measure will achieve eradication by ourtarget date of 2038, which is why we are committed topursuing a wide range of interventions, including cullingand vaccination, to deal with the risk from wildlife. Ofcourse culling is a controversial policy, but we havescientific evidence to show that, to a certain extent, it isworking. The new review is clear that the evidenceindicates that the presence of infected badgers poses athreat to local cattle herds. The review considers thatmoving from lethal to non-lethal control of disease inbadgers is desirable. Of course, we would all go alongwith that. We have reached a point where intensiveculling will soon have been enabled in most of the areaswhere it has served the greatest impact. As announcedin the Government response today, we will be able todevelop measures to make badger vaccination, combinedwith biosecurity, the focus of addressing risks fromwildlife as an exit strategy from intensive culling. Ouraim is to allow future badger culls only where theepidemiological evidence points to a reservoir of diseasein badgers.

Nobody wants to cull badgers inappropriately, butnor can we allow our farmers, their families and ourwider dairy and beef industries to continue to suffer themisery and costs caused by the disease. That is why it isright that we take strong and decisive action to tacklethe problem effectively, while always looking to evolvetowards non-lethal options in future. I therefore do notthink the new clause is appropriate.

Daniel Zeichner: I listened closely to the Minister’scomments. I suspect we will come back to this issue. Wehave been discussing it for the past 10 or 20 years. I fullyappreciate what a serious issue it is and how it directlyaffects both her family and many others. However, atthe general election we stood on a clear pledge to end thebadger cull. We stand by that and the new clause wouldput it into law. The direction of travel of the Godfrayreport today reflects that the Government, on the basisof scientific evidence, are beginning to move in thatdirection. I suspect it is still partly about costs, becauseculling is more expensive. The vaccination question thatthe right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitbymentioned is important, but it is important that wefollow the science as it develops. We want to eradicate anddefend and protect. The issue is of considerable publicinterest, so I will press the new clause to a Division.



Division No. 41]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel


NOES

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


New Clause 25

CONSULTATION ON ADMINISTRATION

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within one calendar month ofthis Act being given Royal Assent, open a consultation on whatbody should administer—

(a) any payment of financial assistance under section 1,

(b) any check, enforcement, monitoring or investigation inconnection with the giving of financial assistance,under subsection (1) of section 3,

(c) any payment under the basic payment scheme, withinthe meaning of section 7,

(d) any delinked payment within the meaning of section 12,

(e) any other form of financial assistance which may begiven under this Act, and

(f) any environmental land management scheme establishedin connection with the provisions of this Act.

(2) The consultation shall seek views on whether an existingbody should administer the functions under subsection (1) orwhether a new body should be created for that purpose.

(3) The Secretary of State must, in any consultation undersubsection (1), consult with persons or bodies representingpersons who he or she considers are affected by the functions ofthe proposed administrative body, or who—

(a) are engaged in production of any product fallingwithin an agricultural sector under Schedule 1, or

(b) manage land for a purpose other than production ofany product falling within an agricultural sectorunder Schedule 1.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses ofParliament—

(a) in summary form, the views expressed in theconsultation held under subsection (1), and

(b) a statement of how the Secretary of State intends toproceed, with his or her reasons for doing so.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to hold aconsultation on whether an existing agency (such as the RuralPayments Agency) or a new body should administer payments andother functions delivered under the Bill’s provisions.—(Ruth Jones.)


Ruth Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read aSecond time.

The new clause would require the Secretary of Stateto hold a consultation on whether an existing agency,such as the Rural Payments Agency, or a new bodyshould administer payments and other functions deliveredunder the Bill. This is an important juncture in ourconsideration of the Bill. This will probably be, in thewords of our former colleague David Drew, “the mostpopular part”, as we are giving the opportunity to thosewho wish to be consulted to get rid of the RuralPayments Agency. But, as is always the case, things donot have to be that way. The Government could ensurethat we have a strengthened and effective paymentsagency, but that agency will likely have to be a new bodywith a strong and effective mandate to do its work. Wecannot rely on an existing agency that has a reputationfor wrong payments, late payments and no paymentsat all.

The new clause is not meant to be confusing; it is veryclearly about charting a realistic way forward that hasthe support of those who will be seeking support andfunding from Her Majesty’s Government in the yearsahead. We would welcome it if the Minister stood upand announced a strong and empowered agency, but ifshe cannot do that today, we want the new clause tostand part of the Bill. We are entering uncharted waters—asthe shadow Minister with responsibility for water, Iknow all about that—and we have the chance to takestock, reflect and start anew.

Much has been made of the future and the new wayof doing things. The Government have made a greatmany promises to our farmers and agricultural workers.If we take the Bill and the Government press lines asthey stand, we are entering a new and glorious world,but I caution those on the Treasury Bench to makegood on their pledges and promises to our farmers andall those working in the agricultural sector. The demandson those people and workers are great, and the potentialto increase support is huge, so let us take it.

The new clause will ensure that things are doneproperly when it comes to the many financial provisionsin the Bill and the passing on of vital payments, that thepowers and resources are exercised effectively, and thatwe do our best for our farmers going forward. I hopethat the Minister will listen carefully and respondaccordingly.

Victoria Prentis: I hope that I have reassured hon.Members in all parts of the Committee that we willconsult extensively on the use of the various powers inthe Bill. We know that the delivery of the previous CAPscheme was not as good as we wanted it to be, or asgood as farmers deserved. Therefore, we will design newarrangements that will make it as simple as possible forpeople to apply for funding. We want to ensure thatpayments are prompt and accurate.

In the short term, the Rural Payments Agency willcontinue to administer direct payments and countrysidestewardship payments, and considerable progress hasbeen made in their delivery and achievement in recentyears. We have seen a significant increase in performanceand are putting in place further improvements to delivery.

As discussed last week, there will be a public consultationon ELM. Stakeholders will be able to provide us withfeedback across all elements of the schemes. We usesuch feedback to inform decisions on who will be bestplaced to provide the service for the ELM and otherfinancial schemes going forward. Before consulting onhow we deliver future schemes, we will want to refineour policies further. Once we have established who isbest placed to deliver the reform, we can take views onhow to roll it out. I hope that I have reassured the hon.Lady.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her commentsand for her honesty in accepting that there have beenflaws and deficiencies in the previous system. We allshare the same aim: we want payments to be madeaccurately and promptly. We look forward to the promisedimprovements at the RPA and will therefore not pressthe new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe motion.



New Clause 27

AGRICULTURE CO-ORDINATION COUNCIL

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

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

(b) Scottish Ministers, or representatives of ScottishMinisters,

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

(d) DAERA.

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

(a) in standards of food production;

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

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

(d) in marketing standards.

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


Thangam Debbonaire: I beg to move, That the clausebe read a Second time.

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

As we said on WTO compliance, it is a sad state ofaffairs that we have got to, but none the less we have.The new clause makes the modest suggestion of creatinga route to assist in resolving that tension. Establishingan agriculture co-ordination council does not undermineeither UK sovereignty or devolution, but it attempts toprovide a forum for discussing and addressing anypossible differences that might affect compliance, underminethe consistency of standards, or involve various othermatters listed in the new clause.

We are not being particularly prescriptive. We havesuggested elected Government Ministers or theirrepresentatives, so that the council is democraticallyaccountable, but we have left open the timetable and theprocess. The new clause is a suggestion—not one thatwe will press to a vote, but one that gives the Ministerthe opportunity to tell us what she believes the alternativesto be. If not this, then what?

Victoria Prentis: I am reminded that the GovernmentWhip and I both read English at university, and “A ModestProposal” can mean something quite different. However,I thank the hon. Lady for her new clause seeking toestablish an agriculture co-ordination council. I acceptthat she is asking me generally to explain our plans.

The UK Government have been collaborating closelywith all devolved Administrations on a UK-wide frameworkfor agricultural support based on Joint MinisterialCommittee principles over the past two and a halfyears. The framework is planned to cover policy areas

such as agricultural support spending, crisis measures,public intervention, private storage aid, marketing standards,cross-border farms and data collection and sharing.

3.45 pm

Our aim is to have the framework in place by the endof the transition period this year. The shared view ofDEFRA and the devolved Administrations is that sucha framework does not need to be set out in legislation,but can be suitably managed through non-legislativeintragovernmental co-ordination, which could be codifiedin a concordat. In addition, DEFRA Ministers alreadymeet our devolved Administration counterparts on analmost monthly basis, as part of the inter-ministerialgroup. A new agricultural co-ordination council wouldtherefore be an unnecessary addition, as that existinggroup provides a successful forum for discussion andco-ordination between each part of the UK.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Minister for respondingto our probing amendment with more information, as Ihad hoped she would. I reserve judgment on her assertionthat what she described all works very well, because thatis a matter for the devolved Administrations to commenton, and I expect that they will in due course, possibly inthe final stages. I am happy not to press the new clauseto a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.


New Clause 28

AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVES

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

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

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

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

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

(b) whether that impact is disproportionate in relation toits impact upon other producer organisations orinterbranch organisations.

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

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

(5) Condition 1 is that the organisation—

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

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

(6) Condition 2 is that the organisation—

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

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

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

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

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




We believe it important that the Bill properly supportsco-operative models of farming, as they contributegreatly to a fairer and more resilient agricultural sector.By working together, farmers can benefit from mutualprotection, access to new markets, cost savings andefficiency, and a louder collective voice for the industry,all of which will be particularly important in the light ofthe uncertainty caused by our withdrawal from theEuropean Union.

As our countryside is likely to become increasinglycommercialised with, I fear, bigger farms and possiblybigger profits, co-operative approaches also provide acounterbalance to the growing consolidation of ownershipof farms and food manufacturing in the hands of a fewbig agribusinesses or international conglomerates. Manyplayers in our agricultural sector already belong toco-operatives. They may not be as strong as in othercountries, but more than 140,000 British farmers aremembers and co-owners of more than 400 agricultureand farmer co-operatives that work across many levelsin the supply chain, from milk marketing and processingto arable crop storage, produce marketing and retailsupplies.

The Bill is missing clear provisions to make it easierfor current and new co-operatives to succeed in farmingby providing practical support, funding and protectionfrom the inadvertent impact of future legislation orregulation. The new clause would therefore lock intothe Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State topromote agriculture co-operatives by offering financialassistance for their creation and development and toestablish bodies to provide practical support and guidancefor their development. That support could come in theform of grant or loan funding and through the creationof organisations similar to the Scottish AgriculturalOrganisation Society, which I understand provides practicalsupport such as advice, networking, shared services andlinking agriculture co-operatives to potential opportunities.

The clause would also guarantee that the impact ofproposed legislation on agriculture co-operatives isconsidered. That would ensure that future legislationdoes not inadvertently make it harder to be a co-operativethan any other form of business. That is particularlyimportant in the short to medium term, as much of thedetail of the post-Brexit settlement for farmers willcome in secondary legislation, to which I am sure we areall hugely looking forward.

The Bill is short on detail, and it is important thatany undue impact on co-operatives is mitigated againstas the detail is fleshed out. That would also help tofuture-proof the sector against inadvertent undue harmas policy develops over the long term. We hope that theGovernment will recognise the contribution of co-operativesand the merits of our proposals. It is important that weproperly safeguard that sector within farming and thatco-operatives are properly supported and encouraged.

Victoria Prentis: I absolutely agree that farmers canbenefit in many ways by co-operating and workingtogether. Co-operation provides opportunities to cutcosts and achieve economies of scale, whether throughpurchasing resources or processing and marketing produce.Co-operatives can gain control and hold a strongerposition in the supply chain than people who work alone.

By working together, farmers can share knowledge andbest practice and support each other to improve productivityand spread innovation.

Clause 1(2) already allows us to provide financialassistance to help farmers to improve productivity. Wewould like to be able to help farmers to invest inequipment and infrastructure that will help them tobenefit from working together. Furthermore, there areprovisions elsewhere in the Bill that allow us to create abespoke UK producer organisations regime, which wewill tailor to the needs of UK producers who areinterested in collaborating further together.

I hope that that provides some reassurance that weare already supporting, and will continue to support,farmers who want to come together to share knowledge,reduce costs, and strengthen their position in the supplychain.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister, and Ithink I have had sufficient reassurance on that. On thatbasis, I am happy not to proceed and I beg to ask leaveto withdraw the motion.


New Clause 29

CARBON EMISSIONS: NET-ZERO

29‘(1) When considering the provision of financial assistanceunder sections 1(1) and 1(2) of this Act, the Secretary of Stateshall ensure that the likely impact of that funding is compatiblewith the achievement of any emissions reduction target set out insubsection (2).

(2) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to—

(a) within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent,publish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targetsfor agricultural soil, livestock, peatland andmachinery, for the year 2030, which are consistentwith an emissions reduction trajectory that wouldeliminate the substantial majority of the UK’s totalgreenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and

(b) ensure that the targets are met.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of thisBill receiving Royal Assent, publish a statement of the policies tobe delivered in order to meet the emissions reduction targetspublished under subsection (2).

(4) In this section “soil”, “livestock”, “peatland”and “machinery”shall all relate to that used, owned, or operated in the process offarming or any other agricultural activity.”’—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publishgreenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the agricultural sector.



I think everyone will be pleased that we are gettingtowards the finishing straight, but, in the meantime, webelieve that the Bill needs to have far stronger net zerocommitments. As I have said, it is essential that theclimate crisis should be front and centre of the Bill,which will be one of the most important pieces oflegislation we have had in the past decade to help tomeet the climate emergency. Yes, the Government havesaid that they are committed to reaching net zero by2050, but the National Farmers Union has demonstratedmuch more ambitious leadership by setting a closer target—for the agriculture sector to reach net zero by 2040.


Sadly, we know that the Government are currentlynot on track to meet their carbon emission goals in the2030s, let alone to reach net zero by 2050, and the 2040target remains a voluntary one for the agriculture sector.The fact is that the Committee on Climate Change’s2019 progress report has shown that UK agriculture isnot on track with any of its indicators, and there hasbeen little progress in reducing emissions from agriculturesince 2008. As only 30% of direct payments are currentlysecured through meeting greening requirements—animprovement on the previous system, but still not goodenough and way short of what is needed—we can seethat a lack of financial incentives or legal requirementsfor farmers to adapt their practices to reduce emissionsis part of the problem. That is why it is so importantthat the Bill should set out clear targets and a properplan for how agriculture will be expected to reduce itsemissions and by what date.

As things stand, all that the Bill does, effectively, isstipulate that the Secretary of State may—not even“must”, to go back to where we started—provide financialassistance under clause 1 for the purposes of climatechange and adaptation, as well as other public goodsthat will have positive impacts on carbon storage, suchas good soil management. We have no assurances abouthow much priority those clause 1 elements that coulddeliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will begiven by the Government when funding the measures inthe Bill. There are no guarantees that farmers will eventake up the new environmental land management schemesin the first place to deliver those vital agriculturaladaptations to reduce carbon emissions, and there is noplan for how agriculture is expected to meet any netzero target, be that by 2050, 2040 or earlier.

For the Government to say that they are truly committedto transforming our agricultural and land managementsystems in order to reduce emissions and avert climatecatastrophe, the Bill needs to be much strengthenedwith a coherent, joined-up approach. That has been thepurpose of many of our amendments, which we havediscussed over the past few weeks. I think I am correctin saying that, sadly, they have been rejected in theirentirety by the Government—so far: there is alwayshope, right to the end. [Laughter.] I do not think thereis—but anyway.

The Bill needs binding emission targets for all the keyareas of agricultural emissions—soil, livestock, peatlandand machinery—for a given date, with clear directionfrom the Secretary of State on how it is intended toreach them. The NFU suggests 2040. We believe thatthe target should be in line with that, but that it has gotto be even more ambitious if we are to properly addressthe climate emergency. We propose setting targets thatare in line with eliminating the substantial majority ofthe UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

We heard of the need for proper targets in the Billfrom numerous witnesses in the evidence sessions. Thatwould be the best way to give the legislation some teethand proper direction and ensure that the Government’sproposed aims for the Bill of reducing agriculturalcarbon emissions are actually delivered to a timescalethat will make those emission reductions effective foraverting the climate catastrophe. The urgency of theclimate crisis is too real and too important for any lessthan that.

New clause 29 would align agriculture with the emissionsreduction trajectory that would eliminate the substantialmajority of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by2030. It would require the Secretary of State, within sixmonths of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to publishemission reductions targets for agricultural soil, livestock,peatland and machinery for the year 2030 that areconsistent with this aim, to publish a statement within12 months of the Bill becoming an Act of the policies tobe delivered in order to meet the emissions reductiontargets, and to ensure those targets are met. The newclause would also ensure that, in providing financialassistance for the clause 1 purposes, the impact of thatfunding is compatible with the achievement of thetarget of reducing the substantial majority of the UK’sgreenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

There can be no more important point on which toconclude our deliberations today. It is a simple test forthe Government: are they up to tackling the climatecrisis or not? I fear we are about to hear a lot of noes.

Victoria Prentis: Yes, the Government are up to dealingwith the climate crisis and are determined to do so, andyes, we agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is nomore important thing that we should be doing as aGovernment.

I am really proud that the UK became the first majoreconomy in the world to set a legally binding target toachieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from acrossthe UK economy by 2050. We already have a strongfoundation of action and leadership to build from,having cut our emissions by 42% since 1990 whilegrowing the economy by 72%. That does not mean thatwe are complacent or that we do not recognise thatthere is a great deal more to do, urgently.

Kerry McCarthy: Will the Minister give way?

Victoria Prentis: I am going to make some progress.

Climate change is a global challenge, requiring actionacross the whole economy. We do not have sector-specifictargets. That is to ensure that we meet our climatechange commitments at the lowest possible net cost toUK taxpayers, consumers and businesses, while maximisingthe social and economic benefits to the UK of thetransition.

We have set out a range of specific commitments, inthe 25-year environment plan and under the clean growthstrategy, to reduce emissions from agriculture. Thatincludes strengthening biosecurity and control of endemicdiseases in livestock, and encouraging use of low-emissionfertilisers. However, we know that, to achieve net zero,more is needed from the sector. We are looking toreduce agricultural emissions controlled directly withinthe farm boundary with a broad range of cost-effectivemeasures, primarily through improvements to on-farmefficiency and land use change.

The new ELM scheme will help us to contribute toour net zero commitment by providing farmers with anopportunity to receive financial reward for delivering arange of public goods. We already report on climatechange performance under the Climate Change Act2008 and the convention on biological diversity. Additionalreporting as required by the new clause would place anunnecessary burden on the Government without deliveringsignificant new information to Parliament.


Daniel Zeichner: So, we come full circle, back towhere we started. I listened closely to the Minister and Iend up being disappointed, sadly. I point out that theGovernment were dragged unwillingly to the 2050 target.It was the Leader of the Opposition who led on that,and it will be Labour in the future that will deliver usfrom the climate emergency. I did hear a “yes” at onepoint in the Minister’s speech, and I hope she might justbe able to say yes in a moment, when we come to thevote.

This all comes back to the balance between cost andpossibility. I kept hearing the words “lowest possiblecost”. This is not something that can be done at lowcost. The climate emergency is absolutely real, immediateand urgent. There is a fundamental difference betweenthe two sides here on how we approach it. The Ministermentioned environmental land management schemes.We talked much about that last week. There are noguarantees in the Bill that they will achieve the uptakeor the outcomes that we are looking for.

There has been a clear division of opinion throughoutthe discussions on the Bill. It does too little. It is notstrong enough. It does not guarantee the way forwardthat we need. Agriculture is still a major contributor tothe climate crisis. We need to find a way of taking thesector to a much better place. This new clause wouldhelp us to do that.

4 pm



Division No. 42]

AYES

Debbonaire, Thangam

Jones, Ruth

McCarthy, Kerry

Whittome, Nadia

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Clarke, Theo

Crosbie, Virginia

Dines, Miss Sarah


Jupp, Simon

Kearns, Alicia

Kruger, Danny

Morris, James

Prentis, Victoria


Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill,as amended, to the House.

Victoria Prentis: On a point of order, Sir David. Iunderstand that now is the right point to thank youvery much for your chairmanship. I also thank theother Chair who has helped us with the proceedings, allthe Clerks and the civil servants, who have helped usenormously with the production and the taking through

of the Bill. I very much thank the Committee membersand the Government and Opposition Whips, who havesteered the Bill so seamlessly and with a certain amountof agreement and jollity around the edges.

Daniel Zeichner: On a point of order, Sir David. Iexpect that I will say something remarkably similar. Iparticularly thank you and Mr Stringer for your excellentchairmanship. I thank the Whips for making the Committeerun so smoothly and efficiently. As we approachInternational Women’s Day, I look around the roomand notice that all my team appear to be women, andthere appears to a majority of women on the Governmentside, too. I think that reflects an important step forwardin this place. I suspect that this has been a more gentleand consensual discussion than one might have hadotherwise, although I have been chided from my ownside for being insufficiently dressed on occasion.

I thank the Clerks, who have been extraordinarilyhelpful in translating not always clear instructions intoworkable amendments. I thank all the staff workingacross the shadow teams; it has been a particularlydifficult time. I particularly thank the adviser Rob Wakelyand my assistant Rafaelle Robin. We probably expectedfar too much from them in a short period of time, and Iam eternally grateful. All the mistakes are my responsibility.

Deidre Brock: On a point of order, Sir David. Briefly,I thank you and Mr Stringer for your good-humouredchairmanship of the proceedings, and the Clerks, whohave been tremendously helpful to my colleague andme. I thank Hansard, who sit there patiently recordingour every word, and the Officers, who have had to getup and down frequently to close the doors and openthem again. My thanks to all the Committee membersfor interesting proceedings. I look forward to the Billreaching Report and to further discussion on manyimportant points.

The Chair: Mr Stringer and I would like to thank allhon. Members for their generous remarks. We thankHansard and officials for all their support. We particularlywish to commend the Doorkeepers. One had to copewith a key breaking in the door while he was locking it;another was opening the windows at the same time asclosing the doors—there is an example of multitasking.Most of all, I thank our Clerks. Without them and theirwise counsel, the Committee would not have run sosmoothly. I congratulate hon. Members on the way thatthey dealt with the proceedings, in spite of my manystumblings.


Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

4.5 pm

Committee rose.


Written evidence reported to the House

AB63 British Poultry Council

AB64 Paul Gingell

AB65 British Veterinary Association

AB66 WWF-UK

AB67 Mayor of London

AB68 Robert Evans, Visiting Fellow, GlobalSustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University

AB69 Key stakeholders on Dartmoor (DartmoorHill Pony) further submission

AB70 Mayor’s Fund for London


parliamentary debates · final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of ......

Documents