PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE 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 the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, 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/. 1 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 2

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †SIR DAVID AMESS,GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) † Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister of State, Department for † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) † 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 3 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 4

Public Bill Committee Date Time Witness Tuesday 11 February Until no later than Campaign to 4.15 pm Protect Rural Tuesday 11 February 2020 England; Kings Crops; Holkham Estate (Morning) Tuesday 11 February Until no later than Country Land and 5.00 pm Business Association; Tenant Farmers [SIR DAVID AMESS in the Chair] Association Thursday13February Until no later than NFU Cymru; Agriculture Bill 12.15 pm Farmers’ Union of Wales; Welsh Government 9.25 am Thursday13February Until no later than Soil Association The Chair: Before we begin, I have a few preliminary 1.00 pm points. Please switch off mobile phones. Tea and coffee Thursday13February Until no later than NFU Scotland; 2.30 pm Quality Meat is not allowed; that is not me being pompous—the Scotland; Scottish Speaker does not allow tea or coffee in the Committee Government Rooms. Until that changes, Lent has come early and it Thursday13February Until no later than George Monbiot, is definitely water only. 3.00 pm The Guardian We will first consider the programme motion on the Thursday13February Until no later than Professor Bill amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to 3.30 pm Keevil, University enable the reporting of written evidence for publication of Southampton and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private Thursday13February Until no later than Unite; Landworkers about our questions before the oral evidence session. In 4.00 pm Alliance view of the limited time available, I hope we can take Thursday13February Until no later than Sustain; those matters without too much debate. 4.30 pm Compassion in World Farming Thursday13February Until no later than Which? The Minister of State, Department for Environment, 5.00 pm Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): I beg to move, That— (3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 28; (1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at Schedule 1; Clause 29; Schedule 2; Clauses 30 to 34; 9.25 am on Tuesday 11 February) meet— Schedule 3; Clause 35; Schedule 4; Clauses 36 to 43; (a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 February; Schedule 5; Clauses 44 and 45; Schedule 6; Clauses 46 (b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 February; to 49; Schedule 7; Clauses 50 to 54; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill; (c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 February; (4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously (d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 February; concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on (e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 March; Tuesday 10 March. (f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 March; The programme motion was agreed by the Programming (g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 March; Sub-Committee yesterday. I hope we are all agreed on (2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance the programme motion, and I look forward to hearing with the following Table: evidence from witnesses in the order set out. Date Time Witness Question put and agreed to. Resolved, Tuesday 11 February Until no later than Nature Friendly 10.30 am Farming Network; That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence Farmwel; LEAF; received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for British Growers publication.—(George Eustice.) Association Tuesday 11 February Until no later than RSPB; RSPCA; The Chair: Copies of written evidence that the Committee 11.25 am Rare Breed Survival receives will be made available in the Committee Room. Trust; Traceability Colleagues can get papers on that table over there. The Design User Group; helpful Clerks will indicate where they are; if Members Livestock Information Ltd go around, behind me or the witnesses, they can pick up Tuesday 11 February Until no later than Ulster Farmers the papers. 2.30 pm Union; DAERA Resolved, Tuesday 11 February Until no later than NFU; National That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence 3.00 pm Federation of is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the Young Farmers witnesses are admitted.—(George Eustice.) Clubs Tuesday 11 February Until no later than Cooperatives UK 9.27 am 3.30 pm The Committee deliberated in private. 5 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 6

Examination of Witnesses producing good food and good nutrition, delivering Jack Ward, Caroline Drummond, ffinlo Costain and national security in that way, which is critically important, Martin Lines gave evidence. as well as delivering climate mitigation, land adaption to help with climate change,and biodiversity restoration—is 9.30 am absolutely critical. The Bill comes at the perfect time, and it is well set up. There are some challenges within it, Q1 The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from and some issues that I think we will address, but in the Nature Friendly Farming Network, Farmwel, Linking general terms it is very positive. Environment and Farming, and the British Growers Martin Lines: As a farm owner and a tenant, under Association. Starting with Jack Ward, could you all the current system, with the single farm payment, I am very briefly introduce yourselves? encouraged to farm to the very edge of fields. Biodiversity Jack Ward: My name is Jack Ward, and I am the and other bits of the landscape are not rewarded. As a chief executive of the British Growers Association, tenant, my landlord takes away most if not all of my which predominantly operates in the fresh produce single farm payment on top of the rent. If we move to a sector—fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. public goods model, I actually get rewarded for the Caroline Drummond: I am Caroline Drummond, the delivery of services as a land manager—as a farmer—so chief executive of LEAF—Linking Environment and we would move into a system that better supports Farming—a farming environment charity promoting actual farmers, rather than the ownership and management more sustainable agriculture and a whole-farm approach, of the landscape. with demonstration farms, the LEAF marque and a Caroline Drummond: One of the real challenges of public outreach area. I am also married to a dairy the past system was the capability to drive ambition farmer. for farmers. It was a “Tell me what I’m doing” type ffinlo Costain: I am ffinlo Costain, the chief executive of approach, so going forward, we have a real of Farmwel, which was established to develop a really opportunity to demonstrate leadership, vision and ambition positive outlook on reform of the common agricultural for our farming sector. Ensuring that we get the right policy post Brexit. We work very closely with the FAI— governance is going to be really important. There Food Animal Initiative—farm in Oxford, which is one needs to be partnership and development of trust of the world’s largest food sustainability consultancies. between Governments, from voluntary approaches that are externally,independently verified such as farm assurance Martin Lines: I am Martin Lines, an arable farmer schemes, right through to building on some of the from Cambridgeshire. I am the UK chair of the Nature success stories of capability and innovation that we Friendly Farming Network. We have farm membership have seen among some of the farmers who are already across the UK, as well as public membership and thriving and doing very well in this country. organisations that support the network. Jack Ward: The fresh produce industry has not benefited that greatly from the CAP.We are about 170,000 hectares; The Chair: May I say to our witnesses, if you have we have an output of about £2 billion from that area, never previously appeared before a Committee, that and the contribution from the basic payment scheme is there is nothing at all to be worried about? My colleagues about £40 million. However, the contribution from the are very friendly. They are just trying to get information producer organisation scheme, which is broadly equivalent, from you to use during the Committee stage of our has been incredibly important. I think we would like to proceedings. The session ends at 10.30 am, so it will go see that continue in some shape or form. very quickly. In terms of opportunities, there is a terrific opportunity to increase the amount of fruit and veg that we currently Q2 George Eustice: I want to start by asking what produce. In some sectors, such as tomatoes, we are very you consider to have been the main failures and limitations dependent on imports. Weimport eight out of 10 tomatoes of the existing direct payment scheme, the common that we consume in the UK; we must be able to do agricultural policy.Also, what are the main opportunities better than that. for your own particular interests, based on a new policy that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods? Q3 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Good morning ffinlo Costain: One of the key challenges with the to you; it is very nice to see a farmer from Cambridgeshire common agricultural policy is that it has largely rewarded here. The opening comments from the witnesses have farmers for owning land, and it has presided over an been very positive and helpful, and I think we all enormous disconnect between farmers, other people in welcome the notion of public money being spent on the countryside, and customers, and often the supply environmental gain. However,a number of us are concerned chain as well. The huge advantage of the new legislation about the lack of detail in the Bill about environmental is that, in changing the funding system to public funds land management schemes. I think we had expected a for public goods, we will be able to deliver the changes policy paper from the Government, but I am not sure that we need—the farm animal welfare improvements, we have seen that yet. Do you share that concern? the sustainability improvements, the climate mitigation, ffinlo Costain: It is really important for Government and the biodiversity restoration, which has been so to set a framework, but if there is a criticism of the way degraded under the common agricultural policy. that Europe and the common agricultural policy have Make no bones about it: we are facing a climate and worked in the past, it is that it has been way too nature emergency that is upon us now, not tomorrow. It prescriptive. That has meant that, to a large extent, is critical that we get this right. For me, getting land use farmers have learned to do what they are told, rather right is the golden ticket. Having the opportunity at than to properly understand and integrate what they this time to reform land use—so that we can continue are doing on their land. 7 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 8

My own view is that Government should become more landlords get the payment directly and the farmer has goal-centred. They need to set the right metrics and to to manage, which disconnects the reward from managing understand what outcomes they are trying to achieve, the landscape, so the current system does not benefit but then they need to take a step back and allow the farmer. It challenges cash flow, because as a tenant I farmers to farm. Farmers understand their land, and if am paying rent for six to 12 months before I get it back they have a funding model that supports environmental under the payments system, so there a problem with excellence and other public goods—restoration of soil cash flow, particularly with late payments. There is a big health and so on—they can work out ways to do that. I issue with the new system about payment timings. There would hate to see a situation where there is a continuing are huge challenges under the new system. prescriptive approach, but it is focused on the environment Under the current system, we know that some landlords rather than on how to produce cattle, and we end up are trying to get the stewardship payment, or parts of it, with farmers still not really understanding what they but under the new system, if you are delivering habitat, are doing and simply farming the subsidy. or pollen and nectar, bits and pieces, you are the farmer We need ownership of change, and farmers can do doing the work. You should be getting the reward. that. Farmers understand their land; they know their There will be an increase in capital, and the landlord land, and if we give them the freedom to work within will be rewarded for capital aspects and other things that public goods model, they will deliver the outcomes. that are delivered on the landscape. They will step up. They are a standing army out there, The Bill should be about encouraging the whole-farm ready to do this, and they will step up and do it. approach of better farm land management and looking Martin Lines: I have concerns about what the ELM at all aspects, not just food production—pollination, for England would look like, the transition period, and flood mitigation, soil health improvement and public how the funding is going to work. We need more detail access. The farmer’s role is not just about food production; about what the future will be, so that the farmers can it is about providing goods and services. The definition start changing and adapting now to the model of what of a farmer is someone who manages land to deliver is coming. There is some concern, particularly about goods and services. One of those is food, but many the transition period. As we go into the new system and other things can be delivered, and if we move the payments under the current system tail off, what is system, we can be rewarded for those and create a better going to bridge the lull in the middle, and how do we get system. farmers to step across to the new system at speed? Caroline Drummond: I agree. There needs to be the Q5 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Do you policy documentation, so we can identify what this is think the Bill does enough to encourage the whole-farm going to look like and how the knitting all joins up—there approach, or is there a danger that farmers might just are lots of balls of wool, but what are we trying to knit pick and choose among the public goods and do some at the end of the day? Not much has been left out of the of the things that are easier, but carry on farming as Bill, which is really key, but we need to know how it will normal on the rest of the farm? be interpreted and how the ELMS projects will be carried out. There are a lot of them going on, and we ffinlo Costain: I think you are quite right about the need to know how they will be brought together to key concern that I and other colleagues I have spoken demonstrate the delivery against metrics, outcomes and, with have. There has to be a whole-farm approach. If ultimately, impact. Ultimately, the Government have to public goods are being delivered, it has to be a combination deliver against the global and national targets around of public goods and we need baseline assessments the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, supporting that around carbon and biodiversity that and so on, but the farming sector has the opportunity are whole-farm. From our perspective, it would be to support us in demonstrating that we are helping on horrible if we go through all this work and have all this issues around climate change,biodiversity,soil improvement ambition but end up with a sparing approach, where we and those matters. have one bit of land put off for sequestration with Sitka spruce, creating the various challenges that that does, another bit for rewilding, and another bit for ever-more The Chair: Before bringing in Danny Kruger, I intensive food production. It is critically important that should have told new Members that, when they start we face the challenges of the whole-farm approach. The questioning—they do not have to do it every time—they best and most efficient way to make progress is for every should declare any financial interest they have in these hectare, as far as possible, to deliver good, nutritious areas. food, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity restoration. A whole-farm approach is absolutely critical, Q4 Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con): Certainly, I do and we would welcome an amendment that crystallises not have any financial interests in the business of farming. that and makes it clearer in the Bill. Martin, I was interested in your point about the way Martin Lines: The only concern is with those who do that, under the direct payments system, the landlord not engage in the system and choose not to take public gets the benefit, not the tenant. Is that just your experience, goods money. How are they going to be legislated for or can you amplify that point and explain more how against the minimum standards? that works? Are you confident that that will not be replicated under the new regime? Does the Bill give you confidence that the tenants will get the benefits from Q6 Kerry McCarthy: Do you mean the baseline public money for public goods? regulations? Martin Lines: For many of the tenancies, the price Martin Lines: Under the current system we have per hectare per area went up, compared with the payment, cross-compliance. With those who choose not to engage so they see that as a benefit of owning the land. Many in the system, because they want to push for productivity, 9 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 10 how is the system going to legislate for and regulate the and Business Association. The question I want to ask is basic standards? Who is going to be the policeman for whether you think the Bill will do enough to enable us the countryside, to raise standards and make sure they to get the balance right and reward people for what they are enforced? We have seen many problems already with are doing already—I am thinking particularly of some soil health degradation and other environmental issues of the upland farmers on the North Yorkshire moors that are not being addressed. and in the very marginal parts of our country. Most people probably take the view that they should keep Q7 Kerry McCarthy: As I understand it, at the moment, doing exactly what they are doing, because that is farmers will get the basic payments for just having the exactly what we want. The flip side of that is incentivising land. If you check cross-compliance and they are not other farmers, perhaps in the east of the country, on meeting the standards, they will be penalised. Are you some of our more intensively farmed areas, to do more saying that if you have a public goods approach, and green things. Do you feel that there is enough in the Bill people get rewarded only for the good stuff they do, to reassure those who are in those upland areas who are there is not a way of penalising them or holding them to concerned because the subsidies are basically what are account if they are not meeting standards? keeping them on the land, and the others—the Beeswax Martin Lines: We are not sure who is going to be Dyson Farmings of this world—who can dance to the holding them to account or what kind of standards tune that the Minister is playing? I think Caroline might there are. Nor do we know how those who choose not be the best person to start. to engage in the system will be held to account, because Caroline Drummond: I am not too sure. It is interesting you cannot withhold a payment if they are not receiving that there is a lot about livestock production in here, but a public goods payment. We need to make sure that that a lot of that level of detail will have to come through the standards system is in place. policy support, because upland farmers are under a Caroline Drummond: I think there are some nuances, huge amount of pressure. There are discussions around in terms of the “mays” and the “musts”—there should the meat challenges of Veganuary and climate change be a bit more “must”in some areas.Whole-farm approaches mitigation, but we should look at what they offer in are absolutely critical. I have been an advocate of the terms of tourism and capability to manage. For those whole-farm approach for the last 30 years, and I think it very sensitive land areas, right through to some of the is absolutely key to making sure that soil management, high-value peat areas, I think there will be the need to climate change mitigation and biodiversity, and indeed landscape and cluster-type approaches, are driven in. get some really good ELM projects to better understand That is where the ELMS projects will be really vital. A how we can support those farmers. Exeter University is lot of their design is based around land management doing a lot of work in this area at the moment to find plans, which I imagine will be whole-farm. A lot of the out how those farmers, as Jack just said, can actually third tier is proposed to be around cluster groups and make a profit at the end of the day. There are a lot of landscape scale-type approaches. It goes back to this social services, public goods, environmental goods, tourism question of farmers choosing not to be engaged at all, and additionalities that these farmers offer on incredibly how do we account for that? How do we really drive and tight margins. match the ELMS within the ambition of the Bill? Martin Lines: I think there will be movement with Jack Ward: While there is a lot of focus on public payments. As an arable farmer in Cambridgeshire on a money for public goods, making sure that UK agriculture large field system, the productivity of my landscape is is inherently profitable is hugely important, because no really good. Most years it is quite a good, profitable amount of public funding is going to supplement an system. If you are in the marginal areas—the uplands, overall lack of profitability. If in five years’ time we have in the west country where there is a smaller field-scale an inherently unprofitable farming industry for whatever system—the public goods should be rewarding you reason, I just do not think there is going to be enough more. I will probably receive less public goods money, public funding available to make good that shortfall. but that will be moved, hopefully, across to the uplands Alongside public money for public goods, we really and those cherished areas that cannot deliver more have to ensure that basic agriculture can wash its face. productivity, but need to be supported to deliver the public goods and with the landscape delivery stuff. It should be swings and roundabouts, but it should be fair. The Chair: Mr Costain, and then we really must move The detail is not in there and we need to see that on. transition. It is going to be about the journey if we ffinlo Costain: The issue of eligibility for public funds move from one to the other and give farmers confidence is really critical. What Wales is planning is interesting. It about the future. is planning that there will be a requirement for baseline ffinlo Costain: I understand your point, Mr Goodwill. assessments on carbon and biodiversity before farmers There is one farmer we work with in Northumberland are even eligible for the public goods payment. That will with 1,000-odd acres on a sheep farm. When we have take place annually to continue that eligibility. That is a run the metrics of looking at his carbon footprint with really positive approach, and it is important. Whole-farm, GWP*—global warming potential “star”—the new getting the eligibility, making sure of that baseline and accurate way of accounting for methane, which is very continued monitoring of metrics are critical. different from the way methane was accounted for 18 months ago and was recognised in the Committee on Q8 Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) Climate Change land report just a couple of weeks ago, (Con): I declare an interest: I am a farmer in North his farm impact is less than the average household of Yorkshire, where we have been since 1850, and a member four, which is astonishing. We want to make sure that of the National Farmers Union and the Country Land farm continues to get the funding as well. 11 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 12

We have proposed in the past that an acreage basis drainage schemes, flood alleviation, irrigation and so for that continuing maintenance of excellence could be on. We need to be very careful. There is that second hit a way to go because we need to make sure—exactly as of not only importing produce that potentially does not I think you are saying—that we do not just restore meet the standards or requirements of our farmers, but biodiversity, we do not just mitigate climate change, but in addition to that is also being supported through we hold and maintain that excellence afterwards. I hope different ways. that, within public goods applications, farmers will be Jack Ward: In the fresh produce industry, we already able to make the case that they are continuing to deliver import from about 90 countries, so there is a fair degree excellence. All farms can be better managed. We never of free trade within fresh produce. I think the areas that achieve sustainability; it is a journey.However, if farmers would concern our growers are particularly around can make the case that they are delivering public goods production systems that would be unlawful in the UK. and continuing to deliver that—I would like to hear That is particularly around crop protection and labour from Ministers on that—I hope they will continue to be welfare standards. Those are two very key areas for the eligible. sector. Jack Ward: From the fresh produce industry, in terms ffinlo Costain: I think it is terribly important, exactly of sector, I think there is a lot of interest in what the as everybody else has said, but there are two sides to this ELMS might offer. Just coming back to the earlier particular coin. I understand, hear and welcome what question: until we see the detail it is difficult to make a Ministers have said repeatedly, that standards will not judgment. be lowered and that trade deals will not allow that to happen but, in terms of farmer and public confidence, Q9 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): it needs to be written in the Bill. I think it is really It is very encouraging to hear your enthusiasm for important that it is there. improving the standards of the producers you represent. I think that partly because of the impact that it could How concerned are those folks about cheaper imports have on food, but also because of the impact it has on undercutting produce through trade deals that might be the industry that grows up around excellence: the marketing, negotiated in the future? Would you like to see something the branding, the new technology, which Britain can preventing that in the Bill? Certainly, the farmers I become excellent and fantastic in. Associated with that—the speak to are increasingly concerned about that. other side of it—is what does brand GB look like? What Martin Lines: If we do not have the rug taken from are we exporting? under our feet: we are told to produce to a standard, but The opportunity here is to get something right in if different standards are allowed to be imported, how Britain, to do something excellent in terms of food can we compete? Our costs are different. If the standard production and the environment, and to export that is positive across the platform, we can compete. It may knowledge and those brands and that technology around be a different price model, but we can compete with that the world. When I look at Ireland, with Origin Green, it standard. We should export our environmental footprint. is the only example that exists of a national scheme of We can bring in produce from around the world to the metrics. In Ireland, it is only around carbon; it does not same standard, so other people’s standards can increase. yet incorporate GWP*, so it is flawed. It does not include There is huge risk because if we are told to produce biodiversity. goods to a standard, then yes, there needs to be something in the Bill or an assessment of the amount of stuff There is an opportunity for Britain when we get the allowed in that is below our standards. We already allow metrics right, when we are collecting these at a national in a lot of products below our standards. We are not level, which also, by the way, means that we can better allowed to use neonicotinoid treatments or genetically inform policy making in future, that this can underpin modified processes in the UK, but we import huge the British brand. If we allow food in that is undercutting quantities. So there needs to be that sort of balance. I our standards, it undermines our brand. It not only would struggle to say none, but there needs to be undermines our farmers, but the industry as a whole. balance and fairness for the whole farming industry. Caroline Drummond: We operate a global standard Caroline Drummond: It would be fair to say they are with LEAF marque; 40% of UK fruit and veg is LEAF extremely concerned, and I think the majority of farmers marque certified. The fresh produce and the farmers are very concerned about not undercutting the capability that we work with on a global scale are meeting the and the investment that they have made. We are very same requirements demanded of our farmers in this fortunate. We work with a lot of can-do farmers who country. have made a huge investment in making sure they reach the level of trying to be more sustainable; trying to The Chair: We are now halfway through the evidence ensure that welfare standards are meeting and going session. I have lots of colleagues who want to ask beyond the regulation; and driving for new innovation questions and I want to ensure that they are all called. and ways of improving and doing things. As Martin has said, offshoring the environmental and animal welfare Q10 Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con): I delivery and the learnings we have made from those refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial practices that are just not acceptable—not only to our Interests for my interest as a very small farmer. I have farmers but to our customers—is not good news. There a question for Mr Lines. You mentioned that tenants is a double whammy because although many countries should get the payment. Can I ask you two things? Are say they do not support their farmers, they do in many you advocating a change in business farm tenancy different ways. That will be through investments and arrangements and land tenure? Or are you really saying free advice. You just have to go on to the United States that money from the Government should go to the Department of Agriculture website to see the substantial person who physically farms, rather than the landowner, amount of money that is going to support marketing, or a mixture of both? Would you please clarify? 13 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 14

Martin Lines: It would be a mixture of both. Many into it. It should be about environmental excellence, of the tenancies that are currently written are too short, animal welfare excellence and sustainability excellence. with many of three to five years, because of the uncertainty The danger is that if it comes into the country, some ahead. They would be rewritten and reframed. The customers—perhaps quite a lot of customers—will buy person doing the job— the work, the delivery of those it. That is where the undermining happens: it undermines public goods—should receive the income. our ability to develop that comprehensive basis for If it is about land, natural capital and something environmental excellence, and it will challenge emerging infrastructure-wise of trees, the landowner may get supply chains in particular. Part of our big challenge some of that. If it is about the delivery of habitat and over the next 10 years is to shorten supply chains and flood mitigation, so that you are losing crop yield or to make sure that farmers are better able to claim change of land use, the tenant can manage some of decent farm-gate prices by selling direct or through that. It will be a redefining, but I think the industry will many fewer cogs before they reach the customer. I cope with it. We just need the timeframe for how we worry about those smaller and emerging supply chains deliver it. being undermined.

Q11 Daniel Zeichner: I would like to return to the Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): How do vexed issue of imports to potentially lower standards. you assess that the security of food supply will be ffinlo, you mentioned some of the potential impacts. I improved by the Bill? What do you see as the UK’s would like everyone to comment on the potential greatest threat to food security? environmental impact, given that people are so positive Martin Lines: Food security can only come from about the potential here. If we do find ourselves being healthy soil and a healthy environment. If we over-produce undercut by lower-standard imports, what would be the from our soils, we degrade them and there will be no effect on the environmental aims in the Bill? food security for future generations. We need a balance Caroline Drummond: I think potentially farmers will of how we manage our landscape and how much we can walk away from supporting them ultimately, if the produce from that balanced landscape. We can then marketplace is not delivering against the requirements consider what products we need to import, and whether expected of the imported produce and farmers are we need to do other things or change diets or change increasingly required to deliver against goods that are tjhe system. There needs to be an assessment of how costing them from a business perspective. That is one our landscape looks, with a joined-up approach to of the big dangers. A bigger issue is offshoring, and landscape productivity. the fact that we have nine years to deliver against the sustainable development goals. We have the Paris ffinlo Costain: Traditionally, food security has been agreements. We have a fantastic opportunity with the about volume and about being able to feed everybody. conference of the parties talks on climate change That has led us to the challenges we now face, which being held in this country later this year to herald our Martin just referred to. Food security comes from being ambitions for delivering and demonstrating leadership able to produce good, nutritious, diverse and seasonally in environmental delivery and in climate change mitigation available food. That means we need to restore soil, have delivery. good water management, and good community dynamics, with complexity returned to our swards and landscapes We might think we can compete on a global level in where nature works with farmers to produce that food. terms of a huge productivity market, but actually we are just small producers on a global scale. Our real Looking forward 40 years to how society could break opportunity lies in being the best at what we do. We down as a result of climate change and biodiversity loss, already have such a good background: despite all the food is the critical factor. If you look around the world criticism that farmers get for delivering or not delivering at conflicts, including Syria, food is the critical factor against the environment, they have been hugely committed that creates conflict. The way that we deliver national since 2001, after foot and mouth, through entry level security is not by producing volume, but by ensuring stewardship and higher level stewardship agreements, that every hectare of our land can produce really good to deliver vast changes and improvements, with strong food, and by maintaining the rural economies and the ownership in how farmers are farming in this country. ability of farmers to farm that land. That is why it is It would be a real shame to lose that. The Bill is an critical that we do not go down the route of sequestration opportunity to build on that backbone and to place our here, wilding there, and food here. We need to be able to farmers in a position whereby we continue to be world build broad diversity so that we have national food leading, but with more focused ambition and strong security in the future. clarity on what we deliver from an environmental Caroline Drummond: There is often a lot of confusion perspective. around food security. There is the issue of our capability Jack Ward: In terms of delivering environmental to grow, and having the infrastructure to support farmers outcomes, we are looking at a balance between a farmer with seed, fertiliser, tractor tyres, and investment in that or grower’s own investment and public money. If you area. There is the issue of what we actually mean by start to cut away at the farmer’s ability to invest as an self-sufficiency, how we build our targets, and whether individual, you lose an important part of the funding we are ambitious enough. There is food safety. We have that will deliver the overall environmental improvements some concerns about imported produce in terms of that you are looking for. food safety challenges. That has been well heralded. There is also the issue of food defence—our capability ffinlo Costain: I think the future for UK farmers has to trade confidently, and to have the opportunity to to be in quality. Volume production will increasingly receive food where we do not have self-sufficiency or become a mug’s game. I would not advise farmers to go sufficient produce. 15 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 16

It is a highly complex area. I think it is one area in the There is an assumption that high environmental Bill where we would report every five years. Perhaps standards mean a reduction in yield; that is not necessarily that could be amended to reporting every year, because the case. It is not just about looking at volume; it is it is so important. about looking at a whole range of different changes. We Jack Ward: In the fresh produce industry, we are very need a dietary shift in Britain. That does not mean no dependent on imports to meet our needs. Arguably, it is meat and dairy, but it probably does mean a bit less the one area of food production where we want to meat and dairy as we go forward, and a bit more fruit increase consumption. Ultimately, the ability to increase and vegetables. We can deliver that, with agroforestry our food security is down to grower confidence, and a approaches and regenerative approaches. We can more willingness by growers to keep investing, and the returns than sufficiently provide food for the people of this that they can generate from that activity. The last six country—I have no doubt about that—but it will mean months have not done great things for grower confidence. changes in diet, and a little bit of change in the way that we farm, at the same time as focusing on multiple outcomes, rather than simply the outcome of producing Q12 Daniel Zeichner: I would like to go back to the lots of food. It is food, climate and biodiversity. question of food security, and to some of the points that people have made. I am very concerned by some of Caroline Drummond: We have a tremendous amount what I am hearing, because it seems to me that there is a of evidence and case studies to demonstrate the importance danger of a two-tier system emerging. A very high-quality, of integrated farm management practices and how farmers high-value system is, to ffinlo’s point, not about chasing have increasingly adopted them, in terms of economic volume. Is there not a potential problem ahead for us if viability, good performance and optimising the capability we are not careful, in that we will not produce nearly as of the land. That is a really strong driver. One of the big much of our own food as we would like? Going back keys will be how we link the Agriculture Bill with the to my earlier question, that also has environmental Environment Bill and the national food strategy—this consequences. It goes back to a point that I think Jack is such an opportunity for really trying to work out made at the beginning: the sector needs to be profitable what it is that we want to develop and to balance and to to keep people working. Is there a real danger here? build in what we grow, how we grow it and how we improve the health of our nation as well. Martin Lines: If I am producing wheat, I can increase my yield by putting more products on, but that has a higher environmental risk, because a lot of those nitrates Q13 Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con): My question and products will leave the soil, because the crop has relates to employment numbers in the farming sector. not used them in some years. If we hit the sweet spot Will we see people entering the sector that otherwise with the productivity of our landscape, we can produce would not, as a result of the Bill? What will we see in what the landscape can cope with, and push it some terms of demographics, and what will we see in terms of years, when needed, as well as ease off. It is about the skillset of people working in the sector? finding the balance point. We know from many livestock ffinlo Costain: My hope is that we would see growth farmers that reducing livestock numbers actually makes in all of those areas. In order to have farming excellence them healthier, better animals, and they produce quicker we need to have working farms. In the future, there may because there are fewer there and the grass is better. be fewer farmers spending their days on tractors, but We have focused for so long just on yield and output, there will be more farmers doing more high-value jobs not profitability. Reducing my overall output gives me and more marketing within the countryside. If we look more profit at the end of the day. It is a funny way to at cattle and shortening supply chains, we ought to be look at how it works, but you end up spending more supporting—we can through the Bill—new infrastructure, than you get in return. You chase the extra yield by such as local abattoirs and co-operatively owned abattoirs. spending more money. We need to find the place where That creates new jobs and infrastructure within the we deliver as much as we can. Sometimes we can push countryside, which can then be sold with the marketing that if we need to—if there are weather challenges, or and branding jobs that go along with that. I want to see other issues—but we should not be out there just to good-quality jobs,not just jobs,and there is the opportunity push it, doing environmental damage as a consequence here, if we get it right, to create good-quality jobs, and of my farming operations. more of them. ffinlo Costain: The most intensive food systems are Caroline Drummond: Maybe I missed it, but I do not environmentally damaging. They are damaging in terms know whether the Bill itself would be the driver for of farm animal welfare, and often just in terms of the more people to say, “Yay, I want to go into agriculture.” jobs that are provided for people, which are not pleasant. There is an opportunity to go into agriculture, with The death knell needs to be rung for those sorts of exciting innovations and technology, and the fact that farms. we touch each of the five senses, which no other industry There is an assumption that with environmental does. We do a lot of education programmes at LEAF. excellence, because of our association with going from We run Open Farm Sunday. From that point of view, it mainstream to organic, comes a reduction in yield. is about getting more people more connected with their There does not need to be a reduction. There are so food. Some of the supporting information around things many examples, here and around the world—Martin like the national food strategy and the 25-year environment being one—of regenerative agriculture, which is giving plan have to help to support and drive enthusiasm—have environmental excellence and social excellence. Farm to help to inspire a younger generation to recognise that animal welfare is not an issue on his farm, but elsewhere the food sector, the farming sector and its associated there are regenerative beef and cattle systems where industries are really fantastic. We have fewer young yield is being maintained in terms of mainstream amounts, people coming through and we just have to compete a and even increased. little bit harder than every other industry. 17 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 18

Jack Ward: There will be more competition for labour, A lot of what is in the Bill is focused on England. We and trying to attract people into the industry will be are waiting for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland more difficult. Certainly, within our sector there will to develop their plans. It is about how we link it together, be a big drive towards automation to take labour out of not race away with just England, because if you are the equation, because it will be harder to come by. As farming both sides of the border, move from one side to earlier speakers have alluded to, as a consequence we the other, or move products from one side to the other, will see higher-value jobs. We will see more technologists you will have real complications. We do not see that and more people designing and managing systems, rather journey of who is going to manage that regulatory than doing some of the manual work that we have seen authority and baseline. them do over the past 25 years. Jack Ward: If I may chip in on producer organisations, it would be helpful if we could have commonality within producer organisations, and not have one system The Chair: We have 15 minutes left and at least five in Scotland, another in Northern Ireland and another colleagues want to ask questions. I call Kerry McCarthy. in England. ffinlo Costain: This touches on non-regression from Q14 Kerry McCarthy: May I just ask about the EU rules, which is really important. I would feel more climate change angle? The NFU has said that it wants comfortable if it were stated that there was going to be to reach net zero farming by 2040. There is no target in non-regression on standards. the Bill. My concern is that farmers do not really have a Regulations are a safety net; they are there so that road map for reaching that target—we are relying on nobody goes below them. I want farmers to go above individual farmers to perhaps pick up on the public them, to tell customers about how they are going good element that is mentioned. Could the Bill be above them and delivering, and to brand around that. stronger in terms of the net zero commitment? Theoretically, it should not be an issue, if farmers are ffinlo Costain: The first thing that needs to happen is going above, stepping beyond, managing to deliver what that the metrics need to be right. At the moment, the Kerry was talking about with net zero at an earlier Government are still wedded to GWP100—global warming stage, and telling customers about that. The fact that potential over 100 years—which is focused on emissions, there is a safety net there, and that there may be a bit of rather than warming from emissions. That is critical, divergence between different nations, is less important because it really changes the role of cattle and sheep. than the fact that people are going beyond it and they Oxford Martin brought out science by Professor Myles are making money because they are telling customers Allen, who was an author on the IPCC’s 1.5° C report. about it and customers are buying it. We now have an accurate metric for accounting for Caroline Drummond: Ultimately,there is the opportunity methane, and it changes things. By and large, the warming to create a new governance, in terms of how the impact of cattle and sheep farms will be about 75% down Government work with the industry and non-governmental in terms of methane. If we focus on emissions, it drives organisations through to farmers and landowners. Some very different actions. If we focus on warming, we see of the reporting that came out of Dame Glenys Stacey’s that cattle and sheep on grazing land that is really well report demonstrated that there may be new ways for us managed, ideally in a regenerative way, can contribute to make it move forwards effectively. to the climate mitigation, climate adaptation and biodiversity that we are all talking about. Q16 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) Before we start talking about hard targets, we need to (Lab): The main clause of the Bill provides Ministers make sure that those metrics are there, because at the with the power to make payments to farmers, which is moment, farmers are being undermined because they most likely to be allocated on the basis of environmental do not trust the metrics. That is critical. The Government improvements, not how land is farmed. The Bill does clearly have ambitions and goals for net zero elsewhere. not give any clear guidance on how environmental Farmers are working towards their own goals. We are improvements will be measured. Do you have any thoughts working with farmers in Northumberland who control on that? most of the national park there. They are committed to net zero by 2030. We can deliver it rapidly when we get Caroline Drummond: Potentially, that all goes back to the metrics right. the metrics, and what we are looking to ultimately deliver. The Environment Bill has set out some of the requirements in that area, although that obviously goes Q15 Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): It is beyond farming as well. The 25-year environment plan not a financial interest, but I should declare an interest also covers that area. We have seen, through things like as a former employee of the National Farmers Union. the sustainable development goals and all our global What does the Bill do for the regulatory environment in commitments,that there are some really good opportunities the United Kingdom? What is your assessment of how to align our ambition here in the UK with delivering the Bill will affect that? Are you concerned about the against some of those areas. It all depends on how risk of any regulatory divergence between the devolved ELMS are going to be managed and developed, but this nations? is where some good environmental performance metrics Martin Lines: Yes, there is a risk. It is not clear how and targets are starting to come through—hopefully that regulatory authority and the baseline will work, from some of the targets that farmers are setting and who will police it, and how that will be transferred working with Government on in a particular area. across the four nations. If you are farming either side of ffinlo Costain: There are two aspects to your question. a border, will you have two different standards? How The first is what those measures are. As many Members will you compete with those together? here and Ministers know, we have been working very 19 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 20 closely with Government, particularly on the farm animal individually or across landscapes, proposals that deliver welfare metrics and how those relate to the environment. those public goods. So long as we are focused on That is critical; what those metrics are is really important, outcomes rather than inputs, we will make progress. and Government needs to start collecting those. Farmers should be absolutely at the forefront of that. Then there is the question of the mechanisms—who Caroline Drummond: A little bit more security and collects those metrics, and how. From that perspective, clarity in the timescale is really important. Obviously, Government could work much more closely with assurance farmers do not make decisions today for tomorrow; schemes to make sure that the metrics that they are many decisions are made three or four years in advance. collecting are good proxies for what Government wants, Many crops are grown for nine or 10 months—for and that the new metrics that the Government are livestock, it is a longer time span—before you get any looking at are then embedded within those assurance level of return. That timescale is at the moment not schemes, so that assurance schemes that are already 100% clear, because decisions could be made at the very going on farm can do that metrics collection. Then last minute. That is a big concern. farmers can sign to say that they are happy for some of Wemust not forget that although a lot of the stewardship those metrics to be self-reported. For example, RSPCA has not been ideal, for every pound that farmers get Assured may be collecting 500 metrics, perhaps in terms from support mechanisms they are delivering so much of pigs or sheep, but Government does not want all of more from an environmental perspective, because it is those. There are perhaps 15 key ones that Government good for their business and because, obviously, they wants, and farmers need to tick a box to say that they fundamentally believe it. We do need to build confidence are happy for those to be self-reported, perhaps through that the system will work, and that farmers really want the assurance schemes. So there is what the metrics are, to adopt it. We are involved in some of the trials for the and the mechanisms for collection. ELMS project, and it is really encouraging to see farmers Caroline Drummond: Wehave already earned recognition very much embracing it and saying, “Yeah, we want to with the Environment Agency, Red Tractor and LEAF be involved.” Marque, in terms of helping support that relationship. ffinlo Costain: I said earlier that land use—the way we farm—is the golden ticket for getting us out of the Q17 Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con): I represent a rural challenges we face and continuing to support food constituency with a lot of dairy and arable, and some of production. I want to give you a couple of statistics. the biggest fruit producers in the west midlands. Quite a Funding for agriculture is £3.1 billion, but that is tiny in lot of farmers have said to me that they are currently terms of Government expenditure. For every citizen in enrolled in things like countryside stewardship schemes, Britain, we are paying less than £1 per week to farmers for and they are going to transition over. Caroline, you all the good work they do, which we have been talking mentioned the ELMS scheme. Does this Bill do enough about. Compare that with £42 per citizen per week for to help them transition over to the new schemes? Are we the NHS. Just administrating central Government is doing enough to support farmers in the longer term? £3.57 a week per citizen, so farming is getting very little. For example, I have people signing county farm tenancy In terms of managing the transition and making sure agreements, which are for 10 years, but we have guaranteed that farmers can deliver, somebody has to say it: farmers payment for only five years over this parliamentary should be getting more because they are doing such a term. Are we doing enough to support them in the good job. In the future we will be expecting so much longer term? more, and I would like the budget to increase. Martin Lines: We need guaranteed long-term funding or the ambition to deliver it. On a five-year rolling plan, Q18 Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab): I I am planning eight or 10-year rotations in farm planning. want to come back to the point about bringing sustainable If you are taking on tenancies for longer than that, the food production closer to people’s lives. What measures business risk is huge.It is about that long-term development. could be added to the Bill to encourage local community In the transition that we are going to have from one schemes to reduce food poverty and improve good system to the other, we need to be clear and transparent nutrition? about how that will fit and how we can move. It has become clearer that if we can enter into a stewardship Jack Ward: I think the two are largely unrelated. One agreement now, we will be able to move into the ELMS is an income issue, and there is a separate farming issue. when it becomes available, before the end of the period. Conflating the two is a problem because the food we It is about how we are flexible within those schemes. produce is often not leaving the farm at a sustainable The current system has been delayed payments, with a price, and the opportunity to drive that price down is nightmare bureaucracy. It has over-measured and over- very limited. regulated, and there has been no trust in the farmer to Martin Lines: We need clear transparency within the deliver. We need to build that into the new scheme, and supply chains, and parts of the Bill address that. Who is build trust with farmers to work to that system. getting the benefit out of the produce? Farmers are ffinlo Costain: Countryside stewardship has been very selling at a gate price that is way lower than the retail input-focused. Often farmers have done something because price, so who benefits? How can we join up the supply there is a box to tick—because they are getting paid chains to shorten them and give farmers the opportunity for x, rather than because it necessarily delivers the to market more directly? There will be lots of exciting outcome. I think that is what Martin was alluding to. It technologies and systems that may be able to do that, is not the most successful scheme. There is this five-year but it is about incentivising that opportunity. transition, where the basic payments are going out. In ffinlo Costain: I think you have highlighted a real that time, it is for farmers to step up and understand challenge, and I am not quite sure how we address it how to deliver these outcomes, and to develop, either within the Bill. We do not want to see farmers in Britain 21 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 22 uniformly producing high-quality produce that just fuels of Cruelty to Animals, the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, middle-class meals and those of affluent people. We the Traceability Design User Group and Livestock need to recognise that an awful lot of people live in Information Ltd. Would you please briefly introduce poverty or relatively close to poverty, and we need to be yourself? able to feed those people as well. But I do not think that Thomas Lancaster: My name is Tom Lancaster. I am we do that just by continuing with the model that we the acting head of land, seas and climate policy at the currently have, which involves ever more intensive volume RSPB, so I oversee our work on the Agriculture Bill, production and low-nutrition food. We need good food. but also lots of our work on forestry, climate change, That is about the supply chain. As Martin said, it is marine policy and similar issues. about how we connect people who are living in more Simon Hall: I am Simon Hall. I am the managing disadvantaged areas, with food. Often, if you are buying director of Livestock Information Ltd, which is a very directly—if you are buying food and making meals new company, set up on 1 October, with a remit to yourself—it is a hell of a lot cheaper than living on Pot design and implement a new multi-species livestock Noodle or whatever else. traceability service in England, but also to potentially Caroline Drummond: One of the scary facts is that provide some UK capabilities. Just so you know my 50.8% of the food we eat in this country is ultra-processed; background, I am on secondment into this role from in France,it is 14%. Wedo not know about the sustainability DEFRA, so I am substantively a civil servant, but on of highly processed food, and we often do not know its secondment for the next two years to deliver this country of origin. This is where the national food programme. strategy is such a core part of trying to understand what John Cross: I am John Cross. My roots are in farming, our ambition is for the health and the connection of and I still have a farming business. For the past three what we grow. It is out of kilter at the moment and in a years, I have chaired a pan-industry and Government very difficult place. design working group that has worked with Simon to Going back to Jack’s comment, the Bill is about co-create the new traceability system that will be delivered trying to drive the ambition for a highly productive, by LI Ltd. For the sake of openness, I should say that I responsible and sustainable farming system. We need to have just been appointed as chair of that company, so be very careful. There is often confusion. Poverty is a I will be working with Simon, who is the managing social issue, rather than necessarily an issue that farmers director. can respond to, and we need to be very careful that, as Christopher Price: My name is Christopher Price. I an industry, we are not subsidising the social challenge am chief executive of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, of poverty. an organisation that exists to promote and conserve the use of native breed livestock. Q19 Nadia Whittome: Perhaps I was being confusing David Bowles: I am David Bowles. I am the assistant by mentioning two things in my question. What can the director of public affairs at the RSPCA. The RSPCA Bill do to encourage local community food schemes to writes the standards for RSPCA Assured, which is the tackle food poverty and improve good nutrition? UK’s only higher welfare assurance scheme. ffinlo Costain: Funding of infrastructure, which is partly in the Bill. It is perhaps about broadening the definition of “infrastructure”. In the same way that The Chair: I know that at least one of you has people ought to be able to apply for funding to put up given evidence to these sessions before—maybe two or the local abattoir that will make a big difference to the three of you—but please enjoy the session, which runs farmers, the land that they are presenting, the prices until 11.25 am. that they are getting and their ability to sell directly to the public locally, you are perhaps right to say that there Q21 George Eustice: The Bill explicitly recognises needs to be support for those sorts of schemes as well. animal health and welfare and native breeds as a public Caroline Drummond: Interestingly, food productivity good. In recent years, we have seen a specialisation in is mentioned in here. One would hope that that is going arable in some parts of the country and a concentration to be the link in terms of trying to define what the of livestock in others. Some say that we need to get national food strategy looks like, because— livestock back on the lowlands, so that we have more permanent pasture, more crop rotation, more organic matter in the soil and so on. I wonder whether those of The Chair: Order. I am afraid that brings us to the you who feel able might comment on the benefits of end of this session, but on behalf of the Committee, livestock in our land management and in the farming many thanks to our witnesses. You gave us invaluable system. information. Thank you very much indeed. Christopher Price: I speak particularly on behalf of native breeds, rather than livestock generally, but I Examination of Witnesses think that promoting our native breeds is hugely important. Thomas Lancaster,John Cross, Simon Hall, Christopher Dealing with economics first of all, you have pointed to Price and David Bowles gave evidence. the uplands as an area where it is harder to grow crops and where people therefore keep livestock, but that does not rule out having livestock elsewhere. If we have the 10.31 am right sort of livestock, grazed at the right density and in Q20 The Chair: Welcome, witnesses. We have five of the right place, we are providing environmental benefits you, so this is going to be challenging to say the least. because we are creating the sorts of habitats we want. We will hear evidence from the Royal Society for the We are keeping down import costs—that helps the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for the Prevention climate—which reduce farm incomes. There is a business 23 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 24 and an environmental side to livestock, which are an for Mr Hall: in terms of livestock traceability, are there important landscape feature as well. There is something market opportunities for us in having that higher health exciting about seeing interesting animals wandering and higher welfare supply chain, which can be demonstrated around our farms. It all helps towards tourism, and a through the project that you are working on? sense of place and location. There are huge arguments David Bowles: There are huge opportunities. We have to support increased livestock use. only ever had one scheme in the UK, but we have had John Cross: I speak as a mixed arable and livestock something like 52 schemes over the 28 EU member farmer, as opposed to my involvement with Livestock states. The RSPCA Assured scheme is very successful in Information. There is absolutely no doubt that the certain areas, such as laying hens, where we probably combination of livestock on arable land has a profound have 55% of production, but it is very unsuccessful in effect. It is something that I would encourage the whole other areas, such as sheep, beef, dairy and even chickens, industry to look at, because as soon as you start to which are all sectors where we have under 5% and in improve the organic matter levels, the vibrancy and the some areas under 1%. The market is therefore not life within the soil, you realise the benefits that come delivering the higher welfare assurance schemes that we with drought resistance and inherent fertility.In particular, want in that particular market. if you involve a blend of, say, pigs and ruminants on That is the exciting thing about the Bill, because it arable land, you also have a profound effect on the will provide the opportunity to give farmers a leg up birdlife that then decides to come to live on that farm. It through, for example, one-off capital grants, and then is something that I believe in passionately, and it works, provide them with payments to ensure that, where the but certainly—as I heard referred to in the earlier market does not deliver, they can deliver those higher session this morning—you have to be mindful of stocking welfare schemes. The RSPCA is very happy that the Bill densities. In particular, it is a matter of making good provides for that two-step process. We think there are use of grazing legumes, which we are pioneering. It is a very exciting times here for farmers, particularly in valuable mission that the Bill mentions, because we those areas where we have not traditionally gone into need more organic matter in arable land. higher welfare schemes. For instance, at the moment, David Bowles: Just picking up on that point, I have 0% of ducks in the UK have access to full-body water. been working on CAP issues for 20 years, and this is the The expression “taking a duck to water” does not exist first time that we have had the opportunity to get for UK duck farming. That is a tragedy, not just for animal welfare into the new farm support system. We ducks, but for UK farming. have only ever had one animal welfare scheme in the Simon Hall: There are undoubtedly opportunities in last 20 years, which was in Scotland, so it is really the marketplace if we can evidence welfare standards, important that we start to get animal welfare payments provenance, and so on. The Livestock Information into the system and, particularly on the stocking point, programme will put in place a new multi-species traceability make sure that farmers are paid to go higher than the service that brings together data based on animals, welfare standards they have at the moment. I think you keepership—the people who have been responsible for will get win-win situations, with benefits to animal the animal throughout its life—and location, the farm welfare, benefits to the environment, benefits to rare where it is based. The whole proposition of the programme breeds, et cetera. that we are delivering is about using that data not only Thomas Lancaster: The RSPB is a big landowner and to better inform Government responses to animal disease farmer—we have 30,000 livestock across our estate. In a control and ensuring food safety, but to enable the lot of cases, those livestock are essential to the public industry to take advantage of that data to evidence its goods that we deliver, particularly the high nature value standards and demonstrate to its consumers, domestically farming systems that, again, have been a key feature of or internationally, the standards to that livestock is many CAP schemes in the past. We want to see future produced, the provenance of the animals and so on in schemes in England supporting those high nature value real data. Working in partnership with Government farming systems. Extensive livestock production will be and industry, there is an opportunity to set out our stall a key feature of those systems in future and is important in a world-leading manner. in supporting species such as curlew and other breeding waders, or habitats such as upland hay meadows. Christopher Price: To build on what has been said, an important aspect of the Livestock Information service—if John’s point about densities is absolutely right, because it goes as far as I hope it does—is that it will give greater overgrazing is a major problem for a lot of our designated recognition to individual breeds. It will make it clear sites and habitats. The opportunity we have in the that what you are buying is a saddleback or whatever. Agriculture Bill, and with environmental land management At the moment, it is very difficult for the consumer to schemes specifically, is to support farmers to find that know that what he or she is buying is what the butcher optimum balance, which Martin Lines talked about a or supermarket purports it to be, or to know when they lot in the previous session and which can go hand use nebulous language to imply that it has a particular in hand with a more profitable livestock farming system provenance. If we can get to a system whereby people as well. are promoting particular breeds associated with a particular Q22 George Eustice: I have just a couple of further area, we will do well to create a much stronger sense of points. Mr Bowles, you are right, this is the first time place and local identity, which will help with creating that a country has put as much ambition into rewarding new markets. high animal welfare outcomes as we do in the Bill. Your organisation runs the RSPCA Assured scheme. What Q23 Daniel Zeichner: I think at least three of the lessons can we learn from that about having a payment- witnesses are part of organisations that were signatories for-public-goods model for farmers who go above and to the letter to the Prime Minister at the end of last beyond the regulatory baseline? Also, if I may, a question month warning about the potential risks of lower standards 25 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 26 for imported food. Will those three witnesses, and perhaps certain extent, export its conscience and accept lower others, comment briefly on what you think will be the standards from elsewhere. You should be consistent in effect of allowing imports of food produced to lower your attitude to animals. environmental welfare and health standards on consumers, producers and the environment? Q24 Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con): Should some David Bowles: For the RSPCA, this is probably the financial assistance be provided for animal welfare activities biggest omission in the Bill. The Government have that go beyond, for example,the legal minimal requirements resisted putting anything in the Bill that says that we and normal good practice? If so, what types of activities will not import produce or food to lower standards than could that include? those of the UK. I cannot see why they have resisted David Bowles: Yes; the RSPCA, as I said earlier, is that. The Secretary of State said, “Trust me, because it’s delighted that for the first time we have the opportunity in the manifesto.” Frankly, I do not think that is good to provide financial assistance to farmers. One of the enough. Last year the Government tabled their own things that is missing from the Bill—it says it in the amendment to the Trade Bill that said exactly that. I explanatory notes, but it is not explicit—is that financial hope they do the same here, because if they do not, they assistance should be given only to those above baseline will leave British farmers who are producing to those standards. We had a system where farmers could have higher welfare standards open to US imports. been paid even if they were doing things that were For instance, 55% of the pork meat and bacon that illegal. I do not want to replicate that in the new farm we eat is imported. Virtually all that comes from the support system. EU. If you start importing that from the USA, where There are a lot of things that we would like the they still have sow stalls, where they still give their pigs Government to introduce to give farmers a leg up—for ractopamine, which is an illegal drug in UK pig farming, instance, providing brushes for cattle, hoof-trimming you are opening up to cheaper imports coming in, for cattle to reduce lameness, rubber matting for cattle particularly if you do not have consumer information to give farmers a leg up to farm at higher welfare and labelling. I am pleased that labelling is in the standards, and then giving them the opportunity to get Agriculture Bill, but this needs to be part of a matrix. money that is not provided by the marketplace, which is You need to have the same standards for food coming the difference between farming at higher welfare and in. The RSPCA is not afraid of higher welfare food what the marketplace delivers. coming in. What we are afraid of is food coming in that There is a whole range and suite of issues that could is illegal to produce in the UK. be gathered. The RSPCA is delighted that the Government Christopher Price: I agree with everything that has are looking at them seriously, and we hope that some been said, but I think we need to be careful about can be trialled in the next year. putting too much trust in labelling. I cannot see that Christopher Price: There are two aspects to your people are going to make many purchasing decisions on question. The first is whether we have got the regulations the basis of labelling. Something like less than 5% of right in the first place. Although we might have the right decisions nowadays are based on labelling, which includes standards, I think that most people on our side of the all the various organic and assurance schemes. This has table would hope that Dame Glenys Stacey’s report is to be dealt with by legislation and regulation. You implemented, if not in full, then to a large extent. It cannot leave it to consumer good will in the supermarket. might be useful to expand a bit on that in a moment. Thomas Lancaster: I agree with all that. We worked In terms of paying for meeting regulatory standards very closely with the NFU to co-ordinate that letter. We per se, I think this is something that applies throughout. view assurance around import standards as a foundational Farming will go through the most immense structural element of the whole future farming policy and as really change over the next four or five years, as we move to an important to farmers’ ability to invest in public goods unsubsidised, more market-facing world. There will be schemes with confidence. an incredible variety of costs for people as a result. I do not think that there is anything untoward about the The letter not only touched on a defensive ask, but Government helping people to make that transition pushed a more aspirational agenda around a role for the over the short term. I am talking about significant UK to set out a world-leading trade policy that takes short-term capital expenditure on the Government’s account of societal demands such as climate change, part, to get the industry match-fit—not only in terms of biodiversity and all those sorts of issues, which are not welfare, but in terms of having the right business processes reflected in modern international trade policy,and certainly and practices in place. After that, you can say, “Now not at the World Trade Organisation. you’re on your own. We’ve helped you to get up to the This is often reported as: “We want protection.” standard that we expected of you. Now it’s for the Actually, as David said, we want to be able to compete market to support you going forward.” on common standards. No UK farmers are calling for protectionism for its own sake, but there is an opportunity Q25 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): The Bill to call for a more sustainable trade policy that has a bit contains a lot of powers rather than duties. To my more imagination regarding how we can fight the climate mind, a duty means that the Secretary of State is more and environment emergency, while embarking upon a accountable. Do you think that the Bill should contain new international trade policy, as we now will. a duty for the Secretary of State to support all the John Cross: It has been very well addressed already, public goods identified? but briefly, if society is sincere about animal welfare Christopher Price: Most legislation nowadays gives and is aspirational—which it should be—then it should powers not duties. There is nothing unusual about the not look for one set of standards domestically and, to a Agriculture Bill in that regard. The Bill is about the tool 27 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 28 used to implement the policy; it is not the policy in the M25. That illustrates how complex the mix is. The itself. It would be useful to have the Government’s red meat levy is designed—yes, funded by farmers and policy, to know what they are going to try to implement. processors—to make the best of a supply chain and to Having said all that, we are talking about some really deliver business enhancement throughout for the good quite complicated stuff. Food production, which is of consumers and producers. It is quite a complex issue fundamental to our existence, is all based on natural and it is not just as simple as three separate lots of processes that are really complicated. We are going industry all wanting to do their own thing in isolation, through huge structural changes and as a country we because they are all interdependent. have not been great at managing structural change. Bearing all that in mind, it is important that Government Q27 Deidre Brock: This question is specifically for have a full range of tools to do as they see fit, in Mr Hall and Mr Cross, just about your organisations. consultation with stakeholders. I would hate the idea Can you tell us, please, how you reformed; what your that, for reasons of legislative propriety or whatever, we role is; what your governance rules are,and what jurisdiction ended up constraining Government so much that they you have in regard to Scotland and the devolved nations? could not do things that, in a few months’ time, we John Cross: I will leave some of the technical detail to might decide are absolutely essential. Simon, but in principle, this is how we arrived where we Thomas Lancaster: We are very sympathetic to having are now. Yes, we have established traceability systems in more duties to balance the range of powers. A report this country and they work but, as we speak, they still from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform tend to be a blend of paper and digital—sometimes Committee the last time the Bill was in Parliament was both at the same time. They work but they are high- quite scathing on that point. Clauses 4 to 6 are a maintenance. They are sub-optimal and they take a lot positive step in setting out strategic objectives and they of resource to keep them going. They were, of course, come with a range of duties on Ministers to have designed to hoard data on behalf of statutory obligations, multi-annual financial plans, set objectives for those as opposed to share data, so the design principle needed and have regard to those objectives when setting the to be completely different. budget for those plans. That is a big step forward in this I think it is fair to say that Government was faced Bill on the duties-not-powers point. with the reality of having to achieve an IT refresh at We would like to see a duty in the Bill to have an some stage, with some fairly urgent timescales. For a environment and land management scheme. At the long time, industry has wanted to have the benefit of moment, it is a legal requirement under CAP-funded the use of its own data. Data was being collected about rural development programmes to have an agri-environment the industry, but the industry could not use it to enhance scheme—you cannot not have one anywhere across the itself. UK. We want to see that duty replicated in the Bill. We came to a moment after the referendum where the It would be interesting to look at other areas in the industry and Government were faced with a series of Bill as well. There are lots of powers in the Bill around scenarios that required them to think differently and fair dealing provisions and supply chain transparency, start to think together—this is where the principle of but there are no duties on Ministers to use those to co-creation came in—right across DEFRA and all its improve supply chain transparency. That is another dependencies, the Food Standards Agency, the Rural area where you could include a duty to clarify how Payments Agency and the others, and right across the those powers were going to be used and that they were industry to form a think-tank as to how you design, going to be used. hopefully, the optimum traceability and information system that enables Government to fulfil its statutory David Bowles: Clause 1(1) says: obligations, but better and faster, while allowing industry “The Secretary of State may give”— to start adding value to itself with information. and then it lists the public goods. We would like to see a If it is a matter of exploring global markets, you can “must”, and the RSPCA would like to see that too. The evidence a brand vastly better. In the global marketplace, Secretary of State would still be applying the letter of traceability is king. In that area, you have huge opportunity. the law if £1 went to animal welfare in the next five-year Similarly, from the viewpoint of the industry looking to period. We would like to see some minimum payments eradicate non-notifiable endemic production diseases, under those particular public goods. again, to tackle disease risk you need information—you need data. As soon as you have got a unique identification Q26 Fay Jones: The Bill amends the red meat levy of any one animal, the information you can attach to system, in that it irons out an imbalance that has often that provides almost endless opportunity. penalised Welsh and Scottish farmers. Do you think that is sufficient, or should the Bill contain further Q28 Deidre Brock: But your focus is on England; is reforms around the red meat levy? that right? John Cross: I had quite a lengthy history in the levy John Cross: This is an English system; yes. sector. The complexity around this issue is really quite Simon Hall: But it is in the context of a UK story. deep, because it depends on where the benefit of the This is quite complex. In the current situation, traceability levy investment is secured, where the products derived services are delivered through a bit of a mixed economy from the industry are consumed and where the supported in the UK. Northern Ireland has a multi-species service supply chains sit. As for the desire to capture and operating there for cattle, sheep and pigs. Scotland has formalise a more even-handed distribution back to the a traceability service for sheep and pigs. Wales has a devolved regions: from what I have seen of it, it does do traceability service for sheep. England operates a GB enough. We live in a very complex domestic market; service for cattle, and we operate a pig service for 50% of Scottish beef production is consumed within England and Wales, and a sheep service in England. 29 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 30

So, it’s quite complicated. Then, within that, there is a body in England. AHDB is a non-departmental public mix of services and databases that come together to body of DEFRA, so it is accountable to DEFRA but provide a UK view of that traceability data, so that funded by the levy payer, and therefore responsible to colleagues at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, for the farmer, grower and processor in England. example, can use that data to respond to an animal For us, the attraction of using AHDB as the parent disease outbreak or a food safety concern, or whatever. body for this company is the way in which we can We have an ambition in England to create a single embed the traceability service as close to industry as multi-species traceability service, or a single service possible, while retaining the sufficient control needed by capability, including help desk and so on, a single IT Government. That model has already been adopted in system, underpinned by the ambition to exploit data, Scotland, Wales and further afield, in Australia. Livestock not only for the benefit of Government and statutory Information Ltd is a company limited by a guarantee; it disease control, but to deliver a range of outcomes is a subsidiary of AHDB; it has a 49% ownership stake externally. In that context, the Scottish Government from DEFRA directly—DEFRA is important, but if it and Welsh Government have decided to bring the cattle wants to exert control it does so through the levy body. services into their own Administrations, and in the case of Wales, to bring the pig service in-house as well. Q31 Deidre Brock: And your readiness for the end of We are all moving at the same time to a position that the year? respects devolution, where every Administration will have its own multi-species traceability service. Particularly Simon Hall: The business case has been approved; we in the context of cattle, that creates a new requirement have funding in place; we have procured IT systems; we to ensure that we have a really good UK view of cattle, have a team of around 50 people delivering; we are recognising that we are disaggregating services that are working very closely with devolved Administrations, currently delivered through one service, so we need to and we are aiming for implementation from the autumn. ensure that that comes together. There is lots to do. There is lots of complexity. The No. 1 thing we must not do when we effect this change DEFRA has asked Livestock Information Ltd, as is compromise our quality of traceability. If we are not part of the process of designing and implementing the ready, we will delay, but there is no indication that we traceability service in England, also to ensure that there will need to at the moment. We are planning for is a way—a mechanism, a service—to ensure that we implementation from the autumn, starting with cattle, have good visibility of that UK data. That approach is sheep next year and pigs later next year. supported by UK CVOs and so on. John Cross: A parting message: the important thing We are, though, at a very early stage of designing for us is to be smart and collaborative with the devolved exactly how that would work. So, we do not have a regions, because disease pathogens—whether notifiable technology strategy yet for exactly how that would or not—and disease outbreaks do not recognise any work and whether that means that Livestock Information political boundaries. We have to be smart and have a Ltd would have a copy of all the UK traceability data, UK view on disease. If you look around the globe, on or whether it is just providing a window into each of the the international trade stage we are seen as the UK. It is services and each of the Administrations for the Animal a UK story if a product goes out, so from the point of and Plant Health Agency to look at, for example. view of access, wherever you go internationally, the UK We have really good relationships with colleagues in is the recognised body. It is important that we have a each of the UK Administrations and we are having smart, collegiate view on this. regular dialogue around how this would work and Simon Hall: This Agriculture Bill does support the whether there would need to be some specific governance delivery of the programme in the way we set out. In arrangements around the UK view, and so on. part 4, clause 32 talks about granting additional functions to AHDB that will allow it to deliver that English Q29 Deidre Brock: So there is no suggestion of imposing traceability service through the subsidiary body.It currently a UK-wide scheme on devolved nations that already has the function to deliver the programme and to design have their own. and implement the future service, but not to run it. The Simon Hall: Quite the reverse. Bill provides the functions to do that, and the flexibility to provide any UK functions required, or that are sensible. For example, one might imagine that allocating Deidre Brock: As you have elaborated, they already a unique identity for an individual animal might be have quite developed traceability schemes something that we choose to do once only in the UK, Simon Hall: This is seeing a move to devolve traceability and we may choose to do it from here or from somewhere services that comes together seamlessly at a UK level, else. recognising that disease and food contamination does The Bill provides the functions that we need to deliver not respect borders. this programme in the way that we want in the future service; it also provides some flexibility, should we work Q30 Deidre Brock: What are your governance rules, together and decide that we want to carry out some UK and how confident are you that the traceability set-up responsibilities. will be ready in time for the end of the year when we leave the EU? Q32 Danny Kruger: May I quickly return to the trade Simon Hall: There are two questions there. The first deals? Mr Cross, you said earlier that we must not is easy: our governance arrangements are that Livestock export our conscience to other countries to import Information Ltd is a subsidiary of the Agriculture and cheap, low-quality food from abroad. Quite right—we Horticulture Development Board, which is the levy need to export our high standards, and I think we agree 31 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 32

[Danny Kruger] understandable for farmers—as to why they are receiving that money—than direct payments. Analysis that we that the Bill is the opportunity to set a world-class have done of Natural England data, which we have not benchmark model for regulating agriculture and sustainable published but will probably publish in the coming months, farming. suggests that payment rates for small farms, on the first My question is on behalf of our producers. The 30 hectares or so of agreements, are higher than for paradox is that everybody complains about the complexity larger farms, which is obviously not the case with direct of CAP, and farmers have a tough time filling in the payments.Weknow that small farms,again when supported forms. Of course, the principle of CAP is very simple: by advice, can profit from public goods schemes, given you just pay for the amount of land that you have. We our understanding of higher level stewardship and similar are proposing to introduce a system with a lot more schemes in the past. complex objectives—quite rightly—for all the different Christopher Price: It is important to recognise just public goods. I share Ms Whittome’s point about the how much farming is going to change. It is not just a opportunity for community-based markets and more matter of changing the subsidy rules; it is a much bigger locally based producers—more local sourcing. Do we structural change. Farmers will be producing much think that those community groups and small farmers more to the market, which means that we will have a will be able to navigate what sounds to an outsider like a different type of farmer. We are already starting to see very complex set of objectives, and therefore potentially those people—people who do not necessarily come some complex subsidy systems? from a farming background, who have made a bit of John Cross: I can make a comment as a farmer rather money doing something more commercial, who are than chair of Livestock Information. You make a very coming to farming with business and marketing skills, good point: we are entering a very different scenario. and who are making a go of things in a very different Some farmers will need considerable help in changing way. Youwill know some of them—Lynbreck Croft, the that mindset and getting used to a new environment, Good Life Meat Company, Hilltop Farm. because it will require a lot more proactivity from the People are already doing it and they have quite a big point of view of seeking rewards for those public goods. presence. They think in a different way.It is not just about It will be a more complex— who can take the biggest beast to the market every week Q33 Danny Kruger: Are we going to have an army of or month. It is about sweating all your assets, so you new consultants coming in to help themselves to some will be selling the meat, but you will be selling meat with of the public money? a good provenance, to high welfare standards and with a low environmental impact. If you are savvy, you will Thomas Lancaster: Advice is a really important part be finding markets for the skins, the wool, the horns. It of the story. We would like to see more clarity from may not be much money per item, but together it starts DEFRA as to what advice will be made available to create more produce with more of a brand. to farmers, particularly during that transition period. We also understand that the evidence base around If you start thinking in terms of your public goods as environmental advice is a really good investment. All well—many farms are starting to—and working out the evidence, particularly from work commissioned by what has a benefit, what you can do to improve your DEFRA and Natural England, suggests that providing soil or your water quality, what plants you can grow advice to farmers as to how they can meet environmental that have biodiversity or climate benefits, and start outcomes and navigate some of the paperwork necessary ticking off those, you can get there. It does not need to to access the public money is well worth the investment be particularly complex. In many ways, although I hear in terms of the outcomes. We know that outcomes what Tom says about the importance of advice, the way supported by advice are better than outcomes not supported that most farmers learn is from other farmers. It is by advice. about encouraging farmers to go and see what their We have done some social science research recently neighbour is doing, and not thinking of their neighbour on farmers’ experience of those schemes with farmers as being their competitor, but as someone who can be a that we have been working with in south Devon for source of guidance. 30 years on species recovery projects for the cirl bunting. So, I do not think we need be worried about complexity. That social science shows really strongly that advice is Conceptually, what is being promised is more straight- the key element, not just in getting that environmental forward. Of course there will be compliance requirements, outcome but in ensuring that farmers are bought in to but many of us think that a lot of the previous compliance the schemes, that they understand the outcomes that requirements were more to do with EU standardisation they are seeking to deliver, and that they are able to get across 28 member states rather than being particularly past some of the bureaucracy, which is an inevitable necessary to ensure the efficient use of public money. So, element of this. I think we can be optimistic about what is happening. Although direct payments sound simple in concept, you have the eligibility rules, particularly the land eligibility Q34 Kerry McCarthy: May I return to the regulatory rules; the land parcel identification system; and the fact baseline issue I raised with the previous witnesses? The that you have to measure things to four decimal places. RSPB was involved in the Institute for European The fact that it is a very poor use of public money and Environmental Policy report published this week that no one really knows what it is for any more, drives a lot suggests that, now we have left the EU, there is a real of those eligibility rules, because you have to provide gap in the regulatory baseline because so many regulations some controls around it. were set at EU level. Is there a need for a firmer Our experience of the best agri-environment schemes regulatory baseline in the Bill so that we know what we in England, particularly higher level stewardship, is reward in terms of farmers going above that baseline, that, supported by advice, they are much more intuitively and so on? 33 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 34

Thomas Lancaster: We, the Wildlife Trusts and WWF baseline species standards at the moment. There is a commissioned the report from IEEP,who are independent real opportunity to introduce those baseline standards, consultants, to look at a future regulatory framework. which will help not just the Bill, but in establishing what Because the Bill includes provisions to move away from the baseline is—and then establishing how to move cross-compliance, and in particular to delink payments farmers up the scale, through capital inputs or through from land, that potentially opens up gaps in aspects of specific measures, and paying them where the market current environmental regulatory protections that exist does not deliver. There are huge opportunities to improve only in cross-compliance, particularly around soils and the baseline regulatory standards in those areas where hedgerows—for example, cutting of hedgerows during they do not exist now. birds’ breeding season and hedgerow buffer strips. We think there is a gap in the Bill in terms of powers necessary for Ministers to bring forward regulatory Q35 Alicia Kearns: This question is mainly for you, protections for soils, hedgerows and other environmental Mr Price. My constituency of Rutland and Melton has features, and we would like to see the Bill amended to quite a few farmers who farm rare breeds. Is there plug that gap. sufficient support for rare breeds in the Bill? Conversely, is that support the right thing to be doing? My farmers There is a big opportunity coming off Dame Glenys who do not farm rare breeds would say that there is a Stacey’s review. The farm inspection and regulation question of fairness in giving too much support to rare review the Government commissioned reported in 2018. breeds. It called for a more comprehensive regulatory framework that enables a more advice-led approach to enforcement, Christopher Price: I will take the second part first. so that, rather than farmers being penalised but not Should we be supporting rare breeds? Yes, we should. really understanding the underlying issue and therefore You probably expected me to say that. not able to address it, the approach would seek to blend penalties with advice and incentives to ensure that you Alicia Kearns: I thought you might, but you never get better environmental outcomes. know. There is an existing model of that in the Scottish Christopher Price: We should do it, first, for economic Environment Protection Agency and its approach. When reasons. These breeds were bred to be in a British a breach is detected, there is a visit from an adviser or a landscape. They can survive in parts of the country that member of staff, who says, “You have to address this other breeds cannot, or cannot without significant inputs. breach. You can either go and seek advice or invest in In many parts of the country, people are farming the infrastructure if necessary.” They come back a second wrong animals and are doing so expensively, because time. If the breach has been addressed, everything is they are using certain inputs to support them. We need fine; if it is not, they give them a third visit and, if it is some help in getting farmers to transition away from still there, then they penalise them. That approach, the old way of doing things into going back to native which Dame Glenys Stacey supported, and we supported breeds. at the time, gets better environmental outcomes in a way that farmers also appreciate and can understand, whereas Native breeds can also provide a wider range of at the moment our regulatory enforcement is very products than many other breeds. I mentioned wools, substandard, it is fair to say. skins, horns and so on, which all have markets, if people think about it, or are incentivised to start thinking Again, Dame Glenys Stacey found that of 10,600 staff about it rather more. There is a role for Government at the Environment Agency, only 40 do farm inspections. in that. As a farmer, you have a one in 200 chance of being inspected by the Environment Agency, and we know Then there is the environmental side of things. The that the agency is again cutting back on some of those grassland habitats that we so cherish are there because regulatory compliance visits. There is a huge challenge they were grazed by certain animals over generations. If in the future, not just in how we reward good practice we are going to restore those habitats, the easiest, most but in how we ensure a level playing field so that the straightforward way to do it is by using the animals that progressive best farmers out there are not undercut by, created them in the first place. effectively, cowboys—unfortunately, there are some. The Lastly, there is the social side. Many of these breeds Bill is silent on that, and for us that is one of the biggest are part of our history. White Park cows came over gaps and omissions. Dogger island from mainland Europe before Stonehenge John Cross: The only comment I would make—again was built. They were part of the Cistercian monks’ as a farmer—is that any more regulation would need to currency. Some of the earliest Welsh laws are about how be fit for purpose, logical, proportionate and enforceable. you regulate and use those animals. Herdwick sheep Regulation is fine, but unless it is logical so people can were bred to live on top of hills in the Lake district. understand it, and it is relatively easy to comply with, it Swaledales were bred to be a bit further down the fells. is just a source of frustration to everyone. Certainly, the They are an immense part of our culture. industry is very keen to move towards an outcome-based Those are all reasons for supporting them. In terms form of regulation as opposed to constantly arguing of how you support them, I would be reluctant for us to about whether a particular margin is six inches too go down a simple headage route; I think that would just narrow or not. The industry would be interested in create the wrong sort of incentives. If a farmer chooses seeing a much more outcome-focused approach. to use native breeds to graze for particular conservation David Bowles: The EU has been moving towards purposes that do not bring him or her a direct financial an outcomes approach, but obviously leaving the EU benefit, that is about the public benefit, which should be gives us huge opportunities in the animal welfare sectors, rewarded, but it is more about making sure that we have such as sheep, beef and dairy, where there are no specific the right infrastructure in place. 35 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 36

There is a lot to do with promoting local produce. We minimum tillage systems, cover crops and other land have talked a bit about creating local markets. Some of management interventions that build resilience to climate the more savvy farmers I was talking about are doing an change in the future. We see climate change running excellent job of that, and part of their brand is selling through public money for public goods, from farmed local breeds and local products from those breeds within and non-farmed landscapes, and the Agriculture Bill is a fairly narrow radius—30-odd miles. That is where the one of the most important pieces of legislation that we premium comes from. It is not for everyone, but people have had in the past decade or probably will have for are starting to do it, which is interesting. decades to come in helping to meet the climate emergency Perhaps the single most important thing—we touched that we all face. on this a bit in the earlier session—is abattoirs. For Christopher Price: I would support— many of the people that I work for and represent, abattoirs are at least as important an issue as support The Chair: I am going to interrupt, because there are going forward. We have huge numbers of people who two colleagues who have been asking to put questions are producing the right animals to the right standards in very quickly, Robert Goodwill and then Virginia Crosbie. a very environmentally friendly way. You hear people Please put your questions to everyone. talking about how their motivation in life is to ensure that their animals have a life worth living and then only one bad day—the day they go to the abattoir—and you Q37 Mr Goodwill: I have a very quick question: have people who want to buy the products, but the farmers are being incentivised to create habitats for whole thing is being stymied in significant parts of the ground-nesting birds, barn owls, red squirrels or hedgehogs. country because there is no abattoir that can cope. If Do you feel that payment should be made for delivering there is an abattoir, it generally will not be able to take those species, or would creating the habitat be enough? the small numbers of non-standard animals and give Would predator control be something that your members you back the by-products—the horns, the skins and so would be content with, if it were part of that management? on. In many cases, there is no abattoir at all. If we are talking about short-term Government capital The Chair: And then Virginia Crosbie. investments, it seems to me that there is a desperate need to invest in pop-up abattoirs or mobile abattoirs. Q38 Virginia Crosbie: My constituency is Ynys Môn, There are practical problems with all of that, but if I and I met my farmers recently. They think that they get could get anything across to the Committee, it would be quite a tough deal from the public and that it stems the need to make sure that we have an abattoir network from the term “farm payments”, so they are looking that is fit for purpose over the next few years, and for forward to moving away from that, but they are equally the Government to invest in creating that. It does not concerned about “public money for public goods”. You need to be a long-term investment; once it is there, the talked earlier about communication and advice to farmers. market can function and support it, but it is getting us How are we going to communicate this to the public? there that matters. Thomas Lancaster: I will pick up on Robert Goodwill’s question. There is a lot of debate about payment for Q36 Daniel Zeichner: I should like to take you up a actions and payment for results. On payment for results, level, in the sense that since the initial iteration of this we would see it as the logical thing to pay for the habitat Bill, we have become very aware of the climate crisis condition, not the number of species or number of and Parliament has declared a climate emergency. Do birds, because that is not something that is necessarily you think there is enough in this Bill to reflect that need within the farmer’s control. for urgent action, particularly given the recommendations There is potentially a role for predator control in from the Committee on Climate Change on policies for future schemes, but there are a lot of steps that need to net zero referred to earlier? If the NFU can look for a be gone through before we get to that point, because target for 2040, should there not be something in this often predation pressure is a proximate cause, not an Bill referencing that? ultimate one. The ultimate cause might be forestry Thomas Lancaster: We have supported in the past, providing a reservoir of foxes, crows and other predators and would still support, a sector-specific target for net on breeding waders on neighbouring moorlands, so zero by 2040, to reflect the ambition of the NFU and removing a block of conifer might be the one thing that others. We would support an amendment to that effect you need to do, not investing in very expensive predator in Committee and beyond. As a statement of intent and control in perpetuity. Getting an understanding of those clarity on the role that the sector could play in that landscape dynamics is an important part of that question. climate emergency, it is still a really useful thing to look Christopher Price: In response to the question about at. We would also stress that, although this is the selling farming, to a large extent that is up to the Agriculture Bill, in the climate change world there is a individual farmer. It is the farmer who creates their lot of talk about nature-based solutions such as peatland brand, and you would hope that their brand would restoration, coastal habitats and woodland creation, focus on all the good things they are doing—high and the Agriculture Bill, particularly through the land welfare standards, low environmental impact, sense of management schemes that flow from it, will be the place, provenance and so on. Many of the new-style central mechanism for delivering those nature-based farmers that I was talking about are doing that; it is solutions and the aims of the Environment Bill. fundamental to them. Thinking about how public money for public goods Having said that, there is a role for Government at can support more sustainable food production that is the higher level in “Brand GB”, and one thing we might also carbon and climate friendly, it has an important want to look at is greater use of geographical indicators. role to play in building soil carbon, potentially supporting There are certain breeds that are associated with Wales 37 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 38 that the Government—possibly the Welsh Government, respond to colleagues’ questions, you can still submit I am not sure—have a role in promoting and helping evidence about those answers. The room will be locked, businesses with. colleagues, and we start again at two o’clock in this David Bowles: Just before the clock ticks over, method room, where Mr Stringer will be in the Chair. of production labelling is an opportunity in the Bill to give the consumer that link in to the farmer. 11.25 am The Chair: I thank our witnesses very much for the The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question time you have spent with us. The Committee is very put (Standing Order No. 88). grateful. If you feel that you were not given time to Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Second Sitting Tuesday 11 February 2020

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till Thursday 13 February at half-past Eleven o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, 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/. 39 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 40

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS,†GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) † Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister of State, Department for † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Ivor Ferguson, President, Ulster Farmers Union

Norman Fulton, Deputy Secretary, Food and Farming Group, Departmental Board, Department for Agriculture, 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 41 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 42

In terms of the future direction of policy, we engaged Public Bill Committee with our major stakeholders from the farming, food and environmental sides, and we produced a draft outline Tuesday 11 February 2020 frameworkforagriculture,whichwepublishedforconsultation in August 2018, really around the four pillars of resilience, (Afternoon) environmental sustainability, productivity and supply chain functionality. It is a very high-level document and [GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair] it received a good response from our stakeholders. Now that we have a Minister and an Executive in place, we Agriculture Bill need to work to flesh that out and to start to chart a way 2 pm forward in the longer term. The Committee deliberated in private. Ivor Ferguson: From the farmers’ point of view, we had negotiations with our farmers and discussions on Examination of Witnesses how we would like to see payments going forward. We Ivor Ferguson and Norman Fulton gave evidence. produced a discussion document. We felt that we were quite happy for farmers to be rewarded for activity, 2.1 pm whether that be agricultural production or environmental The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from the activity. We were quite happy with that because a large Ulster Farmers Union and the Department of Agriculture, number of farmers were not fully happy with area-based Environment and Rural Affairs. Thank you very much payments, in that they felt that the landlord or people for coming today. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. who owned vast areas of land received most of the I would be grateful if you introduced yourselves for the benefit. Our farmers will be quite happy to have money record. directed to people who are engaged in activity, be it production or environmental. Norman Fulton: My name is Norman Fulton. I am deputy secretary within the Department of Agriculture, Having said that, we would not want to see area-based Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland. I payments disappear completely. We would like to keep head up the food and farming group within the Department. that in the form of a resilience or volatility payment, bearing in mind that we have a land border with the Ivor Ferguson: I am Ivor Ferguson, the president of Republic of Ireland where they will still receive land-based the Ulster Farmers Union. We are an organisation in payments. We could not be disadvantaged in any way Northern Ireland with roughly 11,500 members spread with our farming colleagues in southern Ireland. across all sectors. From that point of view,we would like to see some form The Chair: Thank you. of a resilience or volatility payment. If we look at the recent farm income figures for Northern Ireland, the Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): I am sorry, profitability figure has fallen from well over £300 million but I wonder if we could ask the witnesses to speak up down to £290 million. That is a similar figure to what slightly. comes in in farm support to Northern Ireland. It is a stark reminder of how dependent some sectors are on The Chair: The acoustics in this room are appalling, basic payments. which is nobody’s fault apart from the architect’s. If witnesses and members of the Committee could speak Q40 George Eustice: You mentioned that the rationale up, we would all be grateful. Thank you. for an area payment might be resilience or as a risk- management tool, but it is ultimately a subsidy on land Q39 The Minister of State, Department for Environment, tenure or land ownership, so is it the best tool to deal Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): Schedule 6 to with those issues? Or is it a straightforward market the Bill has Northern Ireland-specific provisions,principally intervention—crisis payments when there is a slump in an ability and power to modify the legacy basic payment the market or a severe weather event, when you could scheme—the common agricultural policy scheme. Will intervene using the other crisis powers that are in the you explain what your priorities are to simplify and other part of the schedule? improve the legacy scheme? Secondly, do you have any emerging thoughts about future policy that you might Ivor Ferguson: If there were vast changes in the make through your own Northern Ireland legislation? market for whatever reason, we would certainly need Norman Fulton: Our motivation in drafting the schedule more support. This resilience payment would be much was to retain options for incoming Ministers—obviously less than the payment today—perhaps 30%, 40% or at this was done in the absence of an Executive—so we the most 50%. We have not put a figure on that yet; it is developed it to be able to preserve the ability to continue something we would have to discuss with our farmers to make payments to farmers under pillar 1 and to fairly quickly now. enable us both to continue to deliver schemes under pillar 2, until such a time as Ministers wish to change Q41 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Good those measures, and to keep pace with appropriate afternoon, Mr Stringer. In the written evidence supplied, changes elsewhere in the UK. So it was really to provide Mr Fulton, you raise a number of issues around divergence, that framework for incoming Ministers but not really to both now and in future. Could you say a bit more about set out any particular direction in policy, which is those issues? Could Mr Ferguson also comment on clearly something that Ministers will need to take a lead divergence? on. There is some scope for simplification in the powers Norman Fulton: This is certainly an issue of concern we propose, but it is really for Ministers to decide which to us. We have to be mindful of the fact that we now of those powers they might want to move forward on. have the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol under the 43 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 44 withdrawal agreement, which means we will need to made about maintaining an area-based payment in case align with the European systems, whereas those in the of volatility, what would be the consequence of different rest of the UK could diverge. Therefore, we would be agricultural payment schemes operating throughout concerned that, within what will be the single UK market, the UK? there could be different approaches to marketing standards, Norman Fulton: Again, this is something that all for example. Obviously, that is something that we will Administrations need to be very mindful of in the all need to be mindful of. I suppose it will be managed choices they make. Agriculture is a devolved matter, so through common frameworks across the UK. A lot of each of the Administrations can set their own policy work needs to go into thinking through how we will direction and agenda. Under the protocol, which we operate across the UK, to ensure that the UK market is will now be operating under, certain restrictions will not distorted in any way and there is a level playing field apply in the case of Northern Ireland. We will have an for all players in that market. overall envelope for state aid cover, but within that a percentage will have to be green box. That will put Q42 Daniel Zeichner: That is extremely diplomatic certain restrictions on the choices we make in future but I am not sure how that works. You are in either one policy. That does not necessarily apply elsewhere in the system or another, are you not? Where is the halfway UK. Scotland, Wales and England will all be able to set house? their own policy choices. Again, we need to be careful that we do not start to Norman Fulton: Well, we are very clearly in one system, open up distortions in competition, which could arise so we do not have the scope to change under the from all this. Although these matters are devolved, protocol. In the schedule, you will see that on marketing GB/UK is our domestic market, and we need to make standards, for example, we have taken the ability to set sure we do not end up trying to undercut each other by standards,but that was drafted in advance of the withdrawal using our support mechanisms to facilitate that. There agreement, so it would not be enabled. At some point in is a great deal of responsibility on all the Administrations the future, if we ever left the protocol, it could be on this matter. brought into play. For now, our future is pretty much mapped out when it comes to marketing standards, but Ivor Ferguson: I fully agree with Norman. If we take that is not the case elsewhere in the UK. Although we Northern Ireland at the moment, we would like to think know what our standards will be, they may change that we will have the same level of support. We will elsewhere. That will create the issue of how we ensure certainly need the same level of support. The fact that it that there is a level playing field within the UK/GB, is paid in a different way should not distort our market which remains our biggest market. all that much, if there is the same level of money that comes in. We have to be mindful that our farming Ivor Ferguson: As Norman just said, it is our most colleagues in southern Ireland will have a basic payment important market. At least 50% of what we farmers in too, so we need a level playing field. We have to be very Northern Ireland produce goes to the mainland GB mindful of that going forward. market, and in some sectors it is 70% or 80%. If we were to diverge and the standards were to lower in the GB market, lower standards means lower cost of production, Q45 Thangam Debbonaire: This question may be just and we would be tied to the cost of production within for Mr Fulton, but both of you may care to comment. the EU system in Northern Ireland, so it would be very Agriculture is devolved, as you said, but the World difficult for us to compete in that market. From that Trade Organisation requirements for the agreement on point of view, it would be a disaster for us if the standards agriculture are deemed to have been reserved. Will you changed or diverged a great deal away from where we comment further on whether schedule 6 gives DAERA are today. the powers you need to meet the flexible requirements for Northern Ireland’s specific needs? Do you have anything to add to your comments in answer to the Q43 Daniel Zeichner: When you say disastrous, what question from Fay Jones on how that regional variance do you mean? will play out? Ivor Ferguson: Take the beef sector in Northern Norman Fulton: The schedule is primarily about rolling Ireland. All the products that we produce, or 95% of forward what we have, with options for simplification them, are produced to Red Tractor quality-assured and options to keep pace with potential changes that standards. A lot of them go to the major retailers in the may have happened elsewhere. It is not really about UK, which support us well with the Red Tractor standards. setting our future policy direction, which is something For beef production in Northern Ireland, the returns to that we now need to take forward ourselves in the Northern farmers are down in the last 12 months by £36 million, Ireland Assembly, now that Ministers are back and we so there is no profit in the job at the present time. We have an Executive. could not accept a lower price for product, so a lot of On the WTO issue, yes, that is a reserved matter, but our farmers at the moment are finding it very difficult there is nothing in the Bill that we feel will constrain our to stay in business. If there were a lowering of the price ability to set our policy agenda. For example, there are in the marketplace, that would be a disaster for us. no restrictions on green box support in WTO rules, and none at this time on blue box support—for example, Q44 Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): I headage payments. Hopefully, the UK’s share of the repeat my declaration of interest: I was an employee of amber box coming out of EU will be well in excess of the National Farmers Union, and indeed of the Ulster what any region, or the UK as a whole, could ever hope Farmers Union when I was working in its office in to spend on agriculture, so we do not see that as a practical Brussels a few years ago. I want to pick up on the points restriction on our room to manoeuvre in any way. that were raised about divergence. On the point you just Your final point was around distortion in the UK? 45 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 46

Q46 Thangam Debbonaire: You started to comment some farmers want to do more, and that is something in response to Fay’s question about regional variations. we will have to consider in our next iteration of agri- Is there anything you want to add to that? environment. Norman Fulton: It is something we all need to recognise. For example, if a region were to decide to go back to Q49 Mr Goodwill: I suppose most farmers favour a something we had in the past, a slaughter premium, you cap as long as it is just over the amount they get paid. could easily see how that could attract animals for You also have a scheme where young farmers under the slaughter into that area. You would be starting to age of 40 who farm less than 90 hectares get a 25% distort the movement and processing of livestock. A additional payment. How effective is that? Has that just region probably would not want to do that because you resulted in farmers passing on their farms early? Are would end up spending your regional support to support farms tailoring their businesses to meet the rules, or do farmers located outside your region. Those are the you see genuine benefits in having a young farmer types of things that could happen in theory, but I hope payment? in practice they will not. Norman Fulton: It is a bit of a mixed picture. Certainly, it has encouraged conversations around the farm table Q47 Thangam Debbonaire: You mentioned the word that would not otherwise have happened. We actually “hope” twice there. I am also hopeful, but we are here to put in place in addition—it was an optional addition to deal with legislation. Do you think anything else needs that measure—a requirement for the young farmer to to be added to the legislation to reduce the reliance on have a level 2 qualification in agriculture, so it was a way hope? Is the hope about negotiating aims, or is there of bringing young farmers into the whole area of technology something that should be in the Bill that currently transfer. Some, who had perhaps gone out and got jobs is not? in other professions or trades, were coming back to the Norman Fulton: That is a very difficult question, farm but did not really have the agricultural training in because at the end of the day agriculture policy is place, so this got them on to the stepladder. Quite a devolved, so all the Administrations have the flexibility proportion then decided they would go on and take on to deploy the budget that is at their disposal. I do not further training and qualifications, so it was very positive think there is a lot more you can do in the Bill to address from that perspective as well. The motivations on that that. It is more in the area of the common frameworks one were good, but I think we could improve on it by that govern how the regions co-operate across this area . looking at the restrictions and issues facing young farmers, and at how we can tailor a package to help generational Ivor Ferguson: I will just add that we are mindful of renewal on farms. regional variations across our areas. The future trade policy to be worked out will have an effect on that. If we diverge a lot, product coming from Northern Ireland Q50 Mr Goodwill: Is that your experience as well, into the GB market and vice versa will have added costs Mr Ferguson, from a farmer’s perspective? with the border inspection posts, or whatever you want Ivor Ferguson: Yes indeed. Coming back to the discussion to call them. There will be added costs. That is something document we produced after some consultation with that, if a trade deal did not go for us, or if there was a our farmers, our idea was that when we moved away large-scale divergence, that would add a lot to our costs from the basic payment to a payment for productivity and we would need extra funding. We are very aware of and environmental measures, it would mean that some that. of the farmers who wanted to do extra environmental schemes on their farms would be able to avail themselves of a grant to do that, so it would encourage environmental Q48 Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) measures as well as production measures.That is something (Con): I seem to recall that in Northern Ireland, unlike we are very happy about. in England, BPS payments have a maximum cut-off. That means that, although I assume you have to have On the young farmers scheme, as Norman said, some cross-compliance on your entire holding, there is a young farmers certainly benefited from the scheme and maximum payment you can get. Might switching to it does encourage young farmers. However, going a bit more agri-environmental schemes result in some farms further, we would like to see a succession plan put in not delivering the public goods that they could deliver, place for older farmers to pass on to the next generation, because you would be limited in the amount you could and we would like to see some incentives, like they have give them? Do you think that, at that point, it would be in southern Ireland, such as tax incentives and that sort worthwhile getting rid of the cap and allowing farms to of thing. That would make the transition from the older participate fully on the all the land they have? generation to the next generation a lot easier, and it would be more encouraging for our young farmers. Norman Fulton: There is an overall cap on the current area-based system, but very few holdings hit that limit at this point in time. Again, those are the sorts of things Q51 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): we will need to consider in relation to the architecture With regard to the regulatory and policy divergences we put in place. Certainly, if you were talking about between the four nations of the UK, I am lucky enough large areas of land that needed to be brought back into to have been on the Agriculture Bill Committee twice in good management and good condition, you would want the last two or three years, and I think I am right in that to be encouraged and incentivised, and any disincentive saying that we heard from all the NFUs in the previous that might arise from a cap would have to be considered iteration of this Bill Committee. I recall all the NFUs very carefully. At this point in time, there is no cap on being at pains to say that they currently operate different agri-environment—well, there are caps on the amount schemes and policies between themselves, as you would that individual farmers can get. I know it is an issue that expect from organisations in devolved Administrations. 47 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 48

There were discussions around common frameworks Nick von Westenholz: Nick von Westenholz, director and how they would work once Brexit occurs; those of EU exit and international trade at the National organisations currently operate in Europe under common Farmers Union. frameworks. However,the details of the future frameworks David Goodwin: David Goodwin, chair of agriculture must be agreed, not imposed—I think that that was said and rural issues for the National Federation of Young right across the board by all the different NFUs. Is that Farmers’ Clubs, and I farm in south Northamptonshire. something that you recognise and agree with? Norman Fulton: Yes. I think the frameworks will be Q55 George Eustice: You will be aware that clause 9 important. Up to now,we have operated within a regulatory has quite a broad power giving the Government the framework, the CAP,which gave us a degree of flexibility, ability to start simplifying and sorting out some of the although it was ultimately constrained. Going forward, complexity of the legacy CAP scheme, which we can we will no longer have that regulatory framework. It deploy from as early as next year. What would be your then comes back to the politics of devolution and the priorities to improve the legacy scheme in the time until fact that agriculture is fully devolved. I think all the the new one is rolled out? devolved Administrations will jealously preserve that flexibility, but they will also need to recognise that we Nick von Westenholz: First and foremost, the content will operate within a single market, and that there will or focus of those simplifications is not as important as therefore have to be ground rules— giving information to farmers. During the previous Parliament, as the previous Bill was going through, there was increasing anxiety that, while simplification Q52 Deidre Brock: When you say single market, do may or may not be coming down the line this year, you mean the internal market of the UK? farmers would not be informed about what those Norman Fulton: Of the UK, yes, which is obviously simplifications were, and therefore would be unable to of utmost importance for everyone. properly prepare in order to meet the requirements of Ivor Ferguson: I agree. For us in the Ulster Farmers’ whatever the scheme is. First and foremost, farmers Union, we would certainly have to have some ground need early guidance about the requirements of the rules. We meet our colleagues in the NFUs in England, scheme they will be subject to, well in advance of that Scotland and Wales on a regular basis, and we certainly scheme year beginning. That information is almost as discuss all those matters. We fully agree that we will important as what the simplifications might be. have to have some ground rules, but we do keep in touch In terms of what the simplifications are, we are with farmers in the other regions. engaging with officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as you will know. It will not Q53 Deidre Brock: The impression I got was that the surprise you that some of the current requirements, relationship between the four NFUs is very good, and such as the three-crop rule, have been criticised by many that you speak regularly about these sorts of thing. farmers as overly bureaucratic without really achieving the greening aims it may have hoped to address; that Ivor Ferguson: Yes. one comes up most often in our conversation with members. The Chair: I am afraid that this will have to be the last David Goodwin: All our members are keen to get on question. and farm. That is what we are hearing a lot of at the moment. They hope that this Bill will enable them to do Q54 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I will be very that, to look for opportunities and to expand their quick. What are your thoughts on the food security businesses. Wekeep talking about simplification; anything reports? The current Bill talks about them being produced we can simplify will be a good thing. There is a real every five years. Do you have any thoughts on the worry that we will not meet environmental and welfare frequency? aims. We need to ensure we maintain our high standards Ivor Ferguson: We certainly would not be happy at all and do not let them slip. with a review every five years. We would certainly want to see this reviewed at least once a year. Especially in the Q56 George Eustice: In terms of helping new entrants transition, as we move forward, we would think that and the next generation of younger farmers, what is five years would be far too long a period, and that it will most important for your members? Is it access to land have to be reviewed a lot sooner than that—at least at an affordable rent, or is it having an area-based annually. subsidy system as we do now? David Goodwin: Access to land is obviously a key The Chair: If there are no further questions, we have concern for our members, but access to land is good finished two minutes early. Thank you for your time. only as long as the land they are looking to farm is profitable and viable. Finding ways to enable that is also important. From that point of view, a subsidy system of Examination of Witnesses some description, where farmers are rewarded for the Nick von Westenholz and David Goodwin gave evidence. good work they are doing, is still quite high on our agenda. 2.29 pm The Chair: We will now hear evidence from the NFU Q57 George Eustice: Has the NFU done any work on and the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs. what a sustainable land rent is for different land types For this session, we have until 3 pm. Would you please without the land tenure subsidy that we have through introduce yourselves? direct payments? 49 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 50

Nick von Westenholz: I am not aware that we have say how we could break that mould, but certainly from looked at that sort of detail on where land rents might our members’ point of view, any new, innovative ways sit. It is an interesting question and one we probably we can find to get young people on to the land—not ought to look at. necessarily as managers or owners, but also as good skilled workers—would be good. Q58 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. It is probably no surprise to you that my opening question will refer Q60 Fay Jones: May I quickly follow up on that? Are to the letter to the Prime Minister that the NFU and you happy with the proposed schedule for phasing out over 60 other organisations have written, expressing direct payments—moving away from an area-based concern about the potential risks caused by imported payment and towards a system of public goods? food produced to lower environmental animal welfare or food quality standards. What needs to be done to this David Goodwin: It seems to be very quick. I would Bill to resolve that problem? repeat Nick’s point from earlier: for things to happen in farming, we need to remember how long some of the Nick von Westenholz: The obvious omission from the cycles in agriculture are. For farmers and farm businesses Bill, in our view, is anything around import standards. to prepare for that, they need to know what they are It is absolutely right that that should be in the Bill, preparing for, and they need to know what they are because if the Government are trying to promote, which preparing for a long time in advance of it happening. If we would support, more sustainable production and you are putting a bull in today, you are not going to be food systems domestically in the future, which is the selling the calves, potentially, for three years. We just core aim of the Bill—to provide a support framework need to be mindful of how agriculture works and how for farming in a high welfare, environmentally sustainable that fits with the legislation’s aims. way—they will be fundamentally undermined in that objective if there is not a concurrent trade policy that prevents farm businesses from being undercut by Q61 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) substandard imports. A two-pronged approach in policy (Lab): Do you have any suggestions as to how the Bill terms—trade policy and domestic policy—is needed to could be improved specifically to enhance food production? prevent undermining that sort of farming, in which UK The reason why I am asking is that I want to look at farmers excel. ways to ensure that poorer consumers are also able to The detail of how the Bill is amended or of the terms benefit from the high requirements under the Bill—the of the legislation that can achieve that may be quite requirements for a more sustainable, environmentally complicated and something that the Committee needs friendly way of delivering services. I am worried about to consider as it goes through the Bill line by line, but at poorer consumers being left out. the core there must be a requirement that if the UK is Nick von Westenholz: I think, taking a view of what going to import food, that imported food meets the the Bill is trying to achieve in totality in terms of a same standards of environmental protection, animal sustainable food production system, that the need to welfare and food safety as UK producers are required provide consumers with affordable and safe food must to meet. Of course, the Government have been very remain fundamental to that. reassuring on that point in recent weeks and have given One concern we have is that a singular focus on some some guarantees in that regard, but we feel that that of the public goods aspects might lead to the food needs to be underpinned by legislation, because there production aspect being overlooked. Indeed, that was a are real technical challenges in doing this that any criticism we made of the original Bill. That is not to Government, whether this Government or a future downplay the importance of the clause 1 public goods Government, are going to come up against as they elements and the development of the land management negotiate trade deals and as they pursue a new role for scheme, but we have been clear from the outset of the us as an independent member of the WTO. process, some years ago, that a really comprehensive agricultural policy needs to be built of three key blocks. Q59 Fay Jones: My question is to Mr Goodwin. Are You need a sustainable, environmental block—the sort there any other means that you think should be included of stuff that this Bill does very well—but you also need in the Bill that might give your members access to to keep in mind the need to produce food, which is what land—means that might increase the opportunities for farmers do as well. You need to encourage increased young farmers and perhaps even new entrants into and improved productivity in the farming sector. Again, farming? the Bill provides the powers to do that, although we are David Goodwin: There has been a lot of talk within waiting for details from DEFRA about exactly what our membership about support for schemes whereby we schemes and measures might be introduced to achieve are looking at contract and share farming arrangements, that. particularly in the livestock sector, to enable young We also have a concern around what we call volatility, farmers to come on to land alongside an existing farmer or what might be called stability. That is the stuff that who is perhaps getting a bit older and does not want to farm support systems around the world generally do, do it himself. Quite how the framework for those sorts which is underpin the farming sector as food producers of things fits and how you make them work has always to provide a certain degree of food security and affordable been a challenge. I have just come back from New food for their country.Obviously, there are new, welcome Zealand, and it is interesting to talk to farmers out food security clauses in the Bill. Our concern is that as there. There is a lot more progression on units and we go into the next few years, direct payments will be farmers do not seem to be so static. I think that is reduced and replaced with a scheme that is focused on perhaps the other issue in UK agriculture: it is very environmental land management, and we will potentially parochial—which is traditional. It is difficult to really be in a very difficult trading environment, depending on 51 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 52 how the next 10 and a half months of trade negotiations can you just talk us through the practicalities of what go. That perfect storm will seriously undermine our the relevant change to the legislation would be? I am ability to provide food. We try to make clear that this just concerned about what it actually means to insist on system needs to be as much about providing food for equivalent standards. How would that be articulated in the country as it is about looking after our countryside the Bill? Is that insistence not more appropriate to the and our farmed animals. trade negotiations, which will get into the actual detail of different sectors, important exports and so on? How Q62 Abena Oppong-Asare: Can I ask a supplementary would you frame that piece of legislation in a way that question? did not just open the door to all sorts of challenges on a concept that is not well defined? The Chair: Before you do, I have a large number of Nick von Westenholz: It is a fair point, because the people indicating that they wish to speak. Please could question of how you compare standards in this country Members and witnesses be brief. with those in other countries is very complicated. I think there is a way that you can still build requirements Q63 Abena Oppong-Asare: I will be quick. You into the Bill that address those concerns. Basically, you mentioned that you are waiting for DEFRA to give you can provide safeguards to the Government’s stated aim further information. Have you highlighted to them which on these issues. I should add that that is one reason that of your recommendations you want them to take forward? we very strongly called for a commission with the Nick von Westenholz: Yes.Wehave good communication Government, stakeholders and industry to be set up with DEFRA officials and conversations are ongoing. that would examine these very difficult issues and make Given the immediacy of some of the changes coming clear recommendations for precisely how the Government in, we are looking for assurance that schemes are going can safeguard our standards in future. to be developed and deployable quickly.There are concerns In terms of the Bill, you could require the Government over that. to produce a register, for example, of what our food and farming standards are, or certainly the ones that we are Q64 Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con): Does the Bill keen to safeguard. We can then put in a requirement include the right measures to give tenant farmers certainty that imports should meet those standards or should over succession, tenancy length and security of tenure? have to demonstrate that they do, and possibly some sort Nick von Westenholz: As far as they go, we are of reporting mechanism to demonstrate whether imports pleased with the inclusion of the tenancy clauses in the are meeting those standards. There have been several Bill. They are quite technical and we are looking to amendments to this Bill and the last Bill to attempt to develop some amendments to strengthen them, which address that. we will be happy to share with members of the Committee. You could introduce amendments that are much more In particular, we want to bring in more of the explicit. For example, they could set out the sorts of recommendations of the tenancy reform industry group, veterinary medicines—whatever it might be—that are which has been up and running and working for some prohibited and would not be allowed to be put on the years now, so that those are properly reflected in the market, as well as goods treated with those medicines Bill. Wewill suggest some improvements, but we generally that could not be put on the market in this country. welcome the clauses that have been introduced in this That would be a very clear and straightforward legislative Bill that were not in the last one. safeguard on standards, but you would be looking at quite a lot of text if you were to go completely across Q65 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): This is the board. There are a number of options. probably a question specifically for David Goodwin. What role do you see county farms playing, given that the Government and the Minister have in the past Q67 Thangam Debbonaire: I am not quite sure, but expressed support for reversing the decline in county farms? this question is possibly to both witnesses. The Bill is to Is that something your members would be interested in? a great extent an enabling Bill, and the words “the David Goodwin: Yes, very much so. County farms Secretary of State may” appear frequently. I wonder have been a shining light for getting younger people into whether, were you going through the Bill with a red pen, holdings. In the counties where it works well, it works you would change any of those mays to musts. In very well. Obviously, there are counties where there are particular, I am looking at how we make the move from challenges and more pressures on estates. Unfortunately, having been a full member of the EU and part of the we see those in the news regularly at the moment. There WTO by virtue of that to completely being just on sole are some good examples. The number of county estate membership terms with the requirements of the agreement farms is very small, compared with the number of people on agriculture. I am looking at any mays to musts and who are perhaps looking for opportunities. Some of how to get to compliance with the agreement on agriculture. those individual holdings are very small and do not Nick von Westenholz: I think as a point of principle, always offer the stepping stone that is needed. Going on we would not just argue that any mays need to be from there, there is still a lack, particularly with tenanted turned into musts. We recognise that this is an enabling farms, of progressional farms to go on to from a county Bill and the merit of the Government’s having legislation starter farm. that gives them flexibility. There would probably be some points where we would be more forceful than Q66 Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con): Mr von Westenholz, others, such as the powers around exceptional market the suggestion of insisting in the Bill that we only conditions. At the moment, there is a “may” power for import food produced to the same standards as our Government intervention when exceptional market farmers produce is absolutely the right principle, and conditions are adversely impacting agriculture—this the Government are committed to that in principle, but speaks to that point I was making about volatility, as 53 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 54 agriculture, probably more than other economic sector, minimum wage to people who are not necessarily in can be subject to climate volatility, weather volatility, love with agriculture. There are no specifics that spring market volatility and so on—but we think there should to mind, but anything we can do to support agriculture be a trigger there that requires a “must” for intervention. is a positive. I know some have argued that there should be more of a “must” clause around the financial assistance powers. I Q71 George Eustice: I want to turn to a different part am not sure whether that would do the trick, because it of the Bill, chapter 2, and the provisions on fair dealing could still be an inadequate amount of financial assistance and transparency in the supply chain. Can you tell us that is provided. which sectors suffer the most from a lack of transparency The new clauses addressing multi-year financial plans and fairness in the supply chain? Which are most likely and reporting are important and we are pleased to see to be price takers? What regulations or steps would you them; we think that those, alongside the Government’s like the Government to take, under the powers in this guarantee on the total budget, are just as important in Bill, to ensure that farmers are in a fairer position giving farmers certainty and the ability to plan for the relative to others in the supply chain? long term. David Goodwin: I have a very quick point on that, I did not quite understand the question on the WTO specifically pertaining to the lamb industry. We have agreement. had quite a lot of feedback from our members about lack of transparency: under the sheep legislation as it is at the moment, we are forced to electronically tag and Q68 Thangam Debbonaire: I wanted to emphasise identify all the sheep, but currently the abattoirs and those provisions of the Bill that pertain to the WTO processors are not required to pass that information and ask whether any of those “mays” to “musts” were back down the chain or identify those carcases as in that area. pertaining to those animals. There is a perceived Nick von Westenholz: Not that we have identified, but transparency issue with some processes. It is not that I will have another look at it after the session. potentially we are not being paid the right amounts, but I think people would like to know what our killing out Q69 Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con): Mr Goodwin, percentages are, so that we can improve performance in relation to the next generation of farmers, I would be and make better informed decisions. interested to hear whether you have had any feedback Nick von Westenholz: We are working through our from institutions and how you are working with universities commodity boards, which is the way we cover the different and colleges to ensure that the next generation take steps in the NFU to address exactly how the powers will advantage of this new legislation. be used. We are pleased that those powers are in the Bill, but lots of them rely on secondary legislation to operate, David Goodwin: We are working closely with various so it seems that potentially there is still quite a job to do county agricultural colleges at the moment. We have once the Bill is enacted to ensure that the powers can be just run an event in the north—I have forgotten the used properly to do what they are supposed to do. We name of the college—in association with DEFRA, through look forward to working with officials to work out our DEFRA grant holder, to engage with our members exactly how those powers can be deployed once the Bill about this Bill in particular and the ELMSs that are is enacted—that is a feature of the enabling aspect of coming forward. That is a project that we were looking the Bill. We certainly think the focus on improving the to roll out considerably further; unfortunately,our timescale supply chain is a critical bit of the Bill. was put back when Parliament was prorogued and we had to postpone a lot of events that we were planning to Q72 Daniel Zeichner: Let us turn to the delinking run. Agricultural colleges lend themselves well to setting proposals for a moment. There does not seem to be a up and running events with our members and our target great deal of detail in there. The intention is to bring in audience of potential members and people who are new people, which we would support, but are there looking to come into the industry. We are certainly dangers of unintended consequences? Would you like doing as much work as we can with county colleges and to see more detail? the universities, which are all struggling a little bit for students at the moment. Nick von Westenholz: Yes, absolutely. We would like more detail. We understand there was an intention to consult on them at some point under the last Bill, so Q70 Abena Oppong-Asare: My question links in with presumably that will still happen. You are absolutely Ms Crosbie’s question and is directed to Mr Goodwin. right that there are potential unintended consequences, As you know, the ageing population of farmers is not least because those aspects of the Bill relate to changing. Is there anything specific in the Bill that you England, and there could be a very different way forward think needs to be changed that could help more young in other parts of the UK. That would potentially lead to individuals to go into farming? Is there something that a very different looking system between England and you feel needs to be specifically looked into? other parts of the UK. We need to understand the David Goodwin: As we have touched on at various details. Some people might be attracted to the implications points in this session, the crux of the matter is this Bill’s of delinking, superficially.Once you delink—particularly enabling farmers to run effective, efficient and sustainable with the potential to move to lump sum payments, businesses, both environmentally and economically.From which is one of the reasons for doing so—you are a young farmer’s point of view, the foundation of all moving away from some of the things I spoke about this must be a strong, stable agricultural industry. The earlier, such as being able to manage the transition for only way to attract young people into agriculture is to the next few years, particularly in the volatile circumstances offer them opportunity; it is difficult to sell the idea of that might arise for farming. So yes, the long-winded working 150 hours a week and being paid less than the answer is that we would like more detail. 55 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 56

David Goodwin: We tend to agree on the whole. There be narrowed, and we need to ensure that the current is a feeling of quiet optimism that it might offer exemptions are carried through to this new environment. opportunities for young people to come into agriculture. We want to encourage our co-operatives, not discourage Without some detail to see exactly how that might work them. and whether it is feasible, people are keeping it at arm’s On subsidy payments, we accept that. It will create a length. new environment and a new world for farmers to operate in. Again, co-operation and collaboration can help Q73 Daniel Zeichner: Returning to the volatility/stability farmers become productive and efficient within that question, the CAP was much derided in many quarters, new world. but I would say it has delivered some of the goals that it originally set out to achieve, including a measure of Q75 George Eustice: Coming back to exemptions, I stability. Apart from changing “might” to “must”, what think most are carried forward by the Bill. Specifically other things would you like to see to ensure stability for on dairy contracts, for example, co-operatives were the future? excluded from the voluntary dairy code, but if we were Nick von Westenholz: The main parts of the Bill that to introduce a mandatory code under provisions in the are relevant are around the transition. Currently, the Bill, they might not be. Will you explain why co-operatives Bill still has the timetable of beginning to phase out of are a special case that should be exempt from giving BPS next year and going over a seven-year period. We farmers clarity about how the milk price is calculated? have called, as have others, for a delay in that process. Richard Self: It is an interesting area. I am not an That is still absolutely right because we are unlikely to expert on the dairy sector, but in milk co-operatives the know the trading environment in which farming will first-stage processor is owned by the farmers. If that operate until potentially very late this year, possibly processor takes a high price, farmers will get that back even into next year, yet the schedule has us beginning at some stage; in another situation where they do not to phase out of BPS next year. As David mentioned, own the processor, they will not. Therefore, it inhibits agriculture works on very long timeframes. them from reacting to the market, because ultimately in While we do not know what the future looks like, a situation where the farmer owns the processor, the delaying that is important, not least because this Bill, benefits will eventually come back to the farmer because the previous Bill and the health and harmony consultation they own the business. that it was predicated on, all took place in a very different political environment where the future relationship with Q76 Daniel Zeichner: In general, will the Bill help the EU and some other aspects were envisaged very producer organisations? What more could be done? differently. Things have changed, and the Bill and the Why have we not traditionally done better in UK transition period should also change. We could face agriculture? some very volatile times ahead and we need to be able to Richard Self: Producer organisations have done a manage that. good job, but I think some people would say they could do a better job if they were better organised. I think we The Chair: Order. I am afraid that brings us to the could have made better use of them in the past—other end of the time allotted for this session. I thank the two countries have made very good use of their POs. One witnesses on behalf of the Committee. We will move on concern we have around POs is that they might be too to the next evidence session. narrow. We want to ensure that all types of co-operative have the chance to be a PO, and that extra hoops and barriers are not put in the way of existing co-operatives, Examination of Witness making it more difficult for them to get to that PO status. Richard Self gave evidence. Q77 Daniel Zeichner: Why has the UK experience 3.1 pm been different from that of other countries? The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from Richard Self: Other countries have taken those funds Co-operatives UK, and we have until 3.30 pm. Welcome. that they get through being a PO, and the help with Would you like to introduce yourself? their technology, productivity and so on, but they have also changed their business models. What is important Richard Self: I am Richard Self, agriculture manager with is to get the right business model in place, where you Co-operatives UK, supporting our farmer co-operatives can add value, capture it and bring it back to the primary up and down the country. producer. I think what we have done is just take the money for the grants, if you like, as opposed to changing the Q74 George Eustice: Are you broadly content with business model and the way that the supply chain works. the powers in the Bill to modify the retained EU law on producer organisations in particular? Do you support Q78 Daniel Zeichner: Will the measures in the Bill the principle of moving away from the area-based subsidy make it more likely that we go down that route in future, payment we have now to a system of payment for public do you think—or not? goods? Richard Self: I think it can do. As I said, I think the Richard Self: We are broadly happy with the way the detail will be in the secondary stage to this, and how that Bill is set out. The detail will come in secondary legislation is built up, but the foundations are there. We can make for the areas of co-operation and collaboration that we that PO scheme work, as long as we are inclusive of all are interested in. The main concern is around exemptions. the different co-operative structures that we have got The exemptions are currently very supportive of co- within that, and do not create extra barriers and hoops operatives, but there is some room in the Bill for that to for people to jump through to get into the PO scheme. 57 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 58

Q79 Daniel Zeichner: Is there anything you would on the co-operative business model and how it works like to see in the Bill that would help that to happen? round the world, and how farmers benefit from getting Richard Self: There is nothing specific that I would engaged. Last year, the Royal Agricultural University like to see. At this stage, it is about trying to keep it as did some work for us. It highlighted the lack of wide as possible, so that we keep our options open and understanding of how the business model works and look at every stage of making the environment right for brings benefit back to the farmers—it is about adding co-operatives to thrive and succeed. and capturing that value and bringing it back. Some The UK is well behind most other developed agricultural farmers have said to me, “Is there any point in us adding systems in its use of farmer co-operatives.France, Germany value, because someone else captures it?”, whereas a and the USA are all developing a number of co-operatives, co-operative makes sure that that value is brought back. while the number of our co-operatives is reducing. We We need to educate—“inform” might be a better word need to change that balance around. Our market share in some ways. We do proper case studies and show how, of co-operatives, based on my most recent figures from around the world, co-operatives are used in such an a few years ago, is about 6%, compared with Germany’s effective way, and how their use continues to be developed 17%. I think France has something like 55% and Denmark as they go forward. We were doing quite a lot of work somewhere over 60%. Their market share is much greater. after the Curry Commission report. I was involved in The value added that those co-operatives bring is returned Share to Grow initiatives to get production collaboration to the primary producer. going, and we were making some good ground, but The other advantage with co-operatives is that they then 2008 happened and the cash—the support—stopped. make the markets less volatile. That is one of the things Since then, progress has basically stopped. Wehave probably we are worried about in the future—volatile markets. A moved backwards, if anything, since then in terms of co-operative can help balance out that market to make the level of collaboration and co-operation. External it work well, so that there is less volatility in the price of support is required to make this happen; it will not goods—the primary produce. It also makes sure that happen without that external support to carry it through. the supply chains are fairer for the farmer because they are working together. Q82 George Eustice: One of the criticisms of the fruit-and-veg PO regime in particular was that, apart Q80 Mr Goodwill: From what you have just said, it from being very litigious because of the way in which appears that the structure of UK agriculture, with the legislation was drafted, support could only be given larger units, does not lend itself particularly well to to predominantly marketing co-operatives—marketing co-operatives; whereas, on the continent, you have lots had to be their primary function. Some groups such as of small farmers who, for example, never get a fertiliser the British Growers Association and others have said salesman on their farm for the size of their operation. that that is wrong. Would you support an approach Do you think that, under the old system as part of with support for co-operatives to come together to do the European Union, we have in many ways been trying research and development, or as buyer groups, but not to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, and fit what necessarily marketing in the traditional sense? is going on here into the way that we can access funds? Richard Self: Obviously, marketing and consolidating How do you think in future we can actually produce a products to make efficiencies in the supply chain are system to encourage co-operatives, of the sort that really important, but as we move forward, there are lots would maybe work in the UK, rather than trying to of other opportunities for co-operatives to get involved emulate those across the water? and for farmers to work together. Data is one—we talk Richard Self: Generally, we have some very good co- about “big data”—and co-operatives are in an excellent operatives out there. The governance angle of co-operatives position to harvest that data and to use it, not just for is the key thing. If we get that right, and get them well their benefit, but for the benefit of the whole supply managed at the leadership level, that will help to address chain. It will be important, going forward, that we have the sort of thing that we have had in the past. really efficient supply chains, so that we compete with We have large farmers in our country, compared with external supply chains. Working with a co-operative at some of the others, but in fact it is the small farmers the centre of that, at the production level, is important who do not tend to collaborate so much. I think the both upstream and downstream. If we can have PO schemes larger farmers tend to be very professional in what they that run across different areas and different sections of are doing, and they are looking at this as a business that supply chain, it would be good. arrangement, as opposed to the smaller farmers, who want to do things themselves. The evidence I have seen Q83 George Eustice: On the competition law side, basically says that we need to target smaller farmers what kind of exemptions or special provisions in law probably more than we do the larger farmers. would you seek to enable the co-operative model to develop? Q81 Danny Kruger: You have pretty much answered Richard Self: I think that the existing competition law my question. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on that we enjoy now—or did, under EU law—would be how to do that. If it is a question of larger farmers good to carry through. That is how I understand it, naturally combining because they are more professional, although I am not an expert in this area. The worry is as you imply, is it just a question of education and that it might be narrower in the future, so that the onus making clear the opportunities that are there? Information, comes to fall on the co-operative to show that it is not not education, sorry—that was patronising. competing unfairly, whereas at the moment it can say, Richard Self: No; that was a good point. Education is “We’re a co-operative,” and then someone else has to good point. I looked at this last year. I looked at our prove that it is competing unfairly. The problem with universities and colleges, and they do not do anything that is that co-operatives would have more risk and 59 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 60 more uncertainty when they were trying to grow a Richard Self: I probably do not know enough about particular business and so on. That is why we would like that. The code does a good job in helping the process. to keep it as it is at the moment. Co-operatives are my area of expertise. It would be good if that included co-operation and collaboration as Q84 George Eustice: Are you content with the—I it would help redress some of the balance of fairness think—30% market share provision? So no co-operative within the supply chain, but would be for the benefit of is allowed to go above that—certainly with dairy. the whole supply chain if handled the right way. Richard Self: I think that would be sensible. It would be a good aspiration for some areas. Q91 George Eustice: I wanted to return to the issue of dairy contracts, and whether there should be a continuation Q85 Ruth Jones: Mr Self, in the agri-food supply of the special exemption for dairy co-operatives. What chain, how well does the Bill move the power base away is the remedy for a farmer who finds himself trapped in from the major retailers towards the farmer? a long-term contract in Arla, a huge pan-European Richard Self: I am probably not qualified to say how co-operative, where he is not happy with the price he is well the Bill does in that sense, but I believe that if we getting or the way the organisation is being managed, can have a policy with an almost horizontal theme of but is unable to change either of them despite nominally collaboration and co-operation that runs through the having a share or stake in it? Should there be some rights environmental or production side of it, or anything else, for that individual member as well? Do the articles of it would be good to improve that. In particular, that association in co-operatives generally provide sufficient strengthens up the position of the primary producer protection? working in a co-operative, in terms of balancing out. Richard Self: Obviously, there is a democratic process Some processors and suppliers are worried about within the co-operatives in which you can vote people this, if farmers get together. In some situations, they on who have a particular stance. The idea is to help have—how should we say?—been proactively discouraging control your own co-operative in doing what the it, and we need to avoid that happening. It is to the membership wants. A co-operative should have a process benefit of the whole supply chain if it works with that in place whereby that can be fed into the co-operative to co-operative—they can get economies of scale, help get the criteria right for that membership. The process manage supply and demand, and use the branding of of democracy within the co-operative should allow for the co-operative, if you like, to get to the end consumer that. I cannot comment on an individual case, but it is to show the traceability, the welfare and the quality of up to the members how they run their business. They the product when working with a co-operative. There should be able to set it up the way they want it. are win-win situations for both co-operatives and businesses up and down the supply chain if it is looked at the right Q92 George Eustice: I suppose the key question is: if way. They can see it as a threat to their profitability. the views and interests of a British minority, for instance, were compromised by the majority in a big pan-European Q86 Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con): cooperative because of a decision taken, should they What single change would you advocate if you had to not be able to exit with a set notice period, for instance, prioritise a single change to the Bill, as currently drafted? and have a clear mechanism for doing so? Richard Self: I think the only thing I would change is Richard Self: I would hope so, yes. But I am not an to make sure that the exemptions are firmed up and expert in the dairy industry, so I would need to investigate protected over the next few years. We are worried about that further; we are happy to look into that. I have good that, in terms of suddenly making it more risky for our contacts with our dairy co-operatives and can help feed co-operatives to develop. that into the system.

Q87 Miss Dines: How long would that extension be? Q93 Daniel Zeichner: Earlier, you touched on some Richard Self: There is a two-year period on this. It of the opportunities around data. Will you amplify on could be managed more flexibly, so it would be good if that? What support might be needed to make the most that could be extended for two years. of those opportunities? Richard Self: Increasingly, farmers will have better Q88 Miss Dines: What would your choice be? Would data on their anticipated crop yields, milk yields or it be five years, or four years? whatever. They can collect that raw data, and farmers Richard Self: Five years would seem like a good period, can trust their co-operative to handle it in the right way but I do not have significant knowledge on that front. for them. That data is useful and is worth money to others in the supply chain. It is a question of how they can work together to maximise the use of that data for Q89 Theo Clarke: I just want to pick up on the issue the benefit of the supply chains they are working in. of transparency and fairness in supply chains. Would the fair dealing obligations in the Bill currently work with the existing groceries supply code of practice? I Q94 Daniel Zeichner: Is that an issue of scale, or an want to make sure that we have a consistent approach issue of co-operation? to fair dealing across the whole supply chain. Richard Self: Obviously, the more data you have Richard Self: I’m sorry; what would that be? across an area—information on yields, or even perhaps on the supply side, on agrochemical use and the anticipated Q90 Theo Clarke: How do we ensure that the existing use of crop-protection products—the more it helps you groceries supply code of practice is consistent, so that to manage supply and demand going forward, which we have fair dealing across the whole supply chain? helps improve efficiency and productivity. Co-operatives 61 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 62 are in a really strong place because they are working on Examination of Witnesses behalf of their farmer members, and they can use that Graeme Willis, Jim Egan and Jake Fiennes gave evidence. data in the right way to help the whole supply chain. 3.25 pm Q95 Fay Jones: I have a question about risk management. The Chair: Wewill now hear evidence from the Campaign I had to step out of the room, so I apologise if this has to Protect Rural England, Kings Crops and the Holkham been covered. Often, farmers are at the very end of the Estate. We have until 4.15 pm. Would the witnesses like supply chain and bear all the risk. Wehave a good example to introduce themselves first? with the beef price at the moment, which is down very Jake Fiennes: I am Jake Fiennes, the general manager heavily at farm gate level but not so much at retail level. of conservation at Holkham Estate in north Norfolk. Could there be more in the Bill to provide more risk management support in the event of market volatility? Richard Self: On risk management, the problem is The Chair: Before I move on to Mr Egan, may I say that you put your crops in the ground or start to that this is a huge room and the acoustics are terrible, so produce your animals well ahead, and you do not know can people speak up? what you will get for them. Mechanisms to control Jim Egan: I am Jim Egan, technical advisor for Kings those risks against unforeseen events and so on are Crops. really important. If they could be built in, that would be Graeme Willis: I am Graeme Willis, agricultural lead very useful. Again, co-operatives have a role in that: you for CPRE, the countryside charity. can pool your crops or your fertiliser payments to average out prices within a co-operative. That is the sort Q98 George Eustice: Will you each tell us what you of thing that helps to manage risk. If you have a known think have been the main shortcomings of the existing price for a thing, or you get an average price over a area-based common agricultural policy; whether we period, you do not get hit hard if the price suddenly can, in the short term, modify it to make it work more goes up or down. smoothly; and whether you support the general premise in the Bill of, in the longer term, a move away from Q96 Danny Kruger: That sounds very sensible. A subsidies on land tenure to support for the delivery of huge advantage of a co-op system is that it can help its public goods? members share its red risk. It would be good for me, at Jim Egan: From my perspective, one shortcoming is another time, to understand more about the extent to that the current system does not allow fully integrated which your members provide that kind of assurance environmental and farming management. It does not mechanism for their members, but that is not my question. let the whole lot sit together, which causes issues. One of More abstractly, where do you think the opportunity is the biggest shortcomings of the current system is its for a strengthened co-op movement in the regime that is administration in my specialised area, agri-environment to be introduced? Is it in enabling co-ops to partake in schemes, which will put people off, as it has in the past. I national and global markets, or in strengthening local do not really want to go much further than that, Minister. production for local markets? I bet you are going to say There are lots of things, but that is my area of expertise. both. In terms of modifying in the short term, my personal Richard Self: I would say both. view would be not to, particularly on countryside stewardship. I do a lot of work directly with farmers on Q97 Danny Kruger: Do you have a sense of where getting stewardship schemes in, and I have never seen so there is more opportunity? Are you part of the local, much demand as this year. I already have 65 people on anti-food-miles movement, or do you say, “No, we can my books wanting to do the modified schemes. There take part in the global economy”? are obviously things pushing them towards that, but the simplification of the actual stewardship process has Richard Self: I think there are some wins there for been good. We just need to get the payments and other local things, but if we really want to make a difference, things right in the short term, to provide certainty. it has to be about getting a good market share of UK If I was going to modify anything within the wider supply chains and then working with those groups to BPS system, I would perhaps modify the three-crop see how we can develop export markets around the rule, so I could say that we had done something. However, world for high-value, high-welfare, quality products. I think people are used to it, and it is actually very There are some opportunities for that. It is a difficult important, in a time of turbulence, that we keep it as area to get into—obviously, it is highly competitive—but stable as we can at the moment. with the story we have through our production methods and so on, we should be able to do that. Again, the Sorry; what was your third question? point is that you need the right business model to add that value but then capture it back to the primary George Eustice: Do you support the general thrust of producer. The problem is that when a farmer produces the future policy, moving from subsidy on land tenure something and it just goes off on a lorry and they do to— not know where it is going, they are price-takers and Jim Egan: Yes. somebody else is capturing the value they have created. Jake Fiennes: If we split it into pillar 1 and pillar 2, That is why we need to get the business model right for the current BPS is rather clumsy and, in places, overly those groups. simplistic. We have the ecological focus area ruling within that, which, as Jim refers to, is cumbersome. The The Chair: If there are no more questions, I thank three-crop rule and hedge-cutting dates sort of tie farmers Mr Self, and we will move on to the next panel. into a knot; they are unable to be flexible. 63 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 64

In the short term, farmers are preparing for a transition George Eustice: Yes, in the new scheme. period, which will start in 2021, according to the current Jake Fiennes: We have the regulatory payment. I hear Secretary of State, although I know that some are of calls for up to 30% of existing payments that farmers pushing for that to be extended, because we have just receive, which is about £200 per hectare. I am certainly seen a delay of this whole process. However, farmers are not in favour of that, because it will not encourage slowly taking on board that there will be seismic change stakeholders to go into the middle tier and I think you within their business. It has happened over a very static will see a great uptake in the middle tier. On the final two years, but we have seen a real momentum, and there tier, which is landscape restoration, whether it is on a is a general acceptance among those within the industry catchment basis, if we are going to have sustainable, that this is coming around the corner. If they have an functional land use, it has to be at scale and deliver all ability to prepare their businesses by going into the the climate change issues and soil regeneration. All current schemes—I think the new stewardship scheme these processes will go into the final tier and, having was opened today. I have not looked at it, but I think the listened to some of the comments earlier about the detail made it easier and more user-friendly. smaller farmers not working well together but the bigger We have to put the past aside, with all the issues that ones working better, we are seeing a great uptake of we had with the RPA, Natural England and late payments. facilitation funds and cluster groups.This whole movement I think we have moved on from that, and I think this is happening. I would not encourage the lower payment year was an example of the RPA demonstrating very to be a major factor, because we would basically go swift payments, and the current stewardship payments back to a reverse BPS system. are being rolled out as we speak. That is all very positive. Jim Egan: My way of answering that would be to Again, I see a greater uptake of the current schemes—the look at the fact that in the majority of lowland England, countryside stewardship higher tier and middle tier, and if you split it that way, you will find farmers taking up also the simplified scheme. more than you think, if it is properly rewarded, if it is That will get farmers ready through the transition linked in by the rest of the industry and it is linked period, which comes on to the Minister’s third point, together. You quite commonly talk to farmers now who where I am in full favour of it. A slight redrafting of the take out anything between 5% and 15% of their land to Bill—talking about soil and productivity—basically got manage it “for the environment” and also recognise the the entire land-based community on board. real benefits of changing what they do: introducing Graeme Willis: I think it is well attested that the CAP grass lanes to help with grass weed control and to build scheme is inefficient, ineffective and inequitable. People soil fertility, which helps with cleaner water and so on. such as Allan Buckwell and Alan Matthews have made IagreewholeheartedlywithJakethatthereisaseachange that point, and DEFRA’s own research has shown that, coming. A lot of people stood back, because of the political and there have been statements, so we very much support uncertainty, but they are ready for that. The higher that view.In terms of the current countryside stewardship extremes you referenced, such as peat restoration, will schemes, as Jim said, it is very important that farmers be a focus in an area where it can happen, getting those keep faith with those schemes. The simplification has landowners together and talking about it. It will take time. been very helpful. I do not think they are completely divorced and different. Certainly within DEFRA, I have been making the On woodland, it will fit when people start to see point that those schemes are probably under-commented natural capital, particularly the natural capital potential on, because we have a 2030 deadline for addressing of their land, and they have choices of what to do. Then climate change by cutting emissions very significantly. woodland will start to happen, especially where you can Four years through to when ELMs beds in is a very get people working together and you can make the important period in which to get trees in the ground links. I would be positive about that. and to get peatland and other high-carbon soils restored. It is very important in this phase to keep putting money Q100 Daniel Zeichner: I want to put to you a question in and investing in farming. It is very important that I asked earlier witnesses. I think that the CPRE was one farmers keep faith with that, and the schemes have been of the signatories to the letter to the Prime Minister expanding, which is very welcome after a rocky start. expressing concern about the potential problems with importing food with lower environmental, welfare and We believe that public goods for public money is the health standards. Why did you sign that letter and what right way forward. It is the absolute crux for enhancing should be done in the Bill to tackle the issue? That is the environment, obviously addressing climate change particularly aimed at Graeme. and biodiversity issues. But, as Jim said, it is very important to harmonise what farmers do in producing Graeme Willis: In terms of maintaining standards, food and other goods with environmental improvements we are very concerned—I know that statements have which we know are very necessary. Bringing those two been made about supporting high standards—that together is critical so that they are not seem as oppositional. undercutting those standards through imports would undermine farmers’ incomes, as well as their ability to Q99 George Eustice: If at one end of the scale you perform environmental management. I know that an have what could be called the broad and shallow but amendment previously tabled to the Bill sought to largely universal interventions that most farmers would introduce a broad requirement that any international signupto—catchmentsensitivefarmingorhedgerows—and trade agreement that was to be ratified must be compliant at the other end you have land use change through with UK standards. We think that is a major omission peatland restoration or new woodland being established, and one of the major things that needs to be addressed what should be the balance between those competing in the legislation. We have a common cause with the priorities in order to really deliver for the environment? whole of the farming sector on that. The whole of the Jake Fiennes: Are we referring to the blueprint of NGO environmental sector takes that view. It is a very ELM? important element and condition. 65 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 66

Q101 Daniel Zeichner: Thank you; that is helpful. Q102 Daniel Zeichner: May I press you on that point? Jim and Jake, you are very enthusiastic and positive This is a big transition that is envisaged, possibly over a about the change on uptake in stewardship. That has compressed timeframe. Is there the capacity to provide been a long time coming, has it not? What has changed the advice and to do the negotiation? If there is not, so dramatically, in your view, to make that happen? In what needs to be done to get it in place? the transformation of ELMs, would you agree that it Jim Egan: I think there is underlying capacity out would have been helpful for this discussion and process there. There are enough people to do it. There will be a to have a bit more detail about the Government’s thinking change of mindset in some sectors, but bear in mind on how it will work? that business is seeing some of the opportunities here Jim Egan: Regarding possible current uptake this as well. Jake is right: it needs to be somebody the farmer year, I have always been positive, and I have been proved trusts—there is a wide range of advisers trusted by farmers—and the advisers need to believe in the scheme. wrong, year on year, as I am often told by DEFRA’s Many advisers have not sold environmental work for agri-environment group. This year, in particular, people the past five years, because they do not believe in the have heard for a long time that BPS will start going scheme; they do not want to put their name on the line down. They have seen their neighbours’ farms going when the payments are late, and when the agreement into the simplified scheme, although not in huge numbers. does not turn up for a year after you have entered I work with a company that provides agronomy advice, into it. and the agronomists are starting to understand it. You should not underestimate the impact that that The weather this year in the east midlands, my patch has, because if your adviser walks up the drive and says, of the country, has meant that there are farms with no “I can’t put my name to that, because I can’t advise you combinable crops in the ground at all—not 5% or 10%, about that future income and part of your business,” it but none. That has made people think. It has made people puts people off. We are starting to get a lot of certainty think about sustainable income streams, support, now about stewardship. I know it will change and unproductive areas and what they could do differently. evolve, but we need that certainty of scheme and of There is a whole raft of different things. There is also a process. The advice is there; people just need to believe question of who sells it. If you sell it directly and positively, in it. people will do it. If you are negative and you harp on about late payments and so on, the meeting will leave you. I tend to be positive about it. Perhaps that is why I Q103 Mr Goodwill: Many land managers derive have a long list of people wanting to work with it. significant income from the sporting potential of their farms or estates—not just from the sale of game, but Jake Fiennes: When you put economically sustainable from the people who pay to stalk or shoot or to catch agriculture to a farmer, he may have had 47 years of salmon in their rivers. Indeed, before agri-environmental being paid just to produce food, irrespective of the schemes came in, the farms and estates managed in that quality, quantity and yield he produces on his land. way were probably the ones already doing what we want They must realign their business. If we see this transition them to do now. How important do you think it is that period take place as of next year, some famers will lose any new schemes under ELM dovetail in with the way anything from 5% to 20% of their support income. that these estates are being managed? Do we need to take particular account, for example, of grouse moors Agri-environment helps them through the transition and the uplands, where we have a fragile environment period financially, but it also gets them to understand. that, if managed in a different way, could well revert to At the moment, farmers lack good agricultural what some might see as a carbon sink, but others would environmental advice. That is what we don’t see enough see as a downgrading of that precious environment? of: advice on the ground. Farmers are a particularly fickle community. They are wary of individuals they do Graeme Willis: Referring to uplands, we have signed not know, so the advice has to come from individuals a letter to say that we want peatland burning to end with whom they have had previous relationships, whether rapidly, and the Committee on Climate Change has through their agronomy, because we are seeing agronomy taken the same view. I want those landscapes to be become more open to environmental delivery,the Farming managed in a re-wetted form, which might help different and Wildlife Advisory Groups throughout the country, forms of game. It might not be the same kinds of game or Natural England, which changed the game of agri- management. environment 20 years ago. The advice on the ground is key. Q104 Mr Goodwill: Is that blanket bog or the dried If farmers are sold an economic reason and then have heathland and moorland? an ability to deliver the environmental goods, whatever Graeme Willis: The blanket bog, essentially. That they may be, through sound advice, we will see greater could be re-wetted and improved upon, and I think you uptake. The reason we had the stop-start scenario with would get different game. You would not necessarily get agri-environment was, as Jim referred to, late payments— the same driven grouse shooting, but it is important to “Am I going to get paid for it?”—or commodity prices. take into account what game management could do in We have seen the volatility in commodity prices. If I am those areas and how it might adapt to that. It would be getting £200 a tonne for my milling wheat, why do I a different form of activity, but very important. I take need to go to an agri-environment scheme when I have the point about large estates, but Jake can say far more already invested in the men, the machinery and the about that; it is important that you maintain that kind infrastructure to deliver that crop? It is an evolving, of management. It has a lot of environmental benefits, moving process, but they are definitely coming more on certainly in integrating woodland into those environments board with it. and into the farming. 67 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 68

Jim Egan: I have no experience of upland, so I will wish. I have two quick questions. First, still on the not try that one. I used to work at the Allerton project management of peatlands issue, game shooting and for GWCT, and my experience of lowland game particularly grouse shooting can be very lucrative for management is that, where it is done very well, it is very estate owners. Is the mechanism in the Bill about rewarding good. It encourages woodland management, habitat farmers who re-wet the peatland or manage the moors management and the provision of wild bird seed mixes, in a certain way ever likely to be enough to encourage pollen and nectar. You are right to reference the fact them to do it, or do we need the ban that you are talking that many of those estates were doing that work before about? agri-environment and working with agri-environment. My other question is that you mentioned your views We need to be careful to ensure that that management is about county farms, and I am keen to see what you positive and good, because, like everything in life, there think should be in the Bill. I think there is general are good and bad shooting estates. For me, it comes support for the idea that county farms are a good thing, back to farming and the environment, completely melded but that does not necessarily mean that they need to go and meshed together. Sporting activity is part of the into the Bill. Can you say what you think needs to be in rural environment and needs to mesh in with it. the Bill on that front? Jake Fiennes: It is an Agriculture Bill and game is not Graeme Willis: On peatland, it interesting how broad agriculture. We have to remove game, because it is just a that goes in terms of land management. Going back to landscape pastime. The environment can benefit game. the Minister’s question, I would imagine that large-scale The game community has enough issues to deal with on restoration might well be part of ELM. The public its table, but we can see that game interests have evolved goods statements are quite broadly framed, but they do over the centuries. They will be more crucial in the talk about soil, and the supporting position statement delivery of environmental goods. Those with a history talks about soil and peat. of managing with a game interest see the benefits. The Allerton project is a great example. The Duke of Norfolk’s Q110 Kerry McCarthy: And the climate change thing, estate in Peppering is specifically targeting game, but possibly. the benefits to the wider environment are huge. All the game interests form part of an agri-environment scheme, Graeme Willis: Yes, climate change being one of the so they are sort of intrinsically linked. Where it is done objectives. It is very important, given we know the level well, it is done very well, and where it is done badly, it is of emissions from upland peat, that the intentions of an environmental disaster. Those with game interests the Bill should cover those areas and ELM should be will have to change, which is no different from how able to deliver on that within that wider land restoration those with food production interests will have to change. component, if that be. I think that will be very important, because where else will the resource come from to do Q105 Mr Goodwill: Could ELMS incentivise those that? The 25-year plan had a £10 million fund. Scotland positive changes? has committed £250 million for restoration, so we need Jake Fiennes: I think the ELM schemes will do money to be identified that can go towards that restoration exactly that. If we can demonstrate better land use for over the longer period. There is an issue about the our land that is less productive—use for the environment, viability of those peatlands in the long term in a warming biodiversity, carbon storage, cleaner water and cleaner climate if they are managed in a different way.That makes air—everyone gets to benefit. things even more contentious. I am pleased that you mentioned county farms. I am Q106 Kerry McCarthy: Did you just say that game not a specialist on entrants, but I think something on should be taken out of the Bill altogether because it is a supporting new entrants should be in the Bill through leisure pastime, not an agricultural pastime? an amendment to that effect. The Minister has spoken Jake Fiennes: Game is not agriculture. Game has about investing in county farms on several occasions never been part of agriculture. Forestry is agriculture; and to the EFRA Committee. He welcomed the idea as farming, dairying and beef production are agriculture, a very interesting development. The farms could be but game sort of sits on the sidelines and is not part of invested in so that they can produce more peri-urban agriculture. horticulture, for example, which might be one way to make smaller units viable. As was referred to earlier, Q107 Kerry McCarthy: I thought that the whole there is an economic question around those.An amendment justification for game shooting was that people eventually to invest and fund—or to give the Secretary of State eat the birds, even though we know that they could not powers to invest and fund—county farms to be developed possibly consume as many as were shot. Perhaps we will and improved for wider purposes, would be great. agree to disagree on that issue. We would also consider asking for a protective lock Jake Fiennes: It is a technicality, but game has never on county farm estates while they can develop new been— wider sets of purposes, so that they can be invested in for the future. Wider purposes in terms of mitigating Q108 Kerry McCarthy: You have farmed game birds and adapting to climate change, supporting connection that are released into the world to be shot. to the countryside, access to land and landscapes and Jake Fiennes: But a game farmer is not a farmer. He the realities of farming, would be very welcome. is not a poultry producer either, strangely. Sorry, but it is a real technical difference. Q111 Virginia Crosbie: Mr Egan, you mentioned that inspection regimes have to be fit for purpose. Which Q109 Kerry McCarthy: Well, we probably do not regimes do you think need to be changed under the new have time to go into that. This is probably a question for legislation? I am also interested to understand from you Graeme, to start with, but others can chip in if they what success looks like. 69 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 70

Jim Egan: When you are on the receiving end of the of the world’s heather moorland is in England, so it is a inspection regime does not seem proportionate at all at key habitat. Admittedly, there are some quite extreme the moment. It is heavy-handed. We all accept that management techniques in places, which we are quite there must be rules and that there has to be an inspection, aware of, and the industry is looking inward on how to but you are working on a farm, on a shop floor that has address that. no straight edges. When somebody can come and deduct a payment for being four decimal places out in area, which is what it could go to, it does not feel right. It Q114 Deidre Brock: I hear what you say. Do you actually puts an awful lot of people off engaging with think it is appropriate that financial assistance could be agri-environment schemes and measures because of the given to those estates as a result of clauses within the pure fear of the inspection. The inspectors are great Bill, or do you think that the clauses should be redrawn people—they are doing a job—but they do not engage to exclude those estates? during their inspection process. There is a finality to the Jake Fiennes: A payment system that rewards farmers inspection process that says, “Mr Egan, you are wrong.” and land occupiers for delivering public goods should There is an appeals process, but there is no face to face. not exclude anyone. As Jim just said, this has to be open That is not a very nice place to be. to everyone. It would be better if it was done in a much more approachable way. We all accept that a lot of money Q115 Deidre Brock: Okay. Would those be the views goes into the industry, but we should be approachable. of Mr Willis and Mr Egan as well? We should be able to say, “Oh, I didn’t quite get that right.” If it is a minor infringement, it is nothing. There Jim Egan: I do not get involved in policy; I have never will be something else on the farm that delivers above worked in it. and beyond what it was intended to, but it is never taken Graeme Willis: In terms of the breadth of it, I think it into account. is still open to question as to how wide it goes. I am on When I worked at the Allerton project, we had three the stakeholder engagement group, so I am limited in inspections in seven years. That is in a place where there what I can say because of confidentiality about that. is a board of trustees, a management team and we all However, I have certainly seen a slide that shows how get on. There is a lot of pressure on the people responsible wide it might go, and there might be questions around for that. Imagine being on a farm on your own. It is not whether it includes, for example, airport operators, which a good place. It needs to be more human and a better have large tracts of open grassland that they need to process. manage to keep trees off. Could they do positive things with that? As for success for me, do you mean in terms of the scheme or the inspection regime? I think there is a very important question about the amount of resource available and whether those are the right people to receive that resource, as against farmers, Virginia Crosbie: In terms of the scheme. given the context we talked about, the viability issues Jim Egan: In terms of the scheme, it would be everybody going forward and the cuts to basic payments during engaging, and engaging willingly and talking about it. the transition. However, something to address the issues across a broad landscape is very important. Q112 Deidre Brock: On the face of it, the Bill seems On whole-farm areas, we would not want large areas to be for the support of farmers, crofters and agricultural of farmland managed very intensively within a system activities.Getting back to what you were saying, Mr Fiennes, in which other areas are just managed for public goods. about grouse moors, it sounded that you thought their I think they need to be combined and harmonised, as activity should not be part of the Bill, yet in part 1 we said before, so that land is shared and used in the of the Bill, the clauses around financial assistance are very best way, for the environmental benefits and for certainly drawn loosely enough that it could apply to good, sustainable food production. shooting estates, as well. Jake Fiennes: I don’t think I was referring to grouse Q116 George Eustice: I return to Mr Egan’s point moors specifically. I was referring to game shooting as a about the control and enforcement regime. If you are community. close to the schemes, you will be aware that the introduction in the latest EU scheme of a common commencement Q113 Deidre Brock: Okay.Do you think it is appropriate, date—so that everybody had to start at the same time, then, that shooting estates receive financial assistance which caused all the predictable administrative problems as a result of the Bill? If not, should it be redrawn more for everyone—combined with the introduction of the tightly, so that they could be excluded? Is that what you IACS enforcement regime drove the terrible, draconian think? regime that you describe. Jake Fiennes: Well, no, I think there are clear benefits One thing we have described for the future scheme is from grouse shooting. We can see greater biodiversity that you would instead leave all that behind, and individual on well managed grouse moors. If we look at the farms would have a trusted, accredited adviser on agri- burning of peatlands, on Saddleworth Moor last year a environment schemes. That could be a trusted, accredited huge area of moor had very deep burning within the agronomist, or someone who works for the Wildlife peat; that was an area of moor that was not managed Trust or the RSPB, and they would be trained to help for grouse, because the heather was very poor, and it put the schemes together. They would visit the farm, was a tinderbox that caught fire very quickly. We must walk the farm with their boots on and then sit around understand the benefits of well managed grouse moors the kitchen table and help an individual farmer construct to a landscape that is iconic to the English uplands: 70% a scheme. 71 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 72

We are obviously testing and piloting and trialling eight years ago and asked for that to happen and it that now. If that system could be made to work—an never did. Natural England continues to re-work bad altogether more human system, as you said, because a applications. Once you do that, the farming community trusted adviser would do the initial agreement and will soon know not to go to that person. It doesn’t need would maybe visit the farm three or four times a year, degree level; it needs an element of a qualification, a CV not to inspect but to be a point of advice—how many and management by a managing authority that is not farms can a single agri-environment adviser with that afraid to take people off the list if they are not doing the type of remit realistically do? job properly. Jim Egan: It would depend very much on type, size, place, aspect and everything. I do not think you can put Q118 Fay Jones: Clause 13 provides the power to opt a number on the people that you could hold as clients. I out of direct payments in favour of a lump sum, and actually do not know how many clients my agronomy therefore opt out of agri-environment schemes. Do you colleagues have, because I am new to that business. see that as a risk of losing a skillset within the agricultural However, where I work, I would be perfectly comfortable sector or an opportunity for new entrants and new ideas? managing 40 or 50 clients and working through with them. Jake Fiennes: If I am brutally honest, I do not think The main premise is not to overlook that that process the Treasury would sign up to that. If we all opted out, of walking the farm with a trusted adviser already we couldn’t afford it. I am intrigued that that is still on happens for countryside stewardship. Most farmers will the table. take advice and will rely on somebody working with them. The opportunity that comes from splitting out Earlier you referred to land values. How to devalue and putting everything into ELMS—including all the very quickly? Everyone opts out and land values plummet basic payment elements, so that it is one big agricultural —in an industry that is generally reliant on that support and environmental processing scheme—actually means in the way it currently manages land. that you can widen that advice and make it broader. Graeme Willis: When I heard about this in the original The trick will be that those advisers will have to have Agriculture Bill, I was concerned that no constraints knowledge of the farming business and will have to talk were placed on that money. I was not clear about the to others within the business. Even on a small dairy rationale for that. If the rationale is for new entrants, farming unit, they will have to talk to the vet, the feed there is an issue if that is only done through land prices merchant and the farmer. It is a facilitation skill as falling. I am not convinced that we can guarantee that much as anything else, and it will require an understanding when a farm is sold, a new entrant will get that farm. of how those farming sectors work. There is no control over that, so it seems too broadbrush. This is definitely the right way to go. We will need It also seems somewhat a hostage to fortune because professional advice to do that. A farmer doesn’t grow large amounts of public money being paid out for what an arable crop without an agronomist. You don’t grow is not a clear set of purposes could play very badly with beef cattle without a vet or a feed merchant. So why the public; other people have raised that concern. If should you not have what I would call environmental that were tied to some investment into the farm, there is facilitators? an element of advantage there to having a lump sum to invest that could meet the other purposes to improve the farm’s environmental performance and productivity. Q117 George Eustice: Based on your assessment of Also, it could be good if it were tied in some shape or 40 or 50, you would need somewhere in the region of form to supporting new entrants. 1,500 to 1,800 of those in England to cover most farms. Is there capacity at the moment in the agronomic and Earlier, there was a mention of share farming—some environment NGO world to allow people to go for form of succession where there is no son or daughter to training and accreditation? Or is it your view that it pass the farm on to, some mechanism where that was would be better simply to recruit additional staff at locked in to ensure that a new entrant could get on to a Natural England or the RPA to do it? farmstead and actually learn. You mentioned skills: they could learn from the skills of the farmer on that Jim Egan: First, I do not think they should be recruited farm and not lose the knowledge of the land, the by Natural England or the RPA. Within the supply aspect, the farming and the culture of that farm, and chain, there are probably sufficient people. An agronomist pass that on to a new, younger or older person with a has to be trained and to get your agronomy diploma different set of skills. That would be really interesting. you have to do a BETA—biodiversity and environmental training for advisers—certificate in conservation I see it as too broadbrush and not clear at the management. It is only a three-day course, but it is moment, and I have concerns. I understand that that about awareness. Whoever is drawing up the scheme will be consulted on, but I am not sure whether that is will need to pull on other skills and pull and bring the clear from the Bill as it stands, or whether that can be environmental community and the farming community clarified. together. A good person does that already. I do not think you need a new qualification. The qualifications Q119 Miss Dines: This question is for Mr Egan. I are there.The BETAcertificate in conservation management represent Derbyshire Dales, which is a very large and that type of approach already addresses some of constituency. As well as many large estates, there are the issues. It would probably need an upland module many small farms. I was interested in your answer to the and a little bit more focus on grassland, because it is an Minister about the point that you made in your written arable-focused course. statement, that funding should be available for professional I also believe that it is Natural England or the RPA’s advice to ensure that we maximise the environmental responsibility, if they get a bad application, to send it benefits. How could that realistically be achieved for my back. I went to DEFRA and Natural England about small farmers, who, historically, have been reluctant to 73 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 74

[Miss Dines] Q121 Daniel Zeichner: I very much agree with you about the complex interaction between the pieces of take advice due to independence, or simply could not legislation, but we know that the sector produces a afford to? There are a lot of young farmers—between certain amount. Could there not be a target for the 20 and 30—in my constituency. How could that be sector? achieved, however admirable it is? What is your advice? Graeme Willis: A target for the sector would be very Jim Egan: I think it can be achieved. The current interesting. I know that the NFU has come up with its example of facilitation funds in cluster groups is an own leadership statement of a 2040 target. It would be absolute classic for that type of farming. I think that interesting for the sector. I would flag up that when there is a facilitation fund in your constituency; there is emissions from agriculture are referenced they are land certainly one not far away. Those farmers could come use, land-use change and forestry emissions, which relate together. I am not a believer in “one farm, one advice”. to agriculture. Peatland use, particularly,is not mentioned, If there are six people who farm together with smaller which is very high indeed—particularly on lowland farming units who want to go into a scheme, and will peat. Those need to be factored in. It is of great concern achieve better environmental outputs if they all work that those do not get mentioned adequately. I think together, we can give one set of advice to all of them. there are powers within the Bill to address those. We need to think really differently about where we I suspect that if you had sector targets for agriculture are going now. It is not just about one-to-one advice; it you would argue for targets for other sectors. I am not is about one-to-six advice. It is about, when you put the sure whether those are in place. In the agriculture scheme together, providing the training to those six to sector, I think that there will be ambition, given the implement the measures. I think that it is completely right funding, to do a lot more on climate change, affordable, and it works. We just need to think differently certainly in terms of locking carbon up in soils, where it about how we put these things together. belongs, rather than losing it to the air. There is great potential for that.

Q120 Daniel Zeichner: Since the previous Agriculture Q122 Mr Goodwill: I am trying to get my head Bill started, obviously the world has changed in some around the deal in payments with respect to an early ways. There is a greater understanding of the climate retirement scheme. When answering an earlier question, crisis that we are facing. More work has been done by you talked about the way it could affect the value of the the Government’sCommittee on Climate Change,including land. Could there be a situation in which a tenant takes very detailed suggestions for land-use management released the money and runs, and then the landowner is looking only a few weeks ago. Would you expect to see some of for a new tenant but without the agricultural support? those proposals begin to make their way into a Bill such It is difficult to attract one. How will the environment as this, and are you surprised, as I am, that there is no be managed if the payments that would have been aspiration within the Bill to hit a net-zero target at some forthcoming for the environmental land management point? schemes were not there? What would happen in practice Graeme Willis: On where those targets are expressed, in a situation where a tenant takes early retirement and we know that the Environment Bill has been laid before takes the money, and then expects the landlord to pick Parliament. The relationship between the Agriculture up the pieces? Bill, the Environment Bill and all the other policy Jake Fiennes: There could be a technical mechanism instruments is very interesting, and remains to be resolved. relating to tenant’s dilapidations from the landlord’s If you had gone in the right order, it might have been perspective. The landlord could seek to recoup that if that you had the Environment Bill, then the 25-year he was going to devalue the land by taking those future environment plan, and then the Agriculture Bill, because payments away. There is a technical mechanism that the main funding mechanism seems to be environmental allows that to happen. That strengthens the landlord’s land management, which would deliver on the kind of ability to retain that land to rent to others or to new targets that you set through the 25-year plan. That can entrants. It is important that there is some kind of be established through the legislation in the Environment mechanism within the Bill for that. Potentially there Bill. would be land abandonment because it has no value, or I am not sure whether it is right to put a target in this we would see deep intensification of land areas that Bill at the moment—it may be a commitment by the have no support mechanism. Then we are trying to Minister—but I think there is a possibility of introducing deliver environmental land management on a landscape further regulation that might address that. Obviously, scale, and we have these blackspots in between with no there is the Environment Bill. One of the complicated support mechanism. That would be my concern. issues is whether the Agriculture Bill could reference the Environment Bill, because it has not received Royal Assent. There is a question about how we address Q123 George Eustice: On that point: do we want land targets, and whether that is set out through the Office rents to stay as high as they are? Would it not potentially for Environmental Protection, for example. It is a be beneficial for landlords to have to fight one another complicated relationship. to attract tenants on to their land? I think that the situation has changed, and therefore Jake Fiennes: Land rents are artificially high based what the Agriculture Bill is able to do, and the amount on the support mechanism. We will see that slowly of funding that comes forward to deliver on those diminish. Commodity prices will periodically affect land targets, is critical. Clarity about the long-term funding prices. The horticultural sector does not rely on support arrangements is therefore very important, as well as how at all. The average age of the British farmer is 62: land those would seek to address the climate change issue. rents are overly high and they will be reduced, thereby 75 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 76 suddenly allowing new entrants to come in who will be to be driven by the froth in the system—the tender more open to environmental land management and rents. If you look at DEFRA’s own figures, the average public goods proposals. We will see a wholesale change. farm business tenancy rent on an arable farm is about We are expecting a recession in agriculture through this £100 per acre, but the tender rents suggest they should transition period, for all the reasons being discussed be double that. I just think we need to ensure that we today. Where there is change there is opportunity, and are not wholly going with the market level. the opportunities are there for another generation to move in and manage land environmentally, economically Q125 George Eustice: I suppose the point I was and sustainably. making was less to do with the market. If you removed from the market the roughly £100 per acre basic payment Chair: If there are no further questions, I thank the scheme payment—if that just vanished—what is the witnesses for attending today on behalf of the Committee. land then worth to rent? I am assuming that it was a market rent, but it would become, potentially, a buyers’ Examination of Witnesses market rather than a sellers’ market, as now. Judicaelle Hammond and George Dunn gave evidence. George Dunn: On that point, we would see the farm business tenancy rents under the 1995 Act move more 4.13 pm towards the level of rents we would see under the 1986 Chair: We will now hear evidence from the Country Act. They might fall a little bit, but because they take Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers into consideration the productive and related earning Association. Wehave until 5pm. Welcome; please introduce capacity of the holding, that would reflect better what yourselves. that holding can physically produce. Judicaelle Hammond: I am Judicaelle Hammond. I am the director of policy and advice of the Country Q126 George Eustice: I have a linked question, although Land and Business Association. it might be too complex to answer. From the CLA’s George Dunn: I am George Dunn. I am the chief point of view, at what point does it cease to be worth executive of the Tenant Farmers Association of England renting land and start to make more sense to bring it in and Wales. hand and farm it yourself without a subsidy? Judicaelle Hammond: There is no easy answer to that, Q124 George Eustice: I will ask a question that I because the circumstances will vary. I think it very asked the National Farmers Union earlier: if we had a much depends on what the person who owns that land world in which there were no basic payment scheme wants to do with their holding. It may well be that, due payments—no subsidy on land, tenure or occupation—and to questions other than just land rents, they want to tenants came in and only paid the rent on which they bring it in hand. It may be that there are other things could still turn a profit, what is the correct value of land they want to do on that land—for example, tourism or rents in an upland area, or a typical lowland area? something completely different to agriculture—or it may be that renting the land to tenants suits them and George Dunn: That is an interesting question, and they will continue doing that. That will vary according one to which there is no simple answer. There are two to the owners’ vision for the land and the stage they are codes of tenancy in play. One is the code under the at in terms of their business. Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, and one is under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The 1986 Act has a formulaic approach to rent. It steers you away from the Q127 George Eustice: On tenancy issues, your market. In my view, if you look at the rents that are on organisations famously do not always agree, but on the Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies, they are probably future direction of travel for policy, do you both agree more akin to an affordable level of rent. We are seeing that a move from an area-based subsidy to payment for around £80 per acre on arable, £50 to £60 per acre on the delivery of public goods is the right way to go for grass and up to £100 per acre on dairy. agriculture policy? If you have any concerns about the The farm business tenancy rents, which are driven by development of that, what are your key concerns about tender rents quite a lot, are far too high. We often see what might go wrong in that transition? rents for arable ground in excess of £200 per acre and Judicaelle Hammond: We would totally agree, as the over £200 per acre for dairy ground. Those are clearly CLA, that this move is the right move. We have been a unsustainable. I would direct the Committee to look at proponent of moving towards payment for public good the sorts of evidence you would get from the 1986 Act for a while now. The Bill is welcome. We also welcome as to what a reasonable level of rent is. the inclusion of soil quality, for example, and the Judicaelle Hammond: I do not think it is that easy. As consideration of sustainable food production and food George was saying, several things make up land rents. security in the Bill. The fact that there is now going to One of them is what you can get for what you do with be a multi-annual framework for financial assistance that land. It is right that it should be left to the market. is also important, as is assistance for productivity It may well be that some of the rent levels are unsustainable. improvement. I think they will probably adjust as we change regimes, Regarding what we would want to see, there are two but I do not think that being bound by a formulaic rent main aspects, as well as a number of other improvements, system is a good idea in a system where there is uncertainty which I might talk about later. One is making sure that in trading conditions and there needs to be some flexibility. the transition is right. At the moment, we are missing George Dunn: To add to that, the problem with an information, not just about what is going to happen open market system is that the market is so slim, and next year, but about residual payments for individual the evidence is so hard to come by. Therefore, you tend businesses over the rest of the transition years. We are 77 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 78 missing the kinds of details about ELMS that will make Those are two important improvements. We would it possible for those businesses to make decisions about also want to make sure that any moneys that are recouped where they want to take their business, and in particular, from direct payment, particularly in the early part of of course, about payment rates. In the absence of those the transitions, are used for productivity and ELMS details, and given the uncertainty in trading conditions, pilots and do not go back to the Treasury. we would like the start of the transition period to be George Dunn: We agree on the issue of trade standards. pushed back by one year without moving the start of We think we need to nail that wholly into the Bill to ELMS. ensure that we are not undercutting our high standards The other issue that we have is about trade standards, here and offshoring our issues abroad. which the NFU and others have spoken about. Wecertainly While there have been some helpful statements from share their concerns. the Government, we are concerned about some of the George Dunn: I would take you back a little bit, rhetoric that appears to be emerging, particularly from Minister, and just say that we need to be really careful. the Prime Minister’s Greenwich speech, where there was Despite the fact that there is a great deal of criticism of an indication that we would not necessarily insist on our the CAP, and the way in which the basic payment laws being protected in trade deals, which is rather scheme operates and its impact on rents, we need to be worrying. Of course we were also promised free and clear that those payments are being received by individual frictionless trade with the EU on leaving the European farms right up and down the country that are doing the Union,butweheartheChancellorof theDuchyof Lancaster right things on the environment, animal welfare, consumer saying today that we need to prepare for issues at the safety and all those issues. If we simply remove the BPS border when we end our implementation period. payment without properly thinking through the changes On the fair dealing section of the Bill, we should nail that we need to make, we risk the good work that we are down the fact that that should be regulated by the doing. That is why we have been saying that we are Groceries Code Adjudicator. The Bill leaves it hanging making changes for a generation, and they need to be as to who should be the regulator. There is a suggestion done well rather than quickly, so we support the CLA’s that the Rural Payments Agency has a role to play; I stance on delaying the transition. We think that we have would disagree. As the CLA has said, we need a delay in concertinaed the work on ELMS, for example, too the transition period by one year, which will give us much to try to bring that forward into a sensible place. sufficient time to think about these things more deeply. Also, while we support the general move towards The access for tenants to schemes needs to be addressed, public payments for public goods, we see that move because schedule 3 to the Bill provides a provision only alongside the productivity elements, which we believe on a “may” basis. We want it to be a “must” basis that are really important as well. The Bill has a couple of the authorities come forward with regulations. Currently, lines on productivity, but we want to see much more that applies only to the 1986 Act tenants, not the about how that can work alongside creating resilience 1995 Act tenants. As that is half the tenanted sector in within farm businesses. There are also the trading elements agriculture in England, we think that should be changed. and ensuring that we are not undercut by cheap imports On the food security section, we want the report to be from abroad, produced to standards that are illegal annual, not five yearly. Finally, in the financial assistance here; the fair dealing practices; and the issue of access plans, the missing thing is the word “financial”. There is to the tenanted sector. Schedule 3 goes some way towards no commitment to say what the finances are going to be addressing that sector, but it needs a little bit of work. in any one year over the five-year period. That needs to Q128 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. In general, be nailed into those plans as well. what changes would you like to see that would improve this Bill, from your point of view? I am particularly Q129 Daniel Zeichner: Do you envisage that measures looking at George. in the Bill will affect the lengths of tenancies that are Judicaelle Hammond: The main one, as I said—I will negotiated? not labour the point—is the delay in the start of the George Dunn: There is nothing in the Bill that will transition. It also seems to us that a couple of other affect the lengths of tenancies per se. Obviously there is things would be improved if they were done differently. the welcome inclusion of soil health within the public For example, the multi-annual framework for financial payments for public goods element of the Bill, which assistance is five years. I can see why it has been done might encourage people to go for longer tenancies, like that, but that means that it is at risk of being depending on how the ELMS fits into that, but there is entangled with the political and election cycles. As far nothing specific that will do anything about the lengths as I know, farmers in the EU—which is going to be our of tenancies. closest competitor—will still have seven years to plan. TheTenancyReformIndustryGroupmadeasuggestion, That is closer to the business cycle in agriculture, so we because one of the things that landlords are concerned would favour lengthening the period covered by the about is how they get land back if the tenant goes into multi-annual financial assistance framework. breach. We are not interested in protecting tenants who The other thing that could be added to the Bill is a areinbreach.If wehadeasier-to-useprovisionsthatallowed provision on rural development and, in particular, landlords to take land back if they had let for a long socioeconomic funding schemes. In the new world, that period of time, that might make them freer to do that. is going to be done via the UK shared prosperity fund, There is also a need to look at the taxation framework, but that is not due to arrive until 2022 at the earliest. which goes beyond the Bill, but we hope that the What would happen if that got delayed, or got into Chancellor might say something about that on 11 March. other difficulties? We would like to see some provision Judicaelle Hammond: Interestingly enough, we would to make sure that it is possible for Government to support the introduction of provisions that enabled continue socioeconomic schemes. landlords, as you might expect, to get possession of the 79 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 80 land in the case of breach. The question for us is George Dunn: Just to correct something that you whether there should be a threshold on that. Our answer might have said in your question, for the basic payment would be that two years or more would be better than scheme, which is being phased out, in 99.9% of the any arbitrary longer threshold. That is certainly an cases that would be going to the tenant, the occupier, additional provision that we could support if there were who has the land at their disposal. not an arbitrary threshold. Obviously, within some of the newer farm business George Dunn: Our view would be that there would be tenancies under the 1995 Act—which I referred to no public policy use for such a short-term clause. If we earlier, following the Minister’s question—a landlord are looking at longer tenancies, we need to find a way of might expect to receive at least the basic payment scheme encouraging them, so it needs to apply to tenancies that in rent, plus more, in terms of the tenant’s willingness to are of 10 years or more. pay rent on that basis, so there is a secondary move of the payment to the landlord, but the claimant is the tenant, and that is what the regulations say. Q130 Danny Kruger: It is very good to hear that you The bigger area that we have concerns about is the both support the direction of travel of the Bill. We agri-environment scheme, where there has been this idea heard earlier from witnesses who were explaining how, that you could have dual use, where a landlord could under the direct payments system, it is often possible for claim countryside stewardship and environmental the landlord to simply hold the subsidy and for the stewardship while the tenant is claiming the BPS. We tenant not to receive the benefit. Do you think that the think that is wholly inappropriate, and we will ask for new system will align your interests? Can you give us an amendments to the Bill to define the rightful recipient example where, possibly, the landlord and the tenant of some of this money. It should be the active farmer might disagree about an improvement? Perhaps the tenant who is in occupation of the land. wants to gain some support for sequestration or planting trees or whatever, but the landlord is in disagreement. Responding to what Judicaelle said about the need Do you think that we are setting up conflict between for tenants to have access, all of Judicaelle’s members landlord and tenant? Perhaps, Ms Hammond, you could will be entirely reasonable and will give consent to our imagine a really bad tenant and, Mr Dunn, you could members to go into these things, but we are looking for imagine a really bad landlord. What would you be those beyond the CLA’s membership, who are not always fighting over? as reasonable. Sadly, we do see landlords withholding reasonable consent very frequently. “Reasonable” is the Judicaelle Hammond: It is really important to understand key word here. We are looking for a set of regulations. that, in most cases, we would expect agreement to be The Bill provides that there should be regulations, and found. I think the reason why we do not like one of the those regulations will set out what are the reasonable particular provisions in schedule 3, which has to do terms upon which a tenant should be able to apply and with arbitration in case of disputes, is that at the moment insist upon a consent, for either fixed equipment or for it very much looks at the interests of the tenants, who access to a scheme. might be gaining financially quite a lot, without necessarily If we take the issue of trees, for example, trees are having a balance of the interest of the landlord. normally reserved out of tenancy agreements. It is the I will give you a few examples of why landlords might landlords who hold the trees, so if there are any carbon withhold consent. It might be about landscape protection. credits available under the Bill, they will not be accessible For example, the National Trust will have properties by the tenant because those trees are reserved to the where they want to make sure that the landscape continues landlord. Perhaps that is something that needs to be to be enjoyed as it is. Or it might be that something does thought through, if trees are going to be a really important not fit with the business planned for the whole of the part of the Government’s policy going forward. holding—in particular, if you are looking at other areas of the holding that are currently in hand or are farmed Q132 Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con): How much by somebody else, which might be better suited to confidence does the Bill and the general direction of planting trees, because trees cannot grow very well in all travel give your members to renew tenancies? places. Or it might be about putting buildings on land in George Dunn: The majority of my members are looking order to create new activities. for longer terms; they want security. The average length As drafted, the schedule would mean that, in the case of term on a farm business tenancy today is 2.9 years. of a dispute, it would go to an arbitrator, and then the Think of agriculture in terms of its long-term need to decision is binding on the landlord. That means that look at soil management, agri-environment schemes there could be really long-term and possibly irreversible and so on. If you take land that has buildings it goes up decisions being imposed on the landlord. We see that as to about seven, if you have land with housing, it is up to a really fundamental infringement of property rights, about 10 or 11, but we would expect those later ones to and that worries us. It is the absence of balance that be even longer than that. Our members consistently ask worries us. for greater length of security of tenure. For example, if you go to a bank to borrow money to invest in your business and you can only show a three-year or a Q131 Danny Kruger: Do you mean that there should four-year time horizon, why would the bank lend you be an appeals mechanism, or do you think ultimately money to do any substantial investment if it only has a that you should not have to take the ruling of the four-year period to pay that back? Even those tenancies arbitration at all? that the CLA often claim get renewed year after year, Judicaelle Hammond: Ideally, we would not want this are only for annual security. How do you go to a bank in the Bill at all. Certainly, if it were to stay in the Bill, asking for support for something where you have annual we would want to see assurances that would redress that security? We think there is a great deal of appetite for imbalance. longer-term tenancies. 81 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 82

Judicaelle Hammond: I think my members want good legislation and rushing them through without proper tenants who look after the land and can pay their rents. consideration of the consequences for both parties. They want tenants who are willing to innovate and That could lead to a market that is even more nervous continue to develop their business. It requires flexibility than it is now and, as a result, becomes ossified. I do not on both sides. I understand the appetite for longer think that would be good. tenancies and that can be agreed. However, what we do George Dunn: We certainly need to learn the lessons not want is a third party determining how two parties of what happened—what is happening—north of the who are free to contract, contract. border, but that should not be an excuse to do nothing Rolling tenancies happen and I therefore think that south of the border. the figure of 2.9 years is a little misleading. We want a system that works for both parties, particularly in times Q134 Theo Clarke: Mr Dunn, I was struck by your of uncertainty. I would add that an awful lot of my comment about tenancies being too short and the fact members are somebody else’s tenant. They have land that people are just staying 2.9 years and not longer. In of their own, but they might add to it, for scale, for my constituency I have a lot of county farms, but I also example. have a real problem with the lack of a new generation George Dunn: In a situation where we have 90% of all coming through. One thing farmers have raised with me farm business tenancies in England now being let for is that because the subsidies will not necessarily continue periods of five years or less, there is market failure here, beyond this Parliament, they can plan for five years, but which the Government need to address. not for 10 years. Is there anything specific we can add into the Bill to address that specific problem? I totally agree that this longer-term issue is the problem. If I am Q133 Thangam Debbonaire: I would like to push you a county farmer in Stafford, I cannot submit a 10-year a little further on the security question. I recognise there business plan because the Government are only are some differences here, but I think it is partly being guaranteeing it for the first Parliament term. Is there presented as a question of equality, of a negotiation anything specific we can do to address that? between equals. It does not quite seem that way from where I am sitting. Can we explore further whether George Dunn: All businesses operate within a sphere more measures could go into the Bill to get the balance of uncertainty about the future for their market and right for members of both organisations, but particularly how they intend to run their businesses in the long term. Mr Dunn’s members, for whom it is presumably harder Anybody who thinks they can do a 10-year business to get land if they are moved from a particular piece of plan and stick to it after year five is thinking wishfully. land than it is from Ms Hammond’s members to get The idea of having multi-annual plans is really good, new tenants if the tenant has moved. Forgive me if I but they need to highlight how much money will be have got that wrong. spent and how it will be spent through those plans, rather than just vague indications of the way in which George Dunn: From our end of the spectrum, we do the financial systems powers will be played. If farmers not want the Bill to have a minimum term for agricultural had a reasonable five-year horizon to work through, tenancies, because that will not help our sector at all. that is as much as I think they would be looking for. We want to see the ability for landlords, where they let long term or where they are nervous about letting long Judicaelle Hammond: I totally agree with the TFA term, in case they get a tenant who they do not get on that the more certainty in the future, the better. Part of with or who does not pay their rent, or who does the problem we have at the moment is that we do not something to the historic landscape, if the landlord is have certainty past next year. Although there have been the National Trust, to feel confident to let for a longer commitments to maintaining the current level of funding, time, because they know they can get the land back so far they are, unfortunately, just commitments. We early if there is a problem. We are absolutely on the would welcome a quantification as part of the multi-annual money with that. There is what might be called an financial assistance frameworks. oven-ready amendment that could go into the Bill to achieve that. Q135 Theo Clarke: Is the delegated power included in this Bill, which allows the Government to extend the transition period, a good enough safety net if things did Thangam Debbonaire: Oh, please don’t call it that! go wrong in the future? George Dunn: More widely, we think the taxation Judicaelle Hammond: I am sure it could be improved. system needs to be looked at to incentivise longer-term tenancies and penalise shorter-term ones through the taxation system. Ireland has done some good things on Q136 Theo Clarke: In what way? the income tax side, which the Treasury could look at, Judicaelle Hammond: I think that my lawyers would but that is not something that would be put in the Bill. probably have my guts for garters if I tried to answer Judicaelle Hammond: You will not be surprised to that question on the spot. hear that I do not agree with that. I do not see that there George Dunn: I think it is good that there is the is a market failure. There might be things in the market facility to pause or extend. One would hope that there that are happening at the moment, because of the way would be close consultation with the stakeholders to that the system works, that may be unsustainable. We consider that. There is a doubt as to whether we can will see what happens when the BPS ends. If you look at reverse, which might be possible. There is also the issue, some of the reforms that have been made, not in Ireland which I know other witnesses have raised, that if you but in Scotland, it all but killed the rental market. That are taking money out of the BPS, and, for whatever would not be good for my members or for George’s. We reason, we are not ready to spend that through the new need to be extremely cautious about putting things in public payments for public goods or productivity schemes, 83 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 84 that money needs to be paid back to the recipients from come out of the TRIG—the Tenancy Reform Industry whom it has been removed, until such time as the Group—recommendations. Are you both content with Government are ready to commit to that expenditure. what is being proposed for those changes to the commercial unit test and so on? Q137 Mr Goodwill: Chapter 2, clause 8 deals with the George Dunn: Minister, you would be surprised to possible extension of the period. I may not understand hear me say that we are absolutely content and there are it particularly well, but it does not make it clear whether, no other changes that we would want to make, and I am if there is an extension to the seven-year period, that not going to say that. There are elements that we think would pause the transition from BPS to ELMS, or need to be added—for example, what we were talking whether that would just continue, but at the end of the about earlier in terms of the provision for farm business seven years there would be an extra year or two under tenancies,for encouraging longer-term lets,to give landlords the full ELMS system. If there was an extension, at the the option of ending those early, but only for those who same time, could that be coupled with a freeze in the are letting for a long time. We think that the provisions transition for a number of reasons,including that the ELMS in relation to tenants’ access to diversification, financial was not being taken up as quickly? assistance and fixed equipment need to be extended to include 1995 Act tenancies. George Dunn: Yes, and I think that is what the Bill intends. My reading of the Bill would suggest that that I noticed that a question was raised by a Member on is what would happen under those circumstances. To go Second Reading about widening the franchise of succession back to the previous question, if money was taken out to include nephews, nieces and grandchildren, which of the system that was not able to be spent through the was not adequately answered by the Secretary of State. new arrangements, that would have to be paid back, in Perhaps there is an amendment that could be brought our view. to look at widening the franchise. Very often, it is the nephews and nieces and grandchildren, rather than the Q138 George Eustice: A previous witness said that if sons and daughters, of farmers, who are the active a tenant farmer exercised an option that we set out individuals. So there are certain changes that we will under clause 13 to take a number of years payment in promote through amendments to the Bill. lieu as a lump sum, under the way tenancy agreements Judicaelle Hammond: What I have said before about tend to be drafted, the landlord would say that was a schedule 3 stands. We do not particularly like the dilapidation and would take compensation off the tenant commercial unit test removal; we think that it is actually farmer. That seemed a rather extraordinary extension well worth having and it should be strengthened. Why of the conventional interpretation of dilapidation. What would individuals who are already successfully farming would your respective views on that be? elsewhere have the privilege of reduced rent? It does not George Dunn: My view is that the answer you were seem fair and it does not make sense. Apart from that, given was nonsense. There would have to be a very my significant concern is with the arbitration proposal specific clause in a tenancy agreement that provided for for dispute resolution on landlord’s consent. the circumstances that you are describing—for a landlord There are a number of things that the CLA welcomes to be able to dilapidate a tenant for taking away the in there, for example provisions relating to landlord payment, which is rightfully theirs anyway, because it is investments, which we think will provide protection for their entitlement to do with that what they will. both the landlord and tenant, and the removal of the We are actually quite excited by the provisions on the minimum retirement age of 65 and also the widening of lump sum and the extent to which that could generate the pool of potential arbitrators. We are not opposed to some really good restructuring within the sector. I do the whole of schedule 3, but we certainly have significant not think there will be an impact on land values as was concern with what is in there at the moment. We certainly suggested, because land values are driven by much would not favour any extension to the AHA tenancies, more than the agricultural return, which is about 2% of which we regard in this day and age, and given the the average land value, when you look at how agriculture flexibility that the market requires, as an outdated system, operates. There might be an impact on rent, which which certainly should not be prolonged. could be a good thing for the sector in terms of productivity George Dunn: You would not expect me not to disagree and margin and efficiency, but we think that the lump with what Judicaelle has said about AHA tenancies. If sum elements are certainly something worth pursuing. we trusted the landlord community with farm business Judicaelle Hammond: I think we are a little bit more tenanciestodeliversustainable,long-term,sensibletenancies, cautious without more detail. We look forward to the we would not be hanging on to the AHA tenancies as consultation that will happen on the secondary legislation. much as we are. Sadly, the landlord community has not It is hard to say how it would work and whether there played the game well in terms of farm business tenancies, would be any unintended consequences without more in the way that they have delivered those. detail. The same thing is true of the lump sum. We can The commercial unit test that Judicaelle talked about see opportunities, both for retirement and investment in is a capricious test. It hits people when there is a death the farm, but at the moment, we also see that it could out of time, or people who are badly advised. That is have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. We really do all. It is a very expensive test to have advisers help you need to have a thought-through view of how the system through. In essence, the Bill is about productivity and would work. increasing efficiency. Having the commercial unit test in place hits those individuals who have been go-ahead, Q139 George Eustice: The final question from me is and have been looking to get themselves on rather than about schedule 3, which sets out in some detail a range waiting for dad or mum to die in order to get the of quite technical changes to tenancy law that have tenancy of the farm. Why should they be penalised 85 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 86 when they have been the ones who have been go-ahead, the Welsh Government that is coming later this year. We and those who are not so go-ahead get the opportunity are having input into that White Paper. Obviously, they to succeed? have not reserved the rights for the financial assistance powers within the Bill, but the agricultural tenancy Q140 Ruth Jones: My question is to you, Mr Dunn, section—schedule 3—applies to Wales and England with your expert Welsh agricultural hat on, if you equally. please. Given that the Welsh Government will not legislate Judicaelle Hammond: We represent farmers and until, at the very earliest, the middle of 2021, and given landowners in Wales as well. I think that, given the that the payments for the direct payment schemes will framework of devolution, there needs to be some flexibility. begin to diverge across the UK, what do you think the Like previous witnesses, we are a bit concerned where consequences will be? either the implementation of the Bill or, indeed, the way George Dunn: We are in discussions with Welsh that the money is allocated across the UK changes to Government officials, as you might expect. This morning, such an extent that we see intra-UK market disturbances. I was having discussions with their policy lead on We would certainly argue that that should be avoided. tenancies. Certainly, I would take from the discussions that we have had to date that there is a real understanding The Chair: If there are no more questions for Members, of the need to ensure that they are moving at a pace that I thank the witnesses for giving evidence this afternoon. allows tenants to have access to the new arrangements. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. In the context of having devolved Government, there —(James Morris.) is no point in having devolved Government if you just do what England does, so there will be specific things for Wales that we will need to look at. I know that the 4.53 pm Welsh Agriculture Minister has some aspirations for Adjourned till Thursday 13 February at half-past Eleven that in Wales. We are waiting for a White Paper from o’clock. 87 Public Bill Committee 11 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 88

Written evidence to be reported to the AB06 Sustainable Food Trust House AB07 The Law Society of Scotland AB01 Key stakeholders on Dartmoor (Dartmoor Hill Pony) AB08 National Pig Association AB09 Nature Friendly Farming Network AB02 Rare Breeds Survival Trust (RBST) AB10 NOAH AB03 Compassion in World Farming AB11 The Trails Trust AB04 National Farmers Union of Scotland (NFU AB12 Mid & West Berks Local Access Forum Scotland) AB13 Department for Agriculture, Environment and AB05 Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV) Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Third Sitting

Thursday 13 February 2020

CONTENTS 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 the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 17 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/. 89 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 90

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS,†GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister of State, Department for † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) † attended the Committee

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 91 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 92

Tim Render: From the Welsh Government perspective, Public Bill Committee we consulted on this question in our last document on ideas for taking farming policy forward and future farm support measures. We also identified that, as part of the Thursday 13 February 2020 transition, you would need to look at simplification. The four things that we flagged were very much penalties, (Morning) as union colleagues have identified; some of the issues around cross-border payments and the single application rule; the basic payment scheme window for unvalidated [GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair] beneficiaries; and how the environmentally sensitive permanent grassland rules operate. As I say, those are Agriculture Bill things that we consulted on. We are assessing the consultation responses at the moment and will make policy decisions on how to implement that when we Examination of Witnesses have the powers,through the Bill, to implement—potentially Dr Nick Fenwick, John Davies, Huw Thomas, and from 2021. Tim Render gave evidence. Huw Thomas: One thing to point out is that the 11.30 am powers relating to Wales in schedule 5 are far more modest than those described for England in clause 9. The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from NFU The scope of the ambition for Wales is perhaps somewhat Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, and the Welsh curtailed by that. In relation to England, you have far Government. Thank you very much for coming and more powers to remove and reduce burdens, penalties, welcome. We have until 12.15 for this panel. Would you financial costs and so on; for Wales, the powers are a bit introduce yourselves before we move to questions? narrower in scope. That is just something to note. Huw Thomas: I am Huw Thomas, NFU Cymru political adviser, based in Builth Wells. Q142 George Eustice: What about the so-called greening JohnDavies:IamJohnDavies,presidentof NFUCymru. rules? When those were introduced, environmental non- Tim Render: I am Tim Render,director for environment governmental organisations said that that was greenwashing and rural affairs in the Welsh Government. and farmers said that it was green taping. Perhaps both Dr Fenwick: I am Nick Fenwick, head of agricultural were right, in that it has not delivered much, if anything, policy for the Farmers’ Union of Wales. for the environment and it is responsible for about 50% of all the guidance that we have to issue. Do you take Q141 The Minister of State, Department for Environment, the view that it is better just switched off altogether, so Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): Schedule 5 to that we do not have the crop diversity rule and do not the Bill makes explicit provision for Wales, and in have the ecological focus area rules, either? particular gives the Welsh Government the power to amend, John Davies: I would say that it is very difficult to modify and improve the legacy common agricultural farm in a prescriptive way. We have a real challenge this policy scheme. What would be your priorities for that year with the weather, which will cause real issues simplification? What are your key concerns about the around the three-crop rule, so we need to be flexible in existing CAP, and, if the Welsh Government had a free our approach there, because it is simply not practical in hand to improve and simplify it, what would you like some areas at some times. We need more flexibility. them to do? Dr Fenwick: We agree entirely. Something that is John Davies: Thank you, Minister. Obviously, we await aimed at certain types of farms has actually had an any announcements eagerly. We would look to amend impact on the types of farms that it was not aimed at—I where there are, we would say, unfair penalties for am talking about the impacts of greening. Indeed, that minor infractions. There are major improvements to be has been recognised across the EU. The European made there, for instance. There will be a need for more Commission is undertaking the same process of looking trees to be planted in future; where there are hedgerows at greening and how it should be improved, and has or woodlands, at present, they are taken out of any taken steps in that direction. I think it is universally calculation. There are minor adjustments to be done recognised as completely disproportionate. there that could reduce stress quite significantly in the interim period, I would suggest. Tim Render: We would be happy to look at that in the light of the consultation responses we get. Dr Fenwick: We entirely agree with that. Penalties are a huge issue. It is widely recognised that they are very often completely disproportionate to things that have Q143 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Good no impact on the wider environment or the general morning, Mr Stringer, and good wishes to those on the public. Things that may have cost Government, for the Government side who may have a nervous day ahead—we sake of argument, a few pounds, can incur fines of wish you well. My question is one that we have put to many thousands of pounds. other witnesses before. We are obviously very concerned Greening is another issue. The 100 trees per hectare about the potential threat to farmers if food is imported limit has had a very big impact and goes completely that was produced to lower health and welfare standards. against the current thinking on the importance of trees. What is your view on that and what do you think could The way that it has been implemented in Wales— be done about it in the Welsh context? understandably, given the wording of the European John Davies: We have a very clear vision and ambition legislation—seems counter-intuitive, given the priorities to lead the world in producing the most climate-friendly in terms of silviculture and agriculture co-existing. food, and that is to be realised with proper policy and 93 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 94 proper support going forward. Obviously, it would be a Do you want a corresponding requirement for the Secretary disaster if that were then undercut by food production of State to consult the devolved authorities on the systems that are illegal in the United Kingdom, so we operation of those provisions? This is about classifying would be deeply concerned about the opportunity there domestic support in so far as it affects the agreement on and we would like to see that much more strongly agriculture and relates to our position in the WTO. It is identified in the Bill and ruled on. a very specific question: do you think that Wales—and We welcome the comments that a number of you Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, made during the Second Reading debate. Also, Liz Truss, as well as required to provide information? International Trade Secretary, said last week: Tim Render: That question is probably for me. This is “In addition, nothing in any agreement will undermine the an issue that we had extensive conversations with the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change.”—[Official Minister about regarding the equivalent text in the Report, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 15WS.] previous version of the Agriculture Bill. Yes, we would We lead the world with our commitment to net zero by love a consent provision, but in the context of the last 2040, so we look to that being honoured. That is an Bill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UK absolutely key statement to us going forward. Government—the Department for Environment, Food Dr Fenwick: In clause 36, which relates to organic and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how products, subsection (5) makes it clear that it is possible the provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister to restrict or prohibit the import of organic products. has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried That will be legislated for once the Bill becomes an Act. over with this Bill. We look forward to him making that We would have expected an equivalent paragraph or statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a later provision relating to other production standards to stage in the House, about how we would work together have been incorporated in the Bill. It is there for organic, on that, about the advice and about, were there to be yet it is not there for all these other issues and in disagreement, our opposition being formally presented particular the key issue that John raised—our environmental to the House of Commons to be part of your decision- and climate change obligations. making process. We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is heard effectively.

Q144 Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con): On that last point, I would be interested to know whether any of Q146 Thangam Debbonaire: MayI get some clarification? you have had discussions with farmers’unions or equivalent You say, “We have agreed a way of working,” but it is bodies, or Governments in other countries, in anticipation not in the Bill. Where does it exist, this way of working? of the new trade arrangements that might be put in Tim Render: It is not in the Bill, but I have the text in place. Do you detect any appetite to break into the UK front of me. It is an exchange of letters that was market and in particular any willingness to adapt farming published in the context of the previous Agriculture practices abroad in order to access our market? We Bill. In our bilateral conversations with the Minister represent a very big market for these countries. Do you and DEFRA colleagues, we have assurances that that think those which currently produce food at standards can be taken forward in the context of this Bill. we would not accept might be prepared to develop better practices so that they can access our market? Q147 Thangam Debbonaire: I do not want to be John Davies: If we take America to start with, there is indelicate—perhaps you are at a useful stage, and I real hunger to access the UK market, but they are acknowledge that the Minister is very co-operative on pretty adamant that their standards are the standards these matters—but do you think that there will be any and that they work on equivalence. Obviously, we would harm in inserting an amendment to the clause, that the have deep concerns about that for a number of specific Secretary of State should also be required to consult the aspects. Other countries are more flexible and will look devolved authorities? to change, I guess, but I think it needs to be written in Tim Render: We would be happy with that, yes. That absolutely, in black and white. is essentially our way of working, but if it is written in Dr Fenwick: It is clear from the leaked trade talks the text, that would be even stronger. document that came out in November—which we assume Dr Fenwick: We would also welcome such an addition. are valid—that there is that appetite. It seems to provide It must be noted that this extends to far more than evidence that that appetite is there. We also know that WTO issues, given where we are with our current financial from the defensive position taken by scores of countries ceiling; we are well below WTO limits. The WTO issue when the UK and the EU first agreed how certain issues is absolutely essential to avoid disputes, but a key issue would be balanced—in those few areas where agreement for us is the fact that we are moving from a very specific was reached—in terms of the splitting of our quotas as framework of financial ceilings for different areas of regards New Zealand lamb and Australian products. spending to one that is almost as liberal as it could be. It The objections submitted then to the World Trade appears to us that there will be a single financial ceiling Organisation by these countries make it clear how important for agriculture expenditure in each of the devolved we are as an existing trading destination for them and as regions and in England. a potential destination. For example, under EU legislation, we have multiple ceilings relating to how much we can spend on direct Q145 Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): My interventions in agriculture production and on young question is about aspects of the agreement on agriculture. people, how much money can be diverted to rural Clause 42 states at one point: development spending and so on. I am afraid that this “The regulations may make provision requiring a devolved area just screams divergence between nations at an authority to provide information to the Secretary of State.” unprecedented level, as do many of the other sections. 95 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 96

Q148 Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): Tim Render: Of course, agriculture is a fully devolved My question is on the red meat levy. The Bill irons out policy area, so we will be developing our own equivalents an imbalance that has affected many of my farmers—I of the land management approaches that England is should say that it is a pleasure to see one of my proposing. Wehave already issued two major consultation constituents here this morning. Are you content with documents with a lot of detail on that. What we are that amendment, or would you suggest further amendments looking to do through this Bill is to ensure continuity: to the scheme to improve traceability? That question is to make sure that a lot of the important operational particularly for the unions. Mr Render, would you elements that mean the agricultural market can work clarify the timetable for the Welsh Government’sequivalent effectively and we continue to have the powers to pay Bill or next steps? agricultural support to farmers, will be in place and can Huw Thomas: On the red meat point, we are broadly be maintained beyond the end of this year. From a content. We have been calling for this for a number of Welsh perspective, the main thing this Bill does is give years. The issue of repatriating the red meat levy has us those continuity and keeping pace powers. been a bit of a running sore for a long time, so we However, what we have explicitly decided not to take welcome this. There has to be a will on the part of the through this Bill—this is a change from the previous parties concerned to use the new powers that they are Bill—are powers to make radically new types of payments, about to have conferred upon them. It is all well and analogous to the ELMS in England. We discussed that good to legislate, but the parties need to work together with the Assembly, and they felt that it was potentially and find an equitable solution to this problem. such a large change that they wanted to be able to We are glad to see this change, but we would not influence that development of a Welsh agriculture policy, preclude collaborative working at a pre-competitive stage so we have not taken those powers to make major changes between the domestic levy bodies on things such as red in the future; that is what we would do through a Welsh meat, health and climate, which are not directly related Bill. Obviously, this will depend on the Government to the market. Repatriating the levy is certainly something after the Assembly elections in May 2021, but we would that we welcome. expect that to be taken forward fairly rapidly as a new Welsh agriculture Bill in that period. As I say, we will be Dr Fenwick: We recommended precisely this sort of setting out detailed ideas as to what would go in that action in the Radcliffe review, which was published in Bill, particularly the new powers, building on the very 2006. That is how long this issue has been running for. detailed proposals we have already set out in consultation We very much welcome that this is there, but this is the documents. first step—it simply opens the door. Given that lengthy John Davies: It is vital that we take our time over this, period of waiting, and the imbalance in where the levy because we still do not know what trading environment has been spent, this needs to be acted on once that door we will be operating in, and there is an awful lot of is open. volatility out there. It is absolutely vital that we get this Tim Render: We welcome the clause on the red meat right and do it in a co-production way. If we get it right, levy, and we are grateful to the Minister, who has put a there are real opportunities; it needs to be a co-operative lot of effort into working with the devolved Administrations model that we not only design with the industry, but to craft this, to resolve this long-standing issue. On the across different Departments of the Welsh Government. way the Welsh Government are looking to take things Recently, the Welsh Government have announced that forward, we have said that we plan to produce a White we have hit our target for food sales from Wales, which Paper by the end of this year, which will set out the is £7.5 billion. If we get our “sustainable farming and framework for a Welsh Agriculture Bill. Ministers have our land”—that is the name of our new agricultural policy said that they want to take that forward early in the next —and sustainable brand values right, we will have two Assembly term in 2021. gears meshing, which will really benefit our climate In terms of operational measures, we have already credentials and validity by being able to prove that what announced that we will effectively maintain the basic we do and how we do it are totally sustainable. It is vital payment scheme approach in 2021 as well, so we have that we get this right and do not rush it. that package of measures to take forward in our own Welsh Bill. That would, I suspect, mirror and address Q150 Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): some of the wider issues that this Bill takes forward but What assessment have you made of the impact of the are not reflected in the Welsh schedule, as well as dealing Bill on food producers, particularly the agri-food supply with some wider things. chain, and are there any missed opportunities in the Bill that you would like to see us take action on? Q149 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): Mr Render, Huw Thomas: Probably the biggest missed opportunity can I press you a bit further? You were saying that the is the one about standards, which we have already covered, legislation from Wales will have to be set in law. Yes, but there are certainly provisions in the Bill that we absolutely, but when will it actually be up and running? welcome. The food security provision, for example, is We accept that there will be a time lag, but it is important new and something we have been pressing for for quite a that it is as close as possible, because what we do not while. The requirement to report every five years is not want is divergence, which you have already alluded to. especially ambitious; it should be every year. Especially We know that the border is porous, and that livestock as we are transitioning out of the EU and leaving those and crops travel across it all the time. It is important structures behind, we need to ensure we have a review that where key parts of the Bill do not apply to Wales, every year. I would also suggest that the Bill does not such as the environmental land management schemes, impose anypositive obligations on a DEFRA Minister—for we make sure that Welsh farmers are not suffering example, in the light of an adverse finding in a report on detriment. I wondered what the panel’s thoughts on food security. You could consider placing obligations that were. on Ministers if we are found to be deficient in food security. 97 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 98

Dr Fenwick: From our point of view, it is about more big piece of IT work that we are doing with colleagues than farming and food production per se; it is about the in DEFRA and colleagues in the other Administrations families that farm on the land. There are certain types around the livestock identification system. We will build of farming that continue, but effectively the communities our own front-end system for Welsh farmers to use, do not. We see that in parts of England; thankfully we building on what the industry sees as a successful system. do not see it so much in Wales, if at all. We would say John Davies: It is vital that we get this right. Animal there has been a missed opportunity to include among disease does not respect boundaries well, and I concur key priorities the sort of ambition that is there at EU with everything said in terms of the databases talking to level in terms of the reforms that are going through, each other. There is also an opportunity here to bring which relate to looking after farming families and realtime information to purchasing decisions around communities and to laying out sentences explicitly in animal health and the likes, and we need to get this legislation. right. I refer you back to what Tom Williams said about the Dr Fenwick: If I may come back, to lessen the potential 1947 Act, which was in place until it was superseded by adverse impacts of clause 32, which amends the Natural EU regulations. He said it was based on providing Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, there “adequate remuneration and decent living standards for farmers needs to be at the very least a duty to consult and reach and workers”—[Official Report, 17 December 1945; Vol. 417, agreements with Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Government c. 931.] and so on to ensure that this does not hand over an with a reasonable return on capital investment. We would extreme power to, in effect, an English board. welcome that sort of aspiration being inserted into the Bill. Deidre Brock: It is the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): Dr Fenwick: Yes, or it could be anyone, because it is The other day, we heard evidence from John Cross of only created with those powers. the Traceability Design User Group and Simon Hall, who is the managing director of Livestock Information Ltd, which is a new organisation. I thought they were a Q151 Deidre Brock: How do the four different schemes little vague on details of the traceability service that and the devolved nations currently integrate? they are setting up in England, and on how it will Tim Render: At the moment, it is only sheep for integrate or potentially even overrule existing traceability which there is a full integrated electronic system. services in the devolved nations. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that. Deidre Brock: In Wales. Dr Fenwick: Having only had the time to look at this and go through it as thoroughly as I could yesterday, Tim Render: In the UK. The other systems are much that clause did ring alarm bells for me. Compared with more primitive, it is fair to say. For instance, the British other systems, Wales has a very successful sheep traceability cattle movement service is not essentially an online system that it took into public ownership, rather than realtime system. This is one area where we have what farming it out to a private body. It works very well. It are technically called concurrent powers and we are in could work better, as is the case with all systems, but we discussion with DEFRA about these powers and those hope to develop it into an improved system that will around organics being subject to consent by devolved encompass more species. That is certainly the aspiration, Administrations rather than just consulting, for the reasons and that clause of the Bill certainly raises questions that colleagues outlined. about how those two things interact. It certainly makes sense to have some form of central Q152 Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con): I want to pick up data collection point for the UK, given that we are a on the question of divergence. I realise that the Bill single country and that it is important for our trading affects England, but there are plenty of farms around arrangements with other countries.Nevertheless, it depends the border. How will they be affected and what can we on how that functions. That part of the legislation do in the Bill to support them more? would effectively grant powers to non-public bodies— Dr Fenwick: There are about 600 cross-border farms. boards that are given certain powers by the Secretary of Some are administratively answerable to England and State. That in itself raises questions; indeed, it is why you some to Wales, depending on the proportion of land on took evidence from the witnesses that you mentioned. each side of the border—I think that is how it works. Tim Render: To build on that, there are clearly some Those guys have consistently been the last people to really important operational issues with the livestock receive payments of any form for the last 15 years, identification systems. We are developing the livestock since basic payments and what is generically called the identification system that we already have in Wales, single farm payment was introduced in 2005. They which works very well. It was co-designed with the have a very tough farm and are placed at significant industry for ease of operation. We also built it with disadvantage. expansion to different species in mind, so we are looking Divergence will clearly be an issue for those farms. to turn it into a full livestock ID system, building on a Conversely, some of the powers in the Bill would lessen proven IT platform and user interface. It is absolutely the impact, allowing their payments to be released vital that we get the behind the scenes IT with what earlier by changing EU regulations that make it difficult happens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to when one payment authority is slower than the other at have that interchange of data, because you have got processing applications—because unless everything has cross-border trade and that is how you manage animal been processed, payments cannot be released. The ability health issues, which do not respect borders. That is the to change the rules is therefore welcome, but as things 99 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 100 diverge, as they may well do—it is difficult to see how Tim Render: I think we can. The questions around they would not—a lot of thought and care needs to be water and diffuse agricultural pollution are live in Wales taken regarding those impacts. It is not just divergence at the moment. In terms of our regulations under the over payment systems and policies; it is also about various water rules, we are some way behind the rest of standards. This provides an opportunity for Wales to, the UK, and we are looking to take action to ensure for example, have different assurance standards from that we have effective measures for the management of England, yet we have a 300-mile-or-so border, which is agricultural pollution. effectively porous. One of the things, looking to the medium term, is an John Davies: As one of the UK NFUs, we have a ability to think about how we do some of the wider fantastic working relationship. We met last week in regulation: what conditions we attach to future payment Glasgow at NFU Scotland’s AGM. Divergence is front regimes; how we link that to the regulatory floor; and and centre of all our minds, because it is vital that we do things around earned autonomy for more flexibility, in not diverge too greatly and create a different trading return for clearer,authenticated and demonstrable actions environment in the UK. That is really important. The that take account of flexibility while there are, at the key basis that we always operate on is that everything same time, clear ways of ensuring and providing assurance should be done through agreement, not imposition. that the necessary actions are taken. Those are some of That is our guiding principle. the opportunities that we have in the medium term, Tim Render: Divergence is a consequence of devolution, adapting some of the regulations, but it is probably through in that you are making different choices to reflect different more sophisticated regulation and earned autonomy circumstances, although I have a lot of sympathy for approaches that we can really provide some of that greater Mr Davies’ points about operating in a common market, flexibility. and about standards and not diverging in some of those John Davies: Thank you, Mr Goodwill, for the areas. opportunity to comment on this, because obviously The issue of cross-border farms keeps me awake at regulation has been one of the reasons that Europe has night, as I think about how I move to develop a new had less favour. Nitrate vulnerable zone regulations are policy. It is one of the really difficult issues. We do not among the most prescriptive and least effective of those have clear answers to it yet. We are working with the that have been implemented by Europe. Let us move industry and DEFRA on what doing potentially quite away from that. Let us ensure that regulation, when it different things in return for public support on either comes, fills the gaps and is effective. Anybody who side of the border means for those 600-or-so farms that thinks that they can farm by date will fail. It is vital that are potentially on either side of that. How we manage we farm by the ground conditions. We have a changing that is a tricky question. I do not have any answers to climate here, and we have to respond to that. We have to that, but it is something that we are working on with evolve, adapt and work effectively to reduce the number DEFRA and the industry, to work out what the most of incidents. It is coming down slowly, but we need to practical, simple and effective way of doing it is. move more rapidly to reduce it. It is vital that we get on top of that through effective, proper,reasonable regulation. Dr Fenwick: When it comes to divergence, of course devolution implies divergence. We as a union supported devolution, so we have no problem with divergence, but Q154 Deidre Brock: I wish to reinforce the point that it was divergence within boundaries. The current EU Mr Render and Dr Fenwick made. They basically made framework has strict boundaries in terms of flexibility my point for me: the four nations already operate within legislation and flexibility within financial limits. different policy and regulatory frameworks, within a We are looking, potentially, at a complete liberalisation common framework across the UK, and with certain of those boundaries, so that they become far wider and common frameworks under the EU. That has been the the degree to which divergence can be market distorting case since devolution 20 years ago. I would hate to see becomes potentially far greater under what is happening any sort of imposition of a UK-wide situation that at the moment. would affect that. Tim Render: I agree with that. Equally, there are Q153 Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) some measures that need to operate across the UK for (Con): This question is primarily for Mr Render, trade and operators. The red meat levy is a very good but others may wish to chip in. In earlier evidence example of something that needs to be applied at the sessions, we heard some of the frustrations with the UK level, but from a devolved Administration perspective, inflexibility of cross-compliance, such as the three-crop where some of those powers operate at a UK level, that rule or rules on hedge cutting. In particular, farmers tell needs to happen with our consent and agreement. Yes, me that it can sometimes be frustrating that rules on the let us agree a common approach to something—that is application of slurries and manures are based on the very often the best approach—but, for us, those sorts of calendar, not on the particular climatic conditions of a concurrent powers need to be with consent. season or the situation on a particular farm. Do you Dr Fenwick: To give an example of the sorts of feel that the powers that you will have will allow you the divergence at a very simplistic level that will potentially flexibility—even in-year flexibility—to enable you to have an impact in the coming months, the Direct Payments carry out those sorts of operations under the best to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 received conditions, and at the same time to understand your Royal Assent the day before we left the EU. That obligations in the way that we implement the nitrate effectively cuts and pastes EU payment regulations regulations and water framework directive-type regulations back into domestic legislation. However, one section of that we take over? Do you feel that you can get the the Act allows devolved regions—this relates primarily balance right between the flexibility and the obligations to Scotland—to exceed those financial ceilings that are to the environment? effectively derived from EU-set ceilings. 101 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 102

Within hours or minutes, effectively, of our leaving assistance to understand their soils, so a top-down the EU, we have the potential for financial divergence approach to the same soils everywhere is probably not that would increase the difference between the average the right way to go. payments received by a Scottish farmer and a Welsh One exception is that the concept of a steady increase farmer,which is already in the tens of thousands,potentially in the carbon content of soils seems to be widely to far more. That relates to the Bew review, which has accepted. I think the UK is in the “4 per 1000” club on given lots of additional money to Scotland. Previously, this, which is around a steady percentage increase of that money could not be paid to farmers. The new organic matter in soils. That will be a useful single legislation allows them to diverge—I go back to that aspiration for farmers and policy makers to coalesce word—from the ceilings that are set in the legislation. around. John Davies: We have a very clear ambition for a policy made in Wales, where we see the productivity and Q156 George Eustice: Soils have been around for a the environment meshing together, underpinned by a very long time and the human race has worked out how stability pillar that will give us real opportunities. We to grow crops on them, so I never understand why are ambitious for the future. There is real opportunity people say we need huge amounts of research when we out there to make policy in Wales, for Wales, by Wales. know how soil works. Soil science is not new. Gareth Morgan: The lack of knowledge should not The Chair: Order. I am afraid that we are at the end of be used as an excuse to not do anything. I agree with the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. you that far. In terms of understanding at the field level On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for what a particular farmer needs to do, I do not think I their evidence. agree that that is always obvious. You might have shared the same train journey that I had today from Bristol. Examination of Witness Going through Wiltshire and looking at the waterlogged soil-laden water lying on the fields, so that it is pouring Gareth Morgan gave evidence. into the River Avon at the moment, is a signal to me. That is not necessarily the fault of the farmer, but there 12.15 pm is a gap between academic understanding of what soils The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from the should be like and what is happening in practice in the Soil Association and we have until 1 pm for this session. fields.There is a huge need for farmers to better understand Welcome to the Committee. Please introduce yourself. what is appropriate on their farms. That will involve a fair bit of Government investment to help them in that Gareth Morgan: I am Gareth Morgan and I represent process. the Soil Association, a charity engaged in sustainable food and farming. We also run some certification of organic agriculture and sustainable forestry. Q157 George Eustice: Some suggested as long ago as the 1930s—such as Albert Howard, who was seen by many as the father of the organics movement—that The Chair: The acoustics in this room are appalling. humus in soil is the key criterion to target, because that Can you speak up and project your voice? links to mycorrhizal activity and soil health more generally, Gareth Morgan: Yes, will do. carbon in the soils and the growth of various micro- organisms. Would you subscribe to that? Q155 George Eustice: You know that in the new Bill, Gareth Morgan: Yes. The Soil Association is rooted compared to the one in the previous Parliament, we in the philosophy that the essence of successful farming have added an explicit purpose around soil quality. Will lies in the soil. There has been a welcome resurgence of you describe for us how best to measure soil quality or interest in soil over the last few years. It is not an soil health? What kind of management interventions exclusive club; there are things such as minimum tillage, should we encourage under the Bill’s provisions? which is not necessarily an organic philosophy. A lot of Gareth Morgan: Unsurprisingly, we were delighted to farmers are increasingly focused on soil as the central see that addition, which we thought was a grave omission organising principle of productivity, pest resistance, last time round. There was a rather arcane debate around carbon sequestration and biodiversity,but that recognition whether soil health was a private or a public good. still has a long way to go. I do not think organic is the What matters is that we achieve better soils, because we only way in which that can be achieved, but it is one know that there is a soils crisis. Indeed, Michael Gove simple codified way of farming that we know builds on highlighted that in some of his speeches. that understanding of soil and organic matter in soil. The other problem, as you allude to, Minister, is that soil is highly geographically variable and contains many Q158 George Eustice: If we tried to return to a different parameters, from organic matter in terms of general principle of more sustainable farming practices the ability to sequester carbon to soil biodiversity,productive and husbandry, but recognising that the majority of capability and the rest of it. That challenge has made it farmers will probably want to stop short of becoming very difficult to set standard provisions around soils for fully organic, could certain things be borrowed from farmers to follow. I suspect that that side of it will organic production—traditional approaches to farm probably be best developed through the 25-year plan in husbandry that could be deployed in more conventional the Environment Bill, so in a sense the Agriculture Bill farms? Or is it your view that nothing works unless you is the place where the tools for farmers to improve their go the whole way to be fully organic? soils can be placed, and where the provisions around Gareth Morgan: No, I would not say that. That is why what sorts of soils we need, and where, will need a lot of there is increasing use of the term “agroecology”, to research and geographical specificity. Farmers will need suggest that there is a more inclusive approach to sustainable 103 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 104 farming. Organic is a great codified way of doing that I do not think that should be used as an excuse for and guaranteeing to the farmer and the consumer that not starting to tackle some of these big crises, such as the farmer is following a particular practice,but agroecology the soil crisis. It would be useful in the Bill, for example, is wider in the sense that it incorporates practices such for the food security provision to talk about things such as mixed farming, where there is a mixture, or ruminant as soil as part of food security. At the minute, it is very livestock and arable so there is a natural fertility cycle. focused on economic factors. If we do not sustain the It incorporates a focus on reducing pesticides—it would simple biological and physical nature of farming over be fantastic in the Agriculture Bill to have some target this period, we will not have food security. That is one for the reduction of pesticides as an aspiration—and a place where it would be useful to put this in the Bill. focus on leguminous plants, to increase nitrogen naturally, to avoid the use of artificial nitrogen. We are going to Q161 Daniel Zeichner: What would you like to see have to wean ourselves off artificial nitrogen at some put into the Bill, in terms of the imported food standards point if we are to meet our carbon targets, because we issue? have not found an alternative way to make it. All those Gareth Morgan: I do not think anyone has found a practices can be incorporated into conventional farming simple solution to this, other than a protectionist model, systems. which is what we are trying to get away from. The most interesting example I have heard is talk from Dieter Q159 Daniel Zeichner: Since the earlier iteration of Helm at the Natural Capital Committee about some the Agriculture Bill, there has been wide acknowledgment kind of carbon border adjustment. It would seem ridiculous that we face a climate crisis. As part of that, although for us to import products from countries that are not clearly different in different parts of the country, there signed up to the Paris treaty and may be subsidising is a crisis around our soil, is there not? Could you say a fossil fuels for their farmers in order that they can little about how intense that is? produce cheaply, and for those products to be on the Gareth Morgan: There is a soils crisis, which is expressed market in this country, going against products that in a number of different ways. It is probably slightly properly factor in the carbon price. It is not going to be alarmist to talk about a certain number of years of soils easy to get around, but we cannot duck it. A number of left, which is quite graphic and gets people engaged in groups have put forward potential amendments to the the topic, but that will be different in different places. Bill to try to address some of that, and that also needs Soil can regenerate, so we should not look at it as a to be reflected in the trade Bills. Just ignoring it, as is one-way trajectory of decline; we know ways in which being done at the minute, is not satisfactory for our soil can be recovered. The decline in organic matter in farmers or our environment. soil is a key dimension of that crisis. Q162 Danny Kruger: I represent the waterlogged The other big element of soil health that has been Wiltshire farms that you passed today. Given your point neglected by the environmental side as much as by the about different soils in different places, are you confident farming side, is biodiversity in soil. I assume that is as that, in the emerging policy about public good payments, simple as the fact that it is below the ground, and therefore we are getting the balance right between farming practices you do not see it. I heard an interesting statistic the and outcomes? The detail is not all there yet, but are other day: in a typical sheep field, the weight of creatures you concerned about getting that balance right? underneath the field far exceeds that of the animals on the surface, whether as simple as worms or down to Gareth Morgan: I think the Bill is a good step, in bacterial and fungi. The problem is that, because we do terms of providing the toolkit to give farmers the financial not see it, it is not that immediately obvious to us. It assistance to provide some of those public goods. The becomes obvious through things such as feeding birds environmental land management scheme seems to have in the winter—the number of lapwings on the fields. If got quite bogged down over the past couple of years there are no invertebrates in the fields, there will not be because it has been trying to get round this issue of birds above them. Getting back to a sense of the biodiversity working to more outcome-focused schemes, rather than of soil will be a good way to re-engage with it. just prescriptions for farmers, but there is a reason why we ended up doing prescriptions, although they are very frustrating for farmers to work to, because it is a list of Q160 Daniel Zeichner: I guess many of us would say rules that you have to follow and that is not a very that there is a need for urgency,but farmers find themselves creative way of doing things. The reason we do that is caught in the middle, don’t they? There is pressure to that you can audit them and specify them, even if it is a change—the Bill is part of that change—but is there bit rough and ready, whereas saying to a farmer, “We not a danger that if we have food imported to lower would like to see 10 pairs of skylarks on your land. You standards, that will put farmers under even more economic decide how you do it,” is quite open-ended and not that pressure? helpful to the farmer. Hopefully, ELMS is the place where Gareth Morgan: I absolutely agree with the latter we will find a way of reconciling those two conflicting point. We may come on to the issue of trade equality priorities. later in the discussion, I imagine. There is simply no point in us exporting our production by forcing up Danny Kruger: That is helpful. Thank you. standards here when we are importing products that are produced to low environmental and climate-change Q163 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Where to standards from other places. We urgently need to find a start? Could you say a bit more about the whole-farm way to address that, because the tsunami of change that systems approach and the concern that the Bill might is about to hit farming in this country will not be able to lead to farmers cherry-picking some of the public goods, withstand that, so we have to find a way of addressing but not to a transformation of farming, as would be that issue. possible if we were to go for a more holistic approach? 105 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 106

Gareth Morgan: One reason I joined the Soil Association there should be more incentives for farmers to switch to —I was previously working at the Royal Society for the organic production and, if so, how can we ensure that Protection of Birds—was the sense that you can do we do not flood the market with organic food and quite a lot for particular things, such as bird numbers therefore undermine the whole economic basis for organic on farms, without affecting the underlying sustainability farming? of farming operations. I do not think the Bill deliberately Gareth Morgan: That is a well-made point. In food, plays into that, but it could be an unintentional consequence. demand and production need to be balanced. That is There is a whole series of public goods that a farmer true not only of organic produce; it is a general point. could choose to provide, but—particularly if we are going One key point is that it would be helpful if the Bill to lose things such as cross-compliance now, which is recognised the specific contribution that organic farming the basic way to encourage a farmer to look across the can make against a whole range of public goods. Rather whole farm—there is a considerable danger that we will than inventing a complicated system in parallel with just focus on the easy or obvious bits, such as doing a organics—for example, saying, “If a farm satisfies the flower margin or some skylark plots on a farm, and not carbon criteria, the biodiversity criteria, the rotations really think about why the ecological operation of a and the rest of it, then we will make a payment”—let us farm is not satisfactory. just cut to the chase and say that it makes sense for there At the moment, there are two distinct dangers. First, to be some kind of organic maintenance payment to some farms might opt into the public goods system recognise additional public goods that are there but while other farms will decide to farm to the market, cannot be recovered through the market. I think that especially if they are competing with foreign imports would in some sense help with the conversion issue, produced to lower standards. Secondly,even on individual because if farmers are clear that if they move to an farms, a farmer might be tempted to look for a particular organic model they will be rewarded, both by the market thing that can be done that will be good for the environment, and for the public goods that they provide in the longer but neglect what is happening on the rest of the farm, term, then that will give them that level of certainty. for example the state of the soil across the whole farm. Regarding conversion, you are right—I think there The whole-farm approach should be at the centre of the needs to be caution around doing that, because in the Agriculture Bill, but it is not at the moment. past we have had examples of where there has been over-conversion to organic ahead of the market being ready Q164 Kerry McCarthy: Meeting net zero is a public to be there. So I think the focus on some sort of organic good, looking at climate mitigation and adaptation. Do maintenance payment in ELMS is absolutely vital. you feel the Bill could be stronger on that? My concern There is a role for help with conversion, but it may is that while in a sector like transport it is quite easy to not be in terms of straightforward payments during make big policy moves that shift us, say, to electric that period. It may be through things like the ancillary vehicles, because there is only a small number of car productivity payments or some of these other issues companies, in agriculture there are lots of different that are acting as a barrier to conversion. For example, types of farmers with a large geographical spread. How bringing livestock back on to arable farms will be quite do you get them all working towards that net zero goal, a difficult operation, and most people who convert to and could the Bill be a mechanism to do that more organic would need to do that if they are an arable effectively? I have not heard much from the National farm. So help with the process of establishing those Farmers Union about the road map for getting there. things might be the way that one could assist in that Gareth Morgan: It is fantastic that the NFU has process. taken the position of committing to an early net zero target for the agriculture and land use sector. That has Q166 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) shifted the debate enormously. Establishing the route (Lab): As you know, clause 1 provides financial assistance map by which you do that is quite difficult. I am not for protecting and improving the quality of soil and, as entirely sure that a net zero clause in the Bill is the right you mentioned earlier, soil is highly variable and it is way to go about it. difficult to set the standards equally across all the In several sectors—such as transport and energy farmers. You mentioned something about tools for generation—we have a clear idea about what that route farmers—being given specifically, I guess, for the 25 years map needs to be. Land use will be much more complicated. that you mentioned. Are there any specific measures We do not know all the answers yet—for example, in the that you would like to see mentioned in relation to soil current argument about red meat, we are veering a health? different way each month. Setting a clear trajectory in Gareth Morgan: At the end of the day, there will have farming to net zero in law could be counter-productive. to be some sort of whole-farm planning process. I am The easiest way for us to go net zero in terms of land sure the Minister has thoughts about this: there is an use in the UK is to stop farming and plant trees aspiration to reduce our transaction costs, around the everywhere and import food off our balance sheet. That amount of advice and so on that schemes involve. I would be madness, but it could be an inadvertent think there is a limit to how far that can go, so at the end consequence if we get the wrong sort of legal fix into of the day I suspect that any farmer who is receiving law. I think the Bill could be more explicit about net substantial public good payments will need to have zero and the need to achieve it, but we need to be careful some kind of system of working with an adviser around about the way in which we phrase that. a whole-farm plan, which will enable them to put the measures into place, particularly for something like soil. Q165 Mr Goodwill: Conversion to organic farming is There are general measures that are great for wildlife quite an expensive process, because during that conversion and the environment, like having flower margins around period one cannot sell organic products. Do you think fields, having rough grass margins and the rest of it; 107 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 108 they will be useful anywhere. With something like soil, statutory target—but you said yourself at the beginning I cannot really see how that can be done without the that it varies considerably from soil to soil, it is hard to support of an agronomist, or a specialist, or someone measure these things, and an enormous amount of helping the farmer and working on the nature of the research is needed. I have sometimes been told it will soil on that particular farm. That need not be done by probably take eight years to do that sort of research. Government advisers; it could be done by certifiers, or Given the complexity of the issue, is there not a private suppliers and so on. But without that level of danger that if you are waiting to try to identify the support being built into the system, it is quite hard to target, you end up effectively delaying action—the worst see how farmers will be able to make the transition that of all worlds? Does it perhaps matter less that there is they might want to make on their farm to things like some sort of prescribed target, and more that you sustainable soil management practices. encourage and incentivise good soil husbandry from Q167 Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con): year one as best you can with the knowledge that you Mr Morgan, in your written submissions you criticised have? You can measure trends. You can get a sense of the Bill as it is currently drafted for not having clear whether the trends that matter are moving in the right targets for soil health. I represent the Derbyshire Dales direction from the interventions you are doing. Is not area, which has a massive variation of soil qualities that perhaps a better way to approach these things than from the flats to the higher land. How can you possibly some kind of prescriptive target? fairly have targets, and how would you measure them, Gareth Morgan: I think you are right, in the sense to make sure that those of my farmers who put a lot of that the best must not be the enemy of the good, and effort in to improve the soil, but who will get a lesser there is plenty that can be done on soils tomorrow. I do result because of the nature of the soil they have, can be not think I agree that the absence of a target is something fairly rewarded for providing a public good improvement? that we should be content with in the long term, particularly Gareth Morgan: I am quite pragmatic about where at the Government level. Targets have been useful in those targets should lie and if it is not in the Agriculture focusing the attention of policy makers on results. The Bill, there are other places; I have already alluded to the farmland bird recovery target, although the bane of potential for both the Environment Bill and the 25-year many people’s life, was useful in terms of focusing plan to be the place where those targets and metrics attention on what could be done to reverse the decline could reside. It is disappointing that at the moment the of farmland birds. Environment Bill does not have a soil chapter, because I think national targets around soils would be helpful it would seem to me logical for that to be the place in terms of focusing and attracting funding. Ultimately where, say, a target for increasing organic matter in soils the Treasury is going to come and say, “I can see you are at a national level would reside. doing lots of interesting things on your farms; what, Regarding the targets for an individual farm, clearly actually, are you benefiting, in terms of the natural it would not be sensible for those to be iterated in this capital account for the country?” Unless we can go back Bill, because they might have to be done farm by farm. to the Treasury and say, “This investment of £2 billion However, some provision for making sure that farmers or £3 billion has achieved the following things over this are clear what they are working to on the soils on their period,” I suspect the money will dry up pretty quickly. farm over a particular period will be vital. I do not know whether some provision can be made in the Bill for there to be that level of assessment before public good Q170 George Eustice: There was another area of the payments are made on a particular farm, for example, Bill that I wanted to ask your view on. It is further because you are right: unless the farmer is clear about on—there is the clause relating to organic, principally their current resource or what the expectation is about marketing, standards. That is, in essence, the primary where they will be going, it is going to be quite—and powers that we would need to amend the organics regime this may be one of the reasons why soils were not that we have inherited from the EU and that itself is previously itemised in the Bill, because of this precise about to change. problem about that geographical specificity. Are you content with the revised organics regime that we are about to inherit from the EU, as it stands, or Q168 Miss Dines: That would be a huge piece of would you be interested in us using these powers to work, would it not—like a national survey of each make specific changes that might make the future UK individual farm. If you want to set targets as you organics regime work better? suggest, are you saying that that is realistically what the Gareth Morgan: That is a little bit off my area, so I Government have to look at? Can there be a more will not speculate too much. The Soil Association is pragmatic approach? only one part of a very broad organic movement, so Gareth Morgan: I think a soil organic matter target there are a number of players who, I think, will want to nationally is realistic. I think there is a fair consensus come back. I think the general feeling was that the that increasing organic matter in soil ticks so many boxes provisions in the Bill provide the right enabling starting that that is something that would be useful. That does point for creating a domestic structure around organic not necessarily help the individual farmer to know what regulation. needs to be done on their farm. There is a good national soil survey, so there is good spatial information about The one concern that I have heard expressed is that, soils that we could be using as part of this process, so it given we have quite a collaborative model for developing does not all have to be done from a base of no knowledge. organic standards and lots of players in this country, building that level of engagement with the various Q169 George Eustice: I just wanted to come in on this players and consultation into that process will be important. point about targets. I know they are the tool that people At the European level, the International Federation of often reach for—they say we should just have some Organic Agriculture Movements, or IFOAM, has been 109 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 110 involved in the ongoing development of organic regulation. way of thinking about farming probably would sit. We will clearly need to have something similar at a Equally, it is the place where the national food strategy domestic level to ensure that everyone, from the farmers would fit in to say that food is more than just a market to the certifiers to consumers,has a stake in the development transaction for consumers. of the regime. Q172 Daniel Zeichner: You said a little about the Q171 Daniel Zeichner: Two questions: first, in some environmental land management schemes, but who is best of your evidence you have suggested that there should placed to administer and deliver those? be a public health aim within the Bill, and I wondered Gareth Morgan: I would tread very warily in that whether you could tell us a little more about how you minefield. think that might work. Secondly— you have touched on this a bit in some of your contribution—who do you think is best-placed and qualified to negotiate and Daniel Zeichner: You do not have to answer if you do administer the new environmental land management not want to, but the fact that you are treading warily schemes? Are there any potential conflicts of interest in tells us what we need to know. Thank you. that set-up? Gareth Morgan: Taking the first point, it does feel Q173 George Eustice: On that point, you made a that there is still a gap in the policy and legislative reference earlier to the need for advisers. You will be architecture in agriculture.Wehave “Health and Harmony”, aware that the concept behind the future policy is that which sets out a good, new,broad trajectory for agriculture, there will be an individual agronomist—possibly from and we have quite a technical, nitty-gritty enabling Bill the private sector, possibly from groups, perhaps even here in terms of saying, “Here are the tools that can be from your group or the Wildlife Trusts—who would be deployed to achieve things.” At the moment there is not accredited by the Government to help farmers put anything knitting all that together to say, “What are schemes together and to walk to the farm and sit down food and farming for? Do we have any sense of what the around the kitchen table to do that. I think I am right in right model might be?” I suspect that is perhaps a bit of saying that the Soil Association already accredits organic a legacy from having had the CAP,which was a prescriptive producers and growers, probably under a similar model. and sometimes flawed model of European farming. We I wondered if you might explain how that process have almost moved away from that to being afraid to works. How many clients—for want of a better term—can say we have any preferences at all. We have a series of an accredited Soil Association adviser look after in a tools and a broad aspiration that farming should be typical year? good for the environment, and then the market does Gareth Morgan: I should first say that other certifiers the rest. are available—for example, our colleagues in Organic The reason for putting down a marker on public Farmers and Growers. It is a competitive market. I am health was to say that food and farming are not just not from the certification side of the organisation and about a commercial transaction; it is of huge national so I will follow up with written evidence on that point, if importance whether people have secure and healthy that is acceptable. food supplies and access to the right sort of food and whether the farmer is able to get a just return from the The Chair: Thank you. If there are no further questions market. Some of those things are touched on in the Bill, from the Committee, I thank you, on behalf of the but it almost feels like there needs to be something right Committee, for giving your evidence, Mr Morgan. at the front of the Bill to say what all this is for, as opposed to, “What should we pay farmers for and Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. how?” It feels a bit too fast. That does not necessarily —(James Morris.) have to come in the Bill, but it has to come somewhere, to our mind. Again, that is where we would say that a 12.49 pm presumption in favour of a move to a more agroecological Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Fourth Sitting

Thursday 13 February 2020

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses Adjourned till Tuesday 25 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 17 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/. 111 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 112

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS,†GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) † Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) † attended the Committee

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 of Southampton

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? 113 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 114

George Burgess: The Scottish Government position, Public Bill Committee as I am sure all Committee members will know, has not been in favour of Brexit. We believe that continued Thursday 13 February 2020 membership of the single market and customs union is the best wayforward on economic, social and environmental grounds. That includes on the common agricultural (Afternoon) policy. Obviously,there will be areas in the common agricultural policy that are not necessarily to our liking. Work has [GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair] been under way in Scotland, under the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation, to identify, in the short term, Agriculture Bill any areas where some improvement could be made to the common agricultural policy. That might be around Examination of Witnesses issues such as mapping and penalties, as Mr Hall has mentioned. We are working, through a farming and Jonnie Hall, Alan Clarke and George Burgess gave food production future policy group, to look at longer-term evidence. policy in Scotland. Alan Clarke: I have a couple of points from Quality 2 pm Meat Scotland. This gives us an opportunity to look The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from NFU outside our normal markets. Currently, 69% of Scottish Scotland, Quality Meat Scotland and the Scottish red meat is being sold in the rest of the UK, outside of Government. Thank you for coming. The panel will Scotland, and 10% goes internationally. It gives us an finish at 2.30 pm. Could you introduce yourselves for opportunity to continue to build on that. To do that, the record? protection of our protected geographical indicators is Alan Clarke: Good afternoon, everybody. My name essential. is Alan Clarke. I am chief executive of Quality Meat In addition, we need to have no reduction of standards Scotland. of any other imports coming into the country, to make George Burgess: Good afternoon. I am George Burgess. sure that we have a level playing field for our food I am the head of food and drink at the Scottish producers. We would like to see transparency of price Government. reporting throughout the supply chain, to enable us to make better decisions across that area. As you will Jonnie Hall: My name is Jonnie Hall. I am director of perhaps hear later from me, we have been working policy for NFU Scotland. closely with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and Hybu Cig Cymru on levy repatriation work. Q174 The Minister of State, Department for Environment, We think there is a lot of work that we could build on Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): For decades, across the three nations, if not the four nations. the common agricultural policy, with all its prescriptive rules, has applied to every part of the UK. As we leave, Q175 George Eustice: When the current design of the each part of the UK will have the freedom to develop a CAP was brought in, I remember a lot of concern in policy that is right for it. Could you each say what it is Scotland, including from NFU Scotland, farmers and about the common agricultural policy that you dislike the Government, that area-based payments did not the most, what you most want to change and what type work in such a landscape—that the diversity between of system you think is appropriate for the modern world? the lowlands and the moorlands made it highly problematic Jonnie Hall: I am happy to start. I can quote Mr Eustice for an area-based-only payment to work. Mr Burgess, back at him and say that the CAP has largely “incentivised are you saying that, although you might try to simplify inertia”—a phrase he has used many times. We agree. the legacy CAP scheme around the edges, you still think The bluntness of area-based payments has not driven that a basic CAP subsidy on land tenure is the right innovation or productivity, or indeed delivered on approach? environmental challenges. George Burgess: The Scottish Government’s approach In that respect, we see the departure from the EU and through the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation is from the CAP as an opportunity to develop bespoke that, for the period from now until 2024, we will essentially agricultural policy tailored to the individual needs of retain the features of the current CAP system with the devolved Administrations. We have some capacity some scope for simplification, improvement and piloting. for that already, in the fact that we have four different Beyond that, we are open to looking at a more radical settlements of pillar 1 and pillar 2 under the CAP, but reform of the policy. That is the approach we are taking we are nevertheless constrained by an awful lot of through our future policy group, which includes bureaucracy and by the rules and regulations around representatives from the farming industry,food production mapping, inspections, penalties and so on. and environmental groups, so that is the forum for It is vital for us to take the opportunity and for considering the longer-term changes in Scotland. Whether Scotland to be allowed, under the devolved nature of it retains area-based payments or moves to some other agricultural policy development and delivery, to develop system, or a combination of the two, remains to be seen. its own suite of schemes and measures that fit the needs Jonnie Hall: I support that, in the sense that area-based and profile of Scottish agriculture, which is significantly payments are far too blunt and do not deliver the different from that of the rest of the UK and, in objectives that we all aspire to, not only in supporting particular,England. That is absolutely right and, therefore, agricultural incomes and productivity but in addressing this provides us with an opportunity. challengessuchasclimatechange,biodiversityandsoon. 115 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 116

The sooner we move to an approach that is more action- Alan Clarke: It would be a disaster for the Scottish red based than area-based, the better. However, we are in meatindustry.TheScotswerepioneersof qualityassurance. alignment with the Scottish Government in the sense Scotland was the first country in the world to set up that from 2021 onwards, we will be venturing into whole of life, whole of supply chain quality assurance, uncharted territory in many ways, given the changes in and that gives a unique selling point to our world-class our operating environment, trading issues and other products of Scotch beef PGI, Scotch lamb PGI and areas. The ability to retain direct income support that specially selected pork. For any diluted product to come offers some stability in the interim is key.Weare absolutely to market and be able to compete directly—as far as I in alignment about change, but the key questions are amconcerned,thathasnoplaceonthesupermarketshelves. about the pace of that change and how we manage it. George Burgess: I suspect you will find a very large We note with interest what is happening in England measure of agreement at this table. The Scottish and the Bill’s proposals for phasing out direct support. Government are very concerned at the prospect that Of course, that would be inappropriate and inapplicable future trade agreements could allow for a dilution of in a Scottish context, so we need the devolved capacity standards. to do things differently. The direction of travel is very Jonnie Hall: It is also worth adding that the produce much the same and the landing space is probably the of Scotland—commodities is the wrong word—is not same as well, but we have to consider the pace of that about, “Stack it high, sell it low.” We are not going to change and recognise the challenges and issues that are compete on world markets. Weare not a volume producer. particularly pertinent to Scottish agriculture. We are based on the authenticity and the provenance of our product, and the welfare standards and environmental Q176 George Eustice: We have set out in this Bill a standards behind that. If we expose Scottish agriculture seven-year transition for England, from 2021 to 2028. I to cheaper imports of substandard production methods suppose it is possible that the Scottish Government and so on, we will blow large sections of Scottish might say, “We will keep the current system with a few agriculture out of the water. That will have significant minor simplifications until 2024”, but then ditch it impacts on the agricultural industry itself, but also, overnight and go straight in one leap to a new system. more importantly, on the wider issues around rural Do you envisage a sharper transition than seven years, communities and the environment and habitats that or have the Scottish Government made clear that they Scottish agriculture underpins with its extensive grazing will definitely not do things faster than seven years? systems and so on. George Burgess: No, I do not think so. The Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, which Q178 Daniel Zeichner: Paragraph 21 of the written implements the stability and simplicity approach for the evidence from NFU Scotland touches on the complicated period between now and 2024, is currently before the question of the governance of common frameworks. Scottish Parliament. I have mentioned the future policy We had the same discussion with representatives from group, which aims to bring forward proposals by the Wales this morning. How do you see a way forward on summer of this year. That is the point when we will that? It seems that divergence is inevitable at some point, begin looking at the transition—things that may be and yet it needs to be managed. piloted between now and 2024—so we are definitely not Jonnie Hall: It is quite clear, in many ways, in the looking at a sharp cliff-edge transition in 2024. sense that the development and delivery of agricultural Hopefully within that time period, we will gain a schemes and policy, in terms of what outcomes we want clearer understanding of our trading regime with Europe to achieve from managing our land in an agricultural and the rest of the world. At the moment, it is frankly sense, should absolutely be devolved, and is today. quite hard to work out what we should be doing with However, when you are looking at the operation of the sectors such as sheepmeat, given that we do not internal UK market, we need to be able to operate to know what the situation with our largest export markets the same rules in a very transparent and open way across will be. the United Kingdom. Jonnie Hall: A number of interests in Scotland have Our worry and concern is that a lot of the discussions suggested that there should be a sunset clause in the from outside of the Government appear to be about piece of legislation that Mr Burgess has referred to, so common frameworks, but we are unsighted on that. We that it comes to a definitive end in 2024. However, we are not seeing what common frameworks might look would not agree with that, because it would potentially like. More important to me is the governance of those create a cliff edge where we would go off the stability common frameworks going forward. Like or loathe the elements that we have talked about and into the unknown. European Commission, at least it acted as some sort of We want to avoid that; we need to be able to adjust to referee when it came to compliance with regulation, and reflect on the circumstances of the time, and it is standards and so on across member states and within right that the Scottish Government have the ability to the UK. If we are going to preserve the internal UK do so under the legislation that is going through the market, as Alan Clarke has pointed out is so important Scottish Parliament. to Scottish agriculture, we need to ensure that we are all playing to the same rulebook on a whole range of Q177 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Good issues. We are unsighted on an awful lot of that. We are afternoon. I think Mr Clarke alluded to this point still trying to flush out of Governments—plural—the briefly earlier, but I will ask all of you, as I have asked actions and discussions that are going on. most of the witnesses: what effect do you think allowing imports of food produced to lower environmental Q179 Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): I welfare and health standards will have on Scottish do not know whether I need to restate my interests— consumers and producers and, most of all, on the I once worked for the UK farming unions, including Scottish environment? NFU Scotland—but I will do so, to be on the safe side. 117 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 118

The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. We now,there are clear overlaps, not just on animal traceability are halfway through and a number of Members want to issues but marketing standards and other things. Many ask questions, so I would be grateful if you could be of those issues are devolved, but our concern goes back short and precise. to the operation of the internal UK market. It is quite right that those things are devolved, but how do we Fay Jones: Certainly. Mr Hall, your counterparts in ensure that there is consistency in application of those Wales are happy with the pace at which the Welsh devolved issues across the United Kingdom? If there is Government are bringing forward their equivalent not consistency, there has to be at least co-ordination of Agriculture Bill. Are you content with the pace of the those things. It is right that the capacities are devolved. Scottish Government? It is right that the Scottish Bill is doing what it does and Jonnie Hall: If anything, we would like the pace to be the UK Bill does what it does, but it is about where a wee bit quicker. As I said earlier, we recognise that we those things might rub together to create problems in are all venturing into an unknown world, in terms of the UK internal market. There are a number of examples the operating environment in which we will find ourselves, in there. [Interruption.] I am not saying that it will so it is probably more pragmatic not to give ourselves happen, but we need to have consistency if not co-ordination distinct deadlines. I mentioned the proposal for a sunset across the UK. clause in the current legislation, which might suggest a George Burgess: From the Scottish Government’s deadline for new policy to be put in place for the longer perspective, the Bill is something of a curate’s egg. The term. We do not want to be a hostage to fortune on that. provisions that we like include the red meat levy provision, Certain sectors of Scottish agriculture might find it which we played a large part in developing at the outset. particularly bumpy in 2021, 2022 and possibly 2023. We We very much welcome that, and we would like to see a want to see change happen sooner rather than later, but commitment from the UK Government to its swift let us not push ourselves into a situation where we must implementation. accept change but that change does not take us in the right direction. Other provisions in the Bill on food security and fertilisers make a great deal of sense, but we have some Q180 Fay Jones: Correct me if I am wrong, but my difficulties with others, including the livestock information understanding is that the Scottish Government still provision, which has already been mentioned. Again, the maintain a headage payment system, particularly for concern is really about governance and the appropriate the beef sector. Would that sort of measure remain on role of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland the table as you design a future agricultural policy? Governments. Jonnie Hall: We have had a beef calf payment since 2005 under the CAP.There are strict rules on how much Similarly, the organics clause to some extent recognises money can be spent on that. It is about how important devolved competences, but we are concerned about the the suckler herd is to the socioeconomic fabric of rural power that is given to the Secretary of State to act in Scotland. It certainly has not driven production, because devolved areas without seeking the consent of the Scottish suckler cow numbers have continued to decline over Parliament. Other concerns of long standing from the that period. If anything, it has slowed the decline down, previous Bill relate to producer organisations, the World so I would not call it a production support. It recognises Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture, and fair the additional cost of suckler production in our hills, in dealing in supply chains, where we have a very different particular, and therefore it is a very important piece of view on devolved competence from DEFRA. the policy toolkit. It enables the retention of suckler Alan Clarke: I will pick two, Deidre, because I am beef in Scotland, and that has significant implications conscious of time. In relation to the LIP system that we further downstream and into the supply chain, as I am talked about, I think there has always been a history, if sure Alan Clarke would agree. there has ever been a disease breakout, that everybody Alan Clarke: Absolutely. has worked extremely well together and come together and shared all the information. I think it is important that that is retained and that anything that is developed Q181 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) in England must read across to the rest of the UK. (SNP): We do not have much time, so could you let us ScotEID, again, has been leading the way on that in know quickly the main areas you have concerns with in Scotland. There must be those links. I know the meetings the Bill? You have expressed some of them—governance happen regularly every month with the devolved frameworks is one, of course, Jonnie. One of the things associations and the developers of it, but the mechanism that was brought up was the livestock information that George talked about is one to consider. provision. An organisation is being set up, and this morning our Welsh counterparts expressed real concern The second issue is levy repatriation. I have been about that. They said that that section of the Bill rang working very closely with AHDB and HCC towards alarm bells and raised important operational issues getting a scheme of operation, which can be put to about whether this could indeed be overseen and directed Ministers, showing what the long-term solution for levy through England, through the Agriculture and Horticulture repatriation would look like. We have identified, using Development Board and the Department for Environment, that scheme, the numbers involved. It would mean that Food and Rural Affairs. That is a starting point, but are every year, £1.2 million of producer levy that is currently there are any other areas of the Bill that you have concerns trapped in England would come back to Scotland, and about? £1.1 million of Welsh levy currently trapped in England Jonnie Hall: In our evidence we cite a number of would come back to Scotland—to Wales.Apologies—Wyn areas. If you look at the Scottish Bill going through the will not forgive me for that one. Essentially, the scheme Scottish Parliament and the Bill that you are considering has been agreed by the three levy bodies. It has now 119 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 120 gone to each of the boards, and we hope to be in a some statistics about red meat. Our most important position to put that to the Ministers in a short period of market is the rest of the UK, but we want to grow time. markets beyond that. I have often referred to the spending Behind the scenes, we have been looking at the interim power within the M25, where we are sitting right now, solution of the ring-fenced fund—the £2 million that as our bread and butter. That remains key, so we are has been ring-fenced for the benefit of levy payers in very mindful of anything that rubs against the free flow England, Wales and Scotland. We hope to make an of not just finished agricultural produce, but livestock. announcement in the next few weeks on greater working If I were a beef producer in the Scottish borders and relationships between the three levy bodies. This gives wanted to buy a bull from Northumberland, I would us a really good opportunity. We would like to see a date not think it a smart move to operate different animal put into the Agriculture Bill to say when the legislation traceability systems and have all sorts of checks and must be passed and the scheme be in operation by. The balances at Berwick. In theory, that could be the outcome three levy bodies are working to a date of 1 April 2021 if we do not get these pieces of legislation to align. for a long-term solution to be in place, meaning that this is the last operational year of the ring-fenced fund Q184 Dave Doogan: What I was trying to get at was that we will be coming into in April. It would be nice to the particular role of trade between Scotland and NI, have that enshrined in law. and the implications of any kind of impediment to that free movement. We are not going to have that between Scotland and England, or between Scotland and Wales, Q182 Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) but we potentially will with NI. How big a deal is that (Con): On Tuesday, we had evidence from Jake Fiennes, for Scottish agriculture? the general manager for conservation for the Holkham Estate. In his view, the definition of livestock in clause 1 Jonnie Hall: I do not think it is a huge deal for should not be extended to game—to grouse, pheasant produce leaving Scotland and going to Northern Ireland, or venison, such as the excellent produce produced in but it is a very big issue for Northern Irish colleagues, Scotland. Do you agree with that observation, or do who obviously want to access markets in GB—the rest you think that the management of game and financial of the UK. That is a real conundrum, in the sense that help from the taxpayer for those sorts of landscapes regulatory alignment with the EU will clearly be a vital would be beneficial to the future of agriculture in Scotland? issue on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If that has implications for regulatory alignment Jonnie Hall: First, I do not think the likes of game— with the rest of the UK and the EU, I can foresee lots of pheasant, grouse and, indeed, wild deer, because we have headaches and issues with that. farmed deer as well—should be governed as agricultural activity. The husbandry is not the same. They are wild From what I see, we are moving more and more animals. The habitat may be managed in their interests, towards the potential of triangular trading agreements but nevertheless they are not livestock that are bought, between ourselves, the EU and non-EU countries—for sold and managed in the same way as cattle, sheep, pigs example, those in North America. There clearly has to and so on, so I do not see the benefit of that. be some sort of tension point at some level, because the UK Government have made it clear that there will not I do see, particularly in the Scottish context, the benefits be regulatory alignment with the EU, although there of multiple land use in the same vicinity—the same will be equivalence—whatever that might mean—in land—such as having grouse moor management and order to secure deals with non-EU countries. That puts managing wild deer populations in the interests of in doubt or jeopardy our potential to trade both with conservation, as much as in the interests of stalking and the EU and with other countries at the same time. That venison, alongside extensive grazing systems for the is a major concern for us. delivery of key habitats. That is one thing, but we will also be thinking increasingly about the preservation and The Chair: I call Danny Kruger, and this will have to restoration of our peatlands in the effort to tackle climate be the last question. change. Grazing management will become a more fundamental issue—and extensive grazing management Q185 Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con): I asked your in Scotland—specifically for its public benefits and Welsh counterparts this question this morning. Mr Hall, public good delivery, rather than just the production of you talked about the transition from an area-based to an agricultural product. an activity-based subsidy regime. There is also an outcome- That debate is an important one, but at this moment based regime. I am interested in your view on the right in time I do not view those things as agricultural activities. principles that should guide us in designing a regime They can be supported through other means, because that has public good as its objective. Do you think we they are essentially environmental delivery mechanisms are sufficiently clear at this stage about whether farmers as well. should be rewarded for what they do, or for what the outcomes of their work are? Q183 Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP): Given the broader Jonnie Hall: I think it is a very important point for ambitions of this Bill, and that which is going through the future direction of agricultural policy anywhere. I the Scottish Parliament at the hands of the Scottish would say at the outset that blunt area payments reflect Government, how seriously do you view the potential neither activity nor outcomes; they are simply a ticket for any checks on agricultural commerce between Scotland to receive an income by declaring an area of land and and Northern Ireland, in terms of how that affects crofters, doing some compliance. We really need to work on a farmers and processors? system that recognises the actions that deliver an outcome; Jonnie Hall: Again, at the risk of repeating myself, you then pay for the actions that deliver the outcomes the preservation of the internal UK market is vital to you require.If it were exclusively about delivering outcomes, the interests of Scottish agriculture.Alan Clarke mentioned that is a very risky situation for farmers and crofters in 121 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 122

Scotland. We probably need a combination of both George Monbiot: One of my aims would be to reduce systems,and we are piloting various things in Scotland—for the area of land used for agriculture. All agriculture is a example, an outcome-based approach to agri-environment radical simplification of ecosystems, until you get to the in different parts of the country. point at which it is so extensive that it is not really It is about actions on climate change and so forth. agriculture. The Knepp Castle Estate, for example, is a How do we encourage more efficient production systems, wonderful example of rewilding, but I worked out that soil management and extensive grazing systems? That is if we were to universalise that across much of the UK, within the gift of the farmer or crofter. What is not in we would need to cut our meat consumption by about their gift is the precise outcome that we get from that. 99.5%—that is not a great example of agriculture. Until We might think that we will get the right outcome, but you get to that level of extensification, you are really we do not 100% know. There are lots of forces at play in removing huge numbers of species and a huge amount agricultural land management, and the risks need to be of potential carbon storage that would otherwise be managed carefully. The key thing is to move away from there. area-based payments in the first place, with actions then In this country, we suffer grievously from what I call delivering the outcomes and objectives that you want. “agricultural sprawl”—large areas of land used to produce small amounts of food. It gets to the point at which, for The Chair: Order. I am afraid that brings us to the instance, sheep farming in the uplands, according to my end of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank estimates, occupies roughly 4 million hectares—almost the witnesses for coming along this afternoon. as much land as all our arable and horticultural production put together—yet produces roughly 1% of our food by Examination of Witness calories and roughly 2% by protein. That is a remarkably wasteful use of land, which could be much better used George Monbiot gave evidence. for carbon storage through regeneration and rewilding, and for the great resuscitation of ecosystems and the 2.30 pm recovery of our very put-upon wild species. The Chair: We will now hear evidence from George Monbiot. Welcome to the Committee. This panel will Q188 Daniel Zeichner: I have one additional question finish at 3 pm. Would you introduce yourself, please? that has not come up very much. We talk about public George Monbiot: Thank you. I am an environmental goods and public money, but should there be some campaigner and journalist. public voice in all this, for any decisions about what goes on locally? Where are the people in all this? James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): George Monbiot: That is a very good question. The I suppose it’s down to me? Bill discusses both natural heritage and cultural heritage. Both are very important values and neither should be The Chair: Yes. The Minister has gone to see the dismissed, but there is an assumption in a great deal of Prime Minister. rural thinking in Britain that they are one and the same. We have to acknowledge that they are often in direct Q186 James Morris: What do you think about the conflict. Maintaining sheep on the land is highly damaging public good provisions in the Bill, and to what extent do to ecosystems, but getting rid of sheep farmers can be you think they are correctly defined? Is there further highly damaging to local cultures and languages. We scope for the definition of public good? have to see that a balance should be struck. George Monbiot: I think it really important to tighten We have so often fudged the issue, the classic example the definition and to stick with, basically, the classical being the world heritage bid in the Lake district, where definition of non-rivalrous and non-excludable. There they were assumed to be one and the same. It is always is potential for slippage within the wording of the Bill, resolved in favour of farming, because farming is assumed for example into food production that does not fit the to be good for ecosystems, but in the great majority of definition. We should basically also be funding public cases it is not—the best thing to do for an ecosystem is goods that are additional and which are not going to be to withdraw farming from it. But because we do not delivered anyway. acknowledge that there is a conflict, we do not produce We should be very careful not to use subsidies as a a balance that ever favours wildlife. substitute for regulation. There is a real danger in saying, “We will put all this on a voluntary basis and we Q189 Mr Goodwill: Mr Monbiot, you are on record will pay people to do the right thing,” rather than as saying that saying, “You may not do the wrong thing.” I feel that there have already been a lot of failures in monitoring “farming is no longer essential to human survival”. and enforcement of cross-compliance under the current In contradiction to what the Soil Association told us subsidy regime. If we are not careful, we could see those this morning—that we should have more mixed farming failures become a lot worse. and more livestock, allowing soils to be improved by the use of natural manures—you suggest that we should Q187 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. Since the abandon livestock production, particularly on the uplands, Bill was introduced a couple of years ago, the world has and plant trees and rewild large areas of our country. moved on in some ways. There is greater awareness of Is that a correct appraisal? the challenge that we face, and the Government have George Monbiot: That is broadly correct. One thing conceded that there is a climate emergency. Do you to say is that in the uplands there is almost no mixed think that the Bill is up to the task and, if you started farming. In fact, it would be very hard for mixed with a blank sheet of paper, what would you do? farming to be established in the uplands, which are very 123 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 124 unsuitable on the whole for arable. In the lowlands, if George Monbiot: There are a lot of things we need to we were to reintroduce mixed farming, at the microlevel save ourselves from at the moment, and the most urgent that could be a very good thing by comparison to the is climate breakdown and ecological breakdown. Huge arable deserts of East Anglia, but we would see a major tracts of this land are scarcely feeding us at all. There decline in total yield. There is very little research on are very large areas of land where you have one sheep what that decline would be, but everyone can more or per hectare, per 2 hectares or, in some places, per less accept that we will see that decline. 5 hectares. That is not producing food in any appreciable The global conundrum we are in is that roughly half amount, yet that land could be used to draw down large the global population is dependent on NPK, to put it amounts of carbon, to stop the sixth great extinction in crudely, and certainly on nitrogen and other artificial its tracks, for the restoration of wildlife and ecosystems, fertilisers. If we were to take those out of the system, we or to prevent flooding. There is a whole load of ecological would have mass starvation—huge numbers of people goods—public goods—that that land could be delivering, would die. However, we are aware that applications of but it is not currently delivering them, because it is N, P and K and others are causing global disaster: they producing tiny amounts of food instead. We are probably contribute significantly to climate breakdown, soil loss, all against urban sprawl and believe it is a bad thing downstream pollution, air pollution and a whole load because it takes up huge amounts of land while delivering of other issues. We cannot live with it and cannot live not many services for the people who live in a sprawling without it. We are in an astonishing and very difficult city. We should be equally concerned about agricultural conundrum. If we were to switch—as the Soil Association sprawl, which takes up far more land. recommends and as my instincts would tell us to do—to mixed rotation or organic farming, we would not be Q192 Miss Dines: With respect, what do I say to my able to produce enough food. It is as simple as that. farmers in the Derbyshire dales, where, by necessity, the How do we get out of that conundrum? I see some land is good only for sheep in some areas? Do I tell hope in factory-produced food—microbial protein and them they should not be able to earn a living and feed cultured meat. That could be the only way of reconciling the country? It is a bit fanciful to think we can give up environmental needs of future generations and the rest huge tracts of land. Is it not the case that we will get the of life on Earth with the need to feed people alive today best outcome if farmers work in conjunction with places and in future. We need to find ways of feeding the such as the Peak park authority? planet without devouring it. That could be the way. George Monbiot: I would characterise the Peak park as an ecological disaster area. It is remarkable how little Q190 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Could we wildlife there is. You can walk all day and see just a talk about peatlands? You have been very involved in handful of birds; I will see more in a suburban garden. trying to make the case for the restoration of peatlands We need a completely different approach to managing and their role as a natural climate solution. Do you land like that. think more can be done in the Bill to encourage their What you can tell the farmers is, “Let’s pay you to do being left alone? something completely different, such as restoration, George Monbiot: I do not know whether this would rewilding, bringing back the missing species or bringing fit in the remit of the Bill, but I would certainly favour back the trees.” Where are the trees above around banning driven grouse shooting, which is a major cause 200 metres in the Peak district and, indeed, most of the of peatland erosion. I would look at the strongest uplands of Britain? They simply are not there. This is a possible measures we could introduce for the restoration disaster. Anyone who visits from another country— of blanket bogs. I would, at the very least, commission someone from Brazil or Indonesia, my friends, tropical new research into the impact of agriculture on peatlands, forest ecologists—says, “What’s happened here?” They and whether we are better off without agriculture on see these places we call our national parks and say, “How peatlands in terms of the carbon budget. can you call that a national park? It’s a sheep ranch.” There is a paper in Food Policy by Durk Nijdam that By all means let us keep people on the land, but let us points out the extraordinary levels of carbon opportunity use public money to pay them to do something completely cost on Welsh farms with high organic soils. He talks in different. Let us face it: there would not be any hill some cases of 640 kg of carbon per kilogram of lamb farming in this country without public money. It is a protein, as a result of the lost opportunity to protect loss-making exercise. If we, the public, are going to pay those organic soils, which is a result of farming continuing for it, I think we, the public, have a right to determine there. It would be far better in carbon terms not to farm what we are paying for. We should be paying for public soils, if his research is replicable. goods, not public harms.

Q191 Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con): I Q193 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) am interested in your view that we should be looking at (Lab): Hi George. There has been a lot of publicity reducing farming land usage. As we leave our present about the carbon footprints of different types of food. farming relationships due to Brexit, is this not a time of For example, 1 kg of vegetables produces approximately national need when we must preserve our acreage to 2 kg of carbon dioxide, whereas 1 kg of beef produces feed our growing population? I am asking whether you about 27 kg of carbon dioxide. Do you think the Bill have a political slant that is not directed at feeding the should go a step further and focus on those who produce nation and securing the interests of our home farmers foodstuffs with low carbon footprints rather than those and workers. Is it not fanciful to think that we should who produce foodstuffs with higher carbon footprints? give up a large amount of our acreage? Do we not need George Monbiot: I think this should be the perspective it to save us against the trials and tribulations of the through which we start to see everything. This is the post-Brexit world? greatest crisis humanity has ever faced: the breakdown 125 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 126 of our life-support systems. The Governments that will There is a paper by Balmford et al in Nature, I believe. be judged favourably by future generations are those There is another one by Blomqvist et al—I think it is that put that issue front and centre. Other things are in Science of the Total Environment. They show that, subsidiary to our survival. It is imperative that we paradoxically—unexpectedly,perhaps—intensive systems should start favouring a low-carbon diet and use public per kilo of beef produced are less carbon-damaging policy to disfavour a high-carbon diet. Whether through than extensive systems per kilo, and that is simply farm subsidies—I think that does playa role—or meat taxes, because of the amount of land that they occupy. which I think could also play a role, we should find all the instruments possible to steer and encourage people Q197 Deidre Brock: You were speaking just then to reduce the environmental impacts of their diets. about the conflict between natural heritage and cultural The most important metric here is what scientists call heritage, and you will know that the highlands in Scotland carbon opportunity costs, which is basically, “What still have a wonderful cultural heritage, despite what could you be doing on that land if you weren’t doing was at times a quite systematic depopulation of the this?” If, for instance, you are producing beef or lamb area. I wondered what sort of future you envisage for on this piece of land, what is the carbon opportunity the people who live there now if they turn from being cost of that? What would be the carbon storage if, farmers on the uplands, which, as you know, are basically instead, trees and wild habitats were allowed to return? largely suitable for rough grazing—that is one of the There has been some new research just published, or a reasons why sheep, and to a lesser extent cattle, are new compilation of research, on Our World in Data grazed there. If they do that, what do they then become? showing that when you look at the carbon opportunity Just on a practical, day-to-day level, what do they then costs, those of beef and lamb are massively greater than become—just land managers, because they get subsidies those of anything else we eat. It is really, really huge. for food production, which only supplements part of Even when you take food miles into account, they are their income? What do those people do, and how do we tiny by comparison to those carbon costs, and that is keep them there so that we still have communities in the what we should focus on. highlands? George Monbiot: I would see them as ecological Q194 Danny Kruger: I have one yes/no question and restorers—people who have a different but very rich then a slightly fuller question. The yes/no question is, relationship with the land, bringing back wildlife and did you say that we should take food production out of ecosystems. Wewould hopefully see a constant racking-up the Bill? Food production is something that has been of ambition as time goes by. added, as an objective of the new system, and I think you said that it should not be an objective of the Bill. It is hard to universalise it, but there is now quite a big literature on nature-based economies, showing that, George Monbiot: It should certainly not be linked to certainly in some circumstances, they can employ a lot the public goods agenda; it should not be seen as a more people than farm-based economies, even in quite public good. fertile areas. For instance, I was at Gelderse Poort in the Netherlands last year, in an area that was previously Q195 Danny Kruger: It should not be seen as a public dairy and maize farms. For the purposes of creating good. Okay. Thank you. more room for the river, the dykes were taken a mile or My next question is this: do you agree that a grass-fed so back from the river and the land was rewilded. The cattle herd on open pasture in Wiltshire has a net farmers were saying there would be a loss of employment. positive effect in terms of carbon capture? I appreciate In fact, it turns out that there was an increase of that you have an argument about opportunity costs—missed between five and six times the total employment as a opportunities from grazing—but the terrible carbon result of the tourists who have come in to see the impact of beef is because of intensively farmed, closely wildlife, the bed and breakfasts, the cafes and the rest of packed cattle— the things associated with that. The farmers have done George Monbiot: No, that is not true at all. very well out of it. I do not know the answer to whether we can replicate Q196 Danny Kruger: However, a good pasture-fed, that everywhere, but we should be urgently investigating grass-fed cattle herd has a net positive effect in terms of other new rural economies based around the restoration carbon. Do you not agree? of wildlife and nature. Given that we are competing George Monbiot: No, that is simply not true. That here with a loss-making economy—an economy where claim has been made many times, and it is now basically the farmers would make more money if they took the reaching the level of climate denial—climate science subsidy and stopped farming—it is not a very steep denial—because it is so far removed from what the competition that we have to win if we are to show that science base actually tells us. nature-based economies are more productive in terms I can pass the papers on to you if you wish. There has of employment and income. been a meta-study done by the Food Climate Research Network that looked at those claims. It investigated Q198 Fay Jones: My farmers would argue that food 300 sources and found that in none of the cases that it production and environmental delivery go hand in hand, looked at was carbon sequestration in the soil under and you cannot have one without the other. They would pasture compensating for carbon losses. The highest not be able to make any money if they did not have level of compensation was 20% to 60% of the overall good soil, clean air and clean water, and they are carbon losses; there is a net loss in every case. The responsible for maintaining that. If we did adopt your extensive grazing systems also have a higher net loss model of removing land from agricultural production, and a higher carbon opportunity cost than even the who would be responsible for ensuring those environmental intensive grain-fed systems. benefits? Who would be safeguarding that? 127 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 128

George Monbiot: Yes, how did nature survive before We must recognise that what is great on one metric is humans came along? It is extraordinary, this idea of not so great on another. The attempt to pretend that stewardship and dominion—this idea that humankind they are one and the same—that agriculture is good for has to intervene to protect wildlife and ecosystems. We ecosystems and that the more we have, the better it will do not. We can do a lot to encourage the protection and be for ecosystems—clouds this whole debate. There is to kick-start things, and we will always need a role as an inherent conflict between an extractive economy, rangers to ensure that there are not too many conflicts which simplifies ecosystems, and the complex, rich between people and ecosystems. However, the idea that ecosystems, with food webs that are both wide and we are necessary to create healthy soils and healthy deep, which an ecologist like me wants to see. ecosystems—the best thing we can do in the great majority of cases is to remove extractive economies Q201 Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab): George, from the land and to let ecosystems recover. We need to Parliament has declared a climate emergency since the bring back missing species, to take down fences, to last agriculture Bill. What changes can you see in this kick-start woodland in places where there is not a Bill that deliver the urgent action needed? seedbank left and stuff like that, but we need very little George Monbiot: I am afraid I have not seen changes human intervention to get a healthy ecosystem going. commensurate with the declaration of a climate emergency. While farmers are absolutely right to say that they need This should be front and centre. An emergency is an a healthy ecosystem to sustain their farming, we do not emergency. We should be maximising mitigation and need farming to sustain a healthy ecosystem. absorption of carbon from the atmosphere. The Paris agreement asks us for the greatest possible ambition; we Q199 Dave Doogan: Mr Monbiot, there is a significant do not see that in the Agriculture Bill. difference between your ambitions and the ambitions of the Bill and agriculture more generally. If you were to Q202 Nadia Whittome: I have a quick supplementary get free rein with one element of the Bill—some operational question. How far does this Bill go in doing that? amendment that you could make to the Bill, rather than George Monbiot: The public goods agenda is something a theoretical one—what would it be, and how would useful that we can build on. It is a massive improvement you achieve it? on the common agricultural policy, but it must be much George Monbiot: I think it would be a clear distinction more explicit about what public goods are. Carbon between the additionality that public payments for public storage, as a metric, must run throughout it like a stick goods could produce and the regulatory environment. I of rock, but also ecological restoration—we do not am not skilled in framing policy, but basically we need want to make it just about carbon. We want to maximise to lay down a distinction between, “Here is the list of the recovery of wildlife and ecosystems, which are in things that you as a steward of the land are expected to such a dire state in this country. do. That will be a matter of regulation with monitoring It must be recognised that the ecological difference and enforcement. For most of those things, you will not between farming and not farming, particularly in the get paid,” and, “Here are the additional things that are uplands, is far greater than the ecological difference not being done anyway, for which you will be paid if between, say, BPS sheep farming and HLS sheep farming, you do them.” Quite how you draft it to deliver that, which is very small in ecological terms. Having a cessation I am not sure. Is that a clear enough answer? of farming in those areas, bringing back many of the missing species and having an ecosystem dominated by Dave Doogan: In terms of those things that you trees and other thick vegetation would be massively would have them do, are these elements of rewilding or better, in terms of both carbon and ecology, than a some form of carbon— modification of farming in those places. George Monbiot: Rewilding, carbon storage, watershed restoration—there is a whole series of additional ecological The Chair: A very brief question from Theo Clarke. interventions that you could consider that would clearly fit the notion of public goods, but I worry when I see Q203 Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con): Thank you. Farmers things like, “Animal welfare will attract public payments.” are at the forefront of climate change and, I think, do a Surely animal welfare should be something that we huge amount to help conserve the countryside. Do you legislate for. Hopefully we legislate for ever higher animal think that farmers and land managers should be financially welfare standards. supported to deliver environmental improvements, or should it just be required by regulation? Q200 Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): I George Monbiot: As I say, we should distinguish apologise, perhaps Mr Zeichner planned to ask this, as between environmental improvements and not doing he is an east of England MP,but I found your description harm. I do not think we should be offering payments of the east of England as an arable desert slightly for not beating up old ladies. That is the way I see it. confusing, having grown up there. It is better known as Lots of people do not do bad things in society, but they Britain’s breadbasket, so I wonder how you came to do not get paid for refraining from doing bad things. that conclusion. Keeping soil on your land should be a regulatory George Monbiot: It can be both. It can be highly requirement. We should not have to pay people to do productive in producing a handful of crop species and that; we should say, “You are not allowed to destroy our deserted in terms of wildlife. There are large areas of natural heritage in that way.” But we should pay for arable land, particularly in East Anglia, where there is bringing in ecosystems that do not currently exist. little wildlife. We see a lot of nitrate pollution, soil erosion and water pollution. It is not in a good ecological The Chair: Order. That brings us to the end of this state, even though, thanks to lashings of NPK and lots session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for of pesticides, we are producing a lot of food there. your evidence. I apologise to those members of the 129 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 130

Committee who would have liked to ask questions. You that the USA reports that 14.7% of its population have answered more questions per minute in half an contracts a food-borne illness annually, while in the UK hour than anybody else. Thank you very much. the figure is 1.5%. Could you amplify that? Professor Keevil: As you rightly say, when we look at Examination of Witness the data, depending on the source, it can be difficult to Professor Bill Keevil gave evidence. interpret because of the way it is recovered. For example, in the USA, they report on infections, some of which 3 pm are assumed from the evidence they have available. If The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from you look at the reporting of the numbers of pathogens Professor Bill Keevil from the University of Southampton. in American produce, such as poultry, they report it in We have until 3.30 pm. Will you introduce yourself, terms of the answer to the question, “Does the food please? contain more than”—for example—“400 counts of a pathogen per gram of food?” In the UK, the Food Professor Keevil: Good afternoon. I am Professor Bill Standards Agency reports in terms of “low”, “medium” Keevil, professor of environmental healthcare. I head or “high”. National surveys such as sampling from the microbiology group at the University of Southampton. supermarkets, for example, show that 50% of poultry have very low numbers of pathogens such as a salmonella; only Q204 James Morris: The Bill makes provision for about 5% or 6% have food samples with over 1,000 counts Ministers to report periodically on food security. What of a pathogen. By those criteria, UK foods appear to be do you think about that? What other food security safer—but, I must stress, according to those criteria. measures might you want to see? As I say in the written evidence, we now have this Professor Keevil: To my mind, food security is the vexed question of viable but non-culturable—VBNC— supply of wholesome, nutritious, safe food. Within that bacteria. When looking at some of the published data, the key issue is safety. There has been a lot of discussion it is very difficult to take that into account, but the work this afternoon about whether the UK can provide its that we and other labs have done is now telling us that own food. If it does not, we have to rely on imports. we cannot ignore it. We have published our work on What is the veracity of checking the safety of those chlorine treatment, but we have also looked at what imports? happens when you stress a pathogen such as listeria by We made a short written submission to the national depriving it of nutrients. For example, in a factory food survey—it may have been circulated to you—in where you are washing down with tap water, the listeria which we talked about the microbiological safety of can still survive, and in those conditions it can become food, particularly from the processing point of view. It this VBNC form. If all you are doing is regular swabbing deals in particular with the chlorination of food, which and then reporting, you could say, “Our factory is clear has become a very contentious issue in how the UK sees of listeria.”In fact, if we used the more modern methods, its future trading relationship with countries that use that might be found to be not true. that practice. Currently, the UK follows EU law, with the standing position being that they dislike chlorinating We are really talking not just about standards now, food. Their perspective is not that chlorination poses a but the standards we should adopt in the future, both in toxic chemical risk if you ingest the food; they are more the UK and in what we would expect other countries to concerned about animal husbandry. As a microbiologist, adopt if we are going to import food from them. I would go further and ask the question that most people have ignored until now: does chlorine actually Q206 Mr Goodwill: We occasionally hear of outbreaks work? Our published research shows that, in fact, it of food poisoning, but this is the Agriculture Bill, which does not. relates to food only once it passes the farm gate. To For more than 100 years, we have relied on the gold what extent is the problem within agriculture and to standard of examining a sample from patients, the what extent is it in the transportation, processing, storage environment or food by culturing it and growing samples or preparation of food? in a Petri dish on a nutritious agar medium. If anything Professor Keevil: As you rightly to point out, it is very grows, something is still alive; if nothing grows, by that complex. We have to talk about the food chain, but let definition, everything must be dead. Our research and us look at the route which is the primary source of that of other groups around the world shows that that is pathogen ingress into the food chain. To take the case of not true; it tells us that the current methods of analysis, poultry, one of the issues is that some countries, including which help us set the standards, are not rigorous enough. America, they have intensive rearing of poultry; they We have to use modern molecular and biochemical also have cattle feed lots, where animals are raised and methods, which are available, but which, by and large, fed in a dense community. In the UK and Europe, our have not been adopted so far. husbandry standards appear to be better, poultry are reared in less intensive conditions and we do not have Q205 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon, Professor cattle in feed lots like the Americans do, so the animals Keevil. When I came to this debate a few weeks ago and have more space, they appear to be healthier and, from started reading about it, I found the apparently what we have seen so far, they have reduced numbers of contradictory claims about the safety of the various pathogens at that stage. systems confusing. I was struck by your evidence, and I Of course, you are quite correct that every step in the wondered if you could take us through it. You say at food chain is a potential source of contamination. If we one point that it is difficult to make comparisons, but I use lorries, provided that those lorries are properly must say that in most of our debates people make cleaned and decontaminated, that should not be an comparisons with huge amounts of confidence, depending issue. When food is produced for restaurants, if the staff on which side of the debate they are on. You also say adopt good hygiene, they should not transmit pathogens 131 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 132 to the customers—that has been well documented. The that is not going to affect us, particularly given the supermarkets are very responsible; they have a reputation concerns about imported food, which will make it very to maintain—they do not want to be seen as the difficult. Does that make sense? supermarketthatpoisonstheircustomers—sotheymaintain Professor Keevil: Yes, it does. As a microbiologist, I very high standards. support the safe production and supply of microbiologically safe food. One of the problems is that when we import Q207 Mr Goodwill: So is food safer now than it was, food, there is a potential issue. If that means that that say,10 or 20 years ago, or do we have increasing problems? food is cheaper than what can be produced by UK Professor Keevil: That is a tough question, partly farmers, the Bill must address that, because otherwise because all the time we are seeing pathogens emerging. they could be at a financial disadvantage. The UK has For example, we have E. coli 0157, which not even been always prided itself on quality, and I know that British heard of 30 years ago. We have Cryptosporidium, which farmers would like to maintain that reputation for had not been heard of 25 years ago. We are being quality. Perhaps the food they supply may be a little presented with new challenges all the time. If we look at more expensive, but in a way that can be reassuring. If it the more conventional pathogens, however, such as means that the customer has to pay more, that is something salmonella, if anything British farming is doing a good that the Government have to look at within the Bill. job. Salmonella-contaminated eggs have virtually been When they talk about subsidies and remuneration, eliminated under that scheme, and the quality of the can it be facilitated that farmers who produce to the poultry sold by supermarkets appears to be a lot better. highest-quality standards are in some way remunerated These are good things. for that?

Q210 Danny Kruger: You spoke about the physical Q208 Abena Oppong-Asare: The Bill attempts to method for dealing with listeria and salmonella and support innovation, and you said that you like the idea some of these new pathogens that are emerging. Can that it is environmental and sustainable. What specifically you give us your sense of the global architecture for would you like to see in the Bill to support innovation managing this, and what prospects you see for new and help improve supply in this country? global agreements on how to deliver high-quality food Professor Keevil: The previous speaker was very hygiene? Does the opportunity we now have to be part concerned about the carbon footprint, and he rightly of the global trade conversation give us the opportunity commented that the world needs NPK. The UK, if it to improve global standards? What are the architecture needs NPK, has got to import it, and that means a very and institutions, and what is your sense of where the high carbon footprint from shipping, so that is in a way leadership on this is coming from globally? counter-intuitive. Professor Keevil: A lot of it is price driven, not For hundreds of years, the UK has been very good at surprisingly.Certain countries say,“Weare in a competitive crop rotation and the recycling of animal and human economy, and we believe we can supply food safely for a wastes. My research team has previously done work for lower cost.” That is what our research and that of DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency, looking at others is starting to challenge. how safe composted animal manures and treated human In terms of global supply, we talk a lot now about wastes are. Our research shows that if they are treated international jet travel. For example, we can travel around properly, they can be recycled safely to land. That is a the world in 12 hours or what have you, hence the valuable source of NPK. current problems with coronavirus, but many people In terms of ecosystems and services, we are looking forget about migratory birds. We know that some birds for balance and harmony. If anything, I would support fly thousands of miles north and south, east and west. more the view of the Soil Association. I think we can They can bring disease with them. That is partly why we live in harmony, but we need to get that balance. For have the problem of emerging diseases that we must be example, there has been a lot of concern about the conscious of for the future. We have had concerns, for availability of bees to fertilise plants. If everything was example, with avian flu and DEFRA maintained high converted over to woodland, would we have sufficient surveillance of the farms where avian flu had an impact, banks of wildflowers to support essential insects to to ensure that it did not decimate the poultry industry maintain the ecosystem? The plant life in the UK needs in the UK. it; certainly, agriculture needs it. We need that balance. I Those are all issues that we will have to face. We do think there is a role for farming in the UK. not live in a sterile world. We have mass migration of On the impact on the environment, we still have green people and particularly of wild birds. We must allow for pleasant lands, and when you speak to visitors who that in all our farming practices and ecosystems services. come to the UK, a lot of them comment as they fly in I maintain that good husbandry practice is the way that it is a pleasure to see well-kept farmland alongside forward. The previous speaker mentioned factory woods, which I think is a good thing. production, and I agree with him in that very good supply chains are now being established for vegan burgers, Q209 Abena Oppong-Asare: Am I correct in assuming much of which is produced from bacteria and fungi. that you are very much in favour of natural, organic That is a good thing. farming? One of the things that I am concerned about, Vertical farming is starting to become more prevalent. particularly in this Bill, is that there farmers are being That is the horticulture where crops such as salads are subjected to a lot of expectations to deliver sustainably, grown in an aquaculture-based system, and everything and as you know that costs a lot of money. Do you feel is stacked up. We are now seeing very large factories that the Bill should provide more information or support, where they control the quality of the water, the lighting in terms of how people can do organic farming in a way regime and so on. That seems to be a very safe, nutritious 133 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 134 way to produce salads. In the winter the UK imports a It talks about looking at global food availability, supply lot of salads from the Mediterranean countries—we sources and resilience of the supply chain. In terms of used to import a lot from Kenya, but I think that is your speciality, there is a lot of concern about endocrine reduced now. We used to import a lot from Florida and disrupters in food, nitrates in meat, and the overuse of California, and that is a carbon footprint, but if we can antibiotics, which affects human health, through the do more vertical farming ourselves, particularly in the food chain. Do you think there should be reports to winter, that is a substitute. We can get this mix of what Parliament on food security? It is not really about food we might call modern biotechnology with more traditional poisoning, but about the wider health concerns about farming. what is getting into our food supply. Professor Keevil: As I said at the start, the issue is Q211 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): In the Bill, very complex because food security is not just about there is a requirement to report on food security every supply; it is about whether it is nutritious, wholesome five years. What are your thoughts on that timescale? and safe. You cannot separate one from the other, so we Professor Keevil: To my mind, every five years should have to be aware of the microbiological safety of the be the minimum frequency. That is because, as I have food that is being produced and consumed. The work said, we are continually beset with emerging diseases that we and others have done shows us that our current and we have to be able to respond rapidly. The Food methods of assessing safety are not adequate. That has Standards Agency reports much more regularly than to be recognised. As a scientist, I would always say we that, so in a way we already have inbuilt mechanisms to need more research done; I sincerely believe we do in supply the information. It is true that the Bill says it this particular case. Knowledge improves standards, should be every five years as a minimum, but I think and we have to adopt and enforce the highest standards. DEFRA and the food standards agencies report more We need better research and continual reassessment of frequently. Whether that should be incorporated within what we are being challenged with, and perhaps the Bill the Bill is up for discussion, but we have good reporting. can reflect that. Ruth Jones: That is what I would like to have your opinion on, because obviously five years is a long time. The Chair: It seems we have no more questions. Do you have any thoughts on the timescale? Would you Professor Keevil, on behalf of the Committee, I thank make a recommendation? you for your time and answers this afternoon. Professor Keevil: I would like to see it reported much more frequently, every year or every two years. Examination of Witnesses Q212 Miss Dines: Professor Keevil, you make quite a Diana Holland and Jyoti Fernandes gave evidence. bold statement in your briefing note about the 14.7% of the USA population getting food-borne illnesses every year, compared with only 1.5% in the UK. I want to ask 3.24 pm you about your reference for that, because there is not a The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from reference for the source of that information. That brings Unite and the Landworkers’ Alliance. We have until me on to a general question. It is quite clear that there 4 pm. Welcome. Would you introduce yourselves? could be a variety of other reasons for that: it could be Diana Holland: I am Diana Holland, Unite’s assistant bad storage, bad travel or bad food preparation or general secretary, with responsibility for food, drink cooking. How reliable is this sort of statistic in a climate and agriculture. We are the only union that represents where we are facing going into new agreements with agricultural workers directly, as the historical Agricultural other countries? How reliable is that sort of information? Workers Union is part of Unite. Professor Keevil: That is a good question, because Jyoti Fernandes: I am Jyoti Fernandes. I am a farmer you will get different metrics if you go to different in Dorset and president of the Landworkers’ Alliance, sources. What we tried to do with those numbers was which is a union for small and family farms, mixed look at the annual reporting by the Centres for Disease farms, market gardeners and community supported Control and Prevention in Atlanta. You will find the farms. information on their website. A lot of the agencies say, “Well, these are the numbers of actual reports that we have received,” for example, through people going to The Chair: Thank you. The acoustics in the room are hospital, to their GP and so forth, and then they apply a poor, so it would be helpful if you raised your voice. multiplication factor for the numbers who could have been affected but for whom the signs of disease are much less—people who do not report that they have Q214 James Morris: Diana Holland, in your submission had any disease. A lot of the information is based on you say that you think the Bill should have measures those types of numbers—for example, 14% of Americans about pay conditions for agricultural workers. What do do not report to a doctor to say they have had food you think those measures should be, and why would the poisoning—but they are extrapolated. As I say, you will Bill, as drafted, be the most appropriate vehicle for get different metrics depending on your source. It could them? be that the figure in the UK is more than 1.5%, but I do Diana Holland: The measures we were thinking about not think it is anywhere near what the Americans have have previously been raised in a number of submissions: extrapolated. first, looking at the impact of the Bill on workers in agriculture, and secondly, looking specifically at the Q213 Kerry McCarthy: We mentioned clause 17 on reinstatement of the protections of the Agricultural food security, which is new to this edition of the Bill. Wages Board, which currently exists, in some form, in Do you think there is scope for an extra provision? Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but not in England. 135 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 136

Why do we think that is important? We do not think There is pressure all the time not to speak out about that agricultural workers are like every other worker; we problems that arise. Your accommodation is often tied think that they are different and their experiences are to your job in some shape or form, whether that is on different. As a union with an incredibly long history of the horticultural or agricultural side of things. It is representing them, we speak from experience. They those kinds of pressures and those sorts of experiences have a special place in the union, and we think that they that we think need to be included; otherwise there is a should have a special place in the Agriculture Bill, too. real danger that, as well as being wrong for the people Right this moment, the director of labour market concerned, they will undermine some of the other things enforcement has a session going on to look specifically that the Bill is trying to achieve. at the problems of wage theft and employment law non-compliance in agriculture. The Gangmasters and Q216 Daniel Zeichner: Will you explain some of the Labour Abuse Authority has had a licensing system in reasons why you feel that agriculture is different from agriculture for 15 years, but it is still recognised as an other sectors? When the Agricultural Wages Board was area with a high level of exploitation and threat of abolished in England, the coalition Government claimed exploitation. That is the background to this. that the minimum wage would pick up the issues. What When the Agricultural Wages Board covered everywhere, has the experience been in England since, and what is there was a level of protection and information that is the difference in the other countries where similar no longer available to us. Increasingly, you will find that arrangements have persisted? statistics relating to agriculture have little stars by them Diana Holland: First, there is a bit of a dearth of and a note at the bottom saying, “The sample figures information. We have been constantly asking for that to are too small.” That does not mean that there are no be specifically looked at. We have done some research other workers to record; it means that they are not ourselves, however.Not long after the board was abolished, hitting any of the official ways of recording people. within the first year or two years, we surveyed all our Increasingly, we find that people are employed in different members who had been covered by it. We were really ways, meaning that they are not recognised in the shocked, although perhaps not surprised, to find that a official statistics in the way they used to be.The Agricultural huge proportion had had no pay rise since the Agricultural Wages Board provided a way of ensuring that all that Wages Board had been abolished. Those who had had a information came to the forefront. pay rise, the vast majority, had had no say or discussion Finally, we have always argued that safe, healthy food over that pay rise—it had just been introduced. and high-quality jobs go hand in hand. There is lots of The employers we have talked to in the sector have evidence that where workers are badly treated, there is said that they would find it helpful to have a process also an undercutting of food quality standards across that could be relied on and about which everybody has the board. We see this as part of ensuring and protecting said, “We’ve come to a conclusion,” rather than the food standards, food security, supply chains and all the pressure of having to negotiate individually or to find other issues in the Bill. They all have workers associated that the pressure is on and to think about what is fair in with them, and we think they should be included and the circumstances. There is also exploitation in the recognised. sector—I will not run away from that—but I am not saying that every single person is deliberately trying to Q215 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon to you both. exploit. Sometimes there are other pressures. We have heard from a lot of witnesses, but this is There was also some survey work done in 2017 that possibly the first time we have actually heard about the compared Wales with England. There was a suggestion people who work on the land, which is why it is very that protections in Wales meant that there was a 6% higher important that you are here. How could the things that rate of pay overall. As I say, again, these are often small you are looking for be incorporated into the Bill? samples and figures, and we need to look more. We have Diana Holland: There are a couple of ways. One had a chance, however, to talk to the employers would obviously be an additional clause that covered in Wales. Some of the evidence from the employer the impact on workers of those developments in agriculture representatives has made us concerned that there are and how the protections that exist in Wales, Scotland employers in the sector—who previously followed a and Northern Ireland could also be applied to agricultural system that has been abolished—who are not aware of workers in England. On top of that, in the rules for their responsibilities and who saw the national minimum agri-food imports, where we will be looking at future wage as a voluntary mechanism rather than an absolute developments, we are extremely concerned, first, that requirement. That might seem impossible, but it is a there is a lessening of all standards and, secondly, that reality that came out in the discussions and the evidence. where food is concerned, while there may be some We feel that where the Bill talks about public money for recognition of protections for food standards, and even public goods, that should also include ensuring that the of animal welfare, workers may be left out. It should all workers are treated decently. go together—food, environment, labour protections for The minimum wage does not cover all the additional everybody. things. Career progression was provided, relating it to As I said, when we wrote to our rural and agricultural the jobs and roles that people have, allowances for representatives to ask for examples of issues—I am having a dog, overtime and sick pay rates. All those aware it is anecdotal, but it is important—we found that details were included, but they are not in the national there are still pressures to hide problems that agricultural minimum wage, which does not take into account the workers face, because in small isolated communities particular considerations that the Agricultural Wages personal relationships often extend over other areas Board does. But that does exist elsewhere. That has been and the employer may have other roles in the community a massive loss to those people, without any demonstrable that people feel could have an impact on their lives. gain to anybody. 137 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 138

Q217 Fay Jones: What is your assessment of the way of horticulturalists, who grow fruit and veg, and it is in which the Bill and its conditions on unfair trading possible to grow a lot of fruit and veg on a very small practices will work with existing legislation to protect acreage. farmers and those at the lower end of the supply chain? To date, we have been really disadvantaged by the How will those instruments work together? payment schemes that are out there. There is a 5-hectare Diana Holland: Can you explain what you mean by threshold, which cuts people off from getting payments that? Do you mean in terms of the workforce? if they have less than 5 hectares. If someone has a large landholding that is used extensively for beef, they can Fay Jones: In terms of farmers being at one end of get quite a lot of subsidy, but if they have less than the supply chain, dealing with much larger retailers and 5 hectares and use it for intensive market gardening— much longer, complex supply chains. Do you think the providing the fresh fruit and veg that we need—they get Bill gives them any further protection than they already nothing. That means that 85% of our membership have have under the Groceries Code Adjudicator or the never received subsidies before. That puts us at a serious grocery supply code of practice? Do you think that the disadvantage, even though we as small farms provide a Bill will work well with existing policy measures? huge amount of public goods—we directly provide fresh food, the sorts of fresh fruit and veg that we need Diana Holland: First of all, we really welcome the for healthier diets—to communities. In the transition recognition that protection needs to be built in to the around climate change, we need to eat more fruit and supply chain. However, we are concerned that there is veg and less meat. That is the sort of thing that we can not sufficient detail, and how it will work in practice be in a position to do. needs to be fleshed out in more detail. In our experience, holding different stages in the supply chain to account There is nothing in the Bill that specifically directs is a very difficult thing to enforce. Often, when workers towards helping smaller farms, though the focus on are at the end of that supply chain, they are the last public goods would enable us to do that, if we get the people to be considered. Something that may have been right schemes in place. We are working with DEFRA to very well intentioned at one end of that supply chain try to ensure that the schemes it rolls out will benefit pushes enormous pressures at the other. If there are horticulture and fruit and veg. One amendment that we savings to be made, it would be on the amounts of money suggested was about affordable access to food. We that are paid. would like to see some acknowledgment that agriculture is about producing food and that everyone needs food. Wewant protections built in, so that part of enforcement While food itself might be a business like any other— along the supply chain would be to check that that is bought, sold and traded—access to food is not. Having not happening, and that it is not a method of passing good, nutritious food available to everyone is something on pressures to cut standards and people’s pay. It is we strongly believe in. really important that it is in there, but we feel that there should be more detail. I have not identified any If that was in the Bill, a lot of our farms, which contradictions with other legislation, but when it comes provide a social outcome directly to consumers at an to the detail, that would need to be taken into account. affordable price—from fresh fruit and veg, to milk and pasture-fed, free-range meat—could be enabled to develop those marketing mechanisms. That would help us out Q218 Fay Jones: Do you think the Bill gives more quite a lot. That means community supported agriculture, protection to farmers or farming co-operatives than direct supply chain stuff and doorstep delivery of existing legislation such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator? unpasteurised, raw, wholesome milk, or whatever it may Jyoti Fernandes: No, I do not think it gives more be. That would enable those small businesses that work protection to farmers. This is a slightly different part of directly for our food supply in our local communities to the Bill, and I had prepared to talk about it later. It get support. It would also support community farms needs to change from powers to duties, to assure farmers that integrate social measures. They might, for example, that the money will come through to support farmer have green gyms, work with horticultural therapy or incomes. We greatly agree with the thrust of the Bill, but bring people form disadvantaged backgrounds into the it is quite scary that even though great programmes countryside to learn where their food comes from and are being rolled out, such as the environmental land join in that process. Food has a much wider remit than management schemes, there is no assurance that that just being something that farmers gain an income from. will continue and that Government will give the budget A lot of us produce food because we believe it is to those programmes to help supplement farmer incomes important to our society. in future. That is scary and it is worrying for our food supply. It would mean a lot if the Bill’s wording was Q220 Danny Kruger: This is for Diana. You mentioned changed from “may” to “must” give money, to ensure this when you spoke about wages, but could you explain that we will be able to rely on some income to supplement a bit more about why you think agricultural workers producing the food that everybody needs. need a different protection regime than workers in other sectors? Q219 Abena Oppong-Asare: My question is targeted Diana Holland: Obviously, all workers deserve overall at Jyoti. Do you as a smallholder famer feel that the Bill protection. Many workers have additional forms of is wide enough to support those with small farms, collective bargaining or representation through different compared with those with bigger farms? structures. Agricultural workers in some areas are an Jyoti Fernandes: Our union represents all scales of example of an extremely fragmented and isolated group farms: we are all agroecological farms, family farms and of workers; in other areas, there are big concentrations mixed farms. As smallholder farmers, this is something for small periods of time. The work is seasonal and there we are particularly interested in. We also represent a lot is insecurity. 139 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 140

The issues they have experienced over many years are Q224 Mr Goodwill: Key to the structure of agriculture well-documented. I think that singles them out to require in many parts of the country is the traditional family more than the basic national minimum wage, working farm. In many cases, family members who perhaps have time regulations etc., to take account of the fact that other jobs will come and work for free at weekends. people may have accommodation tied to their role, Spouses are often unwaged. As a farmer’s son myself, I which could be their permanent home or temporary did not get any wages at all until I was 28; I just got accommodation for a seasonal role, or that transport some money out of my mum’s purse if I needed it. You could be provided, which, in extreme circumstances, is suggest reinstating the Agricultural Wages Board. How used to keep people on site beyond the time that they would that work with the traditional family farm structure? should be there or is denied to them. Those kinds of I can see difficulties. Some of these farms are very things mean that there is intense pressure. marginal indeed and can survive only because of people working either unwaged or for low wages in the hope of Q221 Danny Kruger: You mean they are particularly inheriting the family business. vulnerable? Diana Holland: When it existed, it was not any different, Diana Holland: They are particularly vulnerable to and it was fine in the sense that it operated. Whether abuse. Therefore, it continues to be recognised that they everybody got what they were entitled to is another need to be identified within labour market protection. question; perhaps you are suggesting they did not. In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, they have Certainly, we have worrying evidence of individuals additional protections to those that apply in England. being paid not in money but through provision of We think that needs to be put right. accommodation and so on. We got evidence—it was a While, of course, at the time, in 2010, a number of terrible story—that an individual woman had worked things identified as red tape, burdens and so on were got for a long time on a farm and in all that time had never rid of, there was general shock throughout the sector— received anything, apart from the odd bit of what might across the board—that it could have been done like that be considered pocket money. She was extremely worried to the Agricultural Wages Board, with a two-week when the employer was in danger of stepping down consultation period, given that it had existed all that time from his responsibilities that nothing—no rights—would and had all that experience. It needs to be put right. exist for her. I think that is evidence of the nature of the problems that workers in the sector face. I do not think it is a reason for not trying to do something about it. I Q222 Dave Doogan: Diana, you talked very clearly think it is important that people receive recompense for about the effect of the removal of the Agricultural what they are doing, and that needs to take account of WagesBoardanditsreplacementwiththedysfunctional—in the nature of agriculture. The Agricultural Wages Board the context of agricultural workers—minimum wage. does that by bringing together workers’ representatives, Are the three devolved Administrations broadly similar? farmers’ and employers’ representatives and independent Do you suggest that including in the Bill an instrument experts in a tripartite way, to make sure that that to replicate the provision of the Agricultural Wages properly reflects what is really going on. The issues you Board would be relatively straightforward for Ministers raise would be discussed at the table, alongside the to do? pressures and issues that I am raising and the official Diana Holland: I would say so, yes. It has been done evidence gathered by the experts. recently; obviously,the original legislation covered England and Wales, so extricating Wales and doing that separately Q225 Theo Clarke: I want to pick up the point about has been done in recent times. My answer would be yes. agricultural workers. My constituency in Stafford has a lot of rural areas. Farmers have mentioned to me that Q223 Dave Doogan: Jyoti, I was interested to note the pilot scheme is great, and it has now been extended that you represent large horticultural producers as well. to 10,000. Are your members saying that we need to There is nothing in the Bill to give a positive voice to have an increase in seasonal workers, because there will industry about the availability of seasonal labour from be fruit left unpicked later in the year if more do not abroad. Do you see that as a challenge? Would you have come in? What are your views on that? that amended? Jyoti Fernandes: We believe in smaller units, where Jyoti Fernandes: In many ways, because our union you do not need to bring in loads of seasonal workers. works with workers across Europe, we think it is important With smaller-scale market gardens and horticultural that some workers can come over to other places, as units that pay well, you can attract British workers and long as they are respected and get decent wages and will not need to bring in so many people from other decent labour conditions, to work on larger agricultural countries in order to pick those crops. Wesee a flourishing, units. By and large, we represent people who live in the home-grown fruit industry, where you can bring in more UK who want to be able to produce and to farm and people to do that kind of work. work on other landholdings as well. We do feel that That needs investment, access to land, grants for more encouragement and support for the sector, so people to get into that kind of small-scale market there did not need to be poor working conditions, there gardening and horticultural units and to plant fruit were decent wages, and fewer pesticides and fungicides trees into mixed farms, and training. It needs routes to were used, would encourage British workers to work on market, which means processing facilities, so that you farms. We also feel that would encourage loads of can make apple juices and that type of thing, and so independent smallholder market gardens, which can be that you can store those things, add value to them and quite intensive and could provide really good employment get better value back on them. It needs distribution —and enjoyment in that employment. We would like to facilities within local market economies. That might be see a lot more encouragement for independent horticulture market facilities in town, online distribution services or and British workers. co-operatives that try to process those fruits and get 141 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 142 them to market, so that you get a good price for them. It The Chair: If there are no more questions, I thank the needs all those sorts of investment in our national witnesses on behalf of the Committee. infrastructure in fruit, fruit processing and distribution.

Q226 Daniel Zeichner: I would like to pursue the Examination of Witnesses labour supply issues, because my understanding is that Vicki Hird, Dr Nick Palmer and James West gave evidence. there are very large numbers of people working in something like the poultry sector who are not originally 3.57 pm from the UK. Is there anything you think the Bill should look at to make sure that some of those issues The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from are addressed—I am looking particularly at Diana on Sustain and Compassion in World Farming. We have that one—and am I right to be concerned about it? until 4.30 pm. I welcome the witnesses and would ask them to introduce themselves for the record. Diana Holland: You are definitely right to be concerned about it. The important thing is that, where decent Dr Palmer: I am Nick Palmer. I am the head of standards are protected and reinstated, they should Compassion in World Farming UK. Compassion is the apply to everybody. The original seasonal agricultural largest animal welfare charity globally, and we have workers scheme was part of an educational opportunity developed our interests to also look at the environment for students. We worked very hard and gave evidence surrounding animal welfare issues. In the mists of pre- over many years to make sure that that was what it was. history, I was the Member for Broxtowe for 13 years. It should not be about workers coming in from other James West: I am James West, the senior policy manager countries—because the sector cannot get people in this at Compassion in World Farming—I work with Nick. country to work for the terms and conditions and pay Vicki Hird: I am Vicki Hird, farming campaign that it is offering—and then treating them extremely co-ordinator at Sustain, which is an alliance of over 100 badly when they are here. As you say, it will not provide non-governmental organisations and royal societies, the security, the quality needed or the stability in the including Compassion and many other people you have sector. It is very important. We want opportunities that had as witnesses. are properly worked out. How fantastic it would be if we could make this sector one that people want to work in and one that they look for, rather than thinking it is Q227 James Morris: This is a question probably for somewhere they will be exploited. all three witnesses. In your submissions, you refer to some of the public good provisions in the Bill as being Daniel Zeichner: There is a danger that, if we do not positive. I just wondered what aspects of the Bill you address those labour supply issues, the industry will thought needed to be improved. struggle, and we will then inevitably be back to importing Dr Palmer: The Bill is a good basis, but it is a missed food from outside again. opportunity in the sense that it provides the basis for a Diana Holland: Exactly. variety of things that the Secretary of State may do, but Jyoti Fernandes: I was going to bring up something it does not specify what the Secretary of State will do. really important to this whole scenario, which is the In the current situation in particular, after Brexit, the impact of trade. Basically, we are never going to get farmers and everyone dealing with the industry need the conditions here where small and family farms can more certainty. This would really be an opportunity to survive as independent businesses, or keep decent work pin down what we are prepared to do and what we are opportunities on larger units, if you are undercut by not prepared to do in terms of trade, support for the cheaper produce from elsewhere. It just is not a possibility. farming industry and a long-term strategy to ensure The global marketplace can source cheap labour—slave that we have a viable farming industry stretching into labour—from all over the planet, and really exploit the future. places with really low conditions. It is not just the trade James West: I would add that it is important that the standards: it is also the competition from very large Bill is joined-up in its thinking, in as far as protection multinational corporations in other countries—the huge from potentially being undercut—as I am sure you have farms in California or South America, which have loads heard lots of times—as a result of trade agreements. of exploited labour, much higher levels of pesticide That is fairly critical. That is not in the Bill. Added to usage and multinational advertising campaigns that will that would be that you are then providing farmers with blow any of our homegrown industries out of the water, subsidies and grants to help them move to higher standards unless we can get some control over that and have of production. We should also be looking at things such something in the Bill that allows for tariffs that stop as method of production labelling—as Nick said, that that imported stuff, and standards and rules that do not it is a “may” in the Bill, rather than a “must”—so that allow our homegrown industries to be undercut. consumers know what they are purchasing. We should This is a very exciting Agriculture Bill. Everything also look at Government procurement policy, so that in about it that is moving towards environmentally friendly addition to protecting farmers from what is coming into farming, agroecological farming and all of that is the country, you are also rewarding farmers for delivering tremendously exciting. We could have one of the best higher standards and for protecting our animal welfare homegrown food supplies in Europe, and we could standards. Just on Government procurement, McDonald’s really pioneer something very special and really support has better animal welfare procurement policies than the small and family farms, independent businesses and UK Government, which should not be the case, and the workers being treated decently, but not if we are undercut Bill could address that. by cheap imports. That must be looked at very carefully, Vicki Hird: We were very pleased to see some of the otherwise all the good work and the good will of this changes in the Agriculture Bill. Overall, we are very Bill will be undone. positive about the public money for public goods approach 143 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 144 and the financial support being listed. We were very Vicki Hird: I think that would be very helpful. We pleased to see soil being included in that. We would like designed a clause for the previous version of this Bill to see a stronger reference to agroecological whole-farm that mentioned that, along with exposure to pesticides systems, because we think that is the way to ensure that for consumers, workers and the community, and other you get the in-field changes, as well as the edge of field, aspects of public health. There therefore is a clause wildlife and other nature outcomes that you see. We available, if anybody wants to table it. need the whole of the UK farming system to go towards Antibiotic reduction is important. I know that the an agroecological approach in whatever way they can. industry has already gone some way. It is doing a good Those steps should be available through financial support. job, but it needs to be supported in that, through animal We would also like to see, as Nick said, a lot of these health and welfare financial support, and through training, things as duties, rather than powers. It seems incredible advice and demonstration. The Budget should definitely how much effort—I know, because I have been involved— be strong enough and big enough to provide farmers DEFRA has put into the environmental land management with that kind of support, to take things in the direction scheme, when it could stop it all in a couple of years and of lower antibiotic use. pay a smaller amount of money and not follow through. James West: The question was about subsidies, and As MPs, you should have that accountability for you on bars on subsidies. We support the use of subsidies for delivering ELMS. delivering the public goods that are in the Bill. Again, Finally, I agree with Diana on the protection for we would like that to be a requirement rather than a workers. We are also pleased with clause 27, which “may”. Essentially, public money should deliver genuinely concerns fair dealing. It has been enhanced to really higher standards of welfare; it should not be for meeting protect farmers. We are grateful to DEFRA for making the regulatory baseline or going marginally beyond it. If those changes and to George Eustice, who we welcome you are looking at the top line, you might consider such as our new Secretary of State. We would like to see that things as allowing animals to express their natural as a duty, because it is so important. It is absolutely behaviour, access to pasture for dairy cows, and the vital that we get the protection for farmers in the supply provision of enrichment materials for pigs. Obviously, chain. They do have that from retailers, but most farmers depending on which species you look at, there will be do not sell direct to retailers. They need good codes of different requirements, but broadly speaking, they will conduct developed with the industry for every sector, be lower stocking densities, slower-growing breeds, if probably starting with dairy. we are talking about meat chickens, and access to pasture outdoors. Q228 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. I have different You might also look at things that would disqualify questions for Vicki and for Compassion. Vicki, in your someone from receiving an animal welfare payment. written evidence, you make a very strong case for a One of the things that Compassion works on is ending public health function. Can you elaborate on that a the live export of animals. From our point of view, if little? To Compassion, you make some quite strong you are involved in the live export trade, you should suggestions about the pre-conditions for receiving public probably not receive the public subsidy for good animal money. Can you amplify that for the benefit of the welfare. In the area of mutilations, going back to pigs, Committee? you have enrichment. In Germany,they provide a premium for pigs at slaughter when the pig gets to the slaughterhouse Vicki Hird: Thank you for reminding me about the with an intact tail, because that means that you have public health purpose. We think it would be very easy to almost certainly run a very good system. The amount of insert it into the Bill. There are so many ways it is space, enrichment and so on that you will have given the already designed to help, for instance with air pollution pigs during the rearing process will have been such that and with reducing exposure to plant protection products, you will not have needed to tail-dock the pig, as you which can be harmful. We think that saying that there is might in more intensive systems. We have fairly detailed a public health purpose for agriculture would recognise documents with what may or may not qualify you for a what an important thing farmers do in providing us subsidy, but broadly speaking it is natural behaviours with healthy, safe food. It could help by showing that and space. having animal health and welfare measures that help farmers to manage their stock and change their stocking Dr Palmer: The absence of a clear percentage patterns can reduce the reliance on antibiotics, which commitment regarding the amount of support that will we know is an absolute global public good, in order to be given for animal welfare purposes means that a protect our medicinal antibiotics. degree of uncertainty remains, which is bad for the whole agricultural industry. A farmer needs to know The other area is the huge need to boost our supply that what amount of money is potentially available, so of fruit and veg, so that people can have access to that they can try to work for it. With respect to the new closer-to-home,more affordable,fresh, sustainably produced Chancellor, we are unlikely to get an infinite amount of fruit and vegetables. That is absolutely central to a subsidy in the Budget, so it makes sense that the available healthier diet for the nation. To be able to say that we money is used to help farmers to become among the were doing that would be a benefit. As James was best in the world, rather than to move marginally from a saying about procurement, we could be saying something fairly low base to a slightly higher one. about procurement and investing in healthier diets for our children in schools. In the long term, the future of British farming has to be at the top of the scale. If we try to race to the bottom, we will fail. The British farming industry will Q229 Daniel Zeichner: Before we turn to Compassion, not succeed on that basis, so we should consider the on the antibiotics point, do you think there should be areas where we can help farmers to move towards stronger, more directive provisions in the Bill? higher welfare—for instance, ending the use of farrowing 145 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 146 crates. There is a one-off cost, which it is reasonable to The problem with overseas shipment is partly the help them with. Once they have moved away from that, time involved, and you can get pre-weaned calves there should not be an additional cost. They will then, transported for over 100 hours. That is with pauses, but in association with the better labelling scheme, be able it is nevertheless a grim business and is really difficult to to tell consumers that British farming has produced defend, and a lot of farmers will not defend it. higher welfare, higher quality meat. Also, there is the lack of control. It is very difficult, with the best will in the world, for DEFRA to say what Q230 Mr Goodwill: To follow smoothly on from that, will happen at all stages of a journey once a vehicle British farmers pride themselves on having the highest moves outside the UK. I used to be Parliamentary welfare standards in the world. Indeed, in some ways we Private Secretary to a DEFRA Minister, and this was were held back by the European Union, because we an issue we struggled with. Live exports is a very small tried to ban things like dry sow stalls, but we could not part of the British farming industry, and we think it is stop their pork coming in. one that should come to an end. However, I noticed that the Compassion in World James West: I would add that people can take the Farming website talks about ending “the horror” of journey length to be the time it takes to take the channel factory farming. I just wondered if you felt that there tunnel from Dover to Calais, for example, but we are were any farms in this country that that definition talking about live exports going on a boat that is not would apply to. You talked about housed livestock—for really designed for sea crossing. The crossing from example, dairy cattle that are housed in winter. Do you Ramsgate to Calais normally takes about six hours, so think that is acceptable? Where do you set the bar in by the time you have got to Ramsgate and across to the describing what British farmers are doing, perfectly other side, you are talking about a fairly lengthy journey legally, as “horror”? time, which in most cases would probably get you to an Dr Palmer: When we are talking about horrific factory abattoir in the UK. farming, we are talking about the caging of egg-laying hens, which is still one third of the total in Britain; we Q233 Theo Clarke: I am pleased that the Secretary of are talking about the use of farrowing crates, which keep State now has direct responsibility for the nation’s food the sow unable even to turn round for up to five weeks. security, but I wonder whether it should be a national priority to support domestic agriculture. What is your Q231 Mr Goodwill: It saves piglets’ lives, though, view on the frequency of reporting? I know at the does it not? moment it is being suggested it should be every five Dr Palmer: There are very well-established alternative years, but we have heard differing views today. What do methods.At the moment, British farming is 50:50—roughly the panel think about that? 50% have moved away from farrowing crates and the Vicki Hird: I think it is welcome to have that in there. other half have not. That is a record that is less good There is a case for making it more frequent, given that than some countries’, and really we should strive to be we are facing a climate and nature emergency that will the best. threaten our supplies and production here and overseas. One can always argue about the exact wording, but I We should be building that into the review, in terms of think that anyone familiar with the range of systems in anticipating how that will affect land use both here and British farming would agree that it ranges from the very overseas. That is currently not in the Bill, and it would good—where we can really be proud and tell the world be a welcome addition to recognise the sustainability that we are the world leader—to areas where the farmers factors that will increasingly come into play before the themselves would say that they would like to do better next five years are up. We already know that flooding is but cannot afford the conversion costs. This is a classic more frequent, and drought is affecting many parts of example of a public good. I think the overwhelming Africa, which supplies us with a lot of fruit and veg. majority of British consumers would be pleased to There is a case for more frequent reporting; it is a know that farmers were moving up the scale. Farmers welcome element in the Bill, but as the previous speaker themselves would like to, but they need assistance for mentioned, we already do much of this food security the one-off transition costs. assessment already, so it is a question of building on This is not an area of huge controversy between us that and making it an integral part of the sustainability and the National Farmers Union and others. We are all of our food system. [Applause.] May I congratulate pulling in the same direction, and we should use the George Eustice, our new Secretary of State? I will end opportunity of Brexit to try to make sure that we actually there, on food security. get to that point. Q234 Kerry McCarthy: I am trying to tease this out, Q232 Ruth Jones: You mentioned that you want to because we have heard previous witnesses say that there look at banning live exports. Have you talked to people— is concern about the lack of baseline regulation in the certain farmers—who say, “Look, let’s be honest: in the Bill and the fact that we no longer have the cross-compliance south-east of England, to export live exports is quicker checks. There are concerns that people will drop below than travelling hundreds of miles to an abattoir, given the minimum standards. How does that work? Clearly, the numerous closures of many of the abattoirs”? Do you you do not want to use public money for public goods have a solution to that? just to reward people for keeping to the standards Dr Palmer: Having more local abattoirs is clearly required of them by law, because there is no additionality desirable. It is a marginal business for many, and you to that; they ought to be doing it anyway. We could cannot force people to set up a local abattoir, but I think reward farmers for doing the higher welfare stuff, but at there would be a great deal of cross-party and cross-industry the same time, we really ought to have an ambition to support for the idea that it should be encouraged. say, “If they can do it, why can’t all farmers treat their 147 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 148 animals that way?” Will we end up always having to delivering at a level that consumers may want. It does keep raising what counts as higher welfare for farmers not mean that consumers have to buy it—they can see to get money? Do you see what I am saying? You could the stuff produced to a lower standard and still choose almost end up not raising standards, because the farmers that—but at least they are informed. At the moment, it would not get paid for the higher welfare standards. is really hard to find meat or dairy products labelled as Dr Palmer: Yes, I see the problem. As in other areas to method of production. Possibly the only other one is of public subsidy, we have to start from where we are. outdoor-bred and outdoor-reared for pork; other than Because we have the range of quality that I mentioned that, it is essentially free range/organic or you are in the in response to the previous question, there are a lot of dark. It would cover the whole spectrum. farmers who would genuinely like to raise their standards, Dr Palmer: That is also really important when you but need assistance in doing so. I accept that there is an come to trade, because if we are to sign a free trade element of moral hazard in that, if someone already has agreement with the United States or other countries, we superb standards, they may feel a bit irritated that really need to give our negotiators a clear steer on what someone else is being given money to come up to them. we collectively are willing to see. If we have an evolving labelling scheme, we have a basis for doing that. As you know, international trade negotiations usually start from Kerry McCarthy: Is that how it would work? That is the point that each side says what their red lines are and the other thing. It is the same as with planting trees or what they cannot move on and the negotiations operate improving soil health; there is a danger that, in a bid to around those to see what is possible. We are keen to see use public money to encourage other people to do that, specifications in the Bill on minimum standards for the people who were ahead of the curve are penalised. animal welfare—Ministers have said this many times—so Dr Palmer: I believe DEFRA envisages, which I think that our negotiators can say to their American, Brazilian is right, two types of support. One is to assist with or other counterparts, “I’d love to help you, but I’m specific one-off costs—I gave the farrowing crate as an afraid I can’t because it is in the legislation.” That example—but the other is to reward people who are would give farmers and consumers the reassurance that meeting a higher standard. To my mind, that must be we are absolutely not going to end up with British linked to a good labelling scheme, because if we are farming being undercut by what you vulgarly call cheap spending public money to assist farmers to reach a and nasty imports. higher standard, we should also be able to tell consumers Vicki Hird: I think that goes for other aspects of food about it, so that they can respond, in the same way that standards and production standards. I totally agree we have seen with eggs. When there was a choice between with Nick. It is very important that we see something in free-rangeandbatteryeggs,peoplemigratedoverwhelmingly the Bill around trade—I am sure you have heard this a to free range, to the point that it is now very difficult to lot over the last week—so that we have a way to stop get the lowest standard of egg in supermarkets. You are agri-food imports produced to lower standards of food, right that, over time, we will probably develop further animal welfare and environmental production systems. ideas on how to give farm animals the best possible life, I would add labour standards as well. and that is right—we should not stay at the same level forever—but for the time being there is a lot to be done One of our members is supporting the idea of an to reinforce the farmers who are striving to be the best. 100% grass-fed label, because there is some confusion about grass-fed labels and claims being made. There is a very good Pasture-Fed Livestock Association producing Q235 Fay Jones: I have a question about kitemarks animals with really strong environmental, as well as found on products, such as Red Tractor and RSPCA animal welfare, benefits. It is only fair that that should Assured. How could future Government policy recognise be recognised through a proper labelling scheme. that? If I may, Mr Stringer, I have a small supplementary. Q236 Danny Kruger: We had George Monbiot here In Compassion’s written submission, you welcomed the earlier; I do not know if you were listening. What did Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations regarding you think about his point about grass-fed beef? farming method in relation to labelling. Could you elaborate on that, please? Vicki Hird: There is a balance to be struck. People are still going to eat meat. It is a highly nutritious James West: We submitted details to DEFRA a while product and there are people who want to eat it. Recognising ago. Essentially it would be different labels indicating that, we should be eating much less but better meat, the method of production. The range of methods of produced here in ways that we can recognise, enforce production would differ according to species, but in and celebrate, alongside the rewilding that can go along effect you would indicate whether it had been produced, with those animals. say, intensively indoors versus extensively outdoors and everything in between. That would be on the packet, so when you go to the supermarket or shop you can see Q237 Danny Kruger: And carbon capture of beef herds? how the product was produced. As Nick was saying, Vicki Hird: There is a lot of science, and people pick with eggs that moved the market towards free-range the science they want to use. There are a lot of differences. eggs and away from caged egg sales—barn egg sales in You can go from one meter in one field, to another the UK are low—to the extent that roughly half the meter, and it can be a different carbon reading. We have supermarkets have phased out caged egg sales and the to be careful with this and not throw the baby out with other half plan to do so by 2025. the bathwater. For instance, small-scale producers will It goes back to the point that you need to support the not be able measure their carbon with expensive tools, farmers in the subsidy scheme we introduce, but there so we need to make sure we are doing right but also also needs to be an outlet for them to show that they are supporting farmers for agroforesty, for rewilding with 149 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 150 animals and for silvopasture, which is fantastic and can approachtofoodandfarmingpolicyingeneral.Wewelcome have big animal welfare gains. There is a spectrum that the commitment to the national food strategy,for example, we need to recognise. as part of that. George has a particular approach and we do have a The public money for the public goods that are crisis ahead. We need to recognise that, but we take a included is really important, but we would also like to less is better approach. Wecan envisage the Bill supporting see a stronger focus on other consumer benefits,particularly farmers to deliver that. It does not include factory in relation to food safety, public health and reducing farms, I have to say. antibiotic resistance. When talking about productivity Dr Palmer: I am not sure I fully answered your and increasing food production, we fine that people question regarding Compassion’s submission on labelling. care so much about food. We have done lots of consumer This is an area where the international debate is moving research over the years. In the last couple of years, we very rapidly. France now has a very extensive scheme, have particularly focused on asking people about food pioneered by Carrefour and Casino, two of the big standards. supermarket chains. Germany is proposing that the People expect the UK to have really high standards European Union as a whole looks at labelling, specifically and that, if anything, we will build on the standards for animal welfare. There are also schemes in Italy and that we have at the moment. We talk about productivity, Denmark. It is important that we do not fall behind the and we want it done in a way that meets consumer curve here. People are looking at us and asking, after expectations. We would also like to see a more general Brexit, are we going to be better or going to have to fall commitment to upholding high food standards in the Bill. behind? This is a classic example. The Bill offers the opportunity to pin down some of the reassurance that people are looking for. Q240 George Eustice: To come back to that point, the view we took when drafting the Bill—I am interested in Q238 Mr Goodwill: Just before we finish on the issue why you take a different view—is that the payment for of labelling, I see that France has introduced regulations public goods could involve things such as reduced pesticide to allow misleading words, such as sausage, burger or use and reduced antibiotic use, because animal health steak, to be used in connection with non-meat products. and welfare is in there. By targeting those public goods Do you think we should follow that lead? in some areas, there would be a consequential benefit Dr Palmer: Personally, I would not go in for legislating for public health, because of the nature of the food on what people call things, unless there is a deliberate production. attempt to defraud. If someone goes to the vegan There is a separate area that is about public health section in Sainsbury’s and sees a sausage, it is unlikely campaigns,healthyeating and food standards,but obviously that they will say, “Aha! That’s a pig.” I do not feel it is measures are already in place through the Food Safety worth parliamentary time. Companies are quite capable Act 1990 and the work that the NHS does to encourage of making clear what it is they are selling. healthy eating. Our view is that we do not want to duplicate work that is already present in other fields and The Chair: If there are no more questions, on behalf is the responsibility of other Departments. of the Committee I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon. Sue Davies: I can see that to some extent, but there is a real opportunity to integrate public health much more Examination of Witness in farming practices. A good example of that is the work the Food Standards Agency did a couple of years Sue Davies gave evidence. ago to try to reduce campylobacter rates in chickens. 4.29 pm We have regulation to some extent around that to try to control the practices that are used, but it was only by The Chair: We have until 5pm for evidence from the incentivising action throughout the supply chain—in representative of Which? Welcome. Could you introduce that case, by the Food Standards Agency doing a retail yourself? survey, where it was, in effect, naming and shaming Sue Davies: Good afternoon. My name is Sue Davies. retailers by showing how campylobacter levels compared— I am head of consumer protection and food policy at that that led to co-operation across the supply chain to Which?. look at what measures could be put in place. That included measures in slaughterhouses as well as a strong Q239 George Eustice: The Bill sets a different course on-farm focus, such as looking at biosecurity measures for the future of agriculture policy, so it will be much and what happens in relation to thinning. more about payment for the delivery of public goods than arbitrary area-based subsidies. Are you generally It is that kind of approach that we feel should be supportive of that approach? I know there are one or included, and certainly the opportunity to do it should two other things that you think have been missed. not be excluded. Some things will require regulation, Perhaps you could explain what those are to the Committee. and we definitely think they should be regulated, but it Sue Davies: May I start by saying congratulations on is a mix of using regulation and wider incentives to raise your appointment, Mr Eustice? best practice. For issues such as antibiotic use, there is an opportunity to try to incentivise the reduced use of Wesupport the public money for public goods approach. antibiotics again, on top of the legislative requirements We think it is the right way to go, but there is a real that we have. opportunity to put more about consumers—the people who will ultimately be eating the food—in the Bill. There is a range of ways in which that could be done. Q241 George Eustice: There is an animal health We have a real opportunity to redesign agriculture provision there, which opens the prospect of healthy policy to make sure that we have a much more joined-up livestock accredited schemes that farmers could sign up 151 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 152 to, which might be all about reduced antibiotic use or quality imports that will make it very difficult for UK different stocking densities in poultry. That is all possible producers to produce to the standards that consumers under the existing powers, so I am trying to get my head expect. around what additional powers you feel are needed over We have also asked about labelling issues, because and above the objectives that we have. sometimes it is suggested that people can decide if you Sue Davies: It is certainly really positive that that is in just label everything. People feel strongly about it and there, but if there are specific measures where the main do not think that labelling is the solution. That applies goal is focused on human health, rather than animal to people across all socioeconomic groups; it is not just health, that should be included in the Bill. Ultimately, better-off customers who can make this sort of choice. the Bill will determine the types of food choices we have We think it is really important that there is something in as consumers and the sorts of standards to which our the Bill that makes it clear that we should maintain and food is produced. Obviously, a lot of other policies will build on our food standards. have an impact on that, but we think this is a real We have asked people what they think about labelling, opportunity to shape our food system in a positive way and they generally tell us that they think the labelling that works for consumers as well as farmers. We should information is about right, but when you ask people not miss these really good opportunities to include that about where improvements might be made, they talk in the Bill at this point. about things such as helping people to make more sustainable choices and improved animal welfare labelling. Q242 Daniel Zeichner: Good afternoon. May I add There is scope to look at how we can improve that by my congratulations to the new Secretary of State? We building on the labelling information that we have already. obviously do not want to be too nice about him and set One area that we know people feel strongly about is the him off to a bad start, but he is clearly a popular choice. traffic light nutritional labelling system, which we would Ms Davies, I am bound to ask you the question that I like to be made mandatory when we have the opportunity have asked virtually every other witness: from a consumer’s to legislate to do so. point of view, what would be the impact of allowing imports produced to lower standards? I think I can Q243 Fay Jones: I have a question on food production probably guess the answer, because it has been very standards and imports. The Agriculture Bill applies consistent across all our witnesses. At the end of the largely to England only, although there are bits and whole chain, particularly with ready meals and so on, pieces that pertain to the devolved nations. Would food do you feel that consumers know enough in the current production standards and imports not be covered by system? Could we not do more through the Bill to lift international trade? Is the Agriculture Bill the right place standards, particularly on antibiotics and so on? for it? Sue Davies: I think your food standards question is Sue Davies: We can put it in this Bill and in the trade really important and shows why we need to make sure Bill. This is about agriculture and how we incentivise that we have a joined-up policy. This will have a big food production, and a vision for agriculture in the UK. impact on the sorts of choices that consumers can The approach that we take to trade will have a huge make, but if we do not address other policies, particularly impact on how we are able to deliver that, and it will trade policy, it could completely undermine all the have huge implications for the support that needs to be positive things that we are trying to achieve with the Bill. provided to farmers and how we incentivise standards. As I mentioned, we know from our consumer research There is a strong link between the two. that people have really high expectations on food standards. We think there should definitely be something in the Some 93% of people said they expect that food standards Bill recognising, at a principled level, that this is what will be maintained, and ideally people think they should UK food production is about. It should also recognise be enhanced now that we have left the EU. People do that, on the one hand, we need to ensure that we not expect cheaper imports to come in and undercut maintain high standards that meet consumers’expectations our producers. People want to support UK producers, at a national level and, on the other hand, that we will particularly of products such as meat and dairy, so the take a strong stance to ensure we are not trading away tariff schedule that has come out is interesting. All of those food standards to get the many other benefits we that has to be joined up to make sure that we are not might get through trade deals. It should not be about trading away our standards and potentially bringing in losing food standards to get those benefits. safety issues, or allowing production methods that we know consumers do not find acceptable. We saw with the horsemeat scare that food has many Q244 Abena Oppong-Asare: Thank you for that, Sue. different aspects. Some are about safety, and others are I want to follow up on your comments about food cultural—people just do not want to eat food that is standards, specifically on labelling. How far do you produced in certain ways. We have been doing a lot of want the Bill to go? Obviously, this starts from the survey work and we know that around eight in 10 people beginning. Do you see soil as part of consumers’concerns, have concerns about eating hormone-treated beef. A in terms of what type of soil is used and how it is similar number have concerns about food produced preserved, or do they essentially just want to know about using antibiotic growth promoters. Those practices are how the food is labelled? used in some of the countries with which we will seek to Sue Davies: I suppose that reinforces your question in reach trade deals—hormones in the case of the US, a way.Ultimately, things like soil health will feed through Australia and New Zealand. We absolutely have to into the quality of the food that we eat as consumers. ensure that trade policy builds on our current standards. That is why we must ensure that there is recognition If anything, we are looking to improve our standards that the way we produce food has huge implications for rather than allow them to deteriorate or accept lower consumers, both in terms of their health and their 153 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 154 preferences. Most people will not think about soil when have concerns if food was allowed to come in with reduced, you ask them about food, but it will have an indirect cheaper standards that undermined the standards and impact on them. choices we have at the moment. At a more principled level, when we are talking about I do not think it is about reducing people’s choice. It public money for public goods, we should recognise is about enabling people to have an informed choice, that public health and food safety are important. There and about enabling everybody to have a choice. At the is a range of different mechanisms. Some things are moment, we have regulation and standards that underpin obvious, such as the promotion of fruit and vegetables, everything that everybody buys, whatever their income but as we are looking at how food is produced and the level. If it suddenly becomes the case that only those production methods that are used, it is important that who can afford it can have the type of standards we there is a clear steer that public health and food safety have at the moment, and other people have to have must also be at the heart of that. lower standards, that would certainly be a completely retrograde step. We are starting from a point where we have good Q245 Abena Oppong-Asare: The Food Standards standards, and we are about to start negotiating trade Agency looks into the standards in food production. deals, so we need to be really clear in those objectives Are there elements of that that you think should be about where food fits. Weneed to look at the opportunities incorporated into the Bill to embellish it? for food and other things that we might gain in those Sue Davies: Including provisions that enable financial trade deals, but also to be really clear about where assistance for food safety and public health measures, we will not compromise. Things such as food safety such as the reduced use of antibiotics, feeds through and quality and animal welfare come out from our into the things the Food Standards Agency is trying to research as things that people do not think we should achieve. That then allows sufficient flexibility. compromise on. I mentioned the example of campylobacter because that has been a big priority. It is the main type of food Q247 Ruth Jones: I am sure you are aware that the poisoning in the UK. Most of it comes from chickens. national food strategy will be published shortly. How We have been struggling to reduce its level for years. We do you think that will complement the Bill? The strategy have made progress in recent years by taking the farm- is coming out after the Bill has been published. Will the to-fork approach. We need to recognise that a lot of two marry up? We obviously do not know yet what it things that manifest at the end of the food chain originate will contain. in production. Giving the flexibility to be able to provide Sue Davies: We are really pleased that the national financial assistance and incentivise those kinds of measures food strategy is being developed. In a way, it is incredible is really important. The Food Standards Agency will that we have not really got a clear vision for food and then need to work with DEFRA and others in defining how it should be produced, so we think that is really what those might be and what sort of indicators you valuable. The way it is being conducted, with public might want to include, in terms of the monitoring that dialogues and citizens’ assemblies, is a really inclusive is set out in the Bill. process, and will hopefully look at the breadth of issues and the many different interests involved in food policy. As you say, ideally you would have your food policy, Q246 Miss Dines: Ms Davies, your organisation, and you would then have your agriculture policy, your Which?, has historically been a champion for consumer trade policy and your environment policy; they should choice. I want to ask you what your position is. From all be complementary. Obviously things are working to your written statement, it seems like you are proposing different timescales, so we need to make sure that the a form of protectionism against certain imports based Bill allows for the breadth of issues that agriculture can on standards, but with a lack of clarity, I would suggest. be impacted by. That is why, as part of that national Does that not deny the consumer a choice and potentially food strategy, we think it is important that food delivers make food a lot more expensive for the consumer? for consumers and that we tackle some of the challenges Sue Davies: We are certainly not protectionist and we in the food system, whether that is climate change, are certainly in favour of consumer choice. However, it dealing with obesity or food security issues. is about enabling people to make meaningful choices We realise that there is limited scope within the Bill, and the types of choices that we want. We also base compared with the strategy, but we should take every what we say and what we call for on consumer research— opportunity to make sure that we put the right incentives talking to people and understanding their perspectives. in the Bill to deliver on those wider things that matter to Over the last couple of decades, we have been talking to people. people about food a lot, but in the last three years we have had a regular tracker and have been asking a lot Q248 Ruth Jones: Is there anything missing from the about food standards. Bill, in terms of strengthening it or in terms of the We are just in the process of doing some more national food strategy? research, for which we are going to do a series of public Sue Davies: Obviously Which? would say this, but it dialogues around the country, particularly focused on is really surprising that consumers are not featured in trade deals and what some of the opportunities of those the Bill, when ultimately the Bill will shape the types of could be, as well as some of the issues over which people food choices we will have, potentially for decades. It is might have concerns. It will look at food standards, but really important to make sure that the Bill recognises also at things like digital services and opportunities for that we ultimately produce food to meet the needs and a wide range of cheaper products. We know from the expectations of consumers, and to have a market where research we have done to date that people feel very people want to buy the products. That is why we think strongly about food production methods and would we should ensure that the public money for public 155 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 156 goods area is aligned with consumer needs and benefits, Sue Davies: All the research shows that it is quite a particularly public health and food safety. If we are straightforward risk-benefit analysis. If you are ill, you talking about productivity and producing more food, will take something that you think is more risky but we should recognise that that has to be done in a way might make you better. If it is about maintaining health, that meets consumers’expectations; not by using production people expect there to be a higher barrier. methods that mean people will ultimately not want to buy or eat the food. That is where having that commitment Q251 Kerry McCarthy: Some groups are talking about to food standards in the Bill is really important. method of slaughter labelling. Does Which? have a view? Would the consumers you deal with find that Q249 Mr Goodwill: Two of the objectives of the Bill useful? are improving plant health and reducing or protecting Sue Davies: It is not something that we have carried from environmental hazards. Groundbreaking work is out any research on, to be honest. It is not something obviously being done on plant breeding. For example, that we have particularly worked on. As I say, when we potatoes may not need to be sprayed every 10 days for have asked people about labelling information, most of potato blight, and there are potatoes that are potato them feel that we have quite a good level of information. cyst nematode resistant. Some of that may use gene Certainly, the areas that come out most strongly where editing. Do you think consumers know enough about people would like more clarity are things like making these issues to have a view, or do you think that if it is more sustainable choices. Animal welfare issues are presented in the right way, they may see that the upsides important. We did a report in the last issue of Which? cancel out the downsides and their prejudices? that looked at the different assurance schemes that are Sue Davies: We have done a lot of consumer research available to help you make sustainable choices. They all over the years and have talked to people about their covered different elements of sustainability, so it is attitudes to different food technologies. About three or difficult for a scheme to help you make a choice. There four years ago, we did quite a big project with Sir Mark is a lot more scope in that sort of area to improve Walport and the Government Office for Science looking labelling. Method of slaughter is not something that we at food system challenges and carrying out public dialogues have asked about recently. in different parts of the country. What comes out from those dialogues and our wider research is that people Q252 Kerry McCarthy: There is some quite misleading really want to have a more open discussion about what packaging. There was the whole issue of Tesco and its the risks and benefits are. It seems that people do not fake farms—it had pictures of cows frolicking in meadows, really know enough about it. They want to be convinced when they had never seen the sunlight. I am not saying that, if technologies are being used, they are being that that was simply about Tesco, but the farms that looked at in the full range of possibilities and alternatives. Tesco had on its products did not actually exist. People are more nervous about technologies like gene editing than, say, the use of precision agriculture. Often Sue Davies: I think there are still cases where the way in these debates, we start from the technology and look foods are presented does not meet the actual way they at how it can be used, rather than looking at what the are produced. When we ask people about their expectations, problem is, what the range of options is, and why we are though, people are often surprised: they may think that deciding that that is the right approach. welfare standards are higher than they actually are, and then when you explain, they are often quite surprised The other thing that comes across really clearly is about what is the minimum—what is free range, what is that people expect there to be strong, independent organic or whatever. It is certainly an area where people oversight. It is concerning that when we talk about the want more information. use of technologies, you often hear some people call for deregulation and less oversight, when all our experience We also did a report on chicken welfare in, I think, is to the contrary: you do not want to over-regulate and the November issue of Which? and it was quite interesting have an overly burdensome system, but people want to to ask the different retailers about their stocking densities know that things are being done in the public interest, for chickens and to see the variation, even within the and that there is a clear understanding of any safety current legal framework, between individual retailers. issues or wider environmental risks before we go down That went down very well; I think people found it very the route of using some of these technologies. useful information. People are open to technology, but they want to know exactly why it is being used and whether it is the Q253 Kerry McCarthy: Do you think that, in terms best approach. The only way to do that is that to make of the consumer side of things, that would be more an sure that, if we are looking at using these technologies, issue for the food strategy? I think there will be quite a there is proper public engagement and understanding focus in that on— of them. The retailers and others in the food industry Sue Davies: It is really good that in the Bill there is, are obviously key, in terms of their understanding of obviously, the potential for financial assistance, and whether people would want to buy products produced animal welfare is a clear criterion for that. I think that using these methods. that is right. Whether it is in the Bill or the food strategy, I think there needs to be a mechanism to look Q250 Mr Goodwill: Is there any reason why people at how we improve labelling. are much more open to these types of advances in medicine, for example, than in food production? It Q254 Kerry McCarthy: I suppose the Bill is encouraging seems that they are happy to go right to the cutting edge more humane production methods and so on, and the of technology, in terms of the treatment of genetic food strategy is making sure, at the consumer end of conditions, but somehow this is different. things and the marketing end of things, that farmers 157 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 158 can be rewarded through the market as well. They there is an opportunity, if we are reviewing any of those would be rewarded twice: once through public money standards, to make sure that they are meeting consumer for public goods, but also through people being prepared needs as well. to pay a little bit more because they trust that something has genuinely been produced to better standards. Sue Davies: I suppose that the Bill will also cover the The Chair: If there are no more questions, let me marketing standards that fall under the common thank you on behalf of the Committee for the evidence agricultural policy, which cover everything from breakfast that you have given this afternoon. Thank you very much. products like jams to poultry. So there is an element Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. within the Bill where that could be covered. We have —(James Morris.) had concerns that the marketing standards under the common agricultural policy have been developed very separately from other food standards and very much 4.57 pm from a producer-only perspective, rather than by thinking Adjourned till Tuesday 25 February at twenty-five about what the end consumer might want. I think that minutes past Nine o’clock. 159 Public Bill Committee 13 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 160

Written evidence to be reported AB18 Scottish Land & Estates to the House AB19 Sustain AB14 Arla Foods UK AB20 Myra Bennett, British Horse Society County Access Officer, Wiltshire AB15 Anglian Water Services Ltd AB21 Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School AB16 Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK) of Public Health, Imperial College London AB17 RSPCA AB22 Dairy UK

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Fifth Sitting

Tuesday 25 February 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 1 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 29 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/. 161 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 162

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS,†GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab) Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) (Con) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † attended the Committee 163 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 164

I think there is widespread agreement about that— Public Bill Committee interestingly, not just in this country. Those who were present at yesterday’s debate on an agriculture statutory instrument will know that I spent some time then explaining Tuesday 25 February 2020 how the European Union has sought to green the common agricultural policy, including by promoting (Morning) measures such as environmental land management schemes. I observed that I find it slightly puzzling that a Government [GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair] so enamoured with burnishing their green credentials did not fully use flexibilities such as the 15% in pillar 2 Agriculture Bill that could have been transferred to environmental schemes in England. However, a repentant sinner is always 9.25 am welcome—despite the nagging suspicion that some may The Chair: Before we begin, I have a few preliminary not be entirely repentant. points. Will Members switch electronic devices to silent? The Opposition seek to work constructively to improve Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. the Bill, but also to tease out what we see as some of the Today, we will begin line-by-line consideration of the underlying contradictions, not least by pointing out Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings, which is that the Government are proposing a framework system available in the room, shows how the selected amendments for agriculture that does not see food production as a have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped key part of its role. I quite understand why those together are generally on the same or similar issues. fighting for a shift to environmental goods—they have Decisions on amendments take place not in the order fought the good fight for many years—may be nervous they are debated but in the order they appear on the about the risk of business as usual through the back amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of door, but we must be aware that just exporting our debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when environmental damage somewhere else does not help. I we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I will must say that the Secretary of State’s continuing refusal use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate to put into law the standards we need to apply to stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules imported food does little to assuage concerns, and his following the debates on the relevant amendments. comments at the weekend did little to reassure us. We will return to that at a later stage. I hope that is helpful. The process and procedures are very similar to those in the Chamber. If any Member is Members do not just have to take my word for that. new to this and requires assistance, the Clerk and I will They might want to look, for instance, at the powerful be as helpful as we can to support proceedings. response to the new immigration system from the British Poultry Council last week. Its chief executive, Richard Griffiths, said the proposals Clause 1 “have shown a complete disregard for British food production and will have a crippling effect on our national food security”— SECRETARY OF STATE’S POWERS TO GIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE a very strong statement from an industry leader. He continued, and this is the salient point for this morning: Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to move “We cannot run the risk of creating a two-tier food system amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out where we import food produced to lower standards and only the “may” and insert “must”. affluent can afford high quality British produce”. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide That is the danger—some farmers paid via environmental financial assistance for the purposes listed in Clause 1. land management schemes to do good things, with a bit It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, of food production on the side, while the food that most Mr Stringer. I welcome everyone to the Committee. I people in our country eat is imported to lower standards. suspect we will have lengthy and interesting discussions, That is the risk, and we will not take it. and I am sure we are all very much looking forward to Our support is qualified on the Government coming that. clean on the plan. On a day when Sir Michael Marmot To those who were here some time ago for Committee has laid out the consequences of the policies of the last stage of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament, the 10 years—shameful consequences in my view—it is amendment will look remarkably similar to the opening hardly surprising that people are worried, because the amendment then, although of course the world has creation of a two-tier country is part of a piece, and the moved on. This is a big issue, but I would like to preface architects of this Bill have also been responsible in other my detailed “may”/“must” comments with some policy areas for where we find ourselves today, in a overarching observations. disunited kingdom. We are not prepared to see this I should make it clear from the start, as we did on continue. For our purposes today, how much better if Second Reading, that the Opposition support many of we had had the food strategy,and probably the Environment the principles underlying the Bill. Indeed, as I have Bill, in place already, but we are where we are. pointed out before, one can find similar sentiments Having made trenchant criticisms of the Government, about improving the common agricultural policy and it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that making it more environmentally friendly as far back as there have been improvements since the first version of Labour’s 1998 rural White Paper. We have already said the Bill, and we welcome them. We have noticed that the that the shift to incentivising farmers to provide greater Government have been responsive to constructive criticism support for the environment and deliver public goods, of their proposals and made additions to the Bill from and to providing finance for that, is welcome. its previous incarnation, following strong interventions 165 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 166 by stakeholders. We hope that the Government continue she has been asked to do—but this raises particular to be receptive to improvements, because we believe difficulties for us. Until we have seen the documents, we there is certainly room for improvement. will not know whether we should have tabled different It is precisely because changes have been made to the amendments. We probably have a fair idea of what is in Bill, and because the climate and ecological crisis has there, but this is no way to proceed. become ever more pressing in the year or more since the Do we know that the money will actually be allocated? Bill was last in Committee, that it is so important that This is a change to a new and complicated system. The we have returned to scrutinise this new version of the experience of stewardship schemes in the past is that legislation. Our amendments are intended to strengthen they have not always been easy.Weheard very enthusiastic the Bill—to give it more bite and deliver greater certainty evidence the week before last from some who say that to our farmers, to tackle the health and climate crises, everything will be wonderful. That is not what I hear and to fill in some of the gaps and missed opportunities. from others. The question in my mind is whether budget I turn to “may”/”must” in amendment 1. Clause 1 allocated will be different from budget taken up. My gives the Secretary of State the power to provide financial sense is that many farmers think they are going to get assistance for the public goods purposes listed in the the same kind of money, minus the 10%, in the years clause. It stipulates that the Secretary of State may do ahead. They may not. There is no guarantee that they this, but there is no requirement to do so. Our amendment are going to get the same amount for doing something would change that, so that the Secretary of State must slightly different. The money may be allocated in provide financial assistance for those clause 1 purposes, very different ways, which is part of the concern that which I suspect we will debate at some length. people feel. The simple fact is that the Secretary of State is not The shift that we need to see in our agricultural bound to do those things; they do not have to do them. systems towards producing food in a way that is less The Government have guaranteed the previous annual destructive to the environment and that reduces agriculture’s budget under the common agricultural policy to farmers contribution to climate change is too important to leave for every year of this Parliament, but what about after to the optional discretion of Secretaries of State. Under this Parliament? What guarantees do we have that financial the current wording, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable assistance will continue to be provided for these public position whereby current and future Secretaries of State good purposes if that is not a strong requirement in will be under no actual obligation to provide financial the Bill? assistance to address agriculture’s contribution to climate change, despite that supposedly being a key driver of What guarantee can the Minister give that the promised the Bill. budget will be allocated? We still do not have the long-promised broader policy statement on ELMS. I If the Government understand just how important wondered whether that was what the Prime Minister the environmental and climate crisis is, it really is not was working on at Chevening last week—I can imagine such a tough ask for them to back up their commitments him spending his week doing the detailed policy work—but with stronger wording in the Bill. Others had the same I am told that it is imminent and will be available within discussion about the previous iteration of the Bill, so I minutes. I think it is slightly disrespectful to Parliament am well aware of the current Secretary of State’sarguments to introduce such an important part of the policy against the change—that by keeping this as a power and process half an hour after Committee proceedings have not a duty, the Government are following a legislative started—I am sure we will all spend our lunch time tradition—I am sure the Minister has been given poring over it. appropriate examples to make that point. I will not I understand that the Secretary of State’s need to re-rehearse the point, but she will note that it was not avoid the difficulties of his predecessor earlier this year only the Opposition who expressed that concern last and to have something to talk about when he is at the time. She may find that some Members on her side of National Farmers Union—once a pressman, always a Committee care and worry about this issue. I would pressman. I rather admire that; however, I think we gently point out that the circumstances are really rather should have seen the statement before today. different now; in fact, the case has been strengthened since the previous discussion, given the climate emergency that we are facing. We hardly need look very far around Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I arrived in the the country to see the evidence of that. office just before nine this morning to discover that Of course, we are also now leaving the European these documents had been produced. That makes things Union and embarking on a journey of considerable very difficult, because we may have missed the opportunity financial uncertainty for farmers and the wider rural to table amendments to this part of the Bill if anything community. That is why we need strong legislative in those documents raises concerns. As my hon. Friend commitments that guarantee long-term support for the said, it is wrong that this situation has been dictated by environment and the climate, and financial certainty for the need for the Secretary of State to make a speech at our farmers. All that the amendment would do is make the NFU this morning. The Committee should take it a requirement to provide the financial assistance. precedence. Other measures in the Bill are worded as requirements. Clause 4 makes the preparation of multi-annual financial Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. assistance plans a requirement, while clause 17 obligates We are politicians and we know how the world works, the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on UK but it is a pity. This Government have a strong majority food security. There are other provisions in the Bill and are at the start of their term; surely they should not where the power is a duty. The amendment would be running scared so soon. Frankly, it speaks volumes. I ensure that clause 1, which is pretty much at the heart of do not blame the Minister—I am sure she is doing what what we are talking about, has equal standing to other 167 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 168

[Daniel Zeichner] I politely say is what makes this different from the other clauses that the hon. Member for Cambridge referenced— clauses. Shifting the power to a duty would rightly open it is traditional, in this sphere at least, although not in the Secretary of State’sactions up to proper parliamentary all Government legislation, to use the word “may”. Two scrutiny. If it is the law that the Secretary of State must examples are the Natural Environment and Rural provide finance for those essential activities, and they Communities Act 2006 and the Science and Technology do not, they can be held duly accountable. Act 1965, which both use the word “may”when discussing financial assistance. I would suggest that, in this situation, TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment, that is not an unusual piece of drafting nor one that in Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is a great any way lessens our commitment to providing the financial pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, assistance to which we have committed for the remainder at this very exciting time for agriculture. I thank the hon. of this Government. Gentleman for his broadly kind words this morning and for his acceptance that we have a great deal in common We listened to hon. Members’ concerns during the across the House, as we move forward in planning the passage of the first version of the Bill and have included next stages of food production, farming and other systems new duties relating to financial assistance. The provision that we want to implement to make sure the environment of the multi-annual financial assistance plans under is better protected. We have much in common in this clause 4 is a significant change, which sets out our area at the moment. strategic priorities for financial assistance under clause 1, with the first plan starting in 2021 to cover our seven-year As a newbie to this Committee, I also welcome those transition period. Publishing these plans and other who served before and who, as the hon. Gentleman reports required under part 1 will ensure greater said, did a great deal to improve the Bill, which appears transparency and provide necessary certainty about the before us today in a new, streamlined form. Clause 1(4) amount of public funding that has been allocated under includes an important mention of the role of food clause 1. production as part of what we do in our countryside. It makes it clear that encouraging the production of food 9.45 am in an environmentally sustainable way is necessary. That Clause 5 includes a new duty on the Secretary of is one of the most important changes made to the Bill, State to prepare an annual report, which will give and I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that. further details of the financial assistance given under The hon. Gentleman also referred to standards. I am clause 1. Clause 6 gives a duty to prepare reports on the sure we will return to this discussion, probably next impact and effectiveness of the financial assistance week, when we discuss imports and how that issue will schemes. The plans and reports also give Parliament—and, be taken forward. I ask him to accept that my predecessor of course, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and I—and, indeed, many Government Members who and Rural Affairs, the public and anybody interested—the are interested in agriculture—have always been clear ability to scrutinise the Government’s plans for financial that it is important that we are committed to the highest assistance schemes, to check that the future funding possible standards of food production. Wewant reasonably decisions under the Bill powers will be aligned with our priced food, but produced to a standard of high ecological strategic priorities and to hold the Government to and animal welfare. account on how much they are spending. Kerry McCarthy: Can the Minister clarify whether There is no doubt that the Government intend to use she is talking about standards in the UK or standards the financial assistance powers in clause 1. The new of imports, too? duties in clauses 4 to 6 will ensure ample opportunity for scrutiny. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to Victoria Prentis: It is a great pleasure to take an withdraw the amendment. intervention from the hon. Lady. She and I have worked together for many years on food waste reduction, so we Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister for have had a certain amount to do with each other in that clarifying some of those points. She said that the sphere. Government aim to create as much certainty as possible. The Bill deals with standards in British agriculture That is sadly not how it feels to many in the sector. Part that we impose on our farmers. It is inevitable at this of the reason for people’s concerns is that they wonder exciting time for our nation that we will also stray into why some of this was not in the original Bill. That is discussions on imports. I do not wish to shut those why I keep returning to the underlying philosophical discussions down, however the Bill concentrates on the principles driving this. That is my concern and what has financial assistance that we give to the people who fed people’s worries. produce food in our countryside and are engaged in Of course, we welcome the changes and improvements other schemes that, hopefully, will help us to enhance to the Bill. However, as I said earlier, Government the environment. Members raised questions 14 or 15 months ago. I I wish to restate the Government’s commitment to suspect they will not necessarily be reassured by this. giving farmers, stakeholders and the public as much They would like to see something stronger, as we would. certainty as possible as we move away from the common That is why—as this part of the Bill is so important—we agricultural policy towards our new policy of public will press the amendment to a Division. money for public goods. I know that the previous I noticed—although I am not surprised—that the Committee discussed at enormous length whether “may” Minister did not feel able to respond to the observation or “must” should be used. As you may have heard, from the British Poultry Council. Those are very strong Mr Stringer, I am a former Government lawyer, and I statements coming from some sectors. I am of an age am aware of the way in which legislation is often that I can remember the debates about manufacturing framed. When talking about financial assistance—which in the 1990s. I recall a visit that I made to one of the 169 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 170 shoe factories in Norwich with the late, great Robin The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Cook. We were stunned to hear from that business that the following: they had had a visit from a very enthusiastic Minister in Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end the then Conservative Government to tell them, essentially, insert— that they were not needed any more; the future was “(k) establishing, maintaining and expanding agroecological going to be different. farming systems, including organic farming.” My concern, which is reflected by others, is that Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, at end extraordinarily, in our great country, with its wonderful insert— rural traditions, there is in some quarters a school of thought that sees the same outcome as a possibility for “‘environmentally sustainable way’ means in a way which employs factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment agriculture and farming. That is why we are so concerned on a long-term basis and avoids the depletion of natural resources”. and why we believe the powers should be strengthened. This amendment defines “environmentally sustainable way” for the Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): purposes of clause 1(4) and Amendment 2. Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that the inclusion of the word “must” could open up the Government to Daniel Zeichner: Amendment 2 seeks to address two judicial review from farmers who could make a sensible issues: what we consider to be a lack of proper emphasis argument that not all the objectives are being fully on access to healthy food, and the missed opportunity funded? They could then revert to the courts to try to to support whole-farm agroecological systems more get that through. That is not what I believe the Government explicitly.As I have intimated, for a Bill on food production, should be doing with the Bill. there is very little about public access to food and how the Government could support moving the sector towards Daniel Zeichner: I always listen carefully to the right producing healthy and sustainable food for our citizens. hon. Gentleman, because he knows of what he speaks, There is a nod to the broader issue of food security in but I wonder whether that is a slight red herring in this clause 17, which we believe can be improved, and to case. What he warns of could come about, but on which I will return. balance I would say that that is a risk worth taking to strengthen the Bill. To me, the risks that I have just This is a Bill about agriculture and public goods, and outlined are greater. it is important to recognise that access to healthy, sustainable food is a public good, and one that should I have huge confidence in the future of the sector, but be eligible for financial support. I suspect that economists some ideologues in the world have strange ideas. I do would go into technical detail about what public goods not think that is unique to one party or another. I may or may not be. We believe there is a market failure would just caution Government Members to be aware in this country. We need to provide people of all income that they, too, have people with some interesting thoughts levels with access to fresh, nutritious food, no matter on their side. In my view, the country needs such people where they live. Last year, a study by the Social Market to be seen off. I suspect that there is, if not unanimity, Foundation think-tank suggested that more than 1 million then considerable cross-party support for that point. people in the UK live in so-called food deserts— We want our agricultural sector to continue to thrive neighbourhoods where poverty, poor public transport and prosper. Food production is a key part of that, and and a lack of shops and supermarkets are seriously we want that strengthened in this legislation. On that limiting access to affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. basis, I will press the amendment to a Division. That has clear public health implications. The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. We all know that we have rising levels of obesity, and Division No. 1] we know about the strain that puts on the NHS. Only AYES yesterday, we heard that record numbers of people are Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena developing type 2 diabetes. I have already referred to Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia today’s report by Sir Michael Marmot, which we should McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel all feel anxious about. We also know that with rising food poverty, we are in the upsetting position of having NOES more food banks than we have branches of McDonald’s restaurants—over 2,000. That statistic is frequently cited. Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon There is an obvious opportunity here for provisions in Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia the Bill to enable the Government to support the core Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny production of food and food distribution in a way that Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James facilitates access to healthy and locally produced foods Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria at an affordable price. There is a clear need to boost our supply of fruit and vegetables, so that people can access Question accordingly negatived. food that is closer to home, more affordable, fresh, and sustainably produced. Provisions could facilitate community-supported agriculture and encourage local Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 2, in public food procurement. The Government could also clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert— be enabled to give farmers the support they need to “(aa) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses in reduce UK reliance on imported food. We will come enabling public access to healthy food that is farmed back to the issue of the balance of locally produced and in an environmentally sustainable way, including food imported food. produced through whole farm agroecological systems”. This amendment would add to the purposes for which financial assistance If the Government are not convinced that some of can be given, that of ensuring access to healthy food produced sustainably this can be done, I invite them to visit my Cambridge including through whole farm agroecological systems. constituency to see the innovative work led by Labour 171 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 172

[Daniel Zeichner] funding mechanism for farmers currently locked into an industrialised production system through no fault of Cambridge city councillors Katie Thornburrow and their own. We can help them adopt an agroecological Alex Collis, including community gardens in some of approach that would speed the much-needed transition the new developments in Trumpington, on the edge of towards more sustainable methods. the city. These innovative pioneering schemes show that Such funding could be made available at whole-farm it can be done: they are a real opportunity to work with level, to avoid the piecemeal approach of greening only food producers, but are currently outside the scope of the edges of fields, which risks creating isolated areas of funding as a public good. This is not about returning to biodiversity and retaining the deserts of intensive agriculture the common agricultural policy and simply paying farmers that we still too often see. It seems clear that a whole-farm to produce food; it is about supporting public access to approach should be at the heart of the new environmental food that is healthy and local, and recognising that it is land management schemes, some of the detail of which a public good in itself—with all the potential public we will all enjoy over our lunch break. health implications. Amendment 2 explicitly allows for the provision of 10 am financial assistance to support food produced through whole-farm agroecological systems. The Government In our view, agroecology is at the heart of what the have made a move towards recognising the importance Bill tries to achieve. We do not think it should be left as of agroecology clause 1(5) of the Bill by clarifying that a legislative footnote in clause 1(5). Amendment 3, financial assistance that farmers can receive under which is complementary to amendment 2, would clarify clause 1(b) for supporting a better understanding of the what constitutes food produced in an “environmentally environment among the public includes a “better sustainable way”. understanding”of agroecology.A “better understanding” is about education. It does not financially support the Mr Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are adoption of agroecological principles by farmers. In entirely laudable, in that we should wish to encourage their written evidence to this Committee, the Sustainable the production of more organic food in our country. Food Trust said that However, in the evidence sessions, we heard some concern “without adequately supporting the implementation of agroecology, from representatives of the organic sector that the supply- it is merely rhetoric.” demand balance in the organic market in the UK is very In putting the maintenance of natural ecological delicate, and that over-incentivising switching to organic processes at the heart of agricultural production, we production may undermine those at the forefront of know that taking that agroecological approach can organic production and may result in market collapse. deliver many of the public goods throughout the farming We have already seen that—to an extent—in the liquid process identified in the Bill in an integrated way, not milk market, where organic production has exceeded just in separated or reserved areas or only at the margins. demand, meaning that those who have invested in organics These systems are geared towards using natural processes have not reaped the benefits they would have wished. across the board to reduce the use of agrochemicals; I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has seen research encourage biodiversity; improve soil health; recycle nutrients, by the Royal Agricultural University,Cranfield University energy and waste; and generally create more diverse, and the University of Reading into the impact of organic resilient and productive agroecosystems, which we know production on the environment and on food production we need. Sustain’s written evidence to the Committee in general. Although they found that greenhouse gas highlighted that by adopting an integrated approach in emissions from organic production were 20% lower and this way, agroecological systems can deliver a “higher that there would be level of benefits”, with organic farms “a 4% reduction in livestock emissions and a 6% overall direct “supporting 50% more wildlife than on conventionally farmed emissions bonus if the UK went fully organic”, land, and healthier soils with 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon.” they found that the effect on food production as a whole The report “Our Future in the Land”, produced last “would be a 40% reduction in total food production in England year by the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside and Wales when expressed as total metabolisable energy (ME) Commission, recommended the design of a 10-year output.” transition plan for sustainable agroecological farming That means that a massive switchover to organic may by 2030, and the establishment of a national agroecology not only collapse the market but may cause us to have development bank to accelerate a fair,sustainable transition. to import more food. Organic production produces less Reports on sustainable agriculture produced by the UN food, but the overall demand for food in this country in high-level panel of experts on food security and nutrition terms of calories needed would remain the same—indeed, in 2019 state that Governments should it would increase in line with the population. “promote agroecological and other innovative approaches in an My worry is that the hon. Gentleman’s amendments integrated way to foster transformation of food systems.” would over-incentivise switching to organic production, The Bill is an obvious place for the promotion of that which would not necessarily have all the environmental approach, which is now widely recognised. It should benefits we expected, particularly if the grain production, provide specific funding for farmers wishing to switch for example, that was lost to the UK because of a switch from conventional production to agroecological production. to organic was replaced by imports from places such as The support could be directed towards training farmers Brazil, where rain forest deforestation is carried out. That and providing capital grants for the infrastructure may have the opposite effect to the one that we expected. investments required to transition to agroecological I absolutely understand the sentiments behind the hon. farming systems, as well as significantly increased research Gentleman’s amendments, but I wonder whether the law into agroecological farming systems. It would create a of unintended consequences might come into play. 173 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 174

Kerry McCarthy: Mr Stringer, amendment 11 is in and incentives they need to transition to ecological this group. Is it in order for me to speak to that farming models. I am sure that at some point we will amendment now? talk about climate change, but land use—the sustainable use of land, which means sustainable agriculture—is absolutely intrinsic to meeting our global climate targets. The Chair: It is in order. Weare debating amendments 2, We will discuss later why there is no commitment to net 11 and 3. zero in the Bill, as supported by the NFU. We must take the situation seriously, and it is so frustrating that, year Kerry McCarthy: Thank you for that clarification. on year, all we talk about is fossil fuel use and industry, My amendment 11 is very similar to the Labour with perhaps a little nod to transport and electric vehicles, Front Benchers’amendment 2. It would give the Secretary but we do not talk about this incredibly important of State the power to provide financial assistance for angle—locally and in the impact overseas with deforestation the purpose of and so on, as was mentioned. “establishing, maintaining and expanding agroecological farming The recent Institute for Sustainable Development systems, including organic farming.” and International Relations modelling report makes it For a number of years, I chaired the all-party clear that a 10-year transition to agroecological farming, parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable which was also recommended by the RSA’s food, farming food and farming. We have not yet reconstituted in this and countryside commission, can deliver the food and Parliament, but the group has gone from strength to environmental outcomes needed to feed Europe and to strength. It is fair to say that, when I first got involved, tackle the crisis we face. Were the Minister to look at the it was very niche; we would have meetings with a small example set by France, she would find that there is far handful of people. Now, however, we regularly pack out greater focus on agroecology and organic farming, and Committee Rooms—standing room only. As I said, I it has been done very successfully. chaired that group for a number of years, apart from The Bill only rewards farmers for managing land or when I was in the shadow Cabinet, when my hon. water in a way that protects or improves the environment; Friend the Member for Cambridge kindly took over. agroecology would reward them for integrated, whole-farm Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Scarborough action. At the moment, a farmer might still farm and Whitby just said, agroecology is not just about unsustainably in the middle of the field, so most of the organic production. I entirely refute what he said about farm would not be sustainable, but could get the public organic productivity and so on. Unfortunately, I do not money for public goods for things done around the have the figures to hand, but I am sure that the Soil edge. Farmers will be able to pick and choose—to Association will soon be in touch with him and the rest cherry-pick certain things that they do—and that will of us to put straight some of the things he said about not transform farming in the way needed. the ability of the country to feed itself under an organic If agroecology is specified as a Bill purpose, the system. Government could also chose to develop schemes that Agroecological systems include organic, agroforestry, deliver social benefits as part of the farm system, such pasture-based livestock systems, integrated pest as community projects for public education about food management—farming in a way that does not require growing and cooking. That is so important, to change pesticides—low-input mixed farming and biodynamic farming from being seen as part of a countryside versus agriculture. All such things deliver a higher level of town thing; everyone eats food and benefits from the benefits and co-benefits across the farm than conventional growing of healthy food. systems do. Organic farms have 50% more wildlife than The Bill fails to support whole-farm systems in delivering conventionally farmed land, and healthier soils with a public goods in an integrated manner. Agroecological 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon. farms, including organic, at the moment may get start-up Obviously, too, if the soil is more fertile, that increases funding under clause 1(2), and certain agroecological productivity. The amendment is supported by Sustain, approaches may get funding under clause 1(1), but the Landworkers’ Alliance, the Soil Association and there is not support for whole-farm systems to deliver many others. public goods on an ongoing basis. That is not explicit My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned anywhere in the Bill; I think it should be. food deserts. The survey that he mentioned showed that two of the top five food deserts in the country were in The Chair: May I clarify the answer to the hon. south Bristol: the estates of Hartcliffe and Withywood. Lady’s initial question? It was completely in order to In the top 100, an area in my constituency is also listed. debate amendment 11. If she wishes to press it to a vote, In a city such as Bristol, that is really surprising. Bristol that will be after the debate on amendment 40. I hope prides itself on going for gold among the Sustainable that is clear. Food Cities later this year—I am sure the Minister supports that; we are surrounded by countryside, with an awful lot of urban food growing; and Feeding Bristol Victoria Prentis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. does a tremendous amount of work to encourage healthy Members who have spoken with such passion. I would eating and tackle food poverty. Yet we still have those be delighted to visit all sorts of food producers in their areas where that is a difficult problem to crack, so I very constituencies whenever the diary allows. much hope we will pay particular attention to that in I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment the food strategy that the Government are developing. to support domestic food production, and to the farmers On the amendment, as I said, agroecology integrates who provide high-quality, home-grown produce farmed food production with delivery of environmental and in an environmentally sustainable way and produced, social public goods. That would give farms the support broadly, at a reasonable cost. Clause 1(2) allows us to 175 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 176

[Victoria Prentis] 10.15 am We are designing the ELM scheme with stakeholders, provide financial assistance for starting or improving including those in the organic sector, to ensure that it the productivity of agricultural forestry, and horticultural works for them in a holistic way. We want to ensure that and certain related activities. That will complement the the system supports all farm types to deliver environmental Government’s increasingly joined-up approach to food, public goods, including support for farmers who are which goes far beyond the Bill. We hope that will ensure already using sustainable farming methods, as well as public access to healthy food. newcomers to the techniques. However, we do not need Last year, the Government asked Henry Dimbleby, amendment 11 to give such support. Clause 1(1)(a) the lead non-executive director at the Department for already allows us to provide financial assistance to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to lead an farmers for the purpose of managing their land in independent review of the food system and to shape a a way that protects or improves the environment. That national food strategy. The strategy will cover the entire can include assistance to support organic or other food chain from field to fork, including addressing the agroecological methods. challenges of supporting people to eat healthy diets, I turn to amendment 3. Under the rules of the EU, producing food sustainably, protecting national food we were all required to follow prescriptive definitions. security, and ensuring that our food system delivers Now that we have freed ourselves from the bureaucratic safe, healthy and affordable food, regardless of where and inflexible system, we are free to define “public people live or how much they earn. goods” as we see them. We hope the approach will give farmers and land managers much greater flexibility to I do not wish to shy away from the debate about food deliver those goods in a way that best suits them and poverty, which was raised by several hon. Members, their land. but, with respect, we are discussing the scope of the clause, and I politely suggest that food poverty should Wesubscribe to a broad definition of “environmentally be considered in a debate with the Department for sustainable way”, which goes beyond that used in Work and Pensions, which provides a safety net and a amendment 3. It includes things such as minimising £95-billion-a-year budget to help those in poverty. We harm to the environment, reducing the exploitation of are discussing financial assistance of about £3 billion a natural resources, protecting natural assets and restoring year to those who provide our food. I hear what hon. degraded natural capital. We want to focus our efforts Members have said, but it is important not to get drawn not just on protecting the environment and limiting or into a debate on food banks. reducing damage, but on encouraging active improvement. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Cambridge wishes Farming efficiently and improving the environment to add clarity to the term “environmentally sustainable can and must go hand in hand. Clause 1(4) demonstrates way”, but I fear that, in practice, this could limit the way clearly that the Government recognise the importance it is understood in the Bill. We might fall into the trap of of environmentally sustainable food production. It places repeating the failings of the current system, whereby a duty on the Secretary of State, when framing schemes legal definitions have undoubtedly restricted the evolution under clause 1, to take into account the need to encourage of more sustainable policy. English farmers to produce food in a way that protects When framing a financial assistance scheme,the Secretary and enhances our environment. Those who apply of State will consider the need to encourage food production environmentally sustainable farming techniques, including in a sustainable way. That could include production in whole-farm systems and agroecological principles, to ways that minimise harm to the environment and reduce their farming or land management practices will be very the exploitation of capital resources. However, it could well placed to benefit from ELM schemes in future—I also include production that protects natural assets and will come on to amendment 11 in a minute. The ELM restores degraded natural capital. I ask hon. Members systems will be regulated in a different way: an agronomist not to press these amendments. will go out to the farm and consider in a holistic and whole-farm manner how systems can best support ecology. That is really exciting and I look forward to discussing Daniel Zeichner: We have had a good discussion it further with the hon. Member for Bristol East. pointing out some of the interesting trade-offs and We made it clear in the Bill that funding can be tensions that we face as we look ahead. I was struck by provided to support better understanding of the the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough environment. That could include funding for better and Whitby, because it seems there are potentially many education and understanding of agroecology.Ultimately, unintended consequences of the changes that we are good farmers and land managers know their land best. about to make. I absolutely understand his point about We want to ensure that our future schemes give them oversupply. All I would say is that if we are trying to the freedom to choose the best approach, with high-quality tackle the climate crisis, we will have to manage advice for their land and businesses. Turning to the hon. the transition. That is one of the great challenges of Lady’s amendment 11, I pay tribute to her work in the the Bill. APPG and I recognise that agroecology has sometimes A long time ago, I was a student of early modern been misinterpreted as synonymous with organic farming. economic history. The terrible crisis that faced farmers That is, of course, one example of an agroecological and communities was the constant problem of how system. Let me take the opportunity to reassure the people deal with dearth and plenty. Year after year, we Committee that we recognise the environmental and saw populations across Europe struggling with that. I animal health and welfare benefits of agroecological gently suggest that the post-war settlement, and the farming systems and principles, including those on development of a system to try to manage that problem, organic farms. was what the common agricultural policy was originally 177 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 178 about. That is one of the reasons that we now have to who displays a passionate knowledge. She has been change it and reform it. It was never set up to deal with bending my ear on this issue for the best part of two the environmental challenges, although there have been decades. [Interruption.] Sorry. That was when my hon. attempts to reform it. The basic question of how we Friend was a very young person. ensure that we have sufficient food for our population, As is often the case, people are proved to be right. I and a decent return for those producing it and living in am not sure that when my hon. Friend was embarking rural communities, does not go away just because it has on those points two decades ago, everyone would necessarily not been a problem for a while. have agreed or given her the space to make those points. She has been proved right. It is important to pursue the Mr Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible matter in the amendment. I take the Minister’s point and considered point. My concern was that, in the same that it might be possible to secure some support through way as we strove to reduce our carbon footprint in the the environmental land management schemes. Without metallurgical industries by offshoring some of the wanting to sound like a broken record, it would have production of steel and aluminium outside our country, been a lot easier if we had had further detail on that we might see a risk. For example, it is virtually impossible earlier. That is why I think it is reasonable for us to keep to produce oilseed rape in an organic way; the weed pressing. pressure is such that it is almost impossible. We might I understand that the Government did not have entire find that we export production of oilseed rape to countries control over the political agenda in the past couple of where that production is less sustainable, resulting in years, but this has been done in the wrong order. The more carbon being burned and possible deforestation. food strategy is really important, and we welcome it, but it just seems to be the wrong way round. The food The Chair: Order. May I take this opportunity to strategy should be set first, followed by discussion on remind Members that interventions should be short how to achieve it. We are in the curious position of and to the point? There is plenty of time to make trying to second-guess what is going to happen. Given speeches in the debate. that it may well be set in stone, as this is a key moment in agricultural policy, and may have to stand the test of time for 40 years, it is difficult to approach the matter in Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful, Mr Stringer. I am also this order. grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that I fully appreciate what the Minister said about tackling point. One difficulty we have in discussing the Bill is poverty. From our side, every opportunity to tackle that the philosophical underpinning is somewhat absent. poverty is worth pursuing. It is a striking feature of too These big questions of what agriculture is for, and many parts of our country that the opportunity for whether we are going to have a future, sustainable people to eat healthily has been withdrawn from local agricultural system, trouble many of us. As I said communities. Sometimes, it is all very well to point the earlier, those issues do not go away. He made a very finger at individuals, but individuals can only choose strong point, which many Opposition Members will from the choices that are offered to them. Ironically, it is return to, about the danger of effectively moving the not only in cities—in many villages and rural communities environmental harm elsewhere. That is a key sticking we have seen the absence of local shops. Of course, the point, which I suspect will be returned to on many market will do what the market will do unless we occasions. intervene. We want to ensure that we can manage a transition. I Labour strongly believes in intervention. Where there would like to see us get to a much more sustainable are market failures, we want to respond to our constituents’ system. I hope that the discussions we are having provide rightly held view that if there is no fresh fruit and veg in a structure to allow people to make that transition. The the local shop—as is too often the case—they are left danger is that it becomes more expensive, as the right with unpalatable choices because, as demand falls, it is hon. Gentleman pointed out. hard for shopkeepers.What should we do? The amendments We may move to lower levels of food production in would give us the opportunity to provide support. I this country. That is a matter to be debated. Provided know that would not be welcome to market fundamentalists, the standards elsewhere are good enough, from our and it might not be the most hyper-efficient way of point of view, it would not necessarily be the case that producing food goods, but it produces something bigger, we would want to maintain the current levels. We will which is a public good—our people having access to the come to that when we discuss food security, no doubt. It food that they deserve. is always tempting to say that we should continue as we are, because that happens to be where we are now. Looking ahead, do we think the world is safer than it Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): I am grateful was or not? Those are the questions worth asking. to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I am here in my capacity as a Whip today. Does he agree that Returning to discussion of the amendment, many of the time will come when people will look back on the us would like to see much more local, sustainable Bill as a lost opportunity? We have not grasped this—the production. People worry about food miles involved. point of agriculture, as many farmers, including Members Having rehearsed these debates in the past, I am sure opposite know, is to grow food. Is this not the time to there are transport experts in the room who will point tackle food poverty? out that it is not simple. Not being far away geographically does not necessarily produce a lower carbon footprint. Those are matters that people rightly want to discuss Daniel Zeichner: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. and challenge. There is no better person to challenge There is considerable enthusiasm in many communities those than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, to grasp that opportunity,if it is given. Many communities 179 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 180

[Daniel Zeichner] The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 35, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end do not have the resources necessary to do it themselves, insert— without some external help and support. This is exactly ‘“improving public health” includes— the opportunity to do that. (a) increasing the availability, affordability, diversity, I will touch on the Minister’s initial discussion of quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and how Environmental Land Management schemes may pulses, operate. We are all enthusiastic and want them to work (b) reducing farm antibiotic and related veterinary well. I have rather enjoyed the images that the Secretary product use, and antibiotic resistance in harmful of State has occasionally conjured up of a cosy chat micro-organisms,throughimprovedanimalhealth around the farmhouse table. I caution the Conservative and welfare, party—I think country suppers got it into trouble in the (c) providing support for farmers to diversify out past. Members opposite may want to reflect that not all of domestic production of foods where there farms are the same. I have often noticed over the years may be reduced demand due to public concerns over issues such as health, environment, and that the kind of farms I have been invited to are animal welfare, and wonderful, astonishing places—the crème de la crème of our system. Not all farms, in my experience—I go (d) reducing harm from use of chemicals on farms, and reducing pesticide residues in food;’. back to my days as a rural district councillor in Norfolk— are like that. For many farmers, it is tough. As we know See explanatory statement for Amendment 34. from the statistics, they are barely eking out a living in some places. I have never been entirely convinced that Daniel Zeichner: The amendments cover a huge number all those farms would be quite so welcoming to the of areas that could occupy us for many hours, no agri-economist turning up to have a discussion. From doubt. I promise I shall spare the Committee that. their perspective, it may feel a touch intrusive, if they Greatly missing from the Bill, however,is the understanding are told to make changes that they will find very difficult. that how we manage our agricultural systems not only My cautionary note is that this may work well for has implications for the environment but for public some. I was challenged by the NFU to visit a farm in health. What we grow and the support we provide for Cambridge, which my team originally thought would be that affects the availability of healthy food, as we have a challenge. It turned out that we have a wonderful farm already discussed. The current overuse of antibiotics to on the edge of Cambridge doing some fantastic work counter high stocking densities in livestock continues to through many of the existing agri-environmental schemes. be linked to worrying trends in levels of antibiotic-resistant I am sure it will do very well under the new system. My diseases. Pesticide use can also have impacts beyond worry is what happens to farms in other places that will biodiversity on human health. find this much tougher. The Government’sWhite Paper “Health and Harmony: 10.30 am the future for food, farming and the environment in a We hear what the Minister says and we will hold her Green Brexit”, which prefigured the Bill, highlighted to it in future. There is plenty of opportunity for the the key links between our agricultural and food supply agri-ecological sector to take advantage of these new systems and public health outcomes.Yet, as my predecessor schemes. In the meantime, partly because we do not pointed out, where has health gone in the Bill? It does have the level of detail to give us the assurance we need, not seem to be there, and we think it should be. I will push this amendment to a Division. Amendment 34 would therefore include “improving Question put, that the amendment be made. public health” in the list of public goods for which The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. farmers would be eligible to receive financial assistance. Amendment 35 outlines specific priority areas we believe Division No. 2] should receive funding, including the key areas of reducing AYES antibiotic use; reducing harm from the use of chemicals Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena and pesticides, particularly pesticide residue on food; Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia and increasing the availability and affordability of healthy McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel produce such as fruits, vegetables and pulses to encourage healthier diets. NOES Reducing antibiotic use in particular is a clear global Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon public good. We know that antimicrobial resistance is Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia increasing across the world and that the United Nations Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny has identified the overuse of antibiotics in farming as Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James one of the biggest emerging threats to human health. In Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria particular, routine preventive dosing of healthy animals with antibiotics has implications for the rise of potentially Question accordingly negatived. fatal viruses, and we have already seen outbreaks of viral diseases that have spread to people, such as bird flu and swine flu, which have been directly linked to intensive Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 34, in farming. clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert— Over the last few years, our farmers have rightly cut ‘(ca) improving public health;’. back on using antibiotics. We appreciate that, but we This amendment would add ‘improving public health’ to the list of believe that more needs to be done. We also think that purposes for financial assistance given under clause 1, with ‘improving moving outside the European Union and its rules has public health’ defined in Amendment 35. put a question mark over our position on that. At the 181 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 182 moment, we have our UK voluntary standard produced some of the downsides and unintended consequences of by RUMA—the Responsible Use of Medicines in some of the things that we can now do. Perhaps we are Agriculture alliance—which requires farmers to avoid at a point in time—to go back to this being a key routine use of antibiotics, but we still do not have moment in developing our policy for the future—to legislation banning the routine use of preventive antibiotics look at the decisions made 40 years ago to tackle on groups of healthy animals in the UK. scarcity and shortage. Now, we might be tackling a The European Union has seen the light and has different set of problems. That is why the debate is so agreed to end the use of all routine antibiotic use, important, but the right hon. Gentleman makes an including group preventive treatments, by January 2022. important contribution. So far as I am aware, however, we have heard nothing Going back to the potential issues with pesticides, in from the Government on whether we will follow suit. I March 2017 the report of the United Nations special would appreciate the Minister’s observations. rapporteur on the right to food highlighted the fact that We believe that we need concrete incentives in the Bill chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides has been to reduce antibiotic use now. I am well aware that associated with several diseases and conditions, including farmers operate in a marketplace and need to produce cancer, developmental disorders and sterility, and that food at affordable prices, and indeed at various price those living near crop fields are particularly vulnerable points. That is why we believe that help for people is to exposure to those chemicals. legitimate when we want to make that change. Finance Again, I acknowledge that some of that is contested, should be made available to support farmers to make but it would be unwise to suggest that there is no those changes. potential problem here. If we can find ways of reducing Surprisingly, as far as we can see, the Bill makes little the risk, that is surely something to be sought. It is also mention of pesticides. We will discuss the need to the case that, while those who are administering the monitor pesticide use in relation to the environment pesticides should use protective equipment when using with a later amendment, but we all know that those agricultural pesticides and there are clear guidelines chemicals can have an effect on human health. Last and rules on that, adjacent rural residents and communities year, Soil Association research showed that reliance on do not necessarily have anything like the same protection— modern intensive farming methods means that every most do not have any protection at all—and there are day we are exposed to traces of potentially carcinogenic still no mandatory measures in the UK specifically for compounds left on fruit and veg. I suspect that we will the protection of those rural systems. return to such contentious points later,but some foodstuff Alongside that, boosting our supply of fruit and veg tested by the Soil Association was contaminated with is particularly important for public health, as we have up to 14 different chemicals. just discussed, so that people can have access to fresh, In the evidence sessions, we heard some of the difficult sustainably produced fruit and vegetables closer to home. questions about the science of such issues, and I fully We know that low intake of fruit and veg is among the admit that it is contested. None the less, it is important. most important dietary risk factors for chronic disease, When we used to work under the precautionary principle, including heart disease and stroke. I am told that, sadly, we were cautious about such things. According to the only 31% of British adults and 8% of children currently Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food, pesticide achieve the Government’srecommendation of five portions traces were found in 45% of thousands of tested samples of fruit and vegetables per day. of food and drink bought in the UK in 2018, so it is a We are using far less of our agricultural land to significant issue. produce fruit and vegetables than we could—only 1.4% in The potential implications of repeated spraying of England, when the Public Health Policy Evaluation pesticides in rural areas on the health of rural communities Unit estimates that we could be using up to 19% of land has also been well documented in the past, although I to cultivate crops of fruit and vegetables. Looking back, fully acknowledge that all farmers are cautious and we had a very different mix in past times. This is part of careful, not least because of the costs involved—people the wider discussion about the extent to which we are do not do this willy-nilly—but, sadly, not always in part of a global trading system and want to import ways that necessarily protect the adjoining rural things that we could very well produce here. Again, it is communities. part of the economic trade-offs. Mr Goodwill: I understand that pesticide residues must be minimised, but is it not the case that the current Kerry McCarthy: I was pleased to see mention of generation that is living to ever-increasing ages, with pulses in amendment 35. People often talk about fruit more people than ever before at 100 years of age, is the and veg, but pulses are not only good for the soil, in first generation not to be brought up entirely on organic terms of fixing nitrogen, but an important part of a food? healthy diet. In certain parts of the country, including East Anglia, which my hon. Friend is very familiar Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman tempts with, they are a booming part of the agricultural sector. me to go back to the Marmot report. Sadly, not everyone For example, for people who cannot handle gluten, is living to 100—not everyone necessarily wants to live there are pea-based pizza bases and things like that. I to 110 or 120, of course—and the worry is that the have spoken to producers about them. Does he agree increase in life expectancy appears to have stalled. However, that we ought to be pushing that as well? he makes an important point. I am not one of those who thinks that life was so much better in the past. Most of us can recognise plenty to celebrate in the Daniel Zeichner: As ever, I find myself in agreement modern world and in the technological advances we with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I have made, but alongside those advances we have learnt am still chastened by one of the hon. Members opposite 183 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 184

[Daniel Zeichner] Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered amendments—I am enjoying his philosophical chiding me about my comments on eastern England at approach. I was brought up by a farmer who studied the evidence session, because I am very proud of eastern philosophy at university—he has joined us to watch—so England, but I do reflect occasionally that the landscape the hon. Gentleman’s approach is one with which I am has changed over the decades. We are very efficient food very at home. My first job for that farmer was selling producers, but—there is always a but—there have been plums at the side of the road, and the hon. Gentleman some costs to that in terms of environmental degradation. may have noticed that my Christian name is that of the There is an opportunity, through these changes, to best-selling plum variety. move some of that production to the kind that my hon. I heard and agreed with a lot of what the hon. Friend is suggesting. Gentleman said about fruit, vegetables and pulses. It is My guess, although I do not know for sure, is that crucial that we recognise the many connections between many farmers would be quite happy to do that, because agriculture and public health. DEFRA is working closely we know that farmers tend to operate within the rules with the Department of Health and Social Care and that this place sets. That is why we have a responsibility others to ensure that we put the improvement of public to make that more attractive and to incentivise it, and health at the heart of everything that we do. not necessarily to make it attractive to carry on as we I spoke earlier about Henry Dimbleby’s independent have done in the past. There is a real opportunity there, review to develop a national food strategy, and I am and I am sure we will talk further about diversification grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for it. We opportunities, but I must say that I worry sometimes hope that it will ensure that safe, healthy and affordable about imagining that everyone wants to be diversified. food is available to everyone, regardless of where they Some people went into farming because that is what live or how much they earn. We are also investing they want to do and they do it very well, and we should significantly in schools, to promote physical activity recognise that. and healthy eating, through various programmes, including Going back to fruit and veg, the Public Health the healthy start, the school fruit and vegetable and the Policy Evaluation Unit’swritten evidence to the Committee nursery milk schemes. estimates that, if there were a gradual increase in land Turning to the amendments and to support for fruit use for fruit and vegetable production to 10% of suitable and vegetables and—as the request of the hon. Member land, fruit and vegetable intake could increase by around for Bristol East mentioned—pulses, the UK enjoys a 3.7% and 7.8% respectively.That could prevent or postpone high degree of food security, which is built on access to around 3,890 cardiovascular disease deaths between a range of different sources, including domestic production 2021 and 2030. My guess is that the science is not exact, and imports. Our climate means that, try as we might, but the drift of the argument is clear. There is an we cannot grow everything here, so access to a range of opportunity here, and I very much hope that, as we food sources is important. Having said that, I love discuss the environmental land management schemes in buying British fruit and vegetables, and I encourage more detail, we will be reassured by the possibilities. others to do so. The Bill will enable us to continue enhancing food security by supporting the adoption of new technologies 10.45 am to help producers and to extend our domestic growing According to that written evidence, financial assistance seasons. Such an increase in domestic production could should be further available to support fruit and vegetable help to increase the availability of different foods throughout demand by the year, reducing imports and leading to a reduction in prices for the consumer. Of course Victoria plums are “improving local accessibility,quality,and affordability…supporting shorter supply chains through local markets and farm shops, the best, but many other plum varieties come to fruition investing in marketing and promotion of local fruit and vegetables, earlier and later in the season. We may need to support supporting public procurement of British fruit and vegetables, such native species when considering financial assistance and promoting other innovative measures, such as community- given under the scheme. supported agriculture.” A joined-up and practical approach across Departments I suspect that there is nothing in that paragraph to is required to tackle public health and food issues which Conservative Members would object. The question properly. That is beyond the scope of the Bill alone, but is whether we can amend the Bill to make that public I reassure the Committee that we are committed to good easier to achieve. increase demand for and access to healthy food. One We do not accept that this is out of the scope of the example is the school fruit and vegetable scheme, which Bill. Public health is also about public choices. Action is provides 2.3 million children in key stage 1 with fruit or clearly needed, beyond the farm gate, to curb the processing vegetables every day. and marketing of unhealthy foods, which we still see, Subsection (1)(f) allows the Government to give financial and to ensure, vitally, that our farm policy promotes assistance to protect or improve the healthy food production and does not support the “health or welfare of livestock”. continued production of foods or the operation of We will use the power to develop schemes to tackle systems that contribute to unhealthy or unsafe diets, endemic diseases,which will support a responsible reduction with all the associated wider costs to society and the in antimicrobials and other veterinary medicines and, economy. through that, better public health. More needs to be We firmly believe that public health issues stemming done on antimicrobials, and the Bill provides the ability from or connected to agriculture should absolutely be to give financial assistance to encourage good practice, considered in the Bill. but I also refer the hon. Member for Cambridge to the 185 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 186

UK five-year action plan for tackling antimicrobial so I do not suggest that there will be any problem down resistance. The Bill provides carrots—if I may use that the line. However, not everyone necessarily will always term—but we also have regulatory sticks, as not everything be as sympathetic, so it would be very much in the can be provided for within that context. interests of communities—particularly those that many The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of Government Members represent—to take a safety-first ensuring that farmers can make a choice to diversify approach and tie down these public goods. and respond quickly and flexibly to market demand. This is our opportunity to make it easier for farmers, Our intention through the Bill is to enable farmers and as they go through this difficult transition, to access the growers to improve productivity, better tap into market money that the Government have promised will be demand and provide new protections to first producers available during this Parliament. My concern is that from unfair trading practices.That is particularly important some of them will find that money not very easy to for growers of high-value fruit and vegetables, who too access, so why not widen the scope so that, where they often see produce returned by retailers and processors can see things they could do with some help and support for no good reason—I was brought up hearing all about for—transferring production to pulses, fruit and vegetables, that at the farm table. The Bill gives farmers and growers for example, or tackling some of the difficult issues the ability to challenge such practices. around pesticide use—they are enabled to do them? On the use of farming chemicals and pesticides, we This goes back to economics. Essentially, we want farmers are already committed to protecting people and the to be able to survive, but if they are disadvantaged in environment from the risks that such products can any way, they will struggle. Why not use the resource create. Strict regulation already permits the sale and use that is available in a way that farmers can understand of pesticides only where thorough scientific assessment and that will help them? shows that they will not harm people or pose unacceptable We urge the Committee to support amendment 34 for risks to the environment. The Department is carrying that reason, but also because it would send the right out a review of the national action plan for the sustainable message about these public health issues. I represent an use of pesticides, which will focus on introducing integrated area with a strong life sciences sector, and antimicrobial pest management and alternatives to pesticides. Some resistance has been brought to my attention constantly of that will come within the practices that we are trying since the moment I was elected four and a half years to encourage in the Bill, but some will remain a matter ago. It is difficult. I lose track of Prime Ministers, but for strict regulation. the Prime Minister before the one before the current one—David Cameron—had Jim O’Neill do a lot of We are already working hard across Government to work on this issue. I think there is cross-party agreement tackle the issues raised in the amendment. I am confident about it; it is not a party political issue. It is a real that the Bill already provides broad powers to support concern and a real worry, and I am in no doubt that further activity in these key areas, so I ask the hon. farmers also worry about it. However,market pressures—I Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. keep returning to the same point—dictate that people do certain things. We must therefore act to mitigate Daniel Zeichner: I have listened closely to the Minister. those pressures and to provide help and support. We are In some ways, this goes to the heart of the problem in in the slightly unusual position of having a £3 billion our discussion: the Opposition are raising a series of budget. Normally, one has to make the argument, but things that we think should have funding and support the money is there; the question is how it will be through the new system, and although £3 billion is accessed and used. What better use could there be than small compared with the DWP budget, it is a considerable tackling some of these big public health issues? amount of public money, which in the past went directly I probably should have intervened on the Minister to to farmers. For many of them, the question is: how will ask about schools support, but I was still ruminating the new system work? As I suggested—this point has over what she was saying—I think I was stuck on been made not just by the Opposition but by senior Victoria plums. It is not entirely clear to me that the Bill Government Members—the idea is that the money will will allow some of that money to be utilised in that way. transfer over almost seamlessly, provided that farmers I guess we will not know until we get down to the detail do a bit of this or that, but that is not necessarily how it of the environmental land management schemes, but cranks out. we would like to make it clearer, as we seek to do While I absolutely trust what the Minister says about throughout this process, not least because that would the Government’s abilities through the environmental give farmers the certainty that the Government rightly land management schemes, I am sure she understands say they want to give them. why there is concern. That is why we want this detail in On that basis, I am afraid that I would like, yet again, the Bill. Again, the point has been made before by to press the amendment to a Division. We think it is of Government Members that, in future, there may be less considerable importance. rural-friendly Ministers, who may be tempted to look at the budget line and think, “Well, given that the local Question put, That the amendment be made. school is struggling and the local health service is The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. struggling”—the Minister knows entirely what I am Division No. 3] talking about. This needs to be nailed down in the Bill. I appreciate the difficulty the Minister has, because I AYES suspect she probably agrees, but that is why we think it Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena is necessary to set out these various public goods to protect them. It has been said to me by farmers that, Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia actually,farmers do quite well under Labour Governments, McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel 187 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 188

NOES greening requirements, we know that the lack of financial Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon support for farmers to adapt their practices to focus on Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia climate change has been a key part of that, which is why Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny it is so important to get the financial provisions to Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James support farmers right in the Bill. Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria A great deal of the Bill, as I am sure we will discuss in Question accordingly negatived. the coming weeks, places great trust in the hands of future Secretaries of State. That is particularly evident in relation to prioritising climate change. As the division 11 am of funding between the various clause 1 public goods is Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to move unknown, as has been alluded to already, we very much amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, after “(d)” hope that clause 1(1)(d), in whatever form it goes forward, insert will have a greater focus on that funding. “limiting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture or horticulture or encouraging activities that reduce such emissions or remove The Committee on Climate Change’s progress report greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, or otherwise”. contained clear recommendations on agriculture and This amendment explicitly provides for limiting and reducing land use, and on the development of an effective post-CAP greenhouse gas emissions to be one of the purposes for which financial framework, and firm policies to reduce greenhouse gas assistance is given. emissions. There is ample room for consolidation in the I am pleased to have the opportunity to move this Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. amendment, which would make it explicit that the public I say to the Minister that there is no harm in accepting goods for which farmers can receive financial assistance an amendment that allows the Government to make should be activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions their intentions for emissions reductions in agriculture from agriculture. The Opposition believe that the current more explicit with a slight but important wording change. wording in clause 1(1)(d), which refers to “managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Lady for drawing adapts to climate change”, attention to this important and pressing topic. We on is not strong enough. We must do more and go further. the Government side are committed to leaving our Mitigating is lessening the impact of something that is environment in a better condition than we found it. happening, not preventing it; adaptation is managing That includes facing the challenges associated with the impacts that we are already seeing. We think it is climate change and with greenhouse gas emissions. extremely important that the money that will go from That is why we legislated in June 2019 to introduce a net directpaymentsintoenvironmentalsupportshouldexplicitly zero target to end the UK’s contribution to the most target emissions reduction. The wording is important serious environmental challenge we face: climate change. throughout the Bill, and not least in clause 1. We are the first major economy in the world to legislate It is essential that climate change as a cause is front for a carbon net zero target. and centre of the Bill. It will be one of the most important measures introduced by the House in the We have not made sector-specific targets, so I will not coming decade to tackle the climate emergency genuinely be accepting the hon. Lady’s amendment, although we and effectively. Through the support of the public goods, are pleased with the ambitious target set by the National it will be a central mechanism by which we can reduce Farmers Union for its members. We are committed to emissions from our land management and deliver the continuing to work with the agricultural industry to nature-based solutions to climate change that we know tackle climate change together. One example is the we need, such as peatland restoration and woodland £10 million of Government money given in May 2018 creation. to help restore more than 10,000 football pitches’ worth of England’s iconic peatlands, which she referred to. Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that the Bill needs This year we will establish a lowland agricultural peat far more than one line on climate change, especially as task force that will build on the work already begun in we have established that the provision effectively states this important area. that the Secretary of State “may”—not even “must”—give financial assistance for the relevant climate mitigation or adaptation. There is no bite to that, and no certainty Kerry McCarthy: On the subject of peatlands—I or urgency. have an amendment on this, to be considered later—it is The Bill should set a target for agriculture to reach one thing to talk about restoring peatlands, but if net zero carbon, and I have no doubt we will return to grouse moor owners are being allowed to burn peatlands, that later. The National Farmers Union is already a huge amount of damage is being done, by destroying committed to that. There is no reason not to have a what is a natural carbon sink and releasing carbon into sector-specific target for agriculture when we know how the atmosphere. Does she agree with me, and with her significant its contribution is to emissions and how ministerial colleague in the House of Lords—he has much support the sector will need to reduce it. indicated that he believes this too—that we ought to ban that practice? The 2019 progress report by the Committee on Climate Change showed that agriculture in all parts of the United Kingdom is not on track to meet any of its Victoria Prentis: I do not necessarily agree that all indicators. There has been no progress in reducing burning should be banned outright. Some low-level emissions from agriculture since 2008. As only 30% of burning is not necessarily as harmful to the environment direct payments are currently secured through meeting as the hon. Lady suggests. Wecan agree on the importance 189 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 190 of peatland as a place to store carbon, and the importance The Chair: Order. May I make it clear that there is no of working together to ensure that peatland is restored limit to the number of times Members can contribute, and improved. but there is a limit to the length of interventions? I would be grateful if hon. Members could be precise and I move on to our £90 million industrial strategy to the point with their interventions. challengefund—thetransformingfoodproductioninitiative. Through this fund, we support industry-driven research and development to move agricultural systems towards Victoria Prentis: The hon. Lady and I will discuss net zero emissions. It has some relevance to the point these issues over many years. I point out one important made by the hon. Member for Newport West. It is change made in the new version of the Bill relating to important for us always to be open-minded and able to soil quality. It is really important that we recognise that look at evidence. Everything we do must be evidence-based soil is itself an essential natural asset and very important in this important area. This investment will support the to the way we work to reduce carbon emissions. development and adoption of advanced precision technologies and solutions to boost the efficiency of I do not want to trespass on your time any further, our agriculture. It will help to ensure that we produce Mr Stringer. I hope that I have shown that we already high-value food in a way that maximises productivity have the powers in the Bill—that was just one example—to and environmental performance. cover the proposed content of the amendment, and I hope I have demonstrated the Government’s commitment The original drafting of the clause enabled the Secretary to making good use of those powers. I therefore ask the of State to give financial assistance for the purpose of hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment. “managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change.” We envisage that these objectives will be delivered by a Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her considered broad spectrum of activities, and therefore all agricultural thoughts on the matter. Labour Members are united on or horticultural activities that contribute to this purpose this. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, this is crucial would already be within scope of funding support to how we move forward. We need to make sure that we under clause 1(1)(d), as drafted. I hope that I have give a clear message, and the Bill gives the perfect demonstrated that we already have the powers in the opportunity to send a clear message to the agricultural Bill to cover the proposed content. sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East talked Daniel Zeichner: On that point, the concern shared about the road map for other areas and how we do not by many of us since the previous Agriculture Bill is that have one for agriculture. We have all heard about the the climate emergency seized all of us and yet there is good farmers and how they will be necessarily working no net zero target. The National Farmers Union say with agronomists, but in terms of assistance and guidance, 2040. What is the Government’s view? the Bill could be key to ensuring that everybody works together and does what is necessary for the greater Victoria Prentis: The Government legislated for net good, of not only of the UK but of the planet as a zero emissions, and in doing so we decided not to make whole. sector-specific targets, but we absolutely support the NFU’s ambitions. I do not know whether the hon. We heard about the peatlands. Although there is Gentleman watched “Countryfile” at the weekend, but some debate about this, we know that it is crucial that there was an interesting piece on agricultural emissions we maintain our existing peatlands. We need to make that mentioned both livestock practices and the keeping sure that tree planting continues apace. We know that of nitrogen within soil. This debate, as he says, is not the Government are missing their target on that by at really partisan; we do not have different passions for least 70%. We need to plant millions and millions of this. We need to work carefully together, always looking trees, not the odd thousand here or there. That is not at all the evidence, with improved support for research good enough. This is what we need to work towards. and development, which the Bill absolutely provides for. I hope that we will be able to meet the NFU’s Land managers need guidance and support, and the exacting targets. Bill should show the way, blazing a trail. The Minister quite rightly alludes to the climate change emergency declared last year by her Government, but it is important Kerry McCarthy: My concern is that other sectors to make sure that we carry on. We cannot just declare have quite a clear road map for how we get to net zero, and stop; we need to say, “Declare and so what?”. We and carbon budgets that deal with that. I have never need to move forward. seen that for agriculture. I was quite worried that the previous Secretary of State seemed to think that the answer was all about technological solutions and weird 11.15 am and wonderful things, rather than in how the land is If we were in any doubt about the climate change farmed. That is what is missing. Some of us have been emergency, we need to look no further than Storm talking about this for a very long time, but the Minister Ciara and Storm Dennis last weekend and the weekend talks as if these solutions are new to the table and need before, and the devastation that has been caused by soil to be investigated. There are a lot of good practices erosion and poor management of the rivers. The flooding out there that would help. Why is there not a clear has been horrific and people’slives have been devastated— agenda or line of direction from the Government for some people have actually lost their lives. Businesses achieving that? and family homes, as well as livestock, have been lost. It 191 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 192 is terrible. This is a wake-up call for us to ensure that we Division No. 4] stand up and be counted, and the Bill is a brilliant way to do that. AYES Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena The Minister has made it clear that we are all singing Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia from the same hymn sheet. If that is the case, let us McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel put it down in writing; let us legislate for it. The Bill talks a great deal about “powers” rather than “duties”, NOES which is great if we have a Secretary of State who is completely committed. However, let us not rely on Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon Secretaries of State as individuals; let us legislate, so Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny that we have it in writing and know exactly what we are Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James all working towards. Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria Limiting greenhouse gas emissions is crucial for achieving the goal of saving the planet. We must all work together Question accordingly negatived. in this endeavour, which is why we will not withdraw Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. the amendment. —(James Morris.) Question put, That the amendment be made. 11.18 am The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Sixth Sitting Tuesday 25 February 2020

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 1 agreed to, with an amendment. Adjourned till Thursday 27 February at half-past Eleven o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 29 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/. 193 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 194

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †SIR DAVID AMESS,GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab) Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) (Con) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † attended the Committee 195 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 196

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Public Bill Committee the following: Amendment 41, in clause 53, page 43, line 35, at end Tuesday 25 February 2020 insert— “(ca) section [Sow farrowing stalls],”. (Afternoon) See explanatory statement for NC12.

[SIR DAVID AMESS in the Chair] New clause 12—Sow farrowing stalls— “Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of the Welfare of Farmed Agriculture Bill Animals (England) Regulations 2007 shall be omitted.” This new clause and Amendments 40 and 41 would end the use of sow 2 pm farrowing crates (subject to a delayed commencement) and add improving the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows to the Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): On a point of purposes for financial assistance in Clause 1. order, Sir David. First, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. My point of order is straightforward. We are happy with the Government’sresponse to our concerns Daniel Zeichner: Amendment 40 relates to clause 1(1)(f), about the publication this morning of the “Environmental on Land Management” policy discussion document, which I am sure we all read over lunch. We were concerned “protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”, that we would not have been able to table further and would ensure that farmers receive financial assistance amendments, but my understanding is that the Committee to improve the standard of accommodation for farrowing will adjourn once we finish debating clause 1 and we sows. New clause 12 and amendment 41 would end have been advised that it will be possible for us to table the use of sow farrowing crates, subject to delayed amendments for consideration on Thursday.I am grateful commencement at the discretion of the Secretary of for that sensible solution to the delay. State. The provision in clause 53 means that the ban outlined in new clause 12 would not come into effect The Chair: That is the most sensible point of order I immediately when the Bill becomes an Act, but on such have heard for a long time. I understand that the policy day that the Secretary of State makes a statutory instrument paper relevant to the Bill was published earlier today, to that effect. and I have it in front of me. It is helpful that that That is all totally incomprehensible to most people, document has been made available to the Committee as but, taken together, the amendments and the new clause it considers the Bill, and I hope that Members will be would allow for a phasing out of farrowing stalls and better informed as a result. make available resources and finance to support farmers The hon. Member has answered his own question, with the capital costs of that process, as well as those but he asked whether fresh amendments, on points who take interim measures to improve the conditions of arising from the policy paper, may be tabled for debate farrowing sows. I suspect there will be widespread support on Thursday, even though the usual notice period will for that aim, but I fully appreciate that this is a contentious not have been observed. I have spoken to Mr Stringer, subject that has been well rehearsed on other occasions. and we are prepared to use our discretion to consider The public take the issue seriously and we would all like any such amendments for selection for debate in the it to be achieved over time. As I have said on many Thursday morning sitting, which Mr Stringer will chair. occasions, it is a question of ensuring that the resource However, we will consider selecting amendments only if is available for people to make changes and to not be they meet three criteria—namely, that they arise from disadvantaged by competition elsewhere. the policy paper; that they apply to a part of the Bill that the Committee has not yet considered; and, most To give some background, although sow stalls that importantly, that they are tabled before the rise of the kept pigs caged for the entirety of their pregnancy were House today. There is no wavering on those criteria. banned by Labour in 1999, it is still permitted for female pigs to be kept in farrowing stalls for seven days Daniel Zeichner: Thank you, Sir David. I am grateful before they give birth and until the piglets are weaned. for the good sense that has prevailed. That can result in sows being caged for up to five weeks at a time. If they farrow twice a year, that means that The Chair: There will be a Division in the House they spend up to three months a year in an extremely at 4 o’clock. If there is only one vote, as I suspect will restricted space. It may be called a crate or a stall, but it be the case, we will adjourn for 15 minutes and return is effectively a cage. The crate length is such that the sow at 4.15 pm. is only able to lie down or stand up. The standards state that the space should not allow excessive free movement. Before anyone jumps in, I will come to the reasons for Clause 1 that in a moment.

SECRETARY OF STATE’S POWERS TO GIVE FINANCIAL The sow is often completely unable to turn around. She ASSISTANCE can scarcely take a step forwards or backwards, and she cannot reach the piglets placed next to her for suckling. I Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 40, in am told that 60% of the 350,000 to 400,000 sows in Britain clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert are kept in such crates to give birth. Weknow that keeping “, including measures to improve the standard of accommodation for pigs caged in that way causes distress and leads to farrowing sows”. repeated bar biting, and it limits the pig’s ability to exhibit See explanatory statement for NC12. important natural behaviours, such as nest building. 197 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 198

Trapping the animal in that way also creates a breeding We contend that Government support for alternative ground for diseases. E. coli in newly born piglets often systems is vital to encourage a switch, while protecting presents in conditions where the mothers have been the UK pig sector. moved into farrowing crates to give birth and suckle The flipside,of course—this will be a repeated refrain—is their young. We know that is not done out of cruelty; it that we have to ensure that any home production of is done because keeping a mother restrained prevents pigmeat to higher welfare standards is not simply replaced the death of piglets by accidental crushing. We would by imports produced in other countries that continue to argue that that in itself is a direct consequence of use such stalls. It is important that we protect all our high-intensity farming techniques. In normal conditions, animal welfare standards, and that in upcoming trade in the wild, the mother pigs would make effective nests deals we do not sell out our farmers by allowing lower- and have the space to keep the piglets safe. standard imports. We will insist on provisions being As with so much in this area, the research is contested, added to the Bill to guarantee that, and will seek to but robust studies suggest that there is clear evidence of amend it later to guarantee against that danger. In the a significant difference between the mortality rates of meantime, we urge the Minister to consider this important piglets reared in crated systems and those reared in clarification to the Bill to allow financial support to loose housed systems. There are also other systems, improve pig welfare, specifically in relation to such which I shall come on to. The individual farrowing arks restrictive crates. or huts used in the outdoor systems of organic farming are deep bedded with straw. There are many examples Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): across eastern England. I would not argue with anything the hon. Member has Although piglet morality rates can increase in extremely said. We all wish to have the very best welfare standards cold and wet weather, UK figures show that outdoor for pigs in this country. Indeed, the Red Tractor label systems can rear largely the same number of piglets as assures customers that very high standards are being farrowing crates. Good production figures have also met. My only slight caution is that history might repeat been attained from the so-called Swedish group system, itself, and the law of unintended consequences may come where each sow has her own box to farrow in and can into play. Members may well recall that when veal crates leave her piglets and carry out normal activity. were banned in the UK, the result was that calves were We contend that there are alternatives, though we flown to Holland and elsewhere to be turned into veal fully appreciate that they are more expensive. The industry under the very systems that we wanted to ban. Owing to rightly points out that consumers buy at different price single market rules, we could not ban that movement. points and that producers respond to that demand. We Similarly, when dry sow stalls were banned in 1999, understand the economics but, as I said earlier, this is there was an erosion of the British pig market, particularly an opportunity to use public money for public good. by such countries as Denmark and Holland where dry This issue has been debated many times in this place sow stalls were still being used. Indeed, most of the EU over the past 20 years. We rightly pride ourselves on still allows dry sow stalls from up to four weeks after pursuing higher animal welfare standards, but other service to birth, when in some cases they may be put countries are already ahead of us and have moved on to into farrowing crates as well. alternative systems. I am told that Norway, Sweden and My concern is that, were we to act unilaterally through Switzerland have already banned farrowing crates and legislation, we could end up having more pigs coming that free farrowing systems are being developed in other into the country as imports. It is all very well saying, Europeancountries,particularlyDenmarkandtheNetherlands. “Let’s ban the importation of pig products not produced to our high standards.” It would be very difficult to ban In response to animal welfare concerns, the Soil imports from the European Union given the degree of Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of reliance on that market and the cross-border trade Cruelty to Animals already prohibit the use of farrowing in pig products. The different parts of the carcase that crates under their labelling systems. This is another are consumed in the UK and in Europe mean that there example of this country’s multi-tiered system of food is a vibrant market in different cuts of meat, to meet production, with food being produced at different prices those particular markets. Were that to be destroyed or for the consumer. The question is how we can lift undermined, it would cause great problems for the standards while protecting the interests of farmers by British pig industry. making it economically viable. Of course, if we had more pigs coming into the country Back in 2015, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’s from abroad, that would mean more castrated pigs. In report on free farrowing systems recommended taking the UK, only 2% of pigs are castrated. In Sweden, the action to encourage the replacement of farrowing crates, figure is 94%, in Denmark 95%, the Netherlands 20%, and called for the adoption of free farrowing systems to Germany 80%, and Spain 20%. It could, in effect, result be reviewed in five years. Well, 2015 plus five is 2020—it in more pigs coming on to our supermarket shelves and is five years later. We contend that the Bill is the perfect into our restaurants and cafés produced under systems opportunity for the Minister to make it clear that financial that we do not wish to see in this country. Surely the support for higher animal welfare includes specific answer is not legislation, but better consumer awareness provisions for farrowing sows in relation to such crates. of those production methods, better labelling, and better We recognise that it would be a challenge for the understanding of the labelling systems,so that supermarkets industry. As I have said, a ban would need to be phased and customers, who would be enlightened, can do what in with financial support, which is what the amendment we did regarding battery cages, which was to get people would provide for. Back in 1999, when sow stalls were on to free-range eggs not through banning batteries but rightly banned by the Labour Government, it is undeniable by consumers understanding that it is right to make that that had an impact on the domestic pig industry. choices based on animal welfare. 199 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 200

[Mr Robert Goodwill] on farms, for example, by installing new equipment. We are also exploring a payment by results scheme Although I agree with what the hon. Member for whereby farmers could receive ongoing payments for Cambridge said about trying to improve standards, I developing specific animal welfare enhancements. The note that he made the slight caveat that at certain times AnimalWelfareCommittee,industryandnon-governmental of the year, particularly at the moment, some of our organisations will have their say on the welfare outcomes outdoor farrowing systems result in quite high piglet that are financially supported. For pigs, this could easily mortality. I have seen piglets trampled into the mud in relate to improved enrichment opportunities to root; the quagmires in outdoor systems. That aside, we should improved housing; and tail docking, which has not been look at how we can move the industry into a better place, discussed today. particularly in terms of farrowing crates, but without The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have kept allowing our market to be eroded by other countries, extremely free-range pigs at home in the past. They are particularly in the European Union, that do not have so free range that they have, on occasion, wandered off the same high welfare standards as us. I would not like around the village. While the Bill aims to support native to see history repeating itself in terms of what happened breeds, it may well be that the pigs kept exhibit such with veal crates and dry sow stalls in 1999. behaviours. Our most difficult experience was with iron age pigs, which are one-quarter wild boar and do not 2.15 pm seem to view fields as any sort of captivity. TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment, We are constantly reviewing our legal standards as Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is particularly part of our commitment to animal welfare. A new good, Sir David, to be discussing animal welfare provisions welfare code for pigs, which includes guidance on farrowing with you in the Chair. A certain amount of consensus has been produced, is available online and comes into has broken out again in Committee. The Government force on 1 March. I think the Committee will broadly are a world leader in animal welfare and we are absolutely welcome paragraph 158, which says: committed to retaining that status by strengthening our “The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and standards. However, we would say that this amendment for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her does not make any legal change to the powers set out in piglets. Where the sow is confined in a farrowing crate, it should this Bill and is therefore not a necessary addition. Financial be large enough to accommodate her and to allow her to rise and assistance can already be given and is provided for lie down without difficulty and should be easily accessed in an under section 1(1)(f) in order to protect or improve the emergency.” health and welfare of livestock. That includes schemes It goes on to give further specific details. for improving the accommodation of livestock, including To my mind, that is an excellent way forward, and the farrowing sows. owners and keepers of pigs will have to be aware of and The Government’s aim is for farrowing crates no abide by it from 1 March. That is one example of how longer to be necessary, but it would not be right to end we continually update and review secondary legislation the use of such crates without examining all the evidence under the animal welfare legislation introduced in 2006. around their use and considering all the options. It is The Government share the public’s high regard for important to recognise how they protect piglets, for animal welfare and intend to use the powers in the Bill example. The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about to reward farmers for improving a number of animal that. Alternative farrowing systems in indoor production welfare issues. I therefore urge the hon. Member for are being developed all the time—I have heard about Cambridge to withdraw the amendment. some high-tech solutions with moving floors—which need to be investigated fully. They will be expensive to install, but that may well be a price worth paying. As the Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister for her hon. Gentleman said, the public is broadly with us on response. I will not withdraw the amendment. that. It may well be the sort of public good for which In a way,the Minister conceded something important— the public is keen to pay, assuming we have sufficient that clause 1(1)(f) shows that resources can be used, transparency in our systems to ensure that they understand which I am sure will be welcome to some. However, the that that is what is happening. clause also points to some of the general difficulties in The UK has led the way in improving the welfare of the Bill. The pig sector benefits only indirectly from pigs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the banning of support under the current system. The clause rather close confinement stalls in 1999. While approximately suggests that money will be moved around the system, 60% of UK sows farrow indoors, it is not always the and I wonder whether everyone is aware that there will case that they spend the full length of time that the hon. be winners and losers as a result. As we all know, one Gentleman mentioned in such crates. We hope that generally hears from the losers, not the winners, but that farmers would be able to work to much shorter periods is a problem for the Government, not me. I am pleased of time. The remaining 40% of sows are housed outside about that concession, but I do not quite see why the and able to farrow in much more natural conditions. Government could not actually do themselves some The Department for Environment, Food and Rural extra good by making the positive benefits specific, as Affairs has funded recent research into alternative farrowing we suggest. I encourage them to do that. systems and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee has I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to provided expert advice on this issue. the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I As part of our ongoing commitment to animal welfare, was chided by one or two of my colleagues for agreeing we are developing a scheme that aims to improve farm with him too much earlier, but I disagree with him animal welfare in England. We are exploring a one-off robustly now, in a civilised way. He makes an important grants scheme that will help farmers to improve welfare point about where responsibility for these decisions 201 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 202 should lie. We have been trying with labelling over many The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. years, and he is right that it has proven more successful Division No. 5] in some areas than others. However—this is probably a fundamental philosophical AYES division between us—I think that putting the onus of Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena responsibility on individual consumers is problematic, Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia not least because, as we heard the evidence sessions and McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel in written evidence, it is pretty clear that many people subscribe to notions of higher standards until they get NOES into a supermarket and are confronted with price differences. I suspect that many of us in this room are now in the Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon fortunate position of being able to make an informed Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny choice and not worry so much about the price, but for Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James vast numbers of our fellow citizens, price is still a key Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria driver. For many people who would probably like to support higher standards, if the price is too high, they have no choice. Question accordingly negatived. Wewant not to take that responsibility away from people, but as with so many other things, to make it easier for Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I beg to move them to make the right choice; in other words, to amendment 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 28, after ‘activity’ exclude the low-cost alternatives.I am not an economist—it insert— was suggested earlier that I might be, about which I am ‘, provided that such assistance does not contradict or undermine partly flattered and partly not flattered—but there is the purposes in section 1(1).’ clear evidence that, if standards are lifted, industries This could possibly be described as a probing respond and prices begin to settle. This is a case of amendment. There is general agreement that the needing leadership. We have done it before. There are Government’s commitment to the principle of public consequences, but we have public money to spend, and money for public goods is welcome. This amendment is it could well be that the public would actually be very a safeguard to ensure that the delivery of public goods happy that we offered this kind of support, which is not undermined by any financial assistance for improving would to some extent get them out of that price dilemma. productivity. There is some concern that it could mean a It is a bit like the dilemma around the smoking ban. I greater proportion of the money going to the productivity lost track of the number of smokers who told me that they head rather than to public goods. If the new environmental were delighted that, basically, the ban made it easier for land management scheme is to be successful and provide them to give up smoking, because the Government had value for money, all the payments need to contribute to intervened. That was during the last Labour Government, the delivery of public goods. and I remember Tony Blair being very nervous about It is still not clear how the future Budget will be suggestions that he had offloaded responsibility on to distributed between financial assistance for public goods local councils, which did not go down well. In the end, it and productivity, and there is concern that we could end needed cross-party leadership—it has to be something up with a pillar one and pillar two-type system—again, supported across the House—to make it easier for where public goods take second place. I am seeking people to make the right choice. It is a judgment call. assurances from the Minister. If I am confident that her assurances are credible, I will not push this to a vote. Mr Goodwill: In many ways, the hon. Gentleman is enlarging on my argument, given that when we banned dry sow stalls consumers chose to buy the cheaper pork Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Lady for that and bacon produced in Holland and Denmark, where a assurance. I understand that she wants to ensure that was not in place. It made the problem worse in many we do not provide financial assistance to improve ways because those consumers made those choices. productivity or production in a way that would harm the environment or undermine any of the purposes in Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman is making clause 1. I hope that is a fair summary of what she said. my life much more difficult and I am going to have to be horrid to him again. Yes, in one sense, he is correct, but Kerry McCarthy: It is partly about not undermining that is the challenge. Throughout this, if we do not find that, but it is also partly about how the money is divvied ways, whether in trade agreements or whatever,to protect— up. If a huge proportion of the money goes towards and it is protect—our higher standards against lower productivity, it is not clear how the budget will be standards, we are lost entirely. That will be a recurring divided. That is what I am seeking clarity on—that theme throughout this debate. I do not think it is there is money for public goods. beyond the wit of hon. Members to find a way of doing that. The right hon. Gentleman may disagree with me, Victoria Prentis: I cannot give the hon. Lady absolute and that will probably be a fundamental point of difference. assurance at the moment as to how the budget will be I have two final points to make: first, I do not divided, as that is a matter for the development of the think it is fair to offload the responsibility entirely on to scheme. We will do a great deal of work developing it, consumers. We should take the lead. Secondly, we need including years of pilots and a great deal of consultation, to take the lead on making sure that we can protect our in which, I am sure, she will be involved. I can assure her higher standards. That would attract considerable support that it is not our intention to put the productivity wing across the House. on a higher level than allowing damage to the public Question put, That the amendment be made. purposes, which are there to protect the environment, 203 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 204

[Victoria Prentis] is improved in a sustainable way that does not undermine the other purposes in the clause. I cannot go further or the other purposes is clause 1. That is absolutely not than that at the moment. I ask the hon. Member for our intention. Our ambition is to leave the environment Bristol East to withdraw the amendment. in a better state than we find it. Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate why trying to get the 2.30 pm balance correct is a difficult dilemma, but it is crucial We intend to continue to be a world leader in animal that we do so. We are not satisfied, frankly, that we are welfare and health standards.Wewill promote engagement, getting the clarity that is required. We understand that as is clear from clause 1, with our natural heritage and this is a framework Bill, but much more detail is required beautiful landscapes. However, a productive, competitive to give certainty, so—I may be speaking on behalf of farming sector is also our priority. We think our farmers my colleagues here—we would like to push the amendment are among the best in the world, providing healthy and to the vote. nutritious food for our population. We will support Kerry McCarthy: I am afraid I am not satisfied with them to become more productive, so that they can the Minister’s reassurances and would like to push the provide more home-grown healthy produce. amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made. Kerry McCarthy: Just to clarify, it would help if the Minister could give an assurance that all payments need The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. to contribute to the delivery of public goods, whether it Division No. 6] is a payment for productivity or directly for public AYES goods. She phrased it to me in the negative—they Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena should not undermine public goods—but the intention Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia of this Bill is that everything should support that public McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel goods agenda. NOES Victoria Prentis: I think the hon. Lady and I are dancing around the same issue, which is that the ambitions Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon do not need to be mutually exclusive. We absolutely Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia believe that producing food and managing a sustainable Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James environment can and should go hand in hand. Improving Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria productivity is normally about improving efficiency by using less energy and fewer pesticides to produce the food that we eat. Greater efficiency can also mean using Question accordingly negatived. less land, so that other land can be freed up for other purposes such as tree planting. I share the hon. Lady’s Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move amendment 14, in concerns, however I feel that her amendment would clause 1, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and restrict our ability to offer financial assistance in the insert— most effective way. ‘(4) In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to— Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend the Member for (a) the need to encourage the production of food by Bristol East has raised a very important point. The producers in England and its production by them in lunchtime reading of the ELMS policy discussion document an environmentally sustainable way; and prefigures further discussion on this. It is a shame that (b) the need to ensure that all farms and horticulture units, we were not able to have our earlier discussion in the including those smaller than five hectares, can access light of some of these points. To a number of us, on financial assistance.” first reading, tier 1 does not look sufficiently ambitious, The key point in the amendment is paragraph (b), in many cases, and it feeds exactly into my hon. Friend’s which deals with the need to ensure that all farms and point that there is a worry that we will not get the horticultural units—including those smaller than 5 hectares environmental gains that we thought we would. That —can access this financial assistance. In 2014, the then will be of concern to many. I wonder if the Minister Secretary of State ruled that a farm needed to be more could clarify that point. than 5 hectares to receive direct payments. The decision to increase the limit from 1 to 5 hectares excluded one in Victoria Prentis: At the moment, I cannot set out six English farmers during the transition from single to how the ELM scheme will work. That will be worked basic payments. on, probably by all the people in this room, very carefully During the oral evidence sessions we heard evidence over several years, before we come up with the final from Jyoti Fernandes at the Landworkers Alliance that scheme, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman absolute the threshold resulted in smallholders being at a serious assurances as to what will happen. disadvantage. In designing any new scheme, the threshold I can say, however, that we added clause 1(4) because should be scrapped. Every farm, no matter what its we wanted a clear requirement—partly because of the size, has the ability to deliver the public goods listed in work of the previous Agriculture Bill Committee—on clause 1. The farms and horticultural units showcased the Secretary of State, in framing any financial assistance in the latest Landworkers Alliance report, “Agroecology scheme, to have regard to the need to encourage food in Action”, illustrate what they can achieve in terms of production in an environmentally sustainable way. I encouraging biodiversity, building soil health, replacing hope that I have provided some reassurance about how agrochemicals, mitigating climate change, integrating we intend to use the powers in clause 1 so that productivity communities and enhancing economic resilience. Earlier 205 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 206 we discussed the need to bring food production closer The power clearly does not put any restrictions on the to communities. Often, it is the smallholdings that do size of holding for which financial assistance can be that. They also tend to have higher levels of employment provided. We will be designing our future schemes than conventional farms. A 2017 study of agroecological alongside industry in a way that delivers the best possible farms smaller than 20 hectares found that they employed outcomes. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment. 26 times more workers than the UK per hectare average. It would be a huge mistake to exclude them from Kerry McCarthy: I am confused by what the Minister financial assistance. is saying. She is right that there is no mention of any It was good to see from DEFRA’spress release today that limit in the Bill, but her earlier words, before she mentioned “anyone from any farm or land type” the clause about start-ups, clearly suggested that she can participate. Will the Minister confirm that “any thought there could be bureaucratic problems. She was farm or land type” means farms smaller than 5 hectares? sort of putting objections in the way of extending the scheme to smallholder farmers. Today’s smallholder Daniel Zeichner: I echo my hon. Friend’s comments. could be tomorrow’s big food producer. It is important that small farms are not left out of this I do not know whether the Minister wants to intervene legislation. As she said, in the evidence sessions we to say more, but I do not think she has given any heard compelling evidence from the Landworkers Alliance assurance at all. The 5 hectares issue has come up time that farmers on smaller holdings have been much and time again, including during previous discussions disadvantaged to date by the current payments system on the Bill. Why has the Department not got to the due to the 5 hectare threshold, which cuts those with stage that it can give that assurance to smaller farmers? less than 5 hectares out of the system for getting payments. I was surprised to hear that 85% of its membership had Victoria Prentis: As I said earlier, the environmental never been able to get support for their work. We know land management systems have not yet been worked why: back in the previous iteration of discussions, there out. It is clear from the scoping document that was was concern that small firms would not be subject to published today that they will vary enormously in their cross-compliance. That is my understanding. That was size and scope. Some will be concerned with just one possibly a reasonable position to take, although I suggest farm, and others will be concerned with multiple farms that the answer to that is that there should be proper or even a whole area, in order to provide the best and appropriate checking and verification. possible ecological solutions that we are all seeking. I Precisely for the reasons that my hon. Friend has am unable to provide the hon. Lady with an absolute explained, we will support the amendment. We need to assurance at the moment, but I hear what she has to say include many more people in the system and to make it about the importance of small agricultural holdings. far more likely that they will be able to benefit from it. Kerry McCarthy: Once again, I cannot accept the Victoria Prentis: It should have been obvious from Minister’s assurances and would like to press the my previous comments that I am a passionate smallholder, amendment to a vote. so I listened to what Members had to say with considerable interest. As I have said, I cannot promise exactly how 2.45 pm the ELM scheme will work going forward, but I hope I Question put, That the amendment be made. can provide sufficient assurance in the rest of what I say. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. to design agricultural, horticultural and forestry schemes Division No. 7] in a way that best reflects our circumstances and allows us to deliver the best possible outcomes. AYES As my predecessor said, we are determined to work Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena with industry to co-design the new schemes and ensure Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia we get them right. In determining whether there should McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel be a minimum size threshold for eligibility, we will need to weigh up the benefits that can be delivered by small NOES land holdings—benefits that I recognise—against the administrative costs associated with managing agreements, Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon as the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. We Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny need to ensure that the different schemes provided Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James under ELMS provide value for public money. Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria Detailed eligibility criteria will be established for ELMS as soon as the schemes are developed, working Question accordingly negatived. with stakeholders. I can only apologise, because I do not have all the answers at the moment. This will be a very complicated, new set of schemes, which will take many years to develop. Mr Goodwill: I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 3, line 13, after “kept” insert “or managed”. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Bristol East to clause 1(2), which is reflected in the press release In clause 1(1)(d), reference is made to she mentioned. It provides a power for financial assistance “managing land, water or livestock”. to be provided in connection with The amendment would change a reference later in the “starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, same clause to keeping, not managing, creatures. My horticultural or forestry activity”. worry is that relying on the word “kept” may exclude 207 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 208

[Mr Goodwill] that is managed to produce many of the public goods that we wish to reward, and sustained economically by some of the most environmentally beneficial land uses, the income from that game. where birds or mammals are to a greater or lesser extent Of course, I strongly criticise the situation that we wild and thus, by definition, not kept. have read about in the press where game is dumped and I have a number of examples, such as the Chillingham not eaten. In some cases, I understand that game had wild cattle in Northumberland. The herd, of about 100, been breasted, so the breast meat had been removed, has not been touched by human hand or been seen by a but from an environmental perspective and from a food vet for more than a century. They are certainly not kept, waste perspective that is not an acceptable practice, and but the environment at Chillingham Castle is managed I would criticise it. We need more promotion of the for the benefit of the many species and birds that thrive healthy game produced in our country, and we need there. more websites, such as the one that my son went on recently—I think the wives of the people on small Wild ponies also carry out important land management shoots got sick of plucking and drawing pheasants, and tasks. I have had ponies on my own farm from the made the game available free of charge locally. That is Yorkshire Exmoor Pony Trust for a while; they carry just the sort of website that we want. I also pay tribute out a great role in managing the land. I draw attention to YouTube, which has some excellent opportunities for to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial people to learn how to skin rabbits and prepare game in Interests, as I have done in previous sittings—I am a their own kitchens. family farmer myself. I hope that the Minister will recognise what I have Most importantly, we should recognise the importance said, and reassure me that the amendment may be of game as an integral part of many rural economies withdrawn. I look forward to hearing that game is food and ecosystems. Some species, such as pheasant, may and should be within the scope of the Bill. well be kept for part of their life, when they are reared in captivity, but once released, they become free to range far and wide. Many shoots—I would suggest the more Daniel Zeichner: I was intrigued to discover the direction enlightened ones—do not artificially rear birds and in which the amendment would take us; I probably strive to create the conditions for wild birds to breed. should have known in advance. It gives me an opportunity Those birds are never kept, but the management of the to have a genuine disagreement with the right hon. necessary ecosystem and environment would certainly Member, because I think many of our constituents not be in conflict with the wider public goods we seek to would be astonished at the idea of sporting shooting create, using this Bill as a tool. being considered a public good, in terms of putting public money in, although I recognise that for some The same argument must certainly apply to grouse, Members that would be legitimate. which cannot be reared in captivity.Managing moorland for the benefit of grouse not only favours other ground- Again, it points to the whole new world that has been nesting birds, such as golden plover and lapwing, but opened up by taking the pot of money that used to go also the sustainability of sheep farming on our grouse directly to farmers based on area. We are now facing up uplands. They can only go hand in hand together if the to some really quite hard decisions about the kind of moor is managed correctly. world in which we want to live. I have to say to the right hon. Member that for many constituents, I suspect in According to the BBC “Countryfile”website, the UK’s my seat and many others, it would not seem an appropriate deer population is at its highest level for 1,000 years, at use of public money. Although that may cause around 2 million deer of the various species. Numbers disagreement, that is what we are here to resolve. I do have doubled since 1999. That has an impact on crops, not think that the Opposition will be able to support wildlife and, in particular, forestry. The Forestry the amendment. Commission estimates that the damage to plantations and commercial woodlands in Scotland amounts to £4.5 million per annum. The Royal Society for the Victoria Prentis: I thank my predecessor and right Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that around hon. Friend for his amendment. I believe that he wishes 350,000 deer are culled each year. In the absence of to ensure that we are being comprehensive in our coverage natural predators such as lynx and wolves, culling has of the word “livestock” in clause 1. I, too, am keen to be carried out to maintain a stable population and to ensure that we cover everything that we need to in prevent damage. In the main, those deer are not kept, the Bill. but managed, and they may range over more than one landowner’sproperty.Deer management is vital to meeting Good management of livestock is a key part of our objectives. delivering the public goods that we want to support in our future agricultural policy.That, of course, is reflected There was some confusion during the evidence sessions by the purposes listed in clause 1. Under subsection 1(f), about whether game was within the scope of the Bill. I the Secretary of State will be able to support action to would argue that it is vital that the definition of livestock improve animal health and welfare, reduce endemic in the Bill must include game species, which produce disease and keep livestock well maintained and healthy. some of the most sustainable and healthy food available The plan is that not only will that deliver better animal to consumers. The amendment would clarify that, to health and welfare, which itself can be considered a encompass not only creatures that are “kept” in the public good, but through addressing endemic disease strict definition of controlling virtually every aspect of we can also deliver other public goods, such as lower an animal or bird’s existence, but the production of antibiotic use and lower greenhouse gases, due to less healthy and sustainable game products in an environment intensive livestock production. 209 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 210

Subsection 1(g) will enable us to provide financial Mr Goodwill: I thank the Minister for her explanation. assistance for measures to support the conservation and As a humble farmer, I would not wish to have an maintenance of UK native genetic resources relating to argument with a lawyer on a legal matter. Her point both rare breed livestock and equines, into which category makes sense. The land occupied by many of these game I suspect Chillingham cattle very firmly fall, and indeed species will be subject to support through the Bill, not Exmoor ponies, whether or not they are to be found in least because of the wish to restore natural habitats and Yorkshire—that confused me somewhat, but there we environment, and preserve some of our fragile natural are. The measures could be used to incentivise farmers environments. to rear rare and native breeds and species. That is What is not in doubt is that when the animals have undoubtedly, to my mind, a public good and the sort of been shot, prepared and put on the supermarket shelves, thing that we are trying to achieve. they qualify as food. Therefore, it struck me that some Game such as wild pheasants and partridges, while points made in the evidence session were not prepared kept in captivity, would come within the definition of to look at this as a useful source of food. Having heard livestock and could be eligible for support, where they the Minister’s sensible and legally wise words, I beg to are kept for one of the purposes mentioned in clause 1 ask leave to withdraw the amendment. and its definitions of livestock. As my right hon. Friend Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. said, grouse are not reared in captivity, so I cannot see how they would be covered. However, once the birds are Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move amendment 13, in no longer in captivity, following their release into the clause 1, page 3, line 17, at end insert wild, they are classed as game. Therefore, it would not ““protecting or improving the quality of soil” includes the be appropriate to class them as farm poultry or livestock. restoration of blanket bog and other peatland habitats.” That legal position is supported by the definitions The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, used in animal disease control legislation and the Game the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, and I Acts. Farmers, after all, cannot be considered responsible served on the previous Bill Committee. for birds that have been released into the wild. Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): And me. Mr Goodwill: No one is suggesting that the game themselves should be subject to support in terms of Kerry McCarthy: And the Whip. That makes four of subsidies or any other means of support that the Bill us; are there any more takers? Those of who went would lay out, but the environment that they inhabit through the Bill then will remember quite a debate on would certainly be a public good. My amendment seeks trying to include soil as a public good. That was opposed to ensure that, where public money is going to support by the Government and I remember that the right hon. those environments, which may support sheep, game Gentleman spoke vociferously against it. Lo and behold, and other wildlife, the fact that game is being produced it has now made it into the new version of the Bill. That as a business should not exclude it. shows that it is worth persevering with an argument, even if it seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the first instance. Someone may go away and think about it and Victoria Prentis: Forgive me, Sir David, I am a humble come back and think: “She was right after all”. lawyer trying to define the word “livestock” rather than a farmer of great experience, such as my right hon. 3 pm Friend, who is trying to go further. I am keen to define In that spirit, I would like clarification on the provision livestock according to what is set out in the Bill. The on protecting or improving the soil, to make sure that it definition of livestock in clause 1 has its roots in the includes the restoration of blanket bog and other peatland Agriculture Act 1947, which was the last major piece of habitats. I would like that specified in the Bill. This is agricultural legislation that this House decided. This absolutely important. Peatland is the single biggest definition has been used in more modern legislation, store of carbon in the UK. We talk so much about such as the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the planting trees, but very little about peatland. It stores Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. over 3 billion tonnes—about the same amount as all the Agriculture has, of course, changed since 1947. Because forest in the UK, France and Germany put together, of that we have made the amendment to the definition but 80% is damaged. It is damaged by drainage,atmospheric of livestock to include additional products, such as pollution, peat extraction and burning. In those parts fibres and oils, and have recognised the importance of of the country where we have seen flooding at the the production of milk from livestock. That ensures moment, many people can talk about the impact of that we cover all aspects of livestock production that I poor peatland management on drainage and run-off. can think of. As a result of the damage to peatlands, 10 million The current definition refers to livestock that is kept. tonnes of carbon dioxide is being released into the We do not see that the amendment would enhance that atmosphere every year. Rather than being a carbon sink definition. I hope that I have done my best, despite my that draws in carbon, it has the opposite effect. It is not legal background, to assure hon. Members that the just neutral: it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. current definition of livestock ensures financial assistance That is why,as part of the environmental land management can be given for the important purposes set out in scheme, we need to reward land managers and farmers clause 1. who restore our peatlands. We have 13% of the world’s If the land that my right hon. Friend has in mind blanket bogs. That is quite unusual and we have a comes within another of the purposes in clause 1, particular responsibility. If we do not act now, we will applications can be made for financial assistance for erode the multiple benefits it provides, such as clean many other reasons. I, therefore, ask my right hon. drinking water, carbon storage, flood mitigation and Friend to withdraw the amendment. wildlife habitat. 211 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 212

I am pleased that today’s DEFRA press release on I hope I have reassured Opposition Members that we ELMS specifically cites landscape scale restoration of recognise the vital role peatlands play in helping to peatland. That is absolutely vital if we are to avoid deliver on our agricultural and environmental commitments, serious environmental, economic and social harm. Given and that there is no requirement to single out peatland that it is mentioned in the document that was released in the soil provision of the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. today, and given that the Minister is sitting there nodding Lady to withdraw her amendment. away at what I have to say, I do not see why this amendment cannot be incorporated into the Bill. Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for her response, and I take her point about habitat, but peatlands are so Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Lady for drawing important that I still think they could be included in attention to the importance of peatland and the peatland this provision. The Minister has sort of argued both habitats that we are lucky enough to have in this country. ways, in that she said “soil” did cover blanket bog and The protection and improvement of all soil is key to peatland and then said that this amendment would a sustainable agricultural industry that helps in our widen the definition, but this is so important and we do commitment to tackle climate change and deliver on need action. As I have said, the Minister in the Lords, multiple public goods. formerly the MP for Richmond Park, has made it clear Peatlands have an important role in this commitment. that he wants a ban on peat burning. That is not That is why the Government have committed to publishing specifically what this provision speaks to, but obviously an England peat strategy and announced the creation we are going to give— of the lowland agricultural peat taskforce. These will Mr Goodwill: Does the hon. Lady agree that a distinction focus on the protection and improvement of England’s needs to be drawn between the blanket bogs—such as peatlands.In addition, we are currently funding £10 million Saddleworth moor, where the fire got right into the worth of peatland restoration in England between 2018 bog—and the drier, heathland type of moor that we and 2021. have in North Yorkshire? The North York Moors National The current drafting of clause 1(1)(j) enables the Park Authority itself supports the traditional management Secretary of State to give financial assistance for “protecting of that moor, particularly for the benefit of sheep but and enhancing the quality of soils”. The clause is not also of grouse. restrictive and will enable all soil types to be included, not just peatland. Ample provisions in clause 1 will allow Kerry McCarthy: There is a whole argument to be us to protect peatlands.For example,clause 1(1)(d) includes, had about the management of moors for the benefit of “managing land or water in a way that mitigates or adapts to grouse, when grouse are imported into this country in climate change”. their millions just so they can be shot by people on an That could certainly allow support for peatland restoration. away-day. I would not have thought that was a priority. Such provisions would allow for the management of Given peatland’s carbon role, its importance in the land to restore peatland habitats by more than just the area of flood mitigation and all the other environmental soil if it is within the Government’s strategic priority to benefits I have mentioned, it is important that we spell do so. This could be achieved through the new ELM this out on the face of the Bill. We argued in the last scheme or research into other sustainable practices. Committee about whether the definition of “soil”needed By specifying a habitat, rather than a soil type in to be spelled out on the face of the Bill, and I am asking the definition, the amendment extends the scope of for it to be spelled out in greater detail this time around. clause 1(1)(j) beyond that of soil quality.Healthy peatland As such, I would like to press the amendment to a vote. habitats are reliant on factors beyond soil, such as Question put, That the amendment be made. biodiversity and water. Therefore, DEFRA believes the Ayes 6, Noes 10. inclusion of this definition is inappropriate and unnecessary. The Committee divided: As I have just mentioned, promoting the health of these Division No. 8] habitats as a whole is within the scope of an earlier AYES section of clause 1. Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia Daniel Zeichner: I understand why the Department McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel wants maximum flexibility, but we want some action, because we have been waiting a long time for these NOES promises. In fact, I think on the last day of the last Parliament, at DEFRA questions, the Minister in the Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon Lords promised action, so when are we going to get some Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia action on banning peat burning? Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman is definitely getting Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria action. I set out earlier what is being done to preserve peatlandatthemoment:£10millionof peatlandrestoration Question accordingly negatived. is definitely action, in my book. What I do not want to do is clog up—that is not a technical term; I am trying to Victoria Prentis: I beg to move amendment 15, in find a soil-appropriate word—a definition of “soil”with clause 1, page 3, line 21, at end insert “made by the something that happens in part above the soil, which is Secretary of State”. why I am resisting this amendment. The Government This drafting amendment makes clear that a “financial assistance are committed to the importance of preserving peatland, scheme” is one made by the Secretary of State. It is intended (with but we need to ensure that all our soil types are protected Amendments 16 and 17) to clarify the distinction between financial by the part of the clause that is concerned with soil. assistance schemes and third party schemes as defined in Clause 2(5). 213 Public Bill Committee 25 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 214

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment 15 agreed to. Government amendments 16 and 17. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. Victoria Prentis: Amendment 15 is a technical drafting —(James Morris.) amendment that makes it clear that a “financial assistance scheme” is one made by the Secretary of State. It is intended, with amendments 16 and 17, to clarify the 3.11 pm distinction between financial assistance schemes and Adjourned till Thursday 27 February at half-past Eleven third party schemes as defined in clause 2(5). o’clock. 215 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 216

Written evidence to be reported AB34 The Fairtrade Foundation to the House AB35 Essex Bridleways Association AB23 Shaun Leavey OBE FRAgS AB36 NFU AB24 British Canoeing AB37 Agricultural Christian Fellowship AB25 Tenant Farmers Association AB38 Greener UK/Wildlife and Countryside Link AB26 The Ramblers AB39(A) RSPB AB27 Richard Bruce AB39(B) RSPB supplementary AB28 British Mountaineering Council AB40 Clean Air in London AB29 Horse Access Campaign UK (HAC UK) AB41 Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust AB30 Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern AB42 Landworkers’ Alliance Ireland AB43 The Humane League UK AB31 Sally Crone,Committee Member of Essex Bridleways AB44 Cycling UK Association AB45 Farmers’ Union of Wales AB32 Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) AB46 Crop Protection Association AB33 Byways and Bridleways Trust AB47 UK Pesticides Campaign PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Seventh Sitting

Thursday 27 February 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 2 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 2 March 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/. 217 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 218

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS,†GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) (Con) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † attended the Committee 219 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 220

amendment 64, would ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny Public Bill Committee by requiring the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations for establishing any financial assistance scheme Thursday 27 February 2020 and setting out how it will be designed and will operate. Under our amendment, those regulations must be considered and reported on by an appropriate Select (Morning) Committee, of the Secretary of State’s choosing—we are very generous—before being brought to the House. Amendment 64 would ensure that a proper debate on [GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair] the regulations could be held by subjecting them to the Agriculture Bill affirmative resolution procedure. I apologise to you, Mr Stringer, and to the Committee 11.30 am for warning that I will speak at some length on this amendment to demonstrate why it matters. This goes The Chair: I remind hon. Members to switch electronic back to our debate on Tuesday about the Government’s devices to silent mode and that tea and coffee are not behaviour in relation to publication of the “Environmental allowed during sittings. Weshall now continue line-by-line Land Management: Policy discussion document”. I am consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sure that everyone has carefully read it and I advise sittings is available in the room. Before we begin, I should everyone to have it to hand for the next hour or so, tell the Committee that Sir David Amess and I have because I shall be referring in detail to various elements used our discretion to select amendments 63 and 64 and of it. new clauses 23 and 24 for debate today, even though the Justincaseanyonethinksthatthisissomehowadiversion usual notice was not given. We have done that because or distraction, the document itself says on page 7: the circumstances were exceptional. A relevant policy “The new ELM scheme, founded on the principle of ‘public paper was published by the Department on Tuesday, money for public goods’, will be the cornerstone of our agricultural and we took the view that it was in the Committee’s policy now we have left the EU.” interest to have the opportunity to debate amendments It would be very strange if the Committee were discussing arising from that policy paper today. I am assured by that complicated new future and we did not have a the Clerks that our decision is well precedented. chance to discuss what will be, in the Government’s own words, its cornerstone. Clause 2 Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): My hon. Friend is FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: FORMS, CONDITIONS, making an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is a DELEGATION AND PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION shame that we got the ELM document—as he says, the cornerstone—too late to make meaningful progress on Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to move it on Tuesday? It is also a shame that the Prime Minister amendment 63, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, at end decided to take it to the National Farmers Union, insert— rather than bringing it here first. “(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for establishing any financial assistance scheme and setting out how it will be designed and how it will operate. Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and (1B) No motion may be made in either House of Parliament I will say more about that, as she can imagine. for the approval of any regulations under subsection (1A) This discussion is hugely important, and I hope that unless— we will be able to give it the attention it deserves. As my (a) a draft of those regulations has been submitted for hon. Friend said, the document was delayed until half scrutiny by any select committee of either House of an hour after the Committee had started our sitting, Parliament which, in the opinion of the Secretary of although I am grateful to Ministers for having the grace State, has a remit which includes responsibility for scrutiny of financial assistance under section 1, and to look a little sheepish and to be apologetic—not their fault, I suspect. Frankly, however, it was a poor way to (b) any such committee has expressed a view on the draft regulations.” behave, although ironically the desired outcome was not achieved—for reasons that I am not entirely au fait with, the Secretary of State went to the NFU the day The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss after anyway, and I understand that he had a fairly amendment 64, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after “subsection” traditional welcome. It is not unusual for Ministers to insert “(1A) or subsection”. go to industry events and get a bit of a roasting. I am opposed to all forms of cruelty—we will come to that Daniel Zeichner: It is a pleasure to continue under later—but he clearly had a tough day. you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank you and Sir David More importantly, I fear that this has skewed the way for exercising your discretion. I will make some points in which we are discussing the Bill. Had we had the about that matter in a moment, but I shall start with document in advance, we would have framed a different amendment 63; amendment 64 is consequent to it. set of amendments to the key clause 1. I am grateful to The reason why we want to make this amendment you, Mr Stringer,and to Sir David for exercising discretion, and think it important is that we believe that the design which allowed us to table amendments to clause 2. That and implementation of the environmental land management would not normally have been possible within the timescale. scheme that the Government have suggested should I put on record my thanks to the hard-working staff in be subjected to proper scrutiny. Amendment 63, with our offices, who were up until late at night working on 221 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 222 that, and to the Clerks, who were also up late working document, although it is not entirely reflected in the on potential amendments. People were under considerable body of the document. It talks about the new system pressure, and I hope to do justice to their work this making it morning. “possible to meet the objectives of protecting the environment I have to say that something made me cross and, when and producing food.” I came to read the environmental land management That is a significant discussion within the document, policy discussion document that we are talking about, at and I will come back to that point. I appreciate that this times it made me even crosser. It is a mixed bag. Some of is a framework Bill—as the Government constantly tell it is excellent, and we will be supportive, but my overriding us—but there needs to be scrutiny as the framework is impression was that, despite detecting some extremely fleshedout.Thatiswhatweseektodowithouramendments. hard work and thought put in by officials, they had been As I will show in the next few minutes, these are hamperedbysomebasiccontradictionsintheGovernment’s complicated, interesting and important issues, which thinking.Thatisapoliticalfailing—notapolicyfailing—which need scrutiny. I hope the Government will see sense and I suspect partly reflects changes in personnel and thinking merit in our proposal. I hope the excellent Government over time.The original architects—the unrepentant sinners Whip might consider allowing his side a little leeway, as to whom I referred on Tuesday—have moved on, and we have considerable expertise present on the Government others have been left to figure out how to make a Benches today. Although he was gloriously successful in complicated set of ambitions work. ensuring that people did not make contributions earlier The thing that made me cross—we do not have to in the process, it would be helpful if a little leeway could read far—is virtually in the opening line, although I be shown at this point in our discussions on the Bill, understand that the prefaces to such documents are because we are now getting into the real meat of it. often bolted on at the end, possibly by eager-to-please Some Members will have attended Second Reading special advisers. I will read the opening sentence: of the Environment Bill yesterday.The interaction between “For more than forty years, the EU’s Common Agricultural these various Bills is really important, as was mentioned Policy…has dictated how we farm our land”. by the Chair of Select Committee on the Environment, “Dictated”—think about that sentence. Wewere members Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tiverton of the European Union of our own free will— and Honiton (Neil Parish). I think many of us have [Interruption.] I do not want to go over old ground, but come to the same conclusion. As so often happens, the I invite people to think about how that reads to those debate yesterday strayed into the Agriculture Bill by who might not share in support for the current situation, mistake at one or two points. That is no surprise, which is possibly half the country. It is a poor way to because the Bill is important. start the document. There are number of puzzles and contradictions in the policy discussion document that are worthy of discussion. I will come to some of the positive aspects, Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): but one or two sentences jumped out at me. On page 6 As a farmer, I can only describe the three-crop rule as —I suspect this is by the same author who wrote the dictating what I can grow on my farm. I cannot see any opening remarks to which I referred—there is a sort of other interpretation. eulogy to our wonderful system at the moment. The document quite rightly praises our farmers for the wonderful things they do. However, one of them is Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure we will have a to and fro this “supporting our supply of clean water”. morning. We will come to the three-crop rule later. I I think that will jar slightly, particularly with some of have a suggestion for a more conciliatory word: “framed” the water companies, which know that one of the is a more accurate term, frankly. “Dictated” is highly unintended consequences of our current agricultural contentious and in some ways designed to rile, and I can system is that they, and as a consequence all our say to whomever did that, it succeeded. Some of us take constituents, have to pay considerable costs to clean up exception to the idea that the Government of our country some of the water. Obviously, the hope is that our new seems to have become a Vote Leave franchise operation. system will have ways to deal with that. Toadd evidence, I have a Department for Environment, Later in the document there are some very positive Food and Rural Affairs press release from 2013, when proposals, but there are also some big unanswered the then Farming Minister—different context, different questions about the interaction between the documents. time, obviously—who is now the Secretary of State, Again, that point was raised yesterday in the discussion told us: on the Environment Bill. This is a particularly pressing “The UK ensured that we have choices in how we implement issue, given our current situation with flooding in this the Common Agricultural Policy, rather than having to work with country. Some things look in danger of falling between a one-size-fits-all approach from the European Commission…This the cracks, particularly overall land use policy. Our gives us the flexibility to target funding in ways that will deliver amendment is designed to allow proper scrutiny of how real benefits to the environment, boost the competitiveness of our the proposals will be developed. Given that this is a very farming industry and grow the rural economy.” long-term set of pilots in development, things will change I actually agree with him, but it does not sound like the and lessons will be learned. Having proper parliamentary policy has been “dictated” to us. I make a gentle plea to scrutiny seems to be well worth while. the Minister to change that one word, which might help The document—as I said, I suspect it had various people to be brought together. authors—is littered with problems and quite a few Now that I have got that off my chest, we can move internal contradictions. On page 7, there is a hopeful claim on to the substance of my argument. To be fair, there is that environmental land management schemes will something much more welcome a few lines later in the “help us maintain our food security.” 223 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 224

[Daniel Zeichner] We absolutely do, but nowhere in the document does it say how to do that or what the Government’s view on That feels as though it is a bolted-on, pious hope, given it is. Surely we need to know, because as we have said, the tension between environmental goods, which we all we are framing the most important piece of legislation support, and food production. Indeed, in the list of for many years into the future. I will return to this point. public goods on page 7 there is no mention of food. People are asking for certainty, and for them to have it, There are some non-sequiturs here, although if I were they need to know the Government’s view on that. to be generous, the fact that some of these problems have not been entirely reconciled may explain some of TheChair:Order.Iunderstandthatthisisnotacompletely the delay in producing the document. satisfactory way for the Committee to proceed with what It actually gets worse. On page 7, at the end of the would normally have been a starred amendment. However, introduction, it says that the goal is to “improve”existing the wording of amendment 63 relates primarily to standards, but later in the same sentence it says it is to “establishing any financial assistance scheme”. possibly maintain them. This is one of the key conundrums of the legislation—what are we actually supporting? I understand that the hon. Member is trying to relate The document goes on to say a bit more about that, that to the whole paper. I will be grateful if he could not which I will come to later. turn this into a debate on the paper, but relate the paper to the amendment and the design of the financial The key issue is whether we should support people assistance schemes. who have already made improvements to get to a high standard or target resources on lifting others. That is an important and difficult point—we could call it additionality, Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful, Mr Stringer, but I am if we want to get into jargon—but it is a profound issue. slightly perplexed as to how to proceed because the case Page 8 defines two strategic aims. I do not have any I am making is about the need for proper scrutiny. I am issue with them, but there is no strategic aim for food trying to explain why we think that is so important, and production, so this running internal contradiction continues. to do that I have to delve into the detail of the paper, which we were not given sight of before. I will do the best I can and I will keep trying to refer back to the 11.45 am point about the need for scrutiny overall, if that is acceptable to you. I have to say that this is quite a good document in many ways. It goes on to the lessons learned from previous schemes and lists a series of points. The first, The Chair: I thank the hon. Member for that. It is not on high uptake, is really important. This is another key a satisfactory situation that the Committee has arrived issue, and I am afraid that I will address a few questions in, so I am trying to be as flexible as possible while about it to the Minister; I fully understand that she may abiding by the correct rules of debate. not be in a position to answer immediately. I will be happy to take interventions on some of these points, Daniel Zeichner: Thank you, Mr Stringer. I will try to which I think will facilitate our understanding, because take heed of that. I will not refer so closely to the paper I am not sure that we fully understand what the Government and I will try to put my comments into the framework are trying to do. My sense—the Chair of the Environment, you suggest. Food and Rural Affairs Committee also made this point on Second Reading—is that a lot of farmers kind of People would always want a more simplified financial think that they will get payments in the future provided assistance scheme. Looking back at parts of the common that they make some environmental improvements, which agricultural policy, I suggest that that has been an aim is the way it kind of feels. The Government must have for a long time. From debates about the statutory some idea of how many farmers they expect to make instruments this week, some of us have had the opportunity that transfer. I am not expecting a fixed figure, but it to read closely regulation (EU) 1307/2013, in which would be helpful to know whether it was around 10%, paragraph 2 states: 90% or 50%. That is an important point, and up to now, “One of the core objectives, and one of the key requirements, so far as I am aware, we have had no indication. I hope of the CAP reform is the reduction of the administrative burden.” the Minister can help us on that. So, in designing any financial assistance scheme, we are Among the lessons learned—which, again, are fair— all trying to do that. The suggestions coming forward point (c) is: from the Government face exactly the same kind of problems we faced within the CAP now that we are “Land managers must have access to effective advisory services”. without it. Of course, we completely agree, but there are questions As I have made clear,designing such assistance schemes left hanging. At what cost? Who pays? Who does it? and getting them right is a complex task. Any design Who has the capacity? Again, this will come up in further will take time; to give the Government credit, they discussions, but it would be helpful to have some sense started on this path some 18 months ago. From our of where the Government think those answers lie. understanding, and from the National Audit Office A strong point made on page 9 is about recognising report, it has not been an easy task. The suggestions the success achieved in the past. It is all too easy to about how financial assistance schemes should be developed pocket successes, so I thoroughly welcome the suggestion make sense to me. that we celebrate what has been done well. However, Referring back to the policy discussion document, going back to my earlier point, point (e) is clear: there is a suggestion of a three-tiered approach that “We need to balance delivering improvement with rewarding sounds remarkably similar to the system we already existing good practice”. have. Looking at the suggestions for a financial assistance 225 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 226 scheme set out under tier 1, many farmers—if they get out the Government’s thinking. Of course, they conclude that far in the document—would be encouraged because that it would not necessarily be appropriate in tier 1. for those who do not want to see change, the scheme I can see why. If we are talking about thousands and looks remarkably like the old basic payment scheme. thousands of agreements—this goes back to my question Given that a three-tiered approach is suggested, what about distribution across the tiers—that would look like do the Government envisage to be the split between the a very bureaucratic mechanism indeed. It may make three tiers? That is a reasonable question. It is similar to more sense for the higher level, but any financial assistance a pillar 1 or pillar 2 issue—12% or 15%—in that a lot scheme will have to deal with some of these points. could be put into either tier 3 or tier 1. It would help if I return briefly to how the advice under these schemes we knew how that would be done. will be funded. I have to say that tier 3 looks good. It It is correct that we do not want to repeat the mistakes has some similarities with the pillar two LEADER of the CAP, but in designing any financial assistance schemes. It is also the first appearance I can see in the scheme it is important to know what was the intention Bill of the idea of devolving down a bit and involving when the scheme was designed in the first place. The local communities in designing financial assistance schemes. CAP was not designed as an environmental scheme but That is a really important point, which I will return to. effectively as a food and rural support scheme, so we are However, bringing people together, which is really undertaking a different task. important, requires resource. In the past local councils Clearly, the Government based those designs for a played that role, but I am no longer convinced that financial assistance scheme to some extent on the experience many of them have that capacity. of the tests and trials. Of course, numbers are relatively If that is to work, we must answer the key question low in tests and trials, but the National Audit Office—in about any financial assistance scheme: where are the a way, its report advises those of us who are trying to resources going to go? One assumption is that it will be scrutinise the design of financial assistance schemes—was derived from the savings that result from not making not particularly complimentary about progress so far. direct payments, or reducing them bit by bit, but that According to the NAO’s commentary on the numbers question needs a light shone on it. At what pace will this that DEFRA hoped would be signed up by different be done, and how will we do it? Unless those things are stages of the process, the Department initially wanted specified somewhere within a financial assistance scheme, 5,000 to be signed up by the end of 2022, but that it will be unclear who will have the resources to lead it. dropped to 1,250. I wonder whether the Minister can There is a potential danger that those who know how to confirm what the numbers are now. make these systems work for them, and have the resources My contention is that such a system is not easy to and wherewithal to do so, will be the ones who will take create; it is hard. The right hon. Member for Scarborough up the scheme. Its resources may not necessarily go and Whitby made the important point that, sadly, under where they are most needed, or where they will produce the three-crop rule,parts of the country are now underwater, the best environmental benefit—as, to be fair, the and farmers are rightly arguing for a derogation. On the Government have referenced. design of financial assistance schemes, it has been suggested that payments should be based on outcomes. Many of us would welcome that, but I wonder how difficult that 12 noon might be in a time of floods. There are outcomes over Finally—I am sure you will be grateful to hear that I which we have some control and outcomes over which, am coming to a close, Mr Stringer—there are some sadly, it appears we have much less control. I think that interesting examples of potential public-private partnerships is worthy of discussion in the context of how we design near the end of the document, which are very welcome. financial assistance schemes. The other evening I was talking to one of the water There is a kind of irony on page 22 of the environmental companies, which explained how, by working with local land management document, where the authors, in farmers and with support from outside, it was possible asking themselves how to design financial assistance to deal with some of the conundrums and unintended schemes, rightly ask how we should define what it is we consequences arising from current farming practices for want. Lo and behold: up turns our old friend the good the benefit of everyone. That seems very sensible, and I agricultural and environmental condition—GAEC— would strongly support that. standards from the CAP years. Again, that seems in This has been a lengthy diversion, for which I apologise. effect to be the CAP coming back—I suspect the Vote However, I hope Members recognise that these are Leave checker had lost the will to live by that stage and really big questions,worthyof discussion in this Committee. did not scrutinise that paragraph—through the back If they are not resolved at a parliamentary level one way door. I do not criticise that. Anyone would struggle or another, they will probably be resolved by civil with that, because however they tried to design a financial servants, who will have a difficult task and may well end assistance scheme, they would have to design some up copping the blame for what will not always be definition of how public money was to be allocated. I popular decisions. When we are discussing such financial am sure we can change the acronym, but the same assistance schemes, we have a responsibility to at least conundrums will arise. engage with some of these difficult issues. As I said, I do The paper also contains—this is absolutely relevant not underestimate the difficulty of engaging with them, to the design of the schemes—innovative, interesting but we should be doing so. These questions should not suggestions about how payments may be calculated, be hidden away in discussion documents and resolved including some market-based price-setting mechanisms later in the day by means of quite complicated SIs. The using tendering or auctioning. I am not convinced that document actually says that it is the “cornerstone” of that is addressed elsewhere in the Bill. There is not the new policy, so we tabled the amendment—and I much detail about it, and it is important that we tease have moved it—to make parliamentary scrutiny possible. 227 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 228

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment, results-based payments. We would want the scheme to Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is a pleasure be able to adapt to that as we see whether it is really to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer. achievable. While dealing with some of the points that the hon. We also want the ability to improve the scheme as our Member for Cambridge has raised, I will try to stick understanding of the environment and technology develops. closely to the wording of the amendments. For example, we might wish to adapt how we monitor However, I will start by saying that although this is a the delivery of environmental outcomes, taking advantage cornerstone document, as the hon. Gentleman was of new technologies such as remote sensing and geospatial keen to point out, we are still at the beginning of this data. Who knows where we will be going in the future? scheme’s development. We are planning a major change It is impossible for us to plan for everything at the in the way that farmers receive money from the state. moment. We have done a great deal of work, as he was kind The amendment as drafted would limit our ability to enough to acknowledge, but we are currently running a respond to what is effective and to what farmers and programme of tests and trials. The priorities of that land managers tell us is working. It would put us back programme will become the building blocks for the into CAP-type inefficiencies, where there was no national pilot, which does not start until the end of next opportunity to review or change things if they were not year and will not conclude until 2024. At this point, we working. I am keen that we do not mirror that deficiency simply cannot answer many of the more detailed questions within our domestic policy. he asks, nor would it be right for us to fetter the When discussing these schemes, it is important to development of policy by doing so. The national pilot remind ourselves that farmers and land managers will will provide a real, living opportunity to test and refine be the people most affected by these changes. I would the scheme design before we roll it out properly at the not wish them to be adversely affected by hold-ups in end of 2024. That is a careful, sensible way to make the parliamentary timetable. Looking at clause 1 as a policy. whole, we are discussing the potential for a great number However, I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. of financial assistance schemes. I know he thinks deeply about these issues, and it is If we were to pass the amendment, an appropriate important that, wherever possible, we work together on Select Committee might need to consider a vast number the development of these major changes. In that spirit, I of schemes in different areas, and then we would need thank him for the amendment he has moved, and agree to debate each one, no matter how broad or narrow that we must be transparent while establishing our they might be, which would place significant demands future financial assistance schemes and make sure that on parliamentary time. Should there not be enough Parliament can scrutinise the use of public money. We time, I am concerned that farmers would ultimately have introduced new duties into the Bill that do exactly suffer, as payments would not be made in a timely way. that. As we said on Tuesday,these include the multi-annual We will launch our pilot in 2021, as well as productivity financial assistance plans, which are a major change grants and animal welfare grants. We do not want and, to my mind, an improvement—many thanks, once confusion, or farmers left in limbo for longer than again, to those who sat on the Committee of the previous necessary, because of problems with the availability of Agriculture Bill. We have agreed to provide an annual parliamentary time. report setting out the financial assistance given under clause 1 and, importantly, reports on the impact and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must allow effectiveness of the schemes. Parliament the chance to scrutinise our plans for providing financial assistance under clause 1. I hope I have set out Those plans and reports give Parliament the ability to where the Bill already provides for that. I therefore ask scrutinise the Government’s plans, to check that future him to withdraw his amendment. funding decisions under the Bill powers are aligned with the Government’s strategic priorities as those develop, and to hold the Government to account on how much Daniel Zeichner: I thank the Minister for her response they are spending. Flexibility and collaboration are and I fully appreciate that it is difficult to respond to a essential and we hope they will be embedded in future series of questions that are only loosely related to the schemes. We do not intend to impose policy from the amendment. I listened closely to what she said, but I top down, but rather to work with farmers and land still think there is a potential problem. I do not think managers to develop schemes that can deliver achievable our intention is that every single local scheme would be outcomes. The word the Secretary of State likes to use is subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; it is the overall “iterative”. financial assistance scheme that we are concerned about. I fear that the amendment may unintentionally I fully appreciate the notion of iterative and learning undermine that approach. Under the ELM scheme, we processes, but the difficulty in which we find ourselves is are planning a pilot that will enable us to learn and that for farmers, the change effectively starts next year—we prepare for the full implementation of the scheme, once have seen the Government’s announcement about the we have seen what works and what does not. Once the 5% and so on—so real people will start losing real scheme is launched, we want to continue to have flexibility money quite quickly. Although it is wonderful to have to improve the scheme and be responsive. theoretical discussions about how best to develop policy, people out there need some certainty, as the Government For example, our current thinking is that for tier 2 of keep saying, which may partly be why the Secretary of ELMS, payments could initially be based on actions, State ran into problems with the NFU yesterday. In the potentially offering top-up payments when results are 40 minutes of this debate so far, we have seen that, far delivered. However, over time we might well want to from there being any certainty, there are a huge number move away from payments for actions and start giving of uncertainties. 229 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 230

Obviously, if one is trying to make change and be (h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants; ambitious in moving to a different system, uncertainty (i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on is almost inevitable, but the Labour party feel that there an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, needs to be a little more clarity on some of those points their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to to give people better opportunities to plan ahead, which any such plant; and is a point that many people in this room, who know far (j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil. more about practical farming than I do, have made. The (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision timeframes are not always easy for people, because they about the standards to which activity for or in connection with have to plan and will make decisions fairly soon, so not all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform. knowing even the most basic point about a financial (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision assistance scheme and whether the Government expect about enforcement, which may (among other things) include it to apply to 5% or 95% of those who have been in provision— receipt in the past, is disappointing, to put it mildly. I (a) about the provision of information; very much hope that we will get more clarity at some (b) conferring powers of entry; point in the future, in discussion, correspondence or (c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure; written answers. (d) about the keeping of records; The discussion has demonstrated a weakness in our (e) imposing monetary penalties; processes; I am not sure that many of the questions that (f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a I have asked this morning have been answered. It would fine not exceeding an amount specified in the be much more helpful if the Government had been able regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the to have an open discussion—perhaps not in Committee, standard scale); but at some point—that would have been facilitated by (g) about appeals; the existence of the Bill. (h) conferring functions (including functions involving the The amendment is a long, probing one, and it has exercise of a discretion) on a person. largely achieved what I wanted it to by establishing that (4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative there is no clarity on the schemes. I will not press the resolution procedure. amendment to a Division, but I ask for an assurance New clause 22—Consultation on regulatory framework: from the Minister that we will get answers to our enforcement— questions through one means or another. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. (1) The Secretary of State must, within one calendar month of this Act being given Royal Assent, open a consultation on what Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. body should regulate and enforce the regulatory framework under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity]. Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 36, in (2) The consultation shall seek views on whether an existing clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert— body should carry out the regulation and enforcement under “(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person subsection (1) or whether a new body should be created for that who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made purpose. by the Secretary of State under section [ Duty and regulations (3) The Secretary of State must, in any consultation under ].” governing agricultural and horticultural activity subsection (1), consult with persons or bodies representing This amendment and NC9 provide a duty for the Secretary of State to persons who he or she considers are affected by the functions of set baseline regulatory standards governing agricultural and horticultural the proposed body. activity, which must be met by any recipient of financial assistance. (4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament— The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss (a) in summary form, the views expressed in the the following: consultation held under subsection (1), and New clause 9—Duty and regulations governing agricultural (b) a statement of how the Secretary of State intends to and horticultural activity— proceed, with his or her reasons for doing so. (1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes— Daniel Zeichner: We are moving on to a complex set of issues on baseline environmental standards. (a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment; Amendment 36 reads: (b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, “(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person farmland or woodland and better understanding of who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made the environment; by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].” (c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural New clause 9 reads: heritage; “(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a (d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural that mitigates or adapts to climate change; activity for or in connection with the following purposes— (e) the management of land or water in a way that (a) the management of land or water in a way that protects prevents, reduces or protects from environmental or improves the environment; hazards; (b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, (f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare farmland or woodland and better understanding of of livestock; the environment; (g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or (c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, genetic resources relating to any such animal; restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage; 231 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 232

[Daniel Zeichner] must have been some discussion; there must be some idea of the scale that is expected. I would welcome a (d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way response on that point. that mitigates or adapts to climate change; As part of the common agricultural policy, our farmers (e) the management of land or water in a way that had to meet cross-compliance standards on EU prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards; environmental management, animal welfare and traceability (f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare to qualify for payments. Its onerousness and the fact of livestock; that, to many, it seemed a bureaucratic system was the (g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or cause of justified complaint, but it is actually quite genetic resources relating to any such animal; difficult to design compliance systems that do not end (h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants; up in that situation. That is not to say that we cannot do (i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on better. Again, had we had the opportunity to discuss an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, the ELMS policy paper in detail, we would have seen their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to that there were some innovative suggestions in it. I will any such plant; and have to continue to try to refer to them tangentially. (j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.” We have left the European Union, and our worry is Some will have noted that that reflects the wording that there is a gap. We might well find that the Bill has elsewhere in the Bill. unintended consequences that will leave much more of “(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision our countryside relatively unprotected. A point that I about the standards to which activity for or in connection with had hoped to make in the debate on the previous all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform. amendment, but which I will make now, is that there (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision was an astonishing statement in that document about about enforcement, which may (among other things) include whether tier 1 payments should be dependent on regulatory provision— compliance. I cannot think of any other sector in which (a) about the provision of information; there would be an issue about regulatory compliance. I (b) conferring powers of entry; may be missing something here—the Minister is a learned (c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure; lawyer, so I shall be careful—but it seems pretty odd to (d) about the keeping of records; be paying people to obey the rules. In any other sphere (e) imposing monetary penalties; of life, I think people would find that surprising. (f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a In the slightly odd world of the common agricultural fine not exceeding an amount specified in the policy, the payment was an accepted part of the way we regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the did things, but it is certainly worth raising the question standard scale); now, when looking at potential compliance issues, and (g) about appeals; debating it. All members of the Committee, depending (h) conferring functions (including functions involving the on their point of view, either enjoyed or winced at exercise of a discretion) on a person. George Monbiot’s evidence last week. He put it pretty (4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative forcefully. I think many of our fellow citizens and resolution procedure.” constituents would want to ask the question, too. It is a reasonable point. 12.15 pm The Bill includes provisions to move away from cross- The Chair: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman compliance, with clause 14 giving Ministers the scope to for reading out the whole of new clause 9, but all simplify and amend the horizontal legislation that facilitated members of the Committee have the new clause before the operation of the CAP,including farmers’ compliance them, so it is unnecessary. I would prefer it if hon. with EU laws on environmental and animal welfare Members did not take up the Committee’s time by standards—I apologise for diverting into eurojargon, reading out new clauses and amendments. but I am afraid the debate is constantly beset by it. I do not think that we have yet seen any long-term plan from Daniel Zeichner: My apologies, Mr Stringer. I quite the Government to replace that system, flawed though appreciate your direction. it may be, with the robust regulatory baseline that we believe we will need to ensure that environmental and The purpose of new clause 9 is to set baseline animal welfare standards are met across the board in environmental standards across all farmed land, regardless land management. of whether the land manager has chosen to receive financial assistance for any of the clause 1 purposes. To There is an irony in that. The Committee on Climate some extent, that follows on from the discussion about Change issued a report in January titled, “Land use: the previous amendment. There is a genuine concern Policies for a Net Zero UK”, which is a useful document about the systems—it was referenced in the document to inform our discussion. It includes a handy chart on about the design of the schemes, to which I referred. page 80 that outlines the current proposals for the Uptake is a key issue, as we saw in relation to stewardship. replacement of the common agricultural policy.If people The worry is that if the systems are too complicated, want a one-pager, it is pretty good. The only problem is difficult and onerous, there will not be the levels of that its opening line says that the Department for uptake that we hope for. I asked the Minister about the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes: numbers that the Government anticipate will take up “The development of a new regulatory baseline reflecting the under tier 1 because that is absolutely vital to our ‘polluter pays’ principle.” discussion. I do not want to press the point, but I I am not sure that that is, strictly speaking, accurate. We cannot believe that there has not been some discussion are looking for it, but we do not think that it exists, in the Department about where we hope to get to. There without our amendment. 233 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 234

The concern is that farmers may decide not to participate. The Institute for European Environmental Policy, in When I first looked at this brief, one question that its report, commissioned by a number of the witnesses struck me was what percentage of people currently do. that we heard from in the evidence sessions, said that Most do, of course, because public money is on offer; there are a number of gaps in legislation, which will it would be foolish not to. However, it was a simpler have real consequences, particularly for wildlife on our system—a direct payment system—and people were agricultural land. The interaction between EU retained happy to take the money. If they are asked to do more law and our current legislation is tricky. The assumption to get the money, it will be a different decision. I suspect that all these plans will necessarily work as we think that some will decide that it all looks a bit difficult and they will could well be open to challenge. We will return complicated, going back to my point about uncertainty, to that wider point, but on this particular point we and will operate outside it. believe, and the institute believes, that there may be Returning to my point about numbers, a few farmers some gaps in legislation that will result in there no operating outside the system may not be a problem, but longer being protections for hedgehogs, nesting birds many doing so certainly would be. We would have to and hedgerow habitats, partly due to some of the potential rely—this goes back to my point about the interrelationship changes in the 2 metre wide buffer strip rules. Given between this Bill and the Environment Bill—on having that we have already lost 97% of our hedgehog population some pretty strong legislation. Again, it is difficult for since the 1950s—a point that was made yesterday by the the Committee, because many would argue that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) Bills are being considered in the wrong order. It might in the Second Reading debate on the Environment have been better to pass the environmental legislation Bill—there is genuine concern. That is why we need to first. We do not know what it will include. On the basis make sure that we are covered. of what we have seen so far, as my hon. Friend the There is also the point—I certainly would not say this Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke about the current Ministers—that in future some of the Pollard), the shadow Secretary of State, said last night financial assistance that is being redirected could be on Second Reading, we support much of it. We did not moving towards productivity rather than environmental vote against it, but we think it needs to be greatly protection,andthat,too,couldcompromiseourenvironmental strengthened. Not knowing whether it will be leaves us safeguards. That goes to the heart of what the Bill is in a difficult position. really all about. The “Health and Harmony” DEFRA Some of a cynical disposition might say that the consultationpaperfortheBilloutlinedthattheGovernment Government are left in almost a win-win position. They wanted to embed the “polluter pays”principle throughout. have burnished their green credentials, setting up a As I have said, the danger is that we could end up, as fantastic new environmental scheme, and have even got George Monbiot explained, paying the polluter not to the money for it, which is quite unusual in politics; but pollute, which is the other side of the coin. We do not the scheme is such that most people will not take it up. want that to be the outcome, and we have heard from a Far from being a greener, pro-environment Bill, it will number of key witnesses how important that is. therefore have the unintended—or possibly intended— In conclusion, new clause 9 outlines that it should be consequence of saving the Government a lot of money a duty for the Secretary of State to establish a baseline and making them look good, but doing nothing to regulatory framework “for or in connection” with the improve the environment. That is a really serious issue, listed purposes. It outlines that the regulations “may which is why the amendment is so important. include” provisions about enforcement and would be Part of the solution relates to the points I raised subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure about take-up in the ELMS document. If there is mass that we continue to have robust debate and scrutiny of take-up, which is the suggestion, everything is possibly the most appropriate baseline regulatory framework. fine. If not, as I said, the downside is direct payments Amendment 36 would ensure that those who receive through the back door, and not getting the environmental financial assistance under clause 1 public goods are lift we are looking for. I know the Government will not meeting those baseline environmental standards as well, agree with that, but it is a risk. If we do not go that and will be rewarded for going above and beyond. route and instead go the tougher route, there is also a danger of damaging the environment. Victoria Prentis: The amendments would enshrine in I do not deny that it is a difficult conundrum; it is one the Bill a legal duty to make regulations that govern that I would love to be dealing with as a Minister, rather agricultural and horticultural activity and to restrict than as shadow Minister. I suspect that if I were in that financial assistance to those who are compliant with position, the Opposition would be making exactly the those regulations. In our view, the amendments are same tough, robust points, because these are real-life unnecessary, because we already have a regulatory conundrums. It is my job in the interim to make the framework that manages agricultural and horticultural points on behalf of our environment and our farmers. activity and protects the environment. We need to make sure that across all our agricultural In our view, the amendments are unnecessary, because land, the baseline is land management that recognises we already have a regulatory framework that manages the huge challenge of climate change, protects our soils, agricultural and horticultural activity and protects the guards against flooding, encourages resilience in biodiversity environment. With this Bill, we will enshrine in law our and prioritises high animal welfare. We believe that we commitment to the environmental purposes that matter have to set minimum standards across the board, so so much to us all. that the Bill—this goes back to a point I was making earlier—genuinely incentivises those that go above and 12.30 pm beyond. I still think that that is probably what the New clause 9 is unnecessary because it simply lists Government want to do, but the contradictions and purposes, standards and enforcement mechanisms that difficulties are being glossed over at the moment. are already contained in domestic legislation. I can offer 235 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 236 the hon. Member for Cambridge another reassurance: the wider vision of what we are trying to achieve. There we are reviewing the regulatory framework and we will is no need to rush to produce what would be a hurried, work with farmers and land managers to consider where potentially ineffective and partial consultation, creating we can improve it to deliver on our environmental goals a false sense of urgency when we already have a regulatory as the world moves on and we change our priorities. baseline. The challenge is that the current system is fragmented—I understand that criticism—and often appears complicated Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister for to those who use it. The new clause does not rectify that setting out the reasons why she does not believe we need problem. I hope that our continued work to redesign the baseline. I neglected to make any comments about our regulatory framework, in which I am happy to new clause 22 in my opening statement, so I shall weave involve him if he wishes to have discussions about it, those in to what I say at this point. will deal with those issues in so far as it can. As he said, Of course we all agree that enforcement is critical. they are complicated matters. One of the things that has struck me in my relatively few On amendment 36, if we restrict access to financial years in this place is how often we pass legislation and schemes in that way, we might deter those who are unsure then struggle with enforcing it. That does not do our of their regulatory compliance. In addition, we might reputation any good, and it certainly does not do our deterthosewhomayusefinancialschemesforimprovements constituents any good. I have in the past reflected on and enhancements to environmental and welfare standards. the fact that all it does is to make good, law-abiding We could end up deterring individuals from accessing people cross. It does little to dissuade non-law-abiding the very support schemes that they might need to deliver people from their actions. As the Minister says, it is a on all the goals that we think are public goods. conundrum. I was impressed by Dame Glenys’s report on the farm Of course, the baseline is that we expect everyone to inspection and regulation review and I echo many of comply with the law,irrespective of environmental schemes the points that the Minister made. I am sure she did not access. We will put in place effective enforcement need to know that Dame Glenys is her constituent to mechanisms to ensure that that is the case. Our new reach the conclusion she did. I will just point out one or approach, however, aims to support people to achieve two observations from the report that reflect what I positive environmental outcomes, not just to punish have said. I think that she said that current enforcement them for failing to achieve, as was a failure of the is nowhere near effective, and I am told that of the previous regime. 10,600 staff at the Environment Agency only 40 do We have left the EU and we now have the opportunity farm inspections. That seems extraordinary to me. There to transform our regulatory system. The amendment is thus only a one in 200 chance of being inspected by would keep us in the old familiar world of the common the Environment Agency. Quite clearly it is pretty busy agricultural policy, which would stop us making those at the moment, so that is not a criticism of the agency, changes and, with help, doing things better. I therefore but it shows the scale of capacity that is needed. I gently ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. go back to my earlier observations: it is great to be New clause 22 would require us to consult on the ambitious but the Government have to think through appropriate body to regulate and enforce our regulatory the enforcement mechanisms that go along with that, framework, and it would give us a month from the Bill’s and ask themselves whether they are prepared to bear Royal Assent to start to do that. We will already have an the costs. onus to consult when we consider creating a new public Of course, there is quite a range of DEFRA-related body—that is absolutely sure—so we do not require a bodies that deliver compliance with farm regulations, duty to be placed on the statute book to require us to do such as Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the something that we are already required to do. Animal and Plant Health Agency and, sometimes, local We have taken a proactive approach to engaging with authorities. It is not unfair to say that the Rural Payments farmers and land managers on the measure. We will Agency has not always covered itself in glory in the consult again on our vision and priorities for the future past. We congratulate it on its improvements in recent regulatory framework by the end of the year, as we times, but we know the historical difficulties that it has continue to work in partnership with farmers and land had with, frankly,just doing the administration. I appreciate managers. Our new strategy is being developed from the that it is assisted by others in that, and my understanding responses that we received to the “Health and Harmony” is that Natural England has a lot of the expertise consultation and from the review led by Dame Glenys behind it. Given some of the well documented pressures Stacey. As it is the first time I have mentioned her, I on that agency as well, however, the question arises of should say that she is my constituent and I worked where the resource to make everything work will come closely with her on probation issues in a previous life. from. Maybe it will come from the money that would have been going to farmers out of the direct payments In the fullness of time, that work may lead us to scheme, but we do not know. create a new body. If we decide to do that, it will be That is the problem with the entire debate. There is underpinned by consultation and collaboration with potentially £3 billion to spend: how will it be used? We partners across the field. We do not need a duty to need some clarity from the Government. Our suggestion consult on enforcement bodies at this point. We have was that the Secretary of State should, within a month one, we will, and we are already working on a new of the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, hold a proper approach to the new regulatory and enforcement system. consultation on the most appropriate body to enforce We want an effective regulatory system with a strong important baseline environmental regulations. We would suite of requirements, and of course we want to be able then want to require the Secretary of State to bring to enforce it. We should not, however, consult on an before Parliament the decision on the consultation and isolated aspect of the system at the expense of considering tell us how it is intended to proceed. 237 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 238

We know from the Stacey report that the current over money into subsequent years. That point has been punitive compliance measures often do not have the raised on a number of occasions by a number of people, effect that we seek. We want not to punish people but to and there may be a simple explanation. help them to do the right thing. One of the positive When debating the statutory instrument on Monday things in the paper “Environmental Land Management” and looking back at our old friend regulation 1307/2013, was about finding a way in which help can be given. A it struck me that the current system has quite complicated common complaint about the previous system was that reserves that the CAP specifies for dealing with some it was pernickety and that a minor transgression could issues around fines, compliance and so on. It goes into cause a disproportionate response. Those are things we considerable detail about how that should work. A similar all agree on, and would all like to get changed. system may be envisaged for us. I asked some questions The one thing I am nervous about is that a better about the issue during the debate on the statutory system may require more people—or more technology, instrument, so perhaps when there is a reply there will or whatever. The question is how it will be resourced. be some clarity. That is why we think we need a more comprehensive Again, it has been said that this is a framework Bill. framework to deal with it. I appreciate what the Government That is fine—we get that. But this is the opportunity for have said about trying to implement the Stacey review’s Parliament to ask these questions. The headline figure recommendations, but we remain nervous that, without of money is a concern to some in rural communities, the resources needed, we may not be able to achieve and it may not be available if is not within the right what we are trying to do. We think that is key not only timeframe. I suppose I have a simple question. to supporting rural communities and people who work in producing food, but to achieving the environmental Mr Goodwill: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about gains that we wish to see. money allocated to a scheme in general that is then not Our worry is that without a comprehensive compliance used, or money allocated to a farm that is not used due regulatory system behind it, this move could lead to to some situation on that farm? Is he talking about the unintended consequences and possible environmental specifics of money allocated to farms or the generality degradation rather than improvement. We think that of money allocated to a scheme? that is so important that we will press the amendment to a vote. Daniel Zeichner: That is a good point. Some of this discussion has conflated the two things, which may not The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11. be helpful for people. Actually, no money is allocated Division No. 9] nationally. It is a political promise; it is not in legislation. Of course, no Parliament can bind future spending AYES allocations. We will watch with interest what happens in Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena the coming weeks, but the political promise has been Jones, Ruth given. McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel 12.45 pm NOES In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we are thinking of the headline figure. We hope that the Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon £3 billion will be available each year for the next five Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Crosbie, Virginia years, as the Government have promised. Again—I am Kruger, Danny Dines, Miss Sarah sorry to sound like a broken record—this is a key Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James question: if the uptake of applications is not high Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria enough, the money will not be drawn down, as far as I can see. As I said earlier, that could be a tempting Question accordingly negatived. position for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr Goodwill: Is that issue not covered by clause 8, Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 48, in which allows for the extension of the scheme? When I clause 2, page 3, line 30, at end insert— come to discuss my amendment 9, we can explore the “(3A) Financial assistance allocated to a scheme in a matter. One could possibly freeze the switch from the particular year but not spent within that year may be carried over basic payment scheme to ELM schemes. I guess that the to a future year for spending on one or more schemes.” hon. Gentleman is discussing the situation in which the This amendment would enable Ministers to “carry over” any monies uptake of ELMS is not very high, because we are fairly left unspent at the end of a particular budget year for spending in sure that the uptake of the BPS will be pretty much 100%. subsequent years. Is this not already covered in that clause of the Bill? This is a more probing amendment and one that we do not intend to put to a vote, so hon. Members can be Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman makes an at ease. Mr Stringer, you will be pleased to hear that I important point, but I am not sure that the issue is will not read out the amendment. covered; that is why I am seeking clarification. I am I may have misunderstood how DEFRA’s economics afraid these points are about a lack of certainty. We are works, and I am ready to stand corrected. The Government looking ahead a long way—seven years, potentially—for have not put it in legislation but have indicated that the the transition. We have some clarity on the 5% plus, money will be available for the remainder of the Parliament. capping and so on for the next year, but beyond that If not all that money is used in one year, what happens —I hate to go back to the ELMS document, but there to it? All I am looking for is some explanation, as the are timelines in there—some of it looks a touch amendment suggests, that it would be possible to carry optimistic, frankly. 239 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 240

[Daniel Zeichner] Daniel Zeichner: I am sorry to press the Minister on this point, but will she define “very high”? I would say it Given that the process was begun 18 months ago, I has to be more than 50%; maybe it has to be more than hope that it will become clearer through the trials and 75% to be “very high”. tests, but we would like to pin down the finances. That is what we are trying to achieve through the amendment. I understand why Government Ministers cannot concede, Victoria Prentis: For all the reasons I mentioned but I suspect that, as people look more closely, quite a earlier, I cannot possibly give the hon. Gentleman any lot of them would agree with this position; if we are more detail than is in his favourite document, but I look going to embark on these ambitious environmental forward to working with him over the next seven years schemes, as we want to, we want as much money as or more while we develop this marvellous scheme. I possible to be drawn from the Treasury. It is a very thank him, because he is broadly supportive of many of unusual situation, politically, to have a pot of money the aims and objectives of the scheme, and he has been that looks like it has been allocated before. Where does moderately polite about it. I agree with him: underspends it go in the future? That is what we are trying to pin can happen. down. The concept that the hon. Gentleman describes in his amendment is, in principle, something beneficial that Victoria Prentis: As the hon. Member for Cambridge we would support. He has been kind enough to talk said, I suspect that many people in this room agree with about my legal experience; I am not sure that this is a a great deal of what he told us. On this side of the matter for primary legislation. I would rather discuss House, we are determined that UK farming should not the matter first with the Treasury as part of the spending see a reduction in Government support at this important review process, which is the correct way to deal with it. I and exciting time in British agriculture. That is why we hope I have assured him of our interest in exploring the have pledged to guarantee the current annual budget in ability to retain financial spend across different financial every year of this Parliament. years, and I therefore ask him not to push the amendment As I said on Tuesday and again this morning, in to a vote. response to the previous feedback from the Committee’s last sitting, we have now included clause 4 in the Bill. It requires us to prepare a multi-annual financial assistance Daniel Zeichner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the plan covering the seven-year transition period. That amendment. shows our commitment to planning our future expenditure, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. part of which will include minimising the likelihood of Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. any underspend from our financial assistance schemes. —(James Morris.) I am more optimistic than the hon. Gentleman: I expect very high take-up of our new scheme—that is definitely the aim. However, I recognise that underspends can 12.52 pm happen despite the very best financial planning. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Eighth Sitting

Thursday 27 February 2020

(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. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 2 March 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/. 241 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 242

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS,†GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of † Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) (Con) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † attended the Committee 243 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 244

improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher than Public Bill Committee that required by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].” Thursday 27 February 2020 This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock to (Afternoon) demonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of a significantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9. Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, after [GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair] “section” insert— Agriculture Bill “‘fattening’ means the keeping of livestock for the purpose of the livestock gaining weight in preparation for slaughter, Clause 2 ‘humane’ shall be interpreted in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Welfare of Animals FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: FORMS, CONDITIONS, at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, DELEGATION AND PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ‘livestock’ has the meaning given in section 1(5) of this Act, 2 pm ‘IP completion day’ has the meaning given in section 39 Amendment made: 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 31, leave of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, out from “to” to end of line 32 and insert and”. “the maker or operator of a third party scheme in connection This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4. with 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 of Daniel Zeichner: Welcome back, everybody. Our aim State to give financial assistance to a third party scheme, to spell out with this group of amendments is to highlight the need that the assistance may relate to the costs of setting up or running the for financial assistance in clause 1 to be provided for the scheme or providing financial support under the scheme. purpose of protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock only if farmers go above and beyond current Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to move animal welfare standards. amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end I have already touched on this issue. We believe it is insert— important to avoid a situation where public money is “(4A) Financial assistance under subsection (1)(1)(f) for paid for current welfare standards being met. I think protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock shall the public would find that curious, but it is a risk given only be given to a person who satisfies the Secretary of State that they— the systems we have inherited. The nod of enthusiasm from the Minister confirms that the authors of the Bill (a) achieve, or have undertaken to achieve, standards of animal welfare which exceed the minimum rather agree, although we say that it is still not entirely requirements laid down by legislation governing clear. I think it is agreed that the taxpayer’s principal welfare of livestock, role should be to provide funding for public goods that (b) raise animals in such a way that enables them to carry the market cannot deliver or can deliver only partially, out their natural behaviours, such as high environmental and animal welfare standards. (c) do not subject livestock to any prohibited procedure The funds available should be used not for marginal (within the meaning of section 5 of the Animal welfare gains but to support best practice and farmers Welfare Act 2006), who are willing to go substantially beyond the legal (d) do not kill livestock in any place other than in a minimum requirements. slaughterhouse unless— Of course, there is a whole series of potential issues (i) a veterinary surgeon has certified that this is associated with that. How much improvement? Do we necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and want to set standards to which we want people to move (ii) the method of killing is humane, and quickly? I am struck when I talk to people about this (e) do not, after IP completion day, export animals for that I think the industry will do what it is asked to do. slaughter or fattening unless— Clearly, however, if it is not directed and just responds (i) the livestock is exported from Northern Ireland to to the market, people will produce to different price the Republic of Ireland, and points. Again, that is an issue for the politicians to think (ii) it is made a requirement of sale that the livestock about. We had a discussion the other day with the right shall not be re-exported by the buyer.” hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby about whether This amendment would set minimum baseline welfare standards for the labelling gets us there. There are different views, and receipt of financial assistance for protecting or improving the welfare of this is our view. livestock. There are clear ways of identifying significant steps The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss up in welfare for different species of farm animals, and the following: it is extremely important that we tailor our welfare standards appropriately to what would achieve those Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end outcomes for each species. Let me make a few suggestions insert— for the high standards we would like ultimately to be “(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under section achieved across each sector. 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the health of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or of any For pigs, funding could be made available to farmers person to whom functions relating to the giving of financial who achieve intact—neither docked nor bitten—tails. assistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or There are schemes along those lines in other countries. 245 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 246

Getting pigs to slaughter with intact tails is recognised wet. Such schemes already exist in Sweden. Research by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee as a good shows that pasture-based cows have lower levels of outcome-based indicator of high welfare. This morning, lameness, hoof pathologies, hock lesions, mastitis and in our discussion of the environmental land management mortalitythanzero-grazedcows.Apotentialoutcome-based document—I am pleased to see it is now on the table for funding opportunity could be made contingent on pasture- all to enjoy—we touched on whether payments should based farmers achieving low levels of lameness and be for what is done or what is achieved. I think the mastitis. We believe grass-based beef and sheep farmers debate about that is moving; many of us would like to could receive support for achieving low levels of lameness see outcome-based payments. At least in this area, we and disease. can discuss the outcomes we are looking for, and I suggest they are more easily measured. I am told—we Different research projects sometimes produce different heard this from witnesses, too—that such schemes already outcomes. It is vital to have effective research into the exist in Germany. impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming. We need that to contribute to a better As we outlined in a previous amendment, which understanding of what can improve animal welfare sadly was not taken up by the Government, we believe above the baseline and what better welfare practices can that the Government should encourage a move to free be promoted within the public goods element of the farrowing systems. However, we acknowledge that there Bill. Therefore, we will be tabling an amendment to is extra cost involved and we believe some payments include a requirement for the Secretary of State to could be made to cover a proportion of the capital costs promote the conduct of research into the impact of involved in making that change. It is a decision for us as highly intensive livestock farming practices on animal a country, as well as for consumers, as to where we want welfare, which, I believe, would be welcomed by many to get to on these standards. This is a clear opportunity. constituents and citizens. For laying hens, we would like to see funding made available for farmers who use the best free range systems, Labour has argued in the past—and we continue to such as low stocking density, low flock size, mobile make the case—for an independent animal welfare housing and provision of trees and bushes. Outcome commissioner,who would keep track of the most up-to-date measures that one could look at are not trimming hens’ and evidence-based science on animal welfare, in order beaks, achieving low mortality and good plumage scores. to inform and update policy. We think that would be Such outcomes can be measured; that is a decision we beneficial. We have proposed it in the past and I hope it could make. This Committee is a good place to have is something the Government might consider. I am not such discussions, which, over time, could attempt to lift aware that the Government have indicated thus far that welfare standards in this country. they might do that, but let us see. For broiler chickens, the key issue is often substantial We back the great sections of the British public who overcrowding. Many UK broilers are stocked at 38 kg call for an end to the use of cages on our farms once per square metre. As chickens in the UK often weigh and for all. The Bill represents a real opportunity for around 2.2 kg at slaughter, that means approximately the Government to get behind that call, if they can put 17 chickens are kept per square metre. Without going in place the financial support needed for farmers to into the wider points, we know the British public want move away from high-intensity farming methods towards to see higher welfare standards and many would probably those that are significantly more supportive of animal be shocked to see those conditions. As Government freedoms and welfare. The Bill lacks detail on how Members have pointed out, people want food at affordable financial assistance for improved animal welfare should prices. We agree with that, so there is a tension and a be used. I hope the Minister has given due consideration balance in this, but if one has £3 billion to spend, to to the careful planning needed to ensure that those some extent one has choices. receiving money for the clause 1(1)(f) public good are At such high densities, sadly broilers can have high truly rewarded for achieving significant evidence-based levels of infectious pathogens, leg disorders, foot-pad improvements in animal welfare above the norm. dermatitis and mortality. We believe that to be granted Amendment 42 provides that financial assistance for financial assistance, the maximum permitted broiler the purpose of protecting or improving the health or stocking density could be reduced to a specific number. welfare of livestock would be given only if the recipient We have talked today about the long transition period, had exceeded a set of baseline regulatory standards, as but on another day we will come to the more show-stopping established in new clause 9. amendment on standards elsewhere in the world. We Amendment 4 provides an expanded alternative. We have to make decisions about where we want to get to, have a slight sense that the previous amendment may and then make sure we do not disadvantage our producers. not be carried, so it is good to have a second string. It Funding could support the use of slow-growing breeds would put in place a provision that financial assistance and low stocking densities, as scientific research shows would be provided for the public good of improving that these bring welfare benefits. As an outcome measure, animal welfare and health only if the Secretary of State receipt of funding could be contingent on achieving low was satisfied that the recipient had gone beyond minimum foot-pad dermatitis scores, which could be measured at requirements and followed a number of important measures slaughter. to guarantee animal welfare, as set out in paragraphs (b) Moving to dairy cows, a key issue is those that are to (e). They include that the recipient has raised animals kept indoors. Around 20% of UK dairy cows are zero “in such a way that enables them to carry out their natural grazed—that is, they are kept indoors for all or nearly behaviours”. all of the year. Again, funding could be made available for farmers who keep their cows in pasture during the I suspect there would be considerable support for that grass-growing season, except when the weather is too among the wider public. 247 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 248

[Daniel Zeichner] “Achievement of a life worth living requires provision of an animal’s needs and certain wants…Wants are those resources that High animal welfare means taking into account scientific an animal may not need to survive or to avoid developing abnormal research that increasingly indicates that good animal behaviour, but nevertheless improve its quality of life.” welfare helps not only the prevention of suffering but Tests of higher welfare standards should include a the opportunity for animals to have positive experiences provision that recipients of public money are not involved and exhibit their natural behaviours. in the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening. Of course, that is a long-running issue, which I will Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): re-rehearse only briefly; I suspect the Committee is The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Would familiar with it. he consider, as some animal welfare campaigners do, At the moment, it is mainly sheep that are exported that natural behaviour would be to allow a cow to keep for slaughter, with most animals coming from England. her calf with her for perhaps the first six months? It is Often, calves—mainly young dairy calves—are exported quite difficult to be specific about what natural behaviour live, and put on a long journey to Spain or Italy for might be. fattening for beef and veal. Those long journeys are stressful for the animals and, in some cases, result in Daniel Zeichner: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman great suffering due to overcrowding, high summer asks a probing question. I made the point earlier that temperatures and injuries received en route.Calves exported there are many levels of welfare to which we can aspire. from Scotland are often taken by road to Ramsgate in Some are even contentious, in the sense that not everything Kent and then by ferry to northern France, from where natural is necessarily something that we want to happen. they can be driven all the way to Spain or Italy. I am Responding to consumer demand is complicated. If told that previous journeys that have taken calves via consumers want the kind of standard of welfare that Ireland have lasted up to 135 hours. the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I would suggest The practice has been highly contentious for many that, in the business world, it is a good idea to give them years and we believe it should be ended once and for all. what they want—normally the argument made by the That would do a great amount of good and have only a other side—but that is costly. There is a dilemma, again, limited impact on the industry, as only one British for this mythical £3 billion pot we are all busily spending— sheep in 300 is involved in such trade and only 1.5% of [Interruption.] Well, it may not be £3 billion, we will British calves were involved in the export trade for see. There is a dilemma about which sectors to support, fattening in 2017. which we will come back to, and what level of welfare is reasonable. Beyond that, there is a further question. As the right Mr Goodwill: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise hon. Gentleman suggested, there may be things that lift that the reason we can discuss this practice is because to a very high standard, but who makes that decision? I we have left the European Union and have the freedom suspect that, as ever, there will be a spectrum. There can not to comply with single market rules? be very high standards, which we see with the plant-based milk alternatives people are choosing. I choose them in Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely my office, because my colleague does not drink dairy right, as he well knows. At the very least, it seems milk. We pay a premium, but we are happy to pay that. evident that those involved in the live export trade Consumers should be given the choice. That would be should not be receiving public subsidy for good animal the answer to his intervention. welfare. There is probably widespread agreement on Pigs need space; they need a quantity of bedding and that. Having said all that, there need to be exceptions materials to fill a range of species-specific behaviours, for genuine cross-border movements from Northern such as rooting, foraging, nesting and exploring. Providing Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, provided that the fibrous materials, including straw,brown wood, mushroom animals involved are not re-exported from the Republic. compost or natural vegetation, assists with comfort and We provide such an exemption in amendment 4. can reduce aggression. Similarly, systems for laying Other requirements for receiving money for higher hens should allow for species-specific behaviours such standards should include that livestock are not subjected as nesting, foraging, dust bathing, perching and exercise, to prohibited procedures such as mutilations, as defined including walking, running and brief bursts of flying. in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that livestock are killed only in the controlled environment of a 2.15 pm slaughterhouse unless a veterinary surgeon certifies Many years ago, when I lived in a rural area, I it necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and the discovered a chicken that had come off a lorry, doubtless method of killing is humane. Amendment 5 provides on its way to not a happy place. I do not think Trevor definitions for the practices outlined in amendment 4. ever imagined she would be mentioned in dispatches in the House of Commons, but it was astonishing to see how quickly that bird went back to exhibit exactly those Mr Goodwill: I will be brief. Under clause 1, which we behaviours, given the environment we imagine she had discussed earlier in the week, the list of objectives for been in for many weeks. That was quite an eye-opener. which financial assistance can be given includes, under I think the British public would want to see many of subsection (1)(f), these measures. The question is: are they prepared to “protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”. pay the price? That is part of the debate. It is not just Therefore, much of what the hon. Gentleman talks animal welfare enthusiasts who are asking for them. about is already covered in the Bill. While I can understand The Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the Government’s his wish to incentivise less tail docking and castration of independent advisory body, has stated: pigs, reduce the density of broiler chickens and phase 249 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 250 out farrowing crates, the intensive pig and poultry sectors TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment, have not received funding through the common agricultural Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is a pleasure policy system. My worry is that he is looking at ways of to follow my right hon. Friend, who as ever makes some switching support from the farms that have relied on it very valid points. Animal welfare is important to us all, —particularly extensive farms in the uplands, those and I am proud that, broadly speaking, it is also very farms that are producing the habitats and environmental important to farmers in this country. public goods that we want to protect—to the intensive Touching briefly on the issue of live exports, as I sector, which already manages very nicely. Switching to imagine the hon. Member for Cambridge knows, the some of these more welfare-friendly methods on a large Government has a manifesto commitment to end excessively scale could mop up quite large amounts of the money long journeys for animals going for slaughter or fattening. available. We have said to date that we are actively looking at this My second concern is about amendment 4’s proposed important issue, and I understand that a consultation is new subsection (4A)(d) to clause 2 of the Bill, which planned imminently for this spring, so that we can take talks about killing livestock it further as quickly as possible. “in any place other than in a slaughterhouse”. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman very clearly, and I am a little worried about the practicalities of how that not just by nodding, that there is no intention that relates to sick and injured animals on farms. The payments will be issued to farmers for achieving basic amendment states that a veterinary surgeon must have welfare standards. The Government are world leaders certified that the animal should be put out of its misery in animal welfare, and are committed to retaining that because of poor health, and that status by maintaining and strengthening our standards, as part of a comprehensive series of measures to improve “the method of killing is humane”. animal welfare. Using the powers in this Bill, we are I read that to mean that on every occasion when a developing a scheme that aims to improve welfare. As farmer wishes to humanely put an animal out of its pain part of that, we are exploring a one-off grant system or misery, they must be observed by a vet. In our village, that will help farmers to improve welfare on farms, and I have a neighbour whose farm has 16,000 laying hens. might well include some of the suggestions made by the It is an extensive system; they go outside. They are hon. Member for Cambridge, which we discussed earlier barn-raised hens produced under the very best welfare in our consideration of the Bill. standards, but from time to time a hen will be injured or,in some cases, attacked by other hens and my neighbour will need to euthanise it. I do not think it is realistic or Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): For clarification, practical to expect that the farmer will call a veterinary would that grant system be for capital expenditure to surgeon on every occasion that happens and incur a fee change the animals’ accommodation? If so, does the of maybe £40 or £50. Minister envisage that there will be ongoing revenue-type subsidies to maintain the higher welfare standards, or is Similarly, on my own farm, until last Saturday we it just capital that is being looked at? had four hens. Unfortunately, a pet dog got into our field on Saturday afternoon and killed two of them, and when I went on Sunday morning to let the two remaining Victoria Prentis: I envisage the specific grants that I hens out of the shed, one of them was obviously in a was just talking about as payments to enhance buildings, very bad way. The tail feathers that we thought had for example, or for other welfare issues. However, the been pulled out by the dog were hiding quite a nasty hon. Member is right to mention other means of paying injury, and I had to kill that hen myself. It would not for welfare, and it is true that the Bill is currently have been realistic for me to take that hen to the vet, or flexible. I expect that we will get into the detail of that to call a vet out. There are many instances in which an sort of issue as we progress with devising the schemes to animal is in great distress, maybe because it has a improve animal welfare. She is right to highlight that broken leg, and waiting for a vet to come would not be issue, and should make whatever points she wants to as practical, even if it were economically feasible. we devise the schemes. We are exploring a payment-by- I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do results scheme, under which farmers could receive ongoing not support his amendment, because I do not think he payments for delivering specific animal welfare has looked into the practicalities of animal welfare on a enhancements that are valued by the public but, as the farm when animals are sick. I think back to when we hon. Member for Cambridge said, not yet sufficiently used to keep a load of sheep. Sometimes sheep were in a valued by the market. The hon. Member for Bristol very bad way; perhaps they had had difficult lambing East is therefore right to continue to make whatever and were haemorrhaging. This might be taking place at points she wants to in that space. 2 o’clock in the morning, so the most humane thing to The amendment would restrict in primary legislation do was to put them out of their misery straightaway, what will be included in the new scheme before those without any delay and certainly without waiting for a involved in the industry, as well as the Animal Welfare vet to come, even if that were practical. If the hon. Committee, have had the opportunity to have their say. Gentleman wants to come back with similar amendments What defines enhanced animal welfare must be designed on Report, I hope he will look at paragraph (d) again, in consultation with those involved, so that the schemes because most practising farmers would look at it and deliver the best possible outcomes for consumers, the say, “This is not going to help animal welfare. This is industry and, most importantly, the animals themselves. going to mean animals dying in suffering, particularly if Our understanding of animal welfare today is far ahead by breaking these rules I lose all my subsidies.” I think of where it was when I was growing up on a farm, or many farmers would be very worried about that, so I 20 or 30 years ago. It would be short-sighted of us to set hope the hon. Gentleman understands the practicalities. out requirements in legislation for payments, as it would 251 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 252

[Victoria Prentis] using the opportunities available and we hope that the Government will get on with it. We would all like that to restrict our ability to develop or amend schemes, such happen. as the enhanced animal welfare scheme, when more The point relates to some of the earlier tensions. I evidence becomes available. think the Minister said that there is no intention to pay Turning specifically to amendment 42, improving the for basic welfare standards, which I understand. Page 20 health of the national livestock, herd or flock, requires of the policy discussion document—I hate to keep widespread co-ordinated action. We intend to launch referring to it, but it makes the point and has illuminated the first schemes to improve the health of farmed the discussion—asks what tier 1 could pay for and gives animals from 2022 to 2023, concentrating on endemic a wide range of examples. There is a tension between diseases. We are co-designing schemes with farmers and what she said and some of those examples, not least vets, prioritising cattle—both dairy and beef—sheep, because what it could pay for depends on exactly what is pigs and poultry, with the intention to widen participation being paid for on what unit. Farms are not all the same; to other species. Previous experience has shown that, some are mixed farms. without action being taken by the majority of farmers, The cross-compliance regulations that we had under efforts to control disease and improve health do not the European Union made it incumbent on the whole achieve very much. enterprise to conform to rules and regulations, but we That action does not have to be significantly above do not know, frankly, how that will work in this new the legal standards to be very effective, but it does need set-up and whether one part doing one thing disqualifies to be part of a concerted effort on the part of farmers or qualifies. Those are exactly the reasons why we and others, which can, of course, include central wanted a more detailed discussion, because we do not Government. We are worried that the amendment would know the answers. restrict us to providing financial assistance only, in I understand the Minister’s predicament, but it is all effect, to better-performing farmers. Actions such as very well for her to say, “Ah well, these things are tackling endemic disease are best done when a large difficult. It’s going to take time. The world’s going to proportion of farmers and livestock owners are involved. change,” and all the rest of it, but it ain’t going to If we limit the number of those who can benefit from a change for the people who are farming next year. They scheme, we will not be as successful in achieving our will have to deal with this, alongside the reductions that goals. are coming, like the sword of Damocles over them, at The hon. Member for Cambridge teased out the an unspecified pace. I am afraid that I do not think that question of what constitutes a significantly higher standard is good enough. We need to sort out some of the of animal health. There is no single measure of animal thinking behind it. health at the moment, and different actions to improve I hear the Minister’spoint about the potential unintended it will have different levels of public and private benefits. consequences when one is trying to apply a measure to I am sure that we will continue to discuss such matters. entire herds, but I am not convinced that it is impossible At the very least, the amendment would make an important to frame it in such a way that we could do that and still part of the financial clause difficult to work in practice, insist on high welfare standards for public money. This and could go so far as being counterproductive. I therefore is a matter of huge public interest, which is reflected in ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. the amount of correspondence that most MPs get on the 2.30 pm issue. If the Government want popular support for these policies, this is exactly the kind of amendment Daniel Zeichner: That was an interesting and illuminating that they would do well to look at. On that basis, I will discussion that, as ever,probably raised as many questions press the amendment to a vote. as it answered, sadly. I will start with the points made by the sharp-eyed The Chair: Would you like to press amendment 4 or right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I am amendment 42? sorry to hear about his unfortunate incident with the dog at the weekend. Daniel Zeichner: I would like to press amendment 42 Mr Goodwill: It was our favourite. and withdraw amendment 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Daniel Zeichner: I am sorry to hear that. The right Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I fully concede Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at that this was not a drafting error; I am not sure we end insert— guided those doing the drafting in quite the right way. I “(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under accept that we could improve on that. What we are section 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the trying to tease out, however, relates to the questions and health of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or points that I have already raised about what the public of any person to whom functions relating to the giving of financial want from the Bill. He implied that he was tempted to assistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or support one of the amendments. I would like to tempt improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher than him to support the other one, which does not have those that required by regulations made by the Secretary of State under objections attached to it, but I fear that I shall be section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural disappointed. activity].”—(Daniel Zeichner.) This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance for We are pushing for a commitment to much higher protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock to standards. The Minister made a series of important demonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of a points. On live animal export, we absolutely support significantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9. 253 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 254

Question put, That the amendment be made. not know where the money is coming from—we can make assumptions, but it is not clear: how much will it The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 11. cost and whose budget is it coming from? Division No. 10] There are plenty of unknowns, and we are trying to AYES encourage the Government to share their thinking with us. We would not necessarily disagree with them, but Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena knowing that would mean that we could query how Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia everything should work. There is a worry that, given the McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel ambition and complexity of some of the schemes, it could all end up costing a considerable amount of NOES money. Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon If the system is not properly regulated and controlled, Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia there could be opportunities for people for whom Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny environmental goals may not be the chief concern. Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James Even if that is not the case, employing people to carry Goodwill, rh Mr Robert out these complicated works could consume a lot of Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria legal time and effort—many of those people do not work on the wages that farm workers do, so it would Question accordingly negatived. probably be quite expensive. Of course, there is a delicate irony to all this: one of Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 44, in the chief complaints about the current system is the clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert— bureaucracy associated with it. I think we all probably “(4A) No more than 5% of the financial assistance given share that frustration. The question is whether the through a financial assistance scheme in any particular financial bureaucracy has grown for reasons of its own, or whether year shall be spent on administration or consultancy. there is actually a good reason for it. The Opposition (4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the think there is often a good reason for regulation and proportion of financial assistance specified in subsection (4A).” oversight, and we think there has been too much This amendment, along with Amendments 45,46 and 47 would place a deregulation over the years. There will probably be a 5% limit on the amount of financial assistance which can be spent in slight difference of opinion on this issue. I suspect that any year on administration or consultancy. the world is changing a bit now that we have seen the dangers of just dismissing bureaucracy as somehow The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss being a problem; many of us who have worked in the following: bureaucracies think there is quite a good reason for Amendment 45, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after enlargement in some cases. “subsection” insert “(4B) or subsection” The Opposition are looking particularly at the clause 3 See explanatory statement for Amendment 44. measures on checking, enforcing and monitoring financial assistance. The Government want the Bill to be simple, Amendment 46, in clause 2, page 4, line 4, at end but they also want a comprehensive system for checking insert— that it is working. I suggest there is a tension there, “(10A) For the purposes of this Act, “administration or which we would like to know a bit about. We are left consultancy”includes money spent on “administration or consultancy other than in connection with the purposes in section [Financial with a lot of unanswered questions about how any of assistance: duty to provide advice].” this will work. Again, it goes back to the detail in the See explanatory statement for Amendment 44. environmental land management document. As I said earlier, it is laced with good intentions but also many Amendment 47, in clause 5, page 6, line 13, after questions. “year”, insert The Minister will doubtless say, “Well, we’ve got “, and (c) the amount of money spent on administration or consultancy, within the meaning of subsection (10A) of section 2” seven years to sort it out and it’s an iterative process,” and so forth. I suspect that, among hon. Members who See explanatory statement for Amendment 44. are still in Parliament in seven years’ time, some might well look back and say, “Maybe people should have Daniel Zeichner: Amendment 44 is another probing asked a few more questions.” To cover my back against amendment. We are seeking to establish what protections that possibility—not that I necessarily assume that I there are against the financial assistance schemes’ will be here in seven years’ time—I am trying to shed administration costs being able to swallow large swathes some light on this issue. of the budget. This is slightly difficult, since we still do Looking at the complex web of organisations involved not fully understand how they work; we are in a tricky in all these processes—the Environment Agency, Natural position, but we think it is important that this issue be England, DEFRA itself and so on—it is fair to ask addressed. whose budget any financial assistance will come from. I We have talked already about the importance of imagine that argument is going on behind closed doors. having comprehensive enforcement measures in place Everyone can see there is a pot of money, and presumably that work to support compliance with the financial everyone thinks they will be given the resources needed. assistance schemes. However, I suggest that it is just as As I have already hinted, there is a real danger that the important to ensure that the bureaucracy associated pot of money will diminish if everyone gets the budget with that does not take over the schemes at the expense necessary to do what they want. It could be the poor old of money going to farmers to deliver environmental public farmer, or the local rural area, that finds the money has goods. The issue is clouded by the fact that we still do gone somewhere else. 255 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 256

[Daniel Zeichner] tried to frame it in a way that we think might work, making sure it is spent within that year. We have also The Government need to tell us a bit more about been generous enough to suggest that the Secretary of their estimates of how much all this will cost. We have State could vary that via regulation in the light of the suggested a 5% cut, which is not an informed figure—we iterative process. can come up with an informed figure only if we have Amendment 45 would subject those regulations to much more information on what the Government are the affirmative resolution procedure so that proper thinking. Our concern is that, in the first year, it would parliamentary debate could be had about the changes. look as though there is some headroom from the 5% The Secretary of State would then be able to make cut. One would imagine that setting up some of these the case for why the proportion may well be higher at things will be quite expensive in the first place. We can the beginning. That might not be unreasonable, but the envisage a situation in which the 5% in the first year amendment would provide a method of proper discussion does not go towards environmental improvements at and scrutiny.We think the advice to farmers is important, all. and we support that, so amendment 46 excludes from I used to be a software programmer, and I know how “administration or consultancy” any money spent on well most computer systems work. People are filled with advice supplied to farmers. We genuinely appreciate confidence and enthusiasm but things do not work out that this system is not going to work without that kind in quite the way imagined, not least because the poor of advice. people designing the systems have the same problem: if Amendment 47 would add into the annual report on it is not clear what we are trying to do, we cannot always financial assistance, which clause 5 obliges the Secretary provide a system that fits. My point is that a lot of of State to produce, how much money had been spent money might need to be spent upfront. [Interruption.] I on administration or consultancy that year. We are thought the Minister was about to intervene and tell me trying to create a framework—this is a framework the answer, but she is not. Bill—for proper reporting that is open to scrutiny and We certainly need clarity, which goes back to another transparency. It is almost like a nutcracker getting some fairly basic philosophical point: in other policy areas, purchase or bite on a nut; I suspect that some farmers we are familiar with the difficulty of targeted schemes think that they are already subjected to a nutcracker in in one way or another. The argument about universalism various ways. We want to give the Secretary of State the versus means-testing, be it for the BBC licence fee or ability to really drive down on administrative costs. any of the welfare payments, is well rehearsed. We know there is a considerable overhead with running these Victoria Prentis: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we kinds of schemes. That was part of the reason for the pledged to guarantee the current annual budget to reforms to the CAP some years ago—people had got farming in every year of this Parliament. I want to frustrated with the costs, overheads and bureaucracy. make it completely clear that that commitment is separate from the funding that the Government requires to To return to EU regulation 1307/2013, on direct administer future financial assistance schemes, which payments to farmers, we want to make the system itself is determined through Government spending simpler. Everybody wants to make it simpler until it reviews—behind closed doors, as he puts it. To make it comes to designing the system. These things have a crystal clear, the running costs for DEFRA and the habit of growing, so we want to tie it down and get DEFRA group are considered separately from the payments a commitment from the Government. I am not wedded made to beneficiaries. I hope that clears up one of his to 5%—I would be very happy to hear a different questions. suggestion—but that is our starting point. As we continue to develop the future schemes, we may find that we need to include some administration 2.45 pm costs for third parties, such as those incurred to run If I were to explain what we are talking about today farm clusters or other groups that bring together multiple to my colleagues who are not watching the Agriculture farmers and land managers to provide some of the Bill daily, many of them would think about constituents schemes envisaged in the hon. Gentleman’s favourite coming to their surgery—I am sure all hon. Members new document. At this stage, we are unwilling to lock have experienced this—to discuss how the personal ourselves into saying how much will be spent on independence payments system works, or something administration and consultancy. It will vary enormously like that. In those cases, there is extraordinary bureaucracy. from scheme to scheme. I am sure we have all encountered cases of people I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make saying, “I did manage to walk 10 yards across the room sure that we remain transparent about the costs of because I was really trying,” which means that they fail. running our schemes, and I reassure him that we are Most of us agree that we do not want people to be put dedicated to remaining open and honest about our through that, but that is where we get to with these very proposals and their costs. The purpose of the ELM prescriptive schemes if we are not careful. document that we have heard so much about today is to That is the challenge, the basic philosophical point, start the discussion and to seek input from farmers, for the Minister and I wish her well with it. It would be foresters and other land managers in co-designing the helpful to her, frankly, if a tight limit were set so that policy, and to give a demonstration of the open and officials could be exercised in trying to work it all out. I transparent way in which we are going to be designing hope people see what we are trying to do. We do not the schemes. want the public to come back to us and say, “Come on! Similarly, the new clause we introduced that commits All you have done is taken money away from local us to publishing annual financial reports on scheme communities and farmers, and passed it on to outside expenditure will enable the public to examine how much consultants.” Amendment 44 proposes 5%. We have we are spending. Those reports could include a breakdown 257 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 258 of administration and consultancy costs, if the Secretary Ruth Jones: It is a pleasure to serve under your of State so desires—I thank the hon. Gentleman for his chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am very pleased to have suggestions on that. The public, and Parliament acting the opportunity to speak to amendments 49 and 50. on their behalf, have a right to expect that public funds Mindful of the Chair’s previous exhortations, I will not will be used wisely and so we will, of course, be following read out the amendments, but I remind colleagues that the rules under the Treasury’s “Managing public money” both amendments ensure that no financial assistance guidance. can be given for land that is to be or has been used for I reassure members of the Committee that we recognise hunting, including exempt hunting, or on which an and are committed to delivering value for our taxpayers. offence has been committed under the Hunting Act. Indeed, that is partly why we wish to keep such flexibility These are important amendments. I hope the Minister —to ensure that financial assistance is always delivered will think carefully about the need for us to show in the most streamlined and efficient way. I therefore leadership and for this Parliament to pass legislation ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. that is bold and strong and enshrines our values. Those values mean that I am especially pleased to speak to the Daniel Zeichner: The Minister has given a welcome amendments. clarification. The obvious rejoinder is: where is the Colleagues on this side will not need to be reminded, headroom in the DEFRA budget for these very ambitious but I want to reiterate to the Minister and her Back plans? I suspect we will return to that question. I was Benchers that Labour is the party of animal welfare. just flicking through my favourite document, but The Conservative party likes to talk about the last unfortunately could not find the appropriate line. Labour Government—so do I: we should remember [Interruption.] I know; it is a shame. I am pretty sure that, when in government, Labour brought forward the that there is a suggestion somewhere in there that some landmark and history-making Hunting Act 2004. of the money saved from basic payments could be used for some of this work. We can return to that point another day. Mr Goodwill: Is the hon. Member talking about the I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful response. I beg most recent Labour Government or the actual last to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Labour Government? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, leave Ruth Jones: I will pass on the semantics, but I thank out the right hon. Gentleman. “or operated on behalf of” The Conservative party has an appalling record on and insert “by”.—(Victoria Prentis.) animal welfare in government. Announcements are often This drafting amendment is intended to clarify the exclusion of piecemeal, weak and kicked into the long grass when it financial assistance schemes made by the Secretary of State from the comes to the advancement of animal welfare in every definition of a third party scheme and also to achieve consistency with sense, including providing financial assistance for land other references in the Bill to things done by the Secretary of State. As on which hunting takes place. a matter of legal interpretation a reference to something done by the Secretary of State will pick up things done by others acting in the name Many colleagues have repeatedly raised concerns about of or on behalf of the Secretary of State. the use of trail hunting as a cover for illegal hunting. The weight of evidence from independent monitors and Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to move non-governmental organisations shows that trail hunting amendment 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end is not a genuine activity. Indeed, a poll commissioned insert— by the League Against Cruel Sports found that only one “(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for any act or in six rural residents believes that hunting with dogs activity in pursuit of a purpose under section 1 if the land on reflects countryside values; more than nine in 10 think which that act or activity is to take place is to be used by the that observing nature reflects true rural values. applicant, or by a person acting with the consent of the applicant, The Bill needs to show that we care, that we will lead for hunting of a wild mammal with a dog, whether or not that hunting is exempt under section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004.”. by example and that legislation made in this House is relevant and sensible. Wildlife crime continues to blight Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including many of our rural and green spaces, and many animal exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the species across the country. There can be little confidence Hunting Act. on the Government Benches that wildlife crime is being tackled effectively when the National Wildlife Crime The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Unit now has only 12 members of staff: they are required amendment 50, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end to cover the entirety of its UK operations. We need to insert— get our house in order, and provide adequate resources “(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for a purpose to ensure that we can enforce legislation. under section 1 if land on which any act or activity is to take I mentioned the successes of the last Labour place in pursuance of that purpose is land on which— Government. (a) an offence has been committed under section 1, 3 or 5 of the Hunting Act 2004, or (b) exempt hunting, within the meaning of section 2 of the Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): Mention Hunting Act 2004, has taken place since 18 February some more! 2005.”. Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including Ruth Jones: I will. This month marked 15 years since exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the hunting with dogs was banned in England and Wales—two Hunting Act. years after a ban was introduced in Scotland by the then 259 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 260

[Ruth Jones] Minister, then Back Bencher, noted that some of her constituents would disagree with her support for the Labour-led Government of my noble Friend, Lord repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. I confess that that McConnell, through the Protection of Wild Mammals applies to me too. (Scotland) Act 2002. The 2004 Act, which banned The Minister also said that she believes that her hunting in England and Wales, was a landmark moment support for the repeal of the Act does not mean that she in the fight against animal cruelty, but there is still much has no regard for animal welfare. I say to her today that to do to end the scourge of fox, deer and hare hunting she should show us how much she cares by supporting in the British countryside. these important amendments. She went on to say that, I am sure that Members from across the House will “the Government should work closely with rural communities, have received pleas from constituents of all ages during animal welfare experts and lawyers”. the election that we continue to make progress on She is now part of the Government, so she can listen to measures to tackle animal cruelty. In my constituency, I the experts and support amendments that demonstrate received numerous pleas that we take the matter seriously. our commitment to strong, secure and effective animal I would go so far as to say that people in Newport West welfare policies. care more about animals than they do about—no, that is not true. It could be construed as such, but obviously Opposition Members are committed to ending the they care equally for animals and people. hunting of animals with dogs once and for all. The end goal is clear, but it requires us to be on our guard and There are still 299 hunts active across Britain. Frankly, alive to the new opportunities that may arise to continue the sheer scale of the problem is shocking. The loopholes the chasing and killing of animals. Amendments 49 and are widely exploited, and exemptions in the law show 50 would be an important step on the way to meeting that we need to strengthen the ban. We can do that by our end goal. I hope that hon. Members on both sides supporting the amendments. The Government need to of the Committee will support them. crack down on illegal hunting, and they can do that by strengthening the Bill and supporting the amendments. There is no real space for people to excuse away the 3 pm chasing and killing of foxes as a mere accident, and Mr Goodwill: Again, I worry about the unintended what possible scientific research could justify chasing consequences of the amendments that have been put deer with dogs for hours across miles of countryside, forward for understandable and, for a large section of only to shoot them at the end? the community, well-meaning reasons. The explanatory As the system of agricultural support payments shifts statements say that the amendments, towards payment for public goods, we must ensure that “would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land public money does not support a cruel sport that should which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempt have been consigned utterly to history long ago. It hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the cannot be right for public money, designated to fund Hunting Act.” real public goods such as animal welfare, could end up When one interrogates section 2 of the Hunting being be paid to places where land is also used for Act 2004 and the exemptions listed in schedule 1 to find hunting with dogs. The amendments would rule that out what is defined as exempt hunting, one reads that out, and should be accepted by the Government. that includes flushing using no more than two dogs, so Landowners are an important link in the chain. Hunts that animals such as rabbits can be shot. In many cases, need land to operate on, and the more they are denied it it says, that can be done to protect the biological diversity the less opportunity there will be to flout the law. of an area or to obtain meat for human consumption. If we make every effort to remove the temptations My key concern is that there is a long list under and opportunities to hunt, we will be doing what we can exempt hunting—I am not talking about trail hunting— to stop the illegal killing of innocent animals. That was including using just one dog, whereas the Act refers recognised by the Labour group of Nottinghamshire only to using more than two dogs. Amendment 49 talks County Council, which passed a motion calling for the about using “a dog”. The hon. Member for Newport end of hunting, including exempt hunting, on council- West can correct me if I am wrong, but from what I owned land. I pay tribute to colleagues on the council have read, if a terrier has killed a rat on a farm at any for their activism and campaigning, and for standing up time since 2004, that farm will be exempt from getting for what is right. By preventing support payments being any agricultural support. I would hazard a guess that paid to landowners convicted of knowingly allowing that would cover at least 95% of the farmland in this illegal hunting to take place, which we can do by supporting country, if not 100%. the amendments, we will ensure that landowners think When the hon. Lady talked about land, she was not twice before allowing hunting on their land, and provide specific about whether she meant the bit of land where added impetus to police and law enforcement authorities the offence may or may not have taken place, the entire to pursue charges when they suspect landowners to farm or the land in the ownership of that particular have broken the law. farmer or landowner, or whether the exemption still I am pleased that the new Minister has been appointed. applies if the land is sold or the tenant who controls I genuinely look forward to working with her on the Bill that land gives in the tenancy and it goes to a new and working with her in the months and years ahead. tenant. My worry is that the amendments leave us with When I was preparing this speech, I visited her website more questions than answers. If they are taken at face to see her views on hunting and what she said when she value—the Minister is a lawyer, so she is good at taking was an enthusiastic and conscientious Back Bencher. things at face value—and adopted, we could end up Like all good pupils, I found some interesting material. with maybe 100% of land in this country being exempt Under a section called “Victoria’s views”, the now from getting any support at all. 261 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 262

Daniel Zeichner: I was rather anticipating that we rely on pressure groups and lobby groups to help with would have a discussion about this issue. This is public our work, but taking things at face value is not always money for public goods. We are trying to reflect what the best way forward. Secondly, the objective of the Bill we believe is the strong view of the British public that is not to support people killing rats with terriers, or they would not want public money to be used to support people conducting legal activity within the context of hunting. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we the Hunting Act; it is to support our agricultural industry should try to reflect the will of the people? in a way that also achieves the green environmental objectives that we all want to meet. Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) rose— The hon. Member for Cambridge will not be surprised to hear that I will not be supporting these amendments. Mr Goodwill: I will take the other intervention, which Whether or not Members agree with hunting is almost I suspect may be on the same subject, before I reply to beside the point, because the amendments are drafted them both, if I may. in such a way as to destroy the objective of the Bill, Alicia Kearns: If this legislation is meant to be pragmatic which is to give support to farmers, particularly in some —if it is there to support farmers and ensure they act in of the most challenging parts of our country—those the right way to steward our environment and our areas where farming is most difficult to make economically communities—should we not therefore be doing pragmatic attractive, where predation from foxes and rats are things, rather than virtue signalling? We should recognise problems, and where other types of pest control need to that cats have every right to hunt down mice if that is be carried out. The exemptions within the Hunting Act what they want to do, and therefore restricting what farmers exist to allow those legal activities to take place, and my can do in this way is neither sensible nor the place of guess is that using the amendments to take them out of legislation; rather, it is the place of press releases. that Act and make those farms exempt from support would take out nearly 100% of the farmland in the Mr Goodwill: My hon. Friend makes a good point, United Kingdom. Even farmers farming National Trust which answers the shadow Minister’s point very well. land where hunting is not allowed by the landlord will He has talked about the will of the people: the will of be carrying out rabbit and rat control, which is one of the people was expressed on 12 December last year, the exemptions that the hon. Member for Newport when they elected a majority Conservative Government. West is seeking to bring back in. I conducted an extensive survey of my constituents Victoria Prentis: Environmental land management prior to my election. We got about 20,000 replies to that will, as we said earlier, be most successful if the highest questionnaire, which asked lots of questions, including number of participants are enabled to join in. As my one about hunting. The Whitby part of my constituency right hon. Friend has just made clear,I fear this amendment was about 60/40 in favour of hunting; in the Scarborough would limit uptake of our exciting new schemes, and part, it was about 60/40 the other way. I went to a therefore limit the environmental benefits that we all primary school not long before the election, and as we hope will flow from them. For example, under the all do when we visit schools, I talked about the issues suggested tiers 2 and 3 it will be vital for farmers and that the children wanted to talk about. Hunting did land managers to work together across a wide area, to come up, and one child who came from a farming deliver the environmental benefits we hope for, such as family made it very clear that she took a dim view of improving the status of habitats. Excluding some land foxes, and the fact that they had been in her family’s hen from being eligible could prevent us from delivering coop and were taking newborn lambs. She underlined those benefits. the need to control foxes. I am concerned that the amendment might penalise legal We are not revisiting the hunting legislation in this activities. For example, exempt hunting is, by its nature, Committee; rather, we are looking at what the practical exempt from the Hunting Act 2004, and is a legal activity implications would be if this amendment were on the with clearly defined restrictions. No one should be face of the Bill, with its provisions being retrospective penalised or have financial assistance withheld for carrying and applicable to exempt activities such as one dog out or allowing lawful activities on their land. killing one rat or two dogs being used to flush a rabbit Amendment 50 concerned me because it would exempt to be shot. If those exemptions were removed, almost from financial assistance those on whose land hunting every farm in the country would be covered by that had been carried out without their knowledge. For retrospective application. example, hare coursing, which many hon. Members will Daniel Zeichner: I fully accept that we can always have had difficulty with in their constituencies, is an improve the drafting. What I am trying to get at is offence under the Hunting Act, and is often undertaken whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that public without landowner or land manager consent, often by money—taxpayers’money—should be supporting hunting, illegal trespassers. in whatever form. We are trying to get at that to build I am also concerned that exempting land that has on the landmark legislation that has been so popular. been used for hunting since February 2005, as my right As we know, the Government are fairly reluctant to get hon. Friend said, including legal hunting activities, back into this debate. could mean that we are exempting financial assistance from being awarded to lawful landowners or managers, Mr Goodwill: My first point is that if the hon. Member who had no control over what had happened on that for Newport West had drafted the amendment herself, land previously. she might have looked in a bit more detail at what I hope I have made clear the difficulties in seeking to schedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 actually says and restrict financial assistance in such a way. I therefore what exemptions should be referred to, rather than ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw making a general reference to exempt practices. We all the amendment. 263 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 264

Ruth Jones: I thank hon. Members for their interventions The Chair: I have not had any notice that the Opposition and the Minister for her comments. I thank the right want to press amendments 50, 45, 64, 46 and 5. Is that hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for his correct? advice about not taking things at face value. I promise him that I have spoken at length to farmers in my Daniel Zeichner: I think that is correct. constituency about hunting, as well as pest control and 3.15 pm vermin control, which are two very different things. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Bill. potential unintended consequences of the amendments. We are willing to work with others in this room to The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss ensure that the amendments are drafted soundly and the following: safely, but we wish to put forward the basic spirit of the New clause 18—Financial assistance: duty to provide amendments today.He has gone to extremes by suggesting advice— that no landowner in the country would ever get any “(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to secure money again. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton the provision of training, guidance and advice to persons made the point about cats killing mice and rats. My cats receiving financial assistance under this Act, for the purpose of killed mice and rats, but I am not seeking public money enabling those persons to deliver the purpose or purposes for for public good. That is the difference. which the financial assistance is given. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision for Mr Goodwill: Cats are exempt from the Bill, so that advice on matters which include but are not limited to— would still be allowed. (a) the impact of any practice upon the environment, (b) business management, including the development of business plans, Ruth Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for (c) the health and welfare of livestock, that, but the point is, if one is not seeking public money (d) the safety and health of workers in any agricultural for public good, it is not a problem. sector, We need to work together to ensure that these (e) innovation, including alternative methods of pest, amendments come through. Everyone is aware of the disease and weed control, pressure groups. There is the idea that hunting is a (f) food safety, insofar as it relates to the production of sport, and it has been taken up as a sport over hundreds food or any activity in, or in close connection with, of years. We, as a civilised society, should look to close an agri-food supply chain, that down. We have no problem with controlling vermin. (g) the operation of any mechanism for applying for, or The right hon. Gentleman made the point about foxes, receiving, financial assistance under this Act, and which I completely understand, having had friends who (h) marketing of any product falling within an agricultural have had chickens decimated by foxes, which, as he sector under Schedule 1. knows, do not eat them, but leave them. (3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.” We have no problems with controlling pests and This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision vermin, but hunting is a massive game in the countryside for training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons and people do not want to see animals being put receiving financial assistance. through this insecure and frightening sport. The evidence New clause 23—Consultation on financial assistance of the unintended consequences of hunting is clear: cats schemes and multi-annual financial assistance plans— and dogs are killed as a result of trail hunting. It is “(1) Prior to framing any financial assistance scheme under important that we mitigate to stop that. While we are section 1 or to preparing a multi-annual financial assistance plan happy to work together on the wording of these under section 4, the Secretary of State must carry out a amendments, it is important that we work together to consultation on the design of the scheme and how it relates to the ensure they are accepted. The spirit of them is very Government’s strategic priorities for giving financial assistance. clear and I hope the Government will accept that. (2) In the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— Question put, That the amendment be made. (a) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. of interests substantially affected by the scheme, Division No. 11] (b) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as appear to the Secretary of State likely to apply for AYES financial assistance, Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia (c) any relevant authority under section [Consultation on Jones, Ruth giving of financial assistance], Oppong-Asare, Abena Zeichner, Daniel (d) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” NOES New clause 24—Consultation on giving of financial assistance— Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon “(1) Financial assistance under section 1 may only be given to Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia a person following consultation with— Dines, Miss Sarah Kruger, Danny (a) the relevant authority under subsection (3) for the area Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James in which land for which financial assistance being Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria claimed is situated, (b) the owner, or representative of an owner, of any land Question accordingly negatived. adjacent to that for which financial assistance is being claimed, 265 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 266

(c) any water undertaker under section 6 of the Water Weare considering a range of approaches for delivering Industry Act 1991 whose area includes land for the advice—for example, one-to-one advice and support which financial assistance is being claimed, direct to land managers. That could include, as we have (d) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as discussed, agronomists visiting farms to give specialist appear to the Secretary of State to be representative advice. We are also considering group training, telephone of interests substantially affected by the giving of the and online support, and peer-to-peer learning. financial assistance, Weare still exploring different mechanisms for providing (e) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. advice for all our schemes, but we would not want to lock ourselves into providing advice that may become (2) The consultation under subsection (1) may seek views on— out of date in the future and we are keen to retain (a) the amount of financial assistance to be given to a sufficient flexibility to adapt how we provide advice as person, we continue to learn. We want to break away from the (b) the purposes for which a person is to be given the common agricultural policy’srigid and inflexible approach. financial assistance, Weare firmly committed to offering a range of supportive (c) the outcomes which the person in receipt of financial measures to ensure that our farmers and land managers assistance should be expected to deliver, and will have access to good-quality advice, guidance and (d) the potential for giving financial assistance in connection training. with a third party scheme under section 2(5). I come now to new clause 23. We recognise the (3) For the purposes of this section and section [Consultation importance of engaging with farmers, foresters and on financial assistance schemes and multi-annual financial other land managers as we start to implement our assistance plans], a “relevant authority” is— reforms. Consultation and co-design are at the heart of (a) a parish council, or what we will do. We have extensive plans for, and a track (b) where there is not a parish council— record of, working with industry, experts and other (i) a principal authority in an area with a single tier of interested parties. local government as defined by section 1 of the The Department published our consultation on proposed Local Government and Public Involvement in reforms to farming in February 2018 and received more Health Act 2007, or than 40,000 responses, each of which was read and (ii) a district council or London Borough Council in an considered. We can see the effects of that consultation area other than in subsection (3)(b)(i).” throughout the policy document that we produced earlier this week. We will also consult on the detailed ELM scheme design after the pilot has started. That consultation Victoria Prentis: Clause 2 establishes certain aspects will build on what we have learned from the tests and of how financial assistance provided under chapter 1 trials, as well as the national pilot, and will help us to may be administered. It provides for funding to be refine and finalise our scheme design before the launch subject to conditions and makes it clear that funding of the full scheme in 2024. These activities, I hope, will may include conditions under which it can be recovered. do exactly what new clause 23 seeks to achieve. We will We recognise that the expertise of individuals outside also seek additional views and opinions from farmers, Government can play an important role in delivery. For foresters, land managers and other interested parties that reason, the clause allows financial assistance to be through various special events and roundtables held given to those who operate their own schemes and throughout the country. enables the Secretary of State to delegate functions New clause 24 would require us to consult in in relation to giving financial assistance. To ensure an inflexible manner before giving financial assistance. transparency, the clause also creates a power for the Requiring the Government to consult neighbouring Secretary of State to make regulations to require the landowners and local authorities before any payment is publication of information about payments. made could prove problematic and introduce significant Turning to new clause 18, I welcome the opportunity extra administration and delay into the system. For to discuss the types of support that we will look to offer example, in the case of our animal health schemes, there those in receipt of financial assistance under clause 1. are around 67,000 registered livestock holdings alone. This is an important topic. While we would not make payments to all these, consulting We recognise that there must be an effective advisory on every payment to a small proportion could make the service to support ELM and other schemes established delivery of the scheme burdensome and possibly under clause 1. In the discussion document, about unworkable. which we have heard so much, we have invited contributions on key topics, including on advice and guidance, and Daniel Zeichner: This goes to the heart of the problem. some of our tests and trials are focused on this area. For We do not know how many of these schemes will be ELM, the tier that farmers, foresters or other land administered. Until we know, it is very hard for us to managers take part in could affect the type of advice comment. that they need. For example, some may need advice at the scheme application stage; others may need help and Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman and I have had support in planning their interventions. How much this discussion several times today already. Having new advice and guidance they require may change, depending duties to consult, such as this, could result in unintended on their level of experience. Therefore, the advice and consequences, which I am keen to avoid. For example, if guidance framework for ELM will be flexible and able we need to respond to an emerging environmental issue, to adapt to the specific requirements of the participants such as a novel disease or tree pest blight, having to and the outcomes that they are seeking to deliver. The consult widely on a new financial assistance scheme new clause would restrict that necessary flexibility. would make the grant less useful and effective. 267 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 268

Daniel Zeichner: This is both interesting and important. My strong sense is that local councils are not party It again goes to the intended relationship between the political, by and large.People there are absolutely motivated tiers. Tier 3 schemes, at the catchment-area level, could to ensure the best for their local communities. They are have a big effect on the local landscape. Even if the not always as representative as they should be, in my Minister does not like our suggestion for tier 1—I see view—I do not think the farming community have to her point, if it would apply to large numbers—surely worry about that; in many cases they are well represented there is a case for tier 3. on those bodies—but they know their patch inside-out. I remember many discussions about gullies and culverts Victoria Prentis: There will certainly be a case, with going long into the night. Sometimes it was hard to the wider tier 3 schemes, to involve more people, because keep up. They know their local patch. If we are using the aim is to cross farm boundaries in order to provide a public money for transformative schemes for local areas, public good over a wider area. However, we do not want I think these people have something to add. to tie ourselves to an inflexible consultation. Believe I understand the tension with wanting to respond you me, I have been involved in DEFRA for under two swiftly, but it is important that local communities are weeks and I am amazed by the level of consultation taken along in that, and I think there are dangers if they with which DEFRA is prepared to engage. I really think are not, frankly.It is not something that is easily resolved, that we do not want to tie ourselves to inflexible amounts but I hope that people will go away and think about of consultation, or consultations of the type that do not some of that. To some extent, local councillors are an enable us to react quickly when needed. Responding in unused asset and an unused store of local knowledge. a timely manner may be important, such as when dealing There are difficulties, because some of them might have with a disease or blight to a particular plant. I am conflicts of interest. In the end, the Minister’s suggestion concerned that the new clause is too inflexible. that consultation is a bit slow and tedious—perhaps I I agree that the new clauses raise important issues, am being unfair—is something we all struggle with, but I think we should take a flexible but reasonable and but that is what democracy is like. We are the country proportionate approach to consultation, in line with we are because we are prepared to spend that time the Cabinet Office consultation principles. Requiring having that discussion with people. I hope I have not engagement in legislation is not necessary or, indeed, misrepresented her. appropriate, and could result in our going back to the difficult days of delays in payments, which we all worked so hard to get over. Victoria Prentis: Yes, you have. The Government have proven our commitment to joint working and consultation repeatedly, and we intend Daniel Zeichner: Oh, I have. In which case, I withdraw to continue that. I hope I have reassured the hon. that suggestion. I understand what the Minister is saying. Member for Cambridge and the Committee that we will She is trying to find a balance between an appropriate be taking appropriate action on engagement to ensure level of involvement without squandering the opportunity that financial assistance schemes are delivered in the to act. I also have to say that a lot of the environmental best way possible. As such, I ask him to withdraw the goods we are talking about are not tackling an immediate amendment. crisis. In some cases, they are making long-term transformations, and it is important that local communities Daniel Zeichner: Today’s discussions have been most have their voice. illuminating and interesting and have shown the benefit of giving the proposals detailed scrutiny. To refer to my Going back to where I was going to start, I made it earlier comments, it would be so much easier with the clear in my comments on a previous amendment that detail before us. I think we are genuinely having a we are strongly committed to the advice-giving role. In dialogue that explores some of the tensions and issues. fact, I just do not think that any of these things can be I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that there done without that offer of advice and help. On Tuesday, is a case for wider involvement. Earlier, she acknowledged I did suggest that with slightly naive optimism. I am a that maybe tier 2 and certainly tier 3 had some similarities naive optimist and perfectly up for that, some of this with some of the previous pillar 2 schemes. Those of us will be a bit more difficult than some of the policy who have been involved in rural development over papers suggest. We are asking people to change the way many years will be familiar with the European Union that many of them have operated for a very long time. LEADER schemes. My understanding and recollection The incentive we are giving them is basically a stick, by from when I was involved is that there was local authority saying, “You are going to lose your money.” Some involvement, and that is the bit I am worried is missing. people respond positively to that, which is great—I am sure those are the farms that we are generally shown It does not seem to have come up in discussion much, around. but we are talking about public money being spent in rural, semi-rural and sometimes urban areas—my city 3.30 pm of Cambridge has a farm—yet the bit that seems to be My recollection from my days as a district councillor missing is the public voice, or even the voice of individual in a very rural area is that there were also plenty of members of the local community. I get what the Minister other farmers, and I am not sure that all of them will be is saying. I was a parish councillor. I started my glorious quite so easy to work with. It will need advisers who ascent many years ago on Dickleburgh parish council. have a whole range of skills, not just farming-related As a district councillor, like many others, I used to skills. In moving people from where they are now to regularly attend parish councils. In fact, my partner where want them to be—this goes back to my earlier seemed to think that, as far as she was concerned, there narrative, and we will probably pick this up when we was a parish council meeting for every night of the debate the clause on delinking—there is a risk that a lot week. There are pros and cons for our parish councils. of people will just decide, “It’s not for me.” In fact, I 269 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 270 have already heard people say that. That is another big entire budget going to one project, which it could do. It decision we have to take and it could be the way we go, could be argued that that might be the most environmentally but is that we want to do? I am not convinced that it is. sustainable thing to do, but there lies the problem. The We need to ensure that we have the resources now system being replaced is one under which people basically that the Minister has finally conceded that the budget had almost an entitlement to public support by virtue will not come out of the moneys from direct payments. of owning land—we were very critical of it, although if On one level, that is very welcome. Given that it is not it had been applied properly and was subject to proper particularly easy, however, it prompts questions about environmental improvement, there was a possibility to how much it will cost, where the money will come from, make it work—but we have no idea about the distribution and whether we will have the skilled people to do it. I of resources under the new framework. We do not even worry about smaller farms. Big farms, which have the really know what the Government think would be a resources and are used to dealing with the system, will good outcome. Part of my worry about all this is that probably be able to make the transformation. They there is too much that we do not know. might not all be enthusiastic, but they will be able to Advice will need to be made available to farmers have a dialogue. I worry about smaller farmers, and I do about a broad range of areas to incentivise take-up, not think it unreasonable to suggest that—going back which we hope to see, and to support them in delivering to my earlier point—there might be a bigger plan. I these environmental public goods. We will need really wonder whether that plan includes smaller farmers in good information and explanations about why particular many parts of the country, because there is potentially a practices that people have perhaps been doing for a big social impact. while are not approved of. We will need really good Looking back at the previous environmental schemes— targeted help for people, with proposed innovations which is one of the good bits of the document—the towards better animal welfare practices or alternative evidence clearly shows that having access to an adviser methods of pest, disease and weed control. We need makes a big difference to their success. It is well worth clear guidelines on how the various financial assistance providing advice to farmers on how they can meet schemes work, and support with business management environmental outcomes, navigate the often difficult plans, to make the transition to ELMS work for each paperwork—I suspect it is probably now done on a farming unit. I am still not clear about how we will computer—and request money from these schemes, make sure it is properly resourced and funded, or that because such advice can help to address gaps in the we have sufficient people with the capacity to do this. To skills, knowledge and motivation of farmers and land go back to the question of how many will be in tier 1, if managers. It can help to build confidence, ultimately advice is offered to all those people, that will be a big leading to better outcomes than for people who are not job. We will probably be pursuing the matter of how supported by advice. That is something we have heard much that is likely to cost on another occasion through from stakeholders and from witnesses in Committee. written questions. Wefinally learnt from the aforementioned document—I If it is the Government’s intention to do all this, it think the Minister referred to it—that the Government would have been helpful to have a bit more detail in the are thankfully considering a range of different models Bill, rather than an ambitious but rather vague list of for the provision of advice, including one-to-one support plans. That goes back to one of my themes: if we are provided directly to land managers, group advice and trying to offer certainty to people in a time of change, training, telephone and online support, and facilitation we need a bit more than this. of peer-to-peer learning. All of those are welcome, and we would strongly support them. It is also very welcome With new clause 18, we propose including a requirement to read in the document that it is anticipated that there will in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations be provision of extensive written information—I am sure to provide training guidance and advice to those receiving we are delighted to hear that—both online and offline. financial assistance to help to enable them to deliver the clause 1 public goods. I think we have outlined a decent Victoria Prentis: I am sure the hon. Member will range of activities. There are no restrictions on suggestions. enjoy that. The Minister says that it is too prescriptive, but she is free to add as many extra suggestions as she likes. That Daniel Zeichner: I will read it; I promise. would be helpful. Given that the Government are clearly Guidance will be provided to everyone who participates moving in this direction in general, I am sure the in ELMS, including guidance on how to deliver the Minister would recognise the importance of sending a environmental outcomes that they will pay for. Having strong signal to farmers that the Government really are looked at the 139-page document on how to apply for going to be there to support them. I hope that, on that the basic payment scheme,including the delightful colourful basis, they will consider supporting that amendment. drawings of buffer strips and what a field looks like, I New clause 23 says that, prior to framing any financial do not underestimate how complicated the previous assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must carry out system was. The challenge is to see whether it can be a consultation on its design and consult the relevant trimmed down. Based on previous experience in this authorities. I have already spoken about the potential country, it may be an ambitious hope, but I am sure that role of parish councils. It does not have to be parishes, is where we all want to get to. As I said earlier, the because there are areas that are not parished, but we difficulty is that we still do not really know how it will want it to be the lowest tier of local government in be paid for. order to ensure that the local community has a role. I I want to pick up on an observation from the earlier have hinted that that must be the case for tier 3 and discussion. A huge number of people would have been possibly for tier 2. Much depends upon how broad tier made ineligible by one of our previous amendments. 1 actually is. On that basis, I support these new clauses, There is nothing in the documents or the Bill to stop the which I understand will be voted on later, Mr Stringer. 271 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 272

The Chair: They will be voted on later. Does the are running out of time to prepare our farmers, our Minister wish to respond? farm workers and the agricultural sector more generally for the years ahead. Victoria Prentis: No. Our amendments call for the Office for Environmental Question put and agreed to. Protection, for which the Environment Bill makes provision, to influence what Ministers do when it comes to the Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand multi-annual financial assistance plan and the budget part of the Bill. contained within it. We believe that the Office for Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Environmental Protection must be independent. It must be strong and it must be clear about its remit and the expectations upon it. It must push for higher standards, Clause 4 it must push for non-regression and it must push for measures to tackle the climate emergency. If it does those things, then it makes sense for the multi-annual MULTI-ANNUAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PLANS budget to be informed by the scope, remit, strength and inspiration of the Office for Environmental Protection. Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 4, Wehope that these probing amendments will encourage page 5, line 14, after “period” insert Ministers and Government Members to develop strong “, and and clear mechanisms that make for long-term and (d) set out the budget for each financial assistance scheme organised funding structures. They are designed to fill under sub-paragraph (c)(i) or (c)(ii) for the duration the gap in the Bill’s proposal for multi-annual financial of the plan period”. settlements. The Bill is silent on how the budget or This amendment and Amendments 38 and 39 provide that the Secretary funding envelopes are set in the first place. We have of State’s multi-annual financial assistance plan must include a budget already had much discussion on that and I look forward informed by the Office for Environmental Protection to be established by the Environment Bill. to any clarification the Minister can give on those points.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Many stakeholders have raised concerns and called the following: for clarity and further thinking on this point. Whatever proposals are finally agreed and provided for, let us be Amendment 38, in clause 4, page 5, line 38, at end led by the facts and the experiences of those out there insert— on the farms in our rural communities in all parts of “(9A) For each financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of the United Kingdom. That is why the amendments are State must have regard to any advice provided by the Office for so important. Environmental Protection, after it is established, about the funding required to achieve the strategic objectives of financial The Opposition are giving voice to the concerns assistance for the duration of the plan period.” today, but it is not just we who are worried. Greener See explanatory statement for Amendment 37. UK says that it wants to see a stronger and enhanced Amendment 39, in clause 5, page 6, line 10, after framework for long-term funding in the Bill, which will “scheme,” insert— inspire confidence and demonstrate to the sector that “(aa) any opinion provided by the Office for the Government understand the pressure on it, and the Environmental Protection, after it is established, as need for us to support it wherever we can. The Nature to whether the financial assistance given was Friendly Farming Network supports calls for greater sufficient to meet the strategic objectives of the certainty about long-term funding and notes the need financial assistance,”. for the Bill to be as strong and effective as possible. I say See explanatory statement for Amendment 37. to the Minister that we should be listening to the experts. That is not just my view; it is the view of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green Ruth Jones: These important amendments call for the (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He noted the other day that Secretary of State’s multi-annual financial assistance we need to listen to experts, and do you know what? I plan to include a budget informed by the Office for agree with him. Environmental Protection, which is to be established by the Environment Bill. It is clear to me that the more certainty Members The Environment Bill received its Second Reading have and the more certainty the people out in our yesterday and many important points were raised on country have, the better. There are many people right the Floor of the House. They will receive their own now who are concerned that we do not have much scrutiny,and I will not touch on that legislation today—we certainty past 31 December 2020. Admittedly, there certainly have enough to be going on with here. However, have been commitments to maintaining the current there are some important links to the Bill before us, level of funding, but so far they are just commitments particularly when it comes to the Office for Environmental and they do not necessarily sit well with some of the Protection. comments and press coverage on payments to farmers that we saw in the weekend press. I am sure the Secretary The fact that there are three big environmental Bills of State would attest to the strength of feeling he going through the two Houses at the same time shows encountered at his meeting this week. that the Government have realised that they are running out of time to prepare for our ultimate departure from Clarity, transparency and respect are going to be key the European Union and that they need to get to grip now and into the future. Let us make it so and support with the challenges facing this important sector. They these amendments today. 273 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 274

Victoria Prentis: It is always good to discuss funding As I have said, our view is that the Bills have been for agriculture further. I begin with amendment 37. The introduced in the wrong order,which puts us at something Government faced a fair challenge from parliamentarians of a disadvantage. However, if the prime, driving purpose on the previous Agriculture Bill about the funding they of this legislation is to tackle the environmental crisis, were expecting to receive. The Government responded as we think it should be, we do not think that the to that challenge and included what I am going to start proposed structure—welcome though it is, and it is an calling the MAFA plan—the multi-annual financial improvement—quite matches that sense of urgency. I assistance plan—in clause 4, which covers the seven-year perhaps should have said more on this earlier. Seven agricultural transition period. This will describe the years is a long time for a transition. While we understand assistance schemes that are in operation or are expected why that is beneficial from the industry’s point of view, to come into operation during that period. from my constituents’ point of view, some want it next Subsequent plans will run for at least five years, week, frankly. People are pushing very hard. At the rather than seven, and the Secretary of State will have a general election, my party committed to a much earlier duty to ensure that plans do not expire without a net zero date, and we know that the NFU is pushing for replacement in place, which is important. However, we a much earlier date than the Government’s. However, recognise that the sector needs clarity on the budget, there is not that sense of urgency, which our amendments which is why we guaranteed the current cash total for would help to bring forward. each year of this Parliament, giving much-needed certainty As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West for the next five years. said, it is not only us saying this; many conservation organisations share our concerns and worries. Their 3.45 pm worry is partly that a considerable sum of public money On amendments 38 and 39, as the hon. Member for is available and, as I have alluded to before, we want to Newport West said, the Environment Bill already provides know how the prioritisation will work. Will it be done at the Office for Environmental Protection with functions a local or national level? The document that we have to scrutinise the Government’senvironmental commitments. been referring to throughout the sitting hints at an issue These were rehearsed at length yesterday, and I do not about prioritisation. propose to go into them all here. I understand that we I somewhat mischievously suggested that the money have three major Bills going through Parliament at could all go to one scheme, but that is not actually once, which of course have synergies, and where necessary impossible, which is why we want a structure where the we will refer to them, but the Environment Bill is the Office for Environmental Protection could say, “This proper place to discuss the OEP at length. Having said is where your big gains are going to come from. This is that, it is right in this context to say that the OEP’s where you’re going to get the difference.” There is a reports will be published and laid before Parliament, tension, however, between what would get the best and that the Government will be required to publish a environmental gain, what is most effective, and what response and lay that before Parliament. will, out there in the world, be perceived as fair in a In addition to OEP scrutiny, the reporting process transition phase from the current system to a new one. envisaged in the Bill provides for a high degree of public That is why we think our amendments would provide a and parliamentary scrutiny. For example, through its better structure. scrutiny of the Government’senvironmental improvement We understand that there is tension because the plans, the first of which is the 25-year environment Department wants flexibility; I am sure that if we were plan, the OEP may consider that the Government could running the Department, we would want the same. It is meet one or more of the goals within the 25-year plan our job as the Opposition, however, to remind the sooner—for example, if additional funding was provided Government that they voted to acknowledge the climate to deliver the purposes set out in clause 1. crisis and to try to hit net zero in 2050. In every piece of Under the Environment Bill, the Secretary of State legislation that is brought forward, we want to see a real will receive the OEP’s reports and will have to respond commitment to making that happen. We think the to them. The reports and responses will be publicly amendment would contribute to that. available so that parliamentarians can question how the OEP’s advice is considered. Any opinion provided by Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her honesty the OEP will already be in the public domain and about the current funding uncertainties and the issues. I therefore be available for the Secretary of State and appreciate that she has a massive job on. I am glad to be Parliament to consider. on this side of the room. We listened to and reflected on feedback from the previous Agriculture Bill Committee, and as a result Victoria Prentis: We’re glad too. this version of the Bill provides much more opportunity for the Government’s plans to be scrutinised, including by the EFRA Committee. I therefore ask the hon. Lady Ruth Jones: The Minister is quite right that there will to withdraw the amendment. be lots of new acronyms—OEP, MAFA—and we are frantically learning them, so she must bear with us. She Daniel Zeichner: I welcome much of what the Minister is honest in the way that she has expressed her concerns. says, but our concern and our reason for tabling the We accept that there will be a lot of co-operation— amendments is that, positive though her comments are, hopefully—as the Bill progresses, because it is important this is such a big change that we think it right and that this is not about us and them. It is not adversarial; proper that there is more regular analysis of it, informed a lot of this should be consensual. We should work by the OEP.I fully understand why she does not want to together to make sure that we get the best for the rehearse the OEP discussion. agriculture sector across the UK—in all four countries. 275 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 276

[Ruth Jones] transparency and certainty about the amount of public funding allocated under clause 1. That includes information We look forward to lots of probing questions not just on the extent to which the financial assistance meets from Opposition Members, but from hon. Members on any obligations or commitments under the terms of both sides of the House. We look forward to developing each scheme. and fully understanding the complexities and intricacies Mr Stringer, perhaps you can guide me. Should I turn of the Bill. With that in mind, I thank the Minister for to new clause 2 now? her comments and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. The Chair: Speaking to new clause 2 is in order. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Victoria Prentis: Thank you, Mr Stringer. I am so sorry to have to keep checking such matters. Clause 5 Turning to new clause 2, the introduction of the ANNUAL AND OTHER REPORTS ON AMOUNT OF multi-annual financial assistance plans has been welcomed FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GIVEN by agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union. Clauses 4 to 6 will ensure that public The Chair: Two amendments to clause 5, amendments 39 stakeholders and parliamentarians have plenty of and 47, have been debated. Do the Opposition wish to opportunities to scrutinise the Government’s spending press either of them to a vote? on agriculture, as well as the impact of that spending. Were the new clause to succeed, Ministers would have Ruth Jones: No. to return each year to report on every purpose under clause 1. That could have the perverse outcome of The Chair: If no, we move on to the clause stand part schemes being designed to meet the report, rather than debate. activities achieving outcomes in the best way. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Instead, our approach will ensure that we look to Bill. meet the outcomes in the most beneficial way—for example, by planting trees, the positive environmental The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss effects of which may not show up for many annual new clause 2—Annual assessment of funding for purposes— reports but would be felt over a much longer period. We (1) The Secretary of State must report on financial assistance recognise that farms and land managers need certainty for each purpose listed in section 1. over future funding arrangements. That is why we have (2) A report under subsection (1) must be made for each committed to a seven-year transition, starting in 2021, financial year and must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and have introduced a legal requirement to set out our no later than 31 October in the financial year following the strategic priorities for the transition period before the financial year to which the report relates. end of the year. We have also pledged to continue to (3) The first report shall be made by 31 October 2021 and shall commit the same cash total that is currently spent for relate to financial assistance in the 2020-21 financial year. each year of the Parliament. (4) A report under this section must record, on the basis of best data available— I recognise the need for certainty, and it is right that the general public should be able to scrutinise our (a) the total sum of financial assistance for each purpose in section 1, spending; however, the Bill already gives plenty of opportunity to do that. I therefore ask the hon. Member (b) the source of any element of financial assistance under subparagraph (a) which comes from public funds, for Newport West not to press the new clause. and (c) the sums from each source under subparagraph (b). Ruth Jones: I am pleased to speak to new clause 2, (5) The Secretary of State must include in each report under which would require the Secretary of State to report this section— annually on the financial assistance given or allocated (a) a statement of their opinion on whether any sum to each of the purposes of the Bill, on its sufficiency to recorded under subsection (4)(a) is sufficient to meet meet policy objectives, and on the Secretary of State’s their policy objectives in relation to each purpose; intentions if, in their opinion, funding for any purpose and (b) a statement of the Secretary of State’s was not sufficient. intentions if, in their opinion, a sum recorded under subsection (4)(a) was not sufficient to meet their This is an important part of our deliberations, because policy objectives in relation to a purpose. it is about how we ensure that funding for each public (6) For the purposes of this section, “financial assistance” good is adequate and effective. We accept that the means financial assistance either allocated or given in any form Government have a majority in the House, so we must listed in section 2(1). ensure that whatever system they design will work for This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually our farmers, planters, growers and all the livelihoods on the financial assistance given or allocated to each of the purposes of and communities dependent on a thriving and well-funded the Bill, on its sufficiency to meet policy objectives and on the Secretary agricultural sector. The new clause is about certainty of State’s intentions if in their opinion funding for any purpose was not sufficient. and predictability, ensuring that the Bill provides for a sustainable, effective and transparent funding structure Victoria Prentis: Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretary that helps rather than hinders this important sector in of State to prepare a report each financial year, which I our economy. have spoken about extensively already. The report will There is a degree of understanding that no Government detail the financial assistance given under clause 1. The can say how much money there will be and where it will financial reporting provisions seek to provide greater come from, but we can have a mechanism that can be 277 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 278 reviewed every year. In fact, the system should be that he has a lot more information. All I would say is reviewed every year, too. Now that austerity is supposedly that we were actually at the table and were part of over, the Government could say to our farmers that discussions. We were not excluded; we were very much money will be available to do all the wonderful things included. Even Margaret Thatcher agreed that we were that they promised them during the referendum. That is part of those discussions, so I accept that. why it is so important that the new clause is added to the Bill. Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is making a very If the Minister does not accept the approach set out good speech, but I cannot resist joining battle with the in new clause 2, what approach will the Government right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who take to providing clarity, to ensure that there is a refers to an old canard about the European Union. Of transparent and genuine approach to funding, and course we all wanted the auditing to work better, but are maintaining a detailed annual update on the state of we so sure that it works so well here? If he is confident play? I recognise that times will change, and in the that it does, he would support the amendment, which is future a new Minister will sit on the Treasury Bench. an opportunity for us to show that we can do it so much There will be a new Prime Minister at some point, too. I better. I invite him to join us today. know that the Government cannot commit to money that future Governments will spend, but the Minister can commit to the mechanism. We ask the Government The Chair: Order. We are straying some way from to look closely at the new clause, and we hope that they clause 5 and new clause 2, so I ask the hon. Lady to listen to us, and all those crying out for clarity and come back to them. common sense. We have already learned that the British Government Ruth Jones: Thank you for your valuable advice, spent about £3 billion on the common agricultural Mr Stringer. I intend to get back to the subject, without policy in recent years, as members of the European the sparring, which would be very interesting. Union. We are now starting the process of leaving the Our farmers deserve a funding and reporting system European Union, and are sitting in a transition period. that they can understand and is fit for purpose. In fact, I worry that the period will run out far sooner than the they deserve to have a system in place, full stop. Farmers Government realise, especially given the announcement across Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland about the forthcoming talks concluding this June. We are very worried indeed. They have let us know in no are now on the outside, and those funds can be diverted uncertain terms exactly how concerned they are, and I to delivering public goods to improve the quality of our share their worries. If a mechanism for reporting annually soils and water; protect, maintain and enhance the is not in place, a future Government of whatever colour natural beauty of our landscapes in all parts of the or persuasion could in effect just say, “Well, there isn’t United Kingdom; and tackle the climate emergency enough money, so we are making large cuts, including and protect vulnerable communities and industries from to all those wonderful schemes we talked about and told the most brutal and deadly effects of climate change. you we would keep.” The storms in the past couple of weeks are a very clear I say this to the Minister. This is a time not for empty example of that. words or—dare I say it?—hot air, but for common sense and for the Government to recognise that they have a 4 pm responsibility to farmers and farm workers across our I mention our membership of the European Union country. That is why new clause 2 should form part of because when we were members the Government were the Bill, and I hope Members from across the House required to follow the mechanism whereby the Council will reflect, consider and give their support to it. of Ministers signed off the budget. Crucially, that budget was reported to Members of this House and, importantly, Daniel Zeichner: My apologies, Mr Stringer,for straying our farmers and farming organisations across the United slightly from the detail of the amendment. This is an Kingdom. Much of Government Members’ reasoning important amendment, because it says that the public for leaving the European Union was that it was about should be able to go through the list of extremely good taking back control. We heard that mantra many times. aspirations in clause 1, on which there has been no It was about making decisions here in this place, removing disagreement, and see how much money has been allocated the influence from afar and so on. The fact that the to each of those categories, including managing land or annual budget was determined by the Council of Ministers water in a way that protects or improves the environment—I and reported shows that we did have influence, we did will not go through the whole list. That begins to make have a say and we were in the room. We cannot allow it real for people. It is fair to say that it was pretty hard our departure to result in a backwards move on to see how the money that they were putting into the transparency, accountability and honouring our European Union was being spent. commitment to some of the most hard-working people in our economy. This is a great opportunity for the Government. Imagine the Secretary of State or the Minister being able to stand up next year and say, “For each of these categories, Mr Goodwill: The hon. Lady refers to the EU budget. this amount has been spent.” The Opposition will be May I ask her how many times in the past 20 years it has able to do the opposite: we will be able to point to actually been signed off? subsection (1)(f) and say, “Actually, it appears that no money at all has been allocated to protecting or improving Ruth Jones: Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has the health or welfare of livestock.” The goal is to make far more technical knowledge than I do on the subject. I it simpler and more immediate, like the excellent moves will not give a figure for fear of its being wrong. I accept made some years ago by, I think, Lord Whitty to get 279 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 280

[Daniel Zeichner] public money on a scheme that has not been fully proven with the evidence, including scientific advice some transparency about how the money was spent and ecological evidence, that we need. There may be through the CAP in the first place. That transparency some administrative glitches in the introduction of the allows any of us to look through the statistics on the new system; Governments do not have a good track DEFRA website and see just how much money is being record of delivering big IT systems on time—or, indeed, allocated locally and to which organisations, and I am on budget. There may also be external factors relating sure some of us have done so. to weather or disease and the impact they may have on David Cameron always said that sunshine was the farming, so it makes sense to have the flexibility that way to throw light on something—to open it up and clause 8 allows for. make it more transparent. I should have thought that I hope the Minister can give me some clarity about the Government would be keen to do so and trumpet how this may work in practice. If the process is to be their achievements in that way. However, it appears that extended and the seven-year transition ends up being, we are still lost in this slightly opaque, internal world of for example, a nine-year transition, will that take place money effectively being allocated behind closed doors. in nine equal steps, or will we be able to—as my amendment This amendment opens that world up, gives people the allows for—pause the transition and start a little bit opportunity to ask questions, and gives the Government later? Could we stop the clock on the transition from the opportunity to trumpet their achievement. I cannot BPS to ELM, and then resume after a one-year or for the life of me understand why they do not want to two-year pause? I am sure that the Minister will be able do that—other than that, of course, it is never what to reassure me that that is perhaps not intended but Governments do. allowed within the flexibility of the clause without my amendment. However, the reassurance would be very The Chair: Minister, do you want to come back in? helpful to me, because I suspect that the existence of the clause in the Bill just might have something to do with the time that I spent at DEFRA last year. Victoria Prentis: No. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Daniel Zeichner: I certainly would not want to intrude on a private argument on the Government side, but our Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. view is that this is symptomatic of the problem of just how slow the process has been in coming forward. We Clause 8 have before us, of course, a Bill that has been delayed. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby THE AGRICULTURAL TRANSITION PERIOD FOR ENGLAND made suggestions as to where the responsibility might AND THE TERMINATION OF RELEVANT PAYMENTS lie, and we can all argue about that one. I suggest that there would have been a simple solution, but I am sure that he would not agree. The trouble is that a huge Mr Goodwill: I beg to move amendment 9, in number of questions are left unanswered, as we have clause 8, page 8, line 5, after “extending” insert been highlighting throughout the day, and the suggestion “or pausing the transition process and”. that there might be further delay is cause for great It is my pleasure to move this amendment, although I concern. am hopeful that the Minister will be able to satisfy me It is worth highlighting what the National Farmers that it is superfluous. As we have already heard, the Union says: Government’s plan is to switch over from the basic payment scheme, which pays farmers for being farmers, “The NFU believes that with less than a year to go, time is rapidly running out for the government to have all of the necessary to a system of environmental land management that legislation and implementation decisions and process in place for pays farmers for delivering public goods. That will be a this timescale. There are still many aspects of the transition and seven-year graduated transition, which I hope will be the successor future farming support policy which remain unclear smooth and go according to plan. and the concern is that there will be a ‘gap’ before alternative and However, clause 8(3) allows a degree of flexibility if effective schemes are in place and the start of the phasing out.” things do not go entirely according to plan. There are a As I think has become apparent in this Committee, number of reasons why that might happen—some within we very much share those doubts: we have been talking the Government’s control and some beyond their control. about the reasons pretty much all day. We understand We have heard that the environmental land management how ambitious many of the things that the Government pilots will be concluded by 2024. We have been slow are trying to do are. In the document to which we have getting started with those—partly because of the been referring for much of the day, there are timelines, parliamentary inertia over the past three and a half although I have to say that they are a bit like Mr Barnier’s years; I will not suggest who might be to blame for some account of the trade position of various countries. The of that—but we are now in a position where we can timelines are not entirely clear in terms of where we are move forward. The British people have given us a likely to be at a particular point. majority and our marching orders, which are for a We would be worried about a further pause, because quick march towards the ambition of delivering these as I have said we just cannot afford it. We are in a objectives for our farmers. climate and ecological emergency. There is no pause We may not have all the evidence we need to fully button there. The Bill has already been delayed. If we develop and deliver every aspect of environmental land are to reach net zero more quickly than 2050—my management at the time we hope to start doing so. suspicion is that the Government would like to do so, Therefore, this amendment will allow us to not waste although that date is what they are committed to—we 281 Public Bill Committee 27 FEBRUARY 2020 Agriculture Bill 282 will have to move more quickly, so any pause or delay to if there are unforeseen exceptional conditions, such as a more sustainable and environmentally supportive system those that he outlined earlier, that would have an adverse of land management is disappointing. impact on farmers, clause 8 already contains the power We recognise the delicate balance, because if what we to extend the transition period, if necessary. There is no are discussing proves as difficult as I am suggesting it need to make a decision now. There is sufficient flexibility might be, there is then a dilemma for the Government. in the Bill—we can make a decision later if necessary. One of the gaps in the explanations today has been But his point has been heard. about the period, probably post 2024, as we go through In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated that the the next part. It is one thing to do tests and trials and seven-year transition period set out in the Bill provides then to move to a national pilot, but to then move it on farmers with certainty and enough time to adapt to life to a national scale is challenging, for many of the without direct payments. reasons to which I have referred. We would want to go more quickly—[Interruption.] The Minister enjoys the fact that I am in the privileged Daniel Zeichner: On this point, the Minister did not position of being able to say that in opposition, but quite anticipate me. On the question of what happens basically this entire institution should be bending itself, when, I think I heard the Minister say that there is no at every opportunity, to find ways of moving more guarantee that there will be further cuts to direct payments quickly to challenge the climate crisis. That is what we in any particular year. Surely there is a danger of our would be doing. reaching a point where there will be a dramatic change. The Bill needs to be stronger and quicker. We need Things could be gently phased, but if this is not done in the clearer targets. I am therefore inclined not to support the first few years and we try to get to 100% in seven the amendment. I think the message that needs to go years’ time, the maths is obvious. There is a real risk out after today’s discussions is that we need much more here. If it is all backloaded, people will face a dramatic clarity, and providing more clarity would actually help cliff edge at some point. Surely we want to smooth the Government to achieve what we all want, which is things out. to move to a new system more quickly and more efficiently and ensure that it works for all those in rural communities. Victoria Prentis: That is why we are going slowly, or 4.15 pm relatively slowly. That is why we have a seven-year transition period. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Victoria Prentis: Yes, speed is important, but so are back page of his favourite document and the policy certainty and good government. I know that many document published on Tuesday,which gives an indication people in this room will agree with me that direct of the likely timeline. It is important that we retain payments are poor value for money and untargeted and some flexibility. can and have inhibited productivity and environmental improvement in the past. We have therefore been clear We have included in the Bill the ability to set reductions in our intention to phase out direct payments in England. at an appropriate rate during the transition and, if We know that farmers need certainty. That is why we circumstances deem it necessary, to extend the transition. have been clear about the length of the agricultural I ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 9. transition. As has been rehearsed many times today, we are pressing ahead with plans for our ELM scheme. Mr Goodwill: I am conscious that I have broken my In the meantime, a simplified countryside stewardship golden rule of not intruding on my successor’s policy scheme will continue to provide funding for farmers, areas for at least 12 months after leaving a Department, woodland owners, foresters and land managers. but we must thank the usual channels for the fact that I am here and able to participate. Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister give way on that point? I thought it a little ironic for the Opposition to be criticising us for the delay, given that they are, by and Victoria Prentis: I can anticipate what the hon. large, the architect of that delay—together with some of Gentleman will ask. It will be a domestic grant scheme my former colleagues, who have sadly departed this with a more transparent administration process and parish following the general election. I have heard the regulation and enforcement regime, to encourage more Minister’s comments. I do not think my amendment applicants and simplify the application and payment will be necessary to maintain the flexibility I wish to see. process. It is designed to enable a smooth and efficient She has reassured me in that regard. transition for land managers from CAP payments to The Minister has also underlined the fact that we ELM payments. already have very good stewardship schemes in operation, I also reassure hon. Members that phased reductions so it is not a case of having to wait for better environmental to direct payments during the transition period will be objectives to be met: we already have schemes in place set in regulations under the powers in clause 11 for that are delivering on a day-to-day basis. I beg to ask payments under the basic payment scheme and in clause 12 leave to withdraw the amendment. for delinked payments. There is no obligation in the Bill Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. for reductions in every year of the transition. We have Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. allowed for flexibility, as I have explained. —(James Morris.) I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who was a great Minister in this role and has been enormously helpful to me during 4.20 pm my speedy learning process as I have tried to get ready Adjourned till Tuesday 3 March at twenty-five minutes to take this Bill through Committee. I reassure him that past Nine o’clock. 283 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 284

Written evidence to be reported to the House AB49 Greener UK/Wildlife and Countryside Link further submission AB48 Prof. Nigel Maxted (University of Birmingham) AB50 The National Trust and Julian Hosking (Member of UK PGR Group and AB51 Tessa Burrington former member of UK FAnGR Committee) AB52 The Wildlife Trusts PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Ninth Sitting

Tuesday 3 March 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 8 TO 26 agreed to, one with an amendment. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 7 March 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/. 285 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 286

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS,†GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of † Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) (Con) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † attended the Committee 287 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 288

probably this is not the place to be having the conversation. Public Bill Committee I want him to be clear that the Department is looking carefully at the next steps for this year. Tuesday 3 March 2020 As to future years, it might help if I say that we intend to make some minor simplifications in 2020 on greening (Morning) payments, if I can use that terminology, using our existing powers. We intend to simplify the penalties for [GRAHAM STRINGER in the Chair] small overclaims of land, for example. We are also removing some of the paperwork connected to the Agriculture Bill young farmers scheme, which I think will be widely 9.25 am welcomed. We plan to introduce further simplifications The Chair: Before we continue with line-by-line for the 2021 scheme, such as removing some of, or consideration of the Bill, I remind Members to switch possibly all, the greening rules, so watch this space. off electronic devices or put them on silent. Tea and Question put and agreed to. coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. for today’s sitting is available in the room. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 Clause 9 POWER TO PROVIDE FOR PHASING OUT DIRECT PAYMENTS POWER TO MODIFY LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE BASIC PAYMENT SCHEME Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Bill. Victoria Prentis: The clause allows the Secretary of The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for State to make regulations to apply reductions to farmers’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): payments under the basic payment scheme in England It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, so that we can phase them out. We plan to start reducing Mr Stringer. Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State payments in 2021. Clause 11 concerns reductions to be with the power to modify, for England, the legislation applied to direct payments under the basic payment governing the basic payments scheme, which includes scheme; de-linked payments are dealt with in clause 12. the greening and young farmer payments. We will remove Wewill apply the reductions fairly,with higher reductions the unnecessary bureaucracy. From the responses to the initially applied to amounts in higher payment bands. extensive consultation that the Department undertook All farmers will face some reductions from the start of in 2018, and further consultation with stakeholders, we the transition. That reflects strong calls from industry think that that will be welcomed by farmers up and stakeholders and many farmers for the reduction to be down the country. shared across the sector. Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): It is a pleasure We have set out the maximum reductions that we to continue our discussion with you in the Chair, intend to apply in 2021. We will set the reduction Mr Stringer. I want some clarification from the Minister. percentages for subsequent years taking account of our The clause is obviously quite apposite, as it will give the detailed plans for future schemes—which, as we have Government powers to simplify the system, and it is rehearsed many times, we do not yet have—and the topical, given that the three-crop rule is controversial wider perspective of Government spending. I reassure and unpopular, and something on which many farmers the Committee that regulations setting out the reductions would like urgent action. will be made using the affirmative procedure, so there Farmers Weekly reported that Minette Batters, the will be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and president of the National Farmers Union, said at its debate them carefully. conference last week that farmers were hugely frustrated: Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful for that explanation. “We have left the EU, half the country is under water and…we are still going to abide by the three-crop rule and process thousands We had quite a discussion of some of these issues last of force majeure applications. It just seems absolutely extraordinary.” week. Unfortunately, it appears that there is a second The Secretary of State explained the complex situation policy paper, which I am not sure every Committee we find ourselves in, but I ask the Minister to explain member was entirely aware of last week. The Minister why we cannot move more quickly, given that we have will be delighted to know that it is my new favourite now left the European Union. document. Victoria Prentis: The situation is under consideration, Victoria Prentis: Oh good! and I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the Department to consider the matter further. Farmers are undoubtedly Daniel Zeichner: But before people start applying suffering because of flooding in their fields and concerned cold compresses to their heads, I assure the Committee about whether they will be able to plant their crops. that I will not subject that document to detailed scrutiny. There are, for them, many other mechanisms for asking— Some of it would have been helpful in our discussions whether by force majeure or otherwise—for the three-crop last week, but it is as it is. rule not to apply. The document, which is entitled “Farming for the The position is under active consideration and I am future: Policy and progress update”, sets out at page 36 happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the confines the approach that is going to be taken to phasing out of the Agriculture Bill, which refers to future payments—so direct payments. As the Minister said, the reduction will 289 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 290 be 5% for payments up to £30,000, and so on up to 25% will remove the requirement to farm land. Once introduced, for payments of £150,000 or more, so there will be de-linked payments will replace the basic payment scheme significant reductions. for all farmers in England. I have a genuine question, which I would like to De-linked payments benefit from further simplification explore. It is not clear to me what constitutes a payment during the agricultural transition period. Farmers can in this sense. Can one simply look at recipients? The access payments for the remainder of the transition database shows that some recipients get a £1 million without the bureaucracy of the basic payment scheme. payment. Do these figures apply to that amount or to Instead, farmers will have maximum flexibility to plan all the smaller payments that go to make it up? There for the future, choosing to spend the money as best suits would be a significant difference between the two. their circumstances. That should help those who wish to I sought advice from one or two people, who were retire to do so, freeing up land for new entrants. also puzzled, so I do not necessarily expect the Minister The clause allows us to introduce de-linked payments to know the answer this minute. However, it seems to from 2022 at the earliest. Alternative enforcement me that it makes a huge difference, both to the people mechanisms will be introduced before direct payments who receive payments and to the amount of money are de-linked, so that we can maintain agricultural and available in the system. If we cannot get an immediate environmental best practice. answer, perhaps we can come back to that point later in Question put and agreed to. the day, because it is key to the discussion. Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Victoria Prentis: I hesitate to behave like a lawyer, but Clause 13 it seems to me that what is specified under subsection (2) is the power to reduce basic payment scheme payments POWER TO PROVIDE FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENTS IN LIEU and, of course, any regulations made in the past under OF RELEVANT PAYMENTS the basic payment scheme. I hope that is a sufficient answer for the hon. Gentleman. If not, perhaps we can Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 74, in take the conversation offline and I can talk him through clause 13, page 11, line 8, leave out subsection (4) and what is planned. I accept that this is difficult. One of the insert— problems with the common agricultural policy is that it “(4) Regulations under this section shall make provision for has been accused of being not very transparent and circumstances in which an eligible person may receive a lump difficult to manage, and it has different pillars, but I sum under this section. assure him that we are talking about BPS payments. (4A) The circumstances under subsection (4) shall include a commitment by the eligible person to use the lump sum to— Daniel Zeichner: I understand the difficulty, but I (a) make a change or changes to practice in managing land think this is a pretty important point. This is a framework in such a way as to deliver one or more of the Bill, but people are looking for certainty over the next purposes under section 1(1) or 1(2); or couple of years and will want to know how much they (b) make land available to other persons or bodies who stand to lose. There could be a huge difference, depending undertake to manage the land in such a way as to on how the figure is calculated. Someone in the Department deliver one or more of the purposes under section 1(1) or 1(2).” must know the answer to that question. I am not necessarily expecting it this minute, but it is important Before making my comments on the amendment, I that we find it out. would like to point out that I am not confused about the previous issue; the Government are the ones who have the confusion. We will seek that out, I am sure. Victoria Prentis: I am reassured by the departmental staff present that the reductions will be applied to the Victoria Prentis: Okay, we will discuss that. total basic payment, including the greening and young farmer allowance. That is my understanding of the Daniel Zeichner: We will do that. scheme and I hope that is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that I fully understand his question, so Turning to clause 13, de-linking is significant for our this is possibly not the most productive place to have farmers and there is a worry around it. The House of this conversation. We could discuss the matter on our Commons Library briefing talks about the effect and own or exchange letters, if he is still confused. the responses to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs summary last year. A lot of respondents Question put and agreed to. felt this was a less popular option than retaining and Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. simplifying the existing scheme. More significantly, the DEFRA evidence and analysis paper, “Agriculture Bill: Analysis and Economic Rationales for Government Clause 12 Intervention”, says: “Most farm businesses will be able to make modest cost POWER TO MAKE DELINKED PAYMENTS reductions in order to improve efficiency, which will be required Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the when Direct Payments come to an end.” Bill. That is strong statement. A lot of people will feel that it is not going to be easy to make those changes. Victoria Prentis: The clause provides the Secretary of The analysis that DEFRA published alongside the State with the power to make regulations to enable paper notes that the impact of the removal of direct de-linked payments to be introduced in England for the payments on overall profit margins is likely to be “non- remainder of the transition period. De-linked payments negligible”. That is a wonderful civil service word that 291 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 292

[Daniel Zeichner] only a detrimental and unintended consequence, environmentally speaking, but an unjust and politically can be synonymous with “considerable”. I urge the unacceptable use of public funds, as it would hand Government to be cautious. De-linking has some positives, public money to farmers who might already have a large but the reductions are challenging for many. capital asset in the farm and the house. The Bill outlines the seven-year agricultural transition I have already said that the double payment point is period during which direct payments will be phased an issue. How are we making sure that land will be put out, which is a significant change. It means there will no to continued use and deliver the environmental public longer be a requirement to farm the land in order to goods at the heart of the Bill? There is a danger that the receive the payments. In some ways, that is the gist of land will be left to the market with no guarantees that the Bill. Some will remember that, on Second Reading, new entrants will take over and farm in an environmentally a Government Member said, “Surely not!” because the conscious way. common agricultural policy used to reward people for That is why amendment 74 would help the Government not farming. This is CAP on steroids in that case, to tackle this conundrum by making the receipt of a because it completely breaks that link and is a significant lump sum de-linked payment conditional on either change, and it is something that needs to be thought transitioning the farm to being run according to purposes about. outlined in clause 1(1), delivering public goods, or in In clause 14, we also look at how someone who clause 1(2), improving productivity, or on making land potentially wants to come out of farming can request to available to new entrants or for community ownership have their remaining de-linked direct payments put into to ensure it continues as farmland. We think that would a lump sum. We understand the attraction of that for allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that some, giving some flexibility and, as the Government stipulated that retiring farmers wishing to sell their land have said, a route out of farming and the possibility of must offer it for sale to new entrants or the local setting up a new business or diversifying, if they do not community for a fixed period before offering it on the want to transition into the new world of environmental open market. land management schemes. As the Minister said, the Government’s policy statements have made it clear that 9.45 am the intention of that is to increase opportunities for new entrants. In a wonderful, idealised world, this is all one We are not trying to be difficult here; we are trying to would hope to happen—but the world does not always make some suggestions to avoid what we think could be work in the way one expects. the unintended consequences. Farms and farmland could be placed on a national register of land for sale with an Without a condition requiring farmers to make their established time period for its availability before going land accessible to new entrants or to encourage transition to the open market. That would give local people— on their land to a more sustainable way of farming, we community land trusts and cooperatives—the opportunity believe the Bill poses a risk whereby retiring farmers to raise the capital to buy the land. It would also allow could simply take lump sum payments and possibly sell for flexible options for how farmers receiving lump sum the land to a larger holding or move out of farming payments who do not simply want to sell their land altogether. That may be part of the Government’s could move forward in the way that is helpful to new underlying intention, but there are significant consequences entrants. to it. It is not entirely obvious that that will lead directly The Landworkers Alliance pointed to some key examples: to new entrants. farmers who wish to pass their land on to a new entrant I have mentioned the additional policy paper we have but also want to retain involvement in the business discovered. I point to page 39, which Members will could enter into a farm partnership, enabling them to probably not have to hand but which I will quote: pass on their skills and knowledge while providing “Receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipient opportunities for new entrants to access land and get from applying for payment under our new schemes, including our started in farming. Environmental Land Management system.” For those who want to keep their farm and stay in I ask the Minister whether the intention of that is as it their house but retire, private land could be made available seems to me to be read. Many of my constituents on to rent as a series of rental units on a farm. The farmer benefits would love to continue getting their benefits would remain the owner of the farm, but its house and when they got a new job, but no one would think that buildings, and lump sum payments, could be invested remotely reasonable. There is potential for double payment into conversion to a series of units for rent. That would here and I ask for some explanation on that. provide the farm owner with a retirement income. Those Going back to where the de-linked system has been units could include horticultural units, micro-dairies, initiated, we could conceivably be left in a situation and land and buildings for a beef or sheep enterprises, whereby the provision of de-linked lump sum payments as well as housing for farm workers. had incentivised a reduction in the amount of land Farmers who do not wish to retire could use the lump being farmed in accordance with the aim of securing sum to transition their farm to become run along environmental public goods. It takes the land, which we agroecological principles. The agricultural transition are hoping will be managed in a more environmentally period could be used to fund the capital investment friendly way, out of the framework. I am sure the required to change the direction of their farm business, Minister gets the drift of where I am going with this. including infrastructure, machinery and new livestock. That concern was raised by a number of witnesses in The flexibilities and possibilities reflect the fact that Committee, particularly the Landworkers Alliance in farmers and their families will be in a wide variety of their written evidence. We think that that would be not circumstances. There are huge differences across the 293 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 294 sector, and many farmers are not driven solely by profit. might cost—it would be sensible to amend the clause to It is not just a business; it is their life. This change will deliver better what is intended and encourage the take-up be hard for many. Some may wish to release capital by of farms by new entrants. selling their land, but others will want to retain an involvement. That is what we are trying to frame. These proposals would help farmers who do want to be able to Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his move out to retire with dignity. If they wish, both their comments and the spirit in which he made them. We skills and their attachment to their farm could be managed will certainly all have to work together on perfecting the as it is transitioned to a new generation. new schemes for the benefit of us all. The amendment seeks to apply conditions on those opting for a lump Amendment 74 does not go far beyond the Government’s sum. Given the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, intentions as already explained: clause 13 already stipulates it would be helpful, with your leave, Mr Stringer, if I that the Secretary of State has the power to “make made a few comments about de-linked payments and provision” for these lump sum payments via regulation the definition of de-linked payments and lump sum and that any recipient must meet criteria as set out in payments. It is important to be clear about that. these regulations, which the Secretary of State has the power to choose. Amendment 74 simply adds to that, De-linked payments, once introduced, will replace with the clarification and guarantee that the criteria for the basic payment scheme for all farmers. They will not receiving these lump sum payments will be to ensure be paid as a lump sum. A lump sum payment will be that the land is genuinely made available to new entrants, completely optional for farmers; it is something they or that the money is used to improve farm holding can apply for. Such payments will replace any future within the purposes of the Bill. basic payment scheme or other delivered payments that they would have been entitled to receive under a previous Many questions arise from the general provisions for payment regime. De-linking payments from the land de-linking and making lump sum payments in and of will allow farmers to access their payments easily and, themselves, and I have already alluded to one or two of we hope, bring much simplification. them. There is uncertainty over whether farmers will get Along with the phasing out of direct payments,de-linking a lump sum from their total, de-linked payments over sends a clear signal that we are leaving behind the the transition period. The document “Farming for the common agricultural policy. It will give farmers greater future” is vague on the issue: it says that the Government flexibility to plan for the future, because they will be will look at offering farmers able to choose how to use the money they receive to best “the option of taking a one-off lump sum payment” suit their circumstances. Some farmers may choose to that is “subject to affordability”. That is a pretty big use it to contribute to their retirement from farming, caveat. It partly goes back to my earlier question about which would help new entrants get into the industry, how much money will be in the system to allow for these while others may use it to adapt or expand their business. things. It then says that the rules for receiving these When clause 12 becomes effective and we introduce payments, which will be consulted on, will cover who de-linked payments, those payments will replace the would be prioritised for these payments current basic payment scheme for all farmers in England “if we need to prioritise applications to manage affordability”. and be paid each year during the remainder of the agricultural transition, rather than as a one-off lump That is not a concrete promise or explanation for what sum. Separately, clause 13 provides the power to make could be a complicated and controversial set of issues. regulations to offer farmers the option of taking a If this is as attractive as I have made it sound, there may one-off lump sum payment in place of future payments, well be a rush. whether BPS or de-linked payments, during the agricultural This is a framework Bill and I understand that, but I transition. refer back to my basic point: farmers want to know On the hon. Gentleman’s points about regulation and what they will be faced with in coming years. We need a the current cross-compliance regime, we have a strong little more detail. There are a great number of questions domestic legal framework for enforcing environmental to be answered about the general issue. What measures and animal health and welfare protections, but we will, are in the Bill to ensure that the land will be managed in of course, keep those powers under review to check that line with environmental principles once payments have they are adequate. We will maintain strong regulatory been de-linked in the transition period with no cross- standards and introduce a new approach to monitoring compliance measures to EU environmental standards? compliance and enforcement. Those receiving de-linked payments will be eligible to apply for the ELMS—the double payment point I made Currently, as the Committee has rehearsed, checking earlier—but there is no guarantee or likelihood that all takes place in only a small number of cases. We hope to will wish to do so. It goes back to the need for strong move to our new system as we go through the transition baseline environmental standards, as raised last week. period. We hope for improved co-ordination between authorities, better data sharing and greater use of earned A statement on page 40 of the policy document says: recognition. Enforcement will be proportionate and “We will confirm the tax treatment of lump sums, as well as fair, and those who do not comply with regulations can delinked payments, in due course.” expect to be sanctioned in future. This is a framework Bill, but gosh, there are huge The Government want to see more public goods and implications as to how attractive or not that may be. As farming to become more productive. The amendment is we all know, the tax issues are pretty significant, and counter to the purpose that underpins lump sums: it people will be pretty uncertain about how the system would tie lump sums to financial assistance under clause 1, will work in practice. In the light of all that uncertainty— but the whole point of lump sums is that they are and, from the taxpayers’ point of view, how much it separate from that. 295 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 296

[Victoria Prentis] this closely. I say to the Minister that Governments are rarely rewarded for the successful bits of policy but are As the Secretary of State outlined in his speech to the tripped up on the bits that the media can alight on and National Farmers Union last week, we are looking to ask why they are happening. provide a means for older farmers to leave the profession The Government might want to look at the issue and with dignity. We are committed to phasing out direct be ready to explain to the public why that might happen. payments and doing so in a way that helps those in the We are facing huge pressures on public expenditure in profession to adjust. Lump sums could bring many general and this could look very generous to those benefits. They could increase the ease for new entrants outside. I have nothing against being generous; I would and those existing farmers who wish to expand and like the Government to be more generous in general. I acquire land. They could also help those remaining in just think there are potential problems in this area. On the industry to invest in their businesses. that basis, I would like to press the amendment to a The Bill gives the opportunity to move away from the vote. highly bureaucratic and complex rules in the CAP. The amendment would go against the thrust of the desire to 10 am move to lump sum payments, by adding conditions to Question put, That the amendment be made. the receipt of funding without any consultation. Ayes 6, Noes 11. The clause would allow the Secretary of State to The Committee divided: attach conditions on those opting for a lump sum, but Division No. 12] we want to get it right. Therefore, it is important for the Government to consult the industry, so that a lump sum AYES scheme is effective in achieving our aims, without Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena introducing needless bureaucracy. I heard what the hon. Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia Gentleman had to say about specific ideas. I would like McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel him to rest assured that we will take those into account and that we are also very keen to discuss with him any NOES further ideas he may have about the lump sum scheme. Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon Our commitment to the farming industry and to the Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Crosbie, Virginia provision of greater public goods is clear, but lump sum Kruger, Danny payments are different, as is this chapter. It is about Dines, Miss Sarah phasing out direct payments. Lump sum payments are Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James one way that we are going to help farmers during the Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria transition, alongside our other plans to deliver real simplification of the scheme. I therefore ask the hon. Question accordingly negatived. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Daniel Zeichner: I have listened closely to the Minister’s response. Although I recognise some of the points she makes, she has not addressed our fundamental concerns. Victoria Prentis: I will say a few words, not least All Governments talk of spending public money wisely. because I hope they will answer the hon. Gentleman’s There is a real risk that it will be hard to keep track of point. Clause 13 provides the Secretary of State with how the system is working, and that public money the power to make regulations to give farmers greater might not be used for the hoped for outcomes. That is choice, by offering them the opportunity to apply for a why we are cautious and will press the amendment to a one-off lump sum payment. That lump sum payment vote. It is important to get more clarity. would be instead of receiving basic payment scheme or We keep coming back to the same point. The Minister de-linked payments during the remainder of the agricultural wants to set out options for the future, go to an iterative transition. I hope that answers his question. We feel that process and learn from it. The truth is that, once it lump sums would provide extra flexibility and choice starts, unless there are protections in place, there are the for farmers. risks we have outlined. There are also risks around taking away some of the cross-compliance rules. The irony is that it could inadvertently allow for lower Daniel Zeichner: I am afraid that does not answer the environmental standards rather than the higher ones question. I will repeat what the policy document says on that we are all keen to achieve. page 39: I do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty, “receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipient and I understand why the Government would not want from applying for payment under our new schemes, including our to be constrained by extra suggestions put at this point. Environmental Land Management system”. However, it is not clear that we will be able to exercise It seems to me that there is a risk there. That is not to do much leverage further down the line. The Government with the lump sum, but with de-linking in general. I are asking for a huge amount of trust to go and design suspect we will go around in circles on this, and I do not these systems and schemes, taking away many of the intend to go any further now, but that is why I have protections, both regarding money and the environment. raised a concern. I do not think I heard the Minister address the Question put and agreed to. double payment issue, which I would like to know about. Many people outside will not necessarily be following Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 297 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 298

Clause 14 Our food security in terms of self-sufficiency is already in long-term decline. We now produce only 61% of our own food, which is down from 74% around 30 years GENERAL PROVISION CONNECTED WITH PAYMENTS TO ago. It is a matter of strategic national interest to ensure FARMERS AND OTHER BENEFICIARIES that our country can, as far as possible, feed itself. A reasonable level of domestic production in a volatile Victoria Prentis: I beg to move amendment 43, in world is a critical aspect of food security. It is a hugely clause 14, page 11, line 45, leave out “any”. complicated and contested issue. The modern world This drafting amendment removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) that we live in is highly interconnected—something for consistency with other similar provisions of the Bill. that, as we speak, is looking increasingly difficult, for As the explanatory statement says,this drafting amendment reasons we are all aware of. Those things raise questions, removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) for and different approaches are taken in different countries, consistency with other similar provisions in the Bill. but this is a good time to be discussing them. Amendment 43 agreed to. There is still a huge amount that we do not know Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the about the impact that the Government’s new trade and Bill. immigration policies will have on domestic food production Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. year to year. Last week I quoted the concerns from some sectors—particularly the poultry sector—about Clause 17 our ability to continue without the people to do the work. We do not know whether the Government will DUTY TO REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON UK FOOD make good on their as yet empty promises and protect SECURITY our domestically produced food from being swamped by imports of a lower standard. That is the—I was Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 7, in going to say “the elephant in the room”, although I am clause 17, page 14, line 20, leave out “five years” and not sure that we are farming elephants. This is a huge insert “year”. issue, which we shall obviously be coming to in the next I am very happy to move this amendment; as keen-eyed few days, and, I suspect, returning to on Report and Members might notice, it was originally tabled in the Third reading. It is one of the top issues at the moment. name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), We do not know what the impact will be of any outcomes so this is probably a circumstance that neither of us with respect to trade deals, but I suggest that they would ever have predicted. We entirely agree with the should be informed by a view on what we are trying to proposal to make this extremely important change to achieve overall. This Committee is a place where we can the clause 17 food security provisions and amend the have at least part of that discussion. timing of the reports from once every five years to I guess that some of those advising the Government every year. have rather let the cat out of the bag over the weekend. I We are all glad that the Government paid heed to am sorry that the right hon. Member for Scarborough the warnings of stakeholders and our predecessors on and Whitby is not here, as he has had problems with the previous Bill Committee and included a duty in the cats in the past, although I was not going to tease him revised Bill to report to Parliament on UK food security. about it too much. The Sunday newspapers, of course, It was widely commented at the time that it seemed were full of the press scoop that one of the new Chancellor’s curious that an Agriculture Bill’s purposes would not top economic advisers thinks that our entire food sector include producing food. I think that the clause is the is not critically important to the UK. Government’s response to that. It is unthinkable that I recognise that the comments of one adviser do not food security provisions—particularly the Government’s Government policy make, but for many of us it feeds intentions with respect to the proportion of food to be into a concern about where these policies are going. It is produceddomesticallyorimported—shouldnotbeincluded also part of the argument I made last week—that there in discussions of the post-Brexit future of our agriculture is a real risk that we are looking at a much smaller, sector. Clause 17 is welcome, but the stipulation that the albeit high-quality and environmentally friendly, food Secretary of State must prepare a report on an issue as sector in this country than we have now.That is something important as the state of the nation’s food security only on which we really need clarity from the Government. once every five years seems weak. It was not just agriculture; the adviser also talked Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab): about fisheries, and suggested that maybe we should I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the follow the example of agriculture in Singapore. We are a five-yearly reports. There should be annual reporting. very different nation from Singapore. We are hugely The guidelines in the Bill are not clear, so does he agree different geographically, because they do not have much that there should be clear targets and actions, and that arable land in the way that we do, so they rely almost the Bill should say what needs to be carried out to look entirely on imports of food. I would go further than at food security? that and say that this is part of the debate about what it means to be English or British. Our rural heritage is a Daniel Zeichner: I agree with my hon. Friend. We key part of our country, and the suggestion that we do need much more clarity. The clause is clearly not strong not need some of it is, frankly, deeply shocking. enough, at a time when food security has the potential I am sure the Minister will disassociate herself from to become a major cause of uncertainty and concern as that kind of comment, but, given the extraordinary we leave the EU and negotiate our own trade deals. It is turmoil going on within No. 10 at the moment, this of course an extremely topical matter, given many of seems a classic example of taking advice from weirdos the discussions going on at the moment. and misfits. I am afraid that the frivolous musings of 299 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 300

[Daniel Zeichner] However, I will explain the clause’s proposed frequency of reporting “at least” every five years and why we think people in such positions have very real consequences on that will provide for both a more meaningful report on the good work that the Minister is trying to do on a Bill food security in the medium and longer term and a such as this, and I am sure she did not welcome some of sounder basis for any relevant and appropriate policy the publicity over the weekend. I would gently impress response. on her the importance of paying heed to something that Food security is a complex issue that cannot be we on the Opposition side have been trying to warn her measured or defined by a single metric. The Government about throughout this Bill Committee: that this Bill work closely with the food industry to ensure that we needs to be strengthened to guard against exactly this have a secure food supply. As the hon. Gentleman says, kind of approach, which undermines many of the worthy this is very important at this important point of change intentions behind it. in our farming practices, and it may well be that it is Going back to the food security report itself, the appropriate to have a report before the five years is up. danger in that, under this clause, we will not even see However, I would like to maintain the provisions in that the first one until after the next election, when we will allow the Government to decide that this is appropriate have been out of the EU for half a decade. To us, it “at least” every five years. seems extraordinary that we would wait so long. We I also ask the hon. Gentleman to view this in context. believe it needs to be done much more frequently. Given There has not been a food security report since 2010. I the kind of dramatic changes we are seeing around the think we all agree that a report is a positive step. We are world with the climate crisis, flooding and so on, we making an important new commitment to analyse and think that having reports on our food security annually publish a regular report on this important subject. The would be a vital tool in the Government’s toolkit, report will use a set of core measurements for each key enabling them to react to trends as they develop year on topic area, so that we can consider the trends over time. year and to address them. A further weakness of the These will be drawn from a blend of national and food security report approach is that we can have a international data sources. Sources that we expect to report, but we then need some tools to respond to what draw on include trade and domestic production data the report is telling us. and statistics on energy, household expenditure, food There is considerable consensus, not just among the and food safety. Many of those sources are in the public hon. Members who have signed the amendment previously domain already and can be considered by anybody who and on this occasion, but across the sector. We have wishes to consider them in between reports, but we heard from the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association, propose that we do a really substantial report not on an and from the environmental organisations Greener UK annual basis but within a longer period, and at least and the Nature Friendly Farming Network. It is unusual; once every five years. we have seen remarkable consensus on a number of The frequency of reporting every five years was included these points, but on this point there is real consensus. I to balance the commitment to regularly report with the hope that the Minister has been paying attention to the need to allow sufficient time to observe key trends from fact that the original proposal came from her Government’s this vast variety of sources. I hope that explains why own Back Benchers. There is now a cross-party effort to the clause is in the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to shift the Government on this. withdraw the amendment. This is the first time in more than 40 years that a Secretary of State has been directly responsible for the Daniel Zeichner: The Minister makes a fine attempt, nation’s food security. It is vital that we get this right, so but I am afraid that this is a basic issue of trust. we welcome the cross-party support for the amendment— Governments are rarely trusted, however hard they try. not necessarily from the Government, but from their She asks us to take this on trust, and frankly we do not. Back Benchers. Five years is simply too long to wait for As we will come back to time and again, we hear these important reports. I hope the Minister has noted Ministers repeatedly say this, in which case they should the strength of feeling. It is not going to go away, and put it in the Bill. That would solve the problems. Of that is why we will push this amendment to a vote. course, we know that they will not, because this is all part of the new macho-posturing negotiating world 10.15 am that we now live in post Brexit. We used to have a Victoria Prentis: Although the issue of standards is civilised approach to the world, but no longer. This is not entirely on-topic, I will deal with it briefly. I refer the new world, but these questions are not answered. the hon. Gentleman not to leaks from Downing Street Food security reporting is particularly interesting, advisers but to a speech in the Chamber last night by and our further amendments will tease more of this the Secretary of State for International Trade, who said out. The Government could reassure people by saying very clearly that roughly what they expect the future to look like for food “we will not lower our standards. We will maintain our food security. By not so doing, they absolutely stoke the safety and animal welfare standards and will not lower them as scepticism of people who look at that adviser’s comments part of this free trade agreement. We decide which standards we and think that that is actually where some of these abide by here in the UK. We have exceptionally high standards of people want to go. I invite Government Members to animal welfare”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 649.] think hard about whether they are actually in the loop I am sure we will come back to that later in our on this. I think some people out there have a very clear consideration of the Bill. idea about where we should want to go. That is why the I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the Government are reluctant to issue a food security statement. amendment and its cross-party origins, and I understand That would give some idea of what they hope for in why it may appear to be an attractive proposition. future. If they do not have an idea, that is also pretty 301 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 302 scary. There are plenty of reasons why Oppositions and As a starting point, we believe that a further decline the country do not always trust Governments. Sadly, would be unwelcome. All I am trying to find from the experience often suggests they were right to be sceptical. Government is whether they agree, which they ought to It is absolutely right to ask these hard questions, be able to tell us. The clause could also have included a particularly because the Minister said that it would be requirement to specify food security targets and to at least once every five years. We are being asked to trust identify the actions to be prioritised if those targets are the Government. If the Government have stuff to hide, not being met. That goes back to my point that it is all which I suspect they have, they are not going to do that very well to produce a report but, if it is to be used as a very often. Five years is far too long. I agree with the tool for change and action, levers will also be needed. Back-Bench Government Members on the side who We believe amendment 75 would help with that. tabled the amendment and clearly share my concerns. I Entirely absent from this clause is the contribution of want to see a much clearer outcome, which is why I will our agricultural workforce to food security, and how press the amendment to a vote. immigration changes will affect that. It is fairly clear to Question put, That the amendment be made. those of us who are close to the sector and know what it is talking about that, as it stands, there could be quite The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. substantial changes. They could be unintended, but Division No. 13] changes there would be, and we need to know how they will be dealt with. AYES I turn to amendment 76. It is disappointing that the Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena remit of the proposed report does not include that Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia aspect of food security: not just supply, but whether McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel people can access that supply. It is worth noting that the Environmental Audit Committee’s January 2019 report NOES “Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up” Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon found that Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia “Food insecurity is a significant and growing issue in the UK, Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny with…levels…among the worst…in Europe, especially for children.” Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James Avid watchers of “Countryfile” will have noticed that Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria this weekend one of the lead reports was on food banks in rural areas. Question accordingly negatived. The report—the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, not the “Countryfile”report, although “Countryfile” Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 75, in is more fun in some ways; I really should not ad lib clause 17, page 14, line 25, at end insert— when I have notes—explicitly highlighted how the “(aa) the impact of food production upon global resource “Government has failed to recognise and respond” sustainability (including global carbon emissions, domestically, allowing these issues fall between the cracks. impacts on biodiversity and water usage);” The Committee recommended that the Government appoint a Minister for hunger,but they have not responded to that sensible suggestion. The fact is that, sadly, food The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss poverty is now all too rife in this country. The stat amendment 76, in clause 17, page 14, line 27, at end frequently quoted is that there are now more food insert— banks than McDonald’s outlets, and we know how (ba) food poverty and progress towards achievement of many of those there are. the UN Sustainable Development Goal on hunger, malnutrition and food poverty (SDG 2);” In “Countryfile”I was struck by the Frome community fridge. There is also an excellent one at the Edge Café in Cambridge. We did not previously have to concern Daniel Zeichner: We believe there are a number of ourselves with such things,because there was a presumption missed opportunities to strengthen clause 17 to provide that policy in general would ensure that we had a adequate reports on food insecurity. Very little has been plentiful supply of affordable food; that is, of course, revealed in the Government’s “Farming for the future” part of the aim of the common agricultural policy. That policy document about what those reports might involve. goes to the heart of our discussion of the Bill, because It merely repeats the provisions in clause 17 that the for too many of our people that is not the case. Although reports may include global food availability; supply it is wonderful that people make the effort to try to deal sources for food, including the availability to the public with this problem, in a rich country we should not be in of food from domestic and other sources; the resilience such a situation. Food is an essential and basic human of the supply chain; household expenditure on food; right, and it is shocking that the country is not performing and food safety. better on that. It is therefore right that that aspect All of those are important, but we believe there could of reporting on food security should be included in be much clearer requirements relating to the degree of the Bill. the nation’sfood security derived from domestic production. The recording of household expenditure on food, as That is a point I have already alluded to. There should suggested in the Government’s new policy document, also be a clear commitment to prevent any further will not properly record the free, charitable provision of decline in self-sufficiency. That prompts the question of food that has become a core staple for so many people. I whether one considers the current position to be the urge the Government to consider expanding their proposed right one. I am happy to engage in a debate on that. report to include the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition 303 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 304

[Daniel Zeichner] sustainability issues—we discussed that at length last week—and monitor and report on the impact of each among the population, and the extent and distribution financial assistance scheme. According to the explanatory of food bank demand and provision. I suspect that, not notes, that could include an assessment of the extent to many years ago, many of us would have thought it which public goods have been delivered. However, the highly unlikely that in 2020 we would have to be discussing Secretary of State has complete discretion over the the need to report on hunger and malnutrition. It does number and frequency of these reports, and no requirement not reflect well on the Government’s record that we to act upon them. have to ask for that, but we must do so if we are to The Government have rejected our amendments that eliminate this problem. aimed to pin down the multi-annual financial assistance The amendment seeks to address that by stipulating programmes, and to stipulate that the opinion of the that UK food security reports include analysis of food office for environmental protection should be sought as poverty and our progress towards achieving UN sustainable to whether the financial assistance given under the Bill development goal no. 2, which is to end hunger, achieve has been sufficient to meet the strategic objectives of food security and improve nutrition, and promote the funding. The provisions lack the consistency required sustainable agriculture. The Government signed up to to make them robust enough to secure those worthy that goal, and they probably thought we would never objectives, to which we all subscribe. The Bill has lofty seek to apply it here, because we had assumed that it aims, which are welcome, but lacks a strong overarching would not be necessary. Sadly, it is, and we are signed up framework for measuring progress and success, or even to it, so the Government should not have any problem failure, in order to ensure the aims are achieved. including those provisions in their flagship post-Brexit The inclusion of global resource sustainability in the Bill on their commitment to food and food production. Government’s food security reports could have been a The themes that the food security reports will cover simple way—entirely following the precedent set in are remarkably similar to those of the UK food security previous UK food security reporting—to ensure that assessment carried out by the previous Labour Government we considered the impact of global issues, such as the in 2009. In fact, it looks like much of that has been climate crisis and water use, on our food security. Not carried forward. In stipulating that the reports may only that, but it could provide a way of measuring the include data about success of the Bill’s overarching aim of supporting “global food availability…supply sources for food…the resilience sustainability in our agriculture by considering our of the supply chain…household expenditure on food” impact on global resource sustainability. Therefore, we think global resource sustainability should be included and “food safety”, the Bill and the recent policy document in the areas covered by the Secretary of State’s food adopt every area covered by the previous Labour security reports. Government’s report on food security, except one: global resource sustainability. Victoria Prentis: Self-sufficiency has only ever been one part of food security in this country. We supplement 10.30 am our produce with a range of other products from around That area was explicitly included in Labour’s report the world that are difficult to grow and rear here. Our on food security to provide a global environmental high degree of food security is built on access to a range context to UK food security, to ensure that we were of sources, including robust supply chains across a wide paying sufficient attention to longer term environmental range of countries in addition to domestic production. challenges that could impact food production, particularly It is important to view the debate on food security in climate change and agricultural intensification, and to that light. enable us to understand the impact of our own food I begin with amendment 75. I reassure the hon. production on natural resources in order to prevent Gentleman that we are planning to include in the food issues such as soil degradation and resource depletion. security report a theme relating to global food security It is puzzling that in a Bill about reforming our agricultural and how it affects food security in the UK. I have a system to take greater account of such ecological and summary of some of the reports that we might consider climate concerns, the Government have left out that in the section on global food availability, which may area in their provisions to provide reports on food reassure him. However, I do not want him to think that security. It would be interesting to know the thinking what I will say is conclusive or relates to other issues behind that decision. that will be considered in the report; this is just about It is particularly frustrating because, as we have global food availability, which relates to amendment 75. established, there is nothing strong enough in the Bill to We would expect to look at global output per capita, guarantee the measurement of the Government’s progress cereal yield per region, commodity price analysis, country in what they are trying to achieve by financially supporting consumption data and country commodity trade the clause 1 public goods that focus on sustainability. proportions. In addition, I suspect many other reports We know the Bill includes a requirement for the Secretary and factors will be considered, many of which will be of State to have regard to the need to encourage the publicly available between reports. production of food in an environmentally sustainable We will include consideration of the sustainability of way, but there is no requirement to report regularly on global resources, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will whether they are achieving that. understand that we do not intend to list in the Bill all The Bill stipulates that the Secretary of State must, the indicators and data sources that we intend to use in from time to time,produce multi-annual financial assistance the preparation of the report, because doing so would plans laying out their strategic priorities for providing make the Bill unwieldy—one can imagine a situation in assistance for the clause 1 public goods that focus on which one of those data sources becomes unavailable 305 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 306 between reports. That is why the clause is structured as Division No. 14] it is. It is not that we will not look at those sources; it is just that we do not want to list them. In producing the AYES report, we will set out our analysis of the wide range of Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena statistics relating to food security in the UK, from Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia global UN data to UK national statistics. I therefore McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel ask him to withdraw amendment 75. On amendment 76, I reassure the hon. Gentleman NOES that we already intend to address food insecurity in the Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon report. The Government are committed to achieving Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia the principles set out in the UN sustainable development Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny goals. We plan, under subsection (2)(d) of clause 17, to Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James report on how the UK is performing against those Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria goals. As part of that theme, we intend to consider all the key indicators that will help us to understand the Question accordingly negatived. impact of household food insecurity, including data from the Office for National Statistics. As I said last week, food insecurity is an issue that we Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I beg to move should all take very seriously, and the Government are amendment 62, in clause 17, page 14, line 32, at end committed to having a strong safety net for those who insert— suffer from food insecurity. I will politely say again that “(f) food insecurity. the £95 billion welfare budget is the first port of call for (3) For the purposes of this section ‘food insecurity’ means a people who suffer from food insecurity. It is proper that person’s state in which consistent access to adequate food is we consider food insecurity as part of this report—we limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during have said that we will do so—but the welfare system is the year. the place for people with food insecurity, and that is (4) Before laying a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of where they should go. I do not denigrate in any way the State must— efforts and the great achievements of food banks and (a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the food fridges around the country. relevant Northern Ireland department, and such I hope that I have suitably clarified our intentions other persons as the Secretary of State considers and explained why it is not necessary to include specific appropriate, and text in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to (b) have due regard to international best practice on food withdraw the amendment. insecurity, including but not limited to the United States Household Food Security Survey. Daniel Zeichner: Wewill not withdrawthese amendments. (5) A report under subsection (1) must include— I hear what the Minister says about the welfare system, (a) an assessment of trends in food insecurity, broken but the welfare system is failing. That is why people are down by different parts of the United Kingdom and hungry. It did not use to be the case and it does not have different regions of England, and to be the case, but that is the case. That is why it is right (b) a summary of actions to be taken in areas of high food that the Government set out their position and the insecurity by the UK Government, the Scottish Opposition say, “Frankly, you are wrong, and we will Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern not accept this.” Ireland Executive. This is a Bill about agriculture, which many of us still (6) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, think is as much about food as environmental protections, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland although we want to ensure we do that they are of the department before preparing a report under subsection (1). highest standard. Those things should not be contradictory. (7) In this section— If we are talking about food, we must talk about access ‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means— to it. It was striking to see people on “Countryfile” who (a) England, are on such low wages that they can barely afford to buy the food that they are producing. There is something (b) Scotland, seriously wrong here. We do not think this is a big ask, (c) Wales, and given that the Government have signed up to the sustainable (d) Northern Ireland; and millennium development goals. ‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as that I am afraid it is, again, a question of trust. The used by the Office for National Statistics.” Government want a vague framework. I am grateful to Amendment 62 was initially tabled in the name of my the Minister for making some points about global food hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Emma production, because they are now on the record, so Lewell-Buck), but it has support from at least three when we come to rehash this argument, when we do get parties. I pay tribute to her and the work she did on the some of these food reports, we will hold her to that. In all-party parliamentary group on hunger with the former the meantime, it is essential to press this amendment to Member for Birkenhead, which led to the establishment a vote, because too many people across this country— of Feeding Britain and its offshoots, such as Feeding thousands every week—use food banks. It would be a Bristol. I am pleased to have been involved in that. dereliction of duty on our side not to press this to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields introduced a private Member’s Bill a while ago, and as a Question put, That the amendment be made. result of that pressure the Government agreed to measure The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. household food insecurity as part of the family resources 307 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 308

[Kerry McCarthy] takes is for the fridge or the washing machine to stop working, or for there to be some sort of flooding and survey. The first data will be available in 2021. In a the house to not be insured, for “just being able to recent press release, she referred to the amendment manage” to become “not being able to manage at all”. saying that This amendment would not only mean that we have “there is no commitment…that the measure will continue for the data and a clearer understanding of the problem, future years, nor that the results of the survey they are conducting but enable the Government, when they make the report will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny.” to Parliament, to set out the actions they would take to The point of amendment 62 is to try to give some relieve food insecurity in the areas where it is highest. It certainty. As she says, we have seen is the whole package of measures. I will conclude by “devastating levels of hunger right across the UK” saying that the amendment is supported by Feeding and the UK has been Britain, the Food Foundation—established by a former “dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing to measure food Conservative MP, Laura Sandys, who has done great insecurity” work there—Sustain, the Independent Food Aid Network but we do need a degree of certainty about it. and the Food Ethics Council. As to the Minister’s comments on the welfare system, a Department for Work and Pensions Minister in the Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab): I would House of Lords said yesterday that there is “no doubt” like to speak in favour of amendment 62, tabled by my at all that universal credit has driven people towards hon. Friend the Member for South Shields . I commend using food banks. Many people who use food banks are her tireless work on food poverty and insecurity, and experiencing in-work poverty. We have had examples of her considerable knowledge and expertise in the area. people who work for Tesco selling cheap food but who are still not being paid enough, particularly if they are In February last year, the Government agreed to casual workers or on zero-hours contracts, and the measure household food insecurity and to report on it welfare system is not flexible enough to adapt to that. by March 2021. I welcome the fact that the Department Clearly we have a crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Work and Pensions has included food insecurity for South Shields says: measurement questions in the family resources survey, “It is clear urgent action is needed. To keep ignoring this but this breakthrough, and the duty to report on the issue is a shameful dereliction of duty.” survey results, must be enshrined in law. We have an We need firm data. Amendment 62 would give the opportunity to do just that, so that the measurement Government the tools they need to identify the key happens routinely. drivers of food bank use in detail, as well as which As it stands, the Government’s commitment fails to groups in our society are most likely to request emergency ensure that the measurement will continue for future food parcels. It will shine a light on the number of years, or that the results of the survey will be laid before people who, year-on-year, go several days without food, Parliament for scrutiny. Amendment 62 would also as well as on others who skip meals due to lack of serve to make the Government’s pledge more money or parents who sacrifice their own meals to feed comprehensive, by expanding the definition of food their children—not all of them will be food bank users. insecurity to consider whether everyone in the UK can In the past, the Government have been sceptical of data get access to or afford the food available. produced on food bank use by, for example, the Trussell The definition of food security in the Bill currently Trust. That is all we have been able to rely on. It has covers only global food availability, where food comes become a proxy measure for hunger and food insecurity, from, the resilience of the supply chain and data on but there will be many families who rely on broader household food expenditure, food safety and consumer programmes of support. Feeding Bristol had a holiday confidence. It does not include any measure of food hunger programme to compensate for the fact that poverty or household food insecurity, contrary to an children do not get access to free school meals during internationally agreed definition of food security. Year the long summer holidays. That would not necessarily after year, charitable food banks have provided evidence be picked up by the food bank data, because food of the gigantic increase in the number of our constituents distributed with play schemes and so on. running out of money for food. Teachers tell us of children in their classes struggling because they are 10.45 am going hungry. Local authorities are cancelling meals on I was privileged to take part into the children’s future wheels services due to unprecedented cuts in their budgets. food inquiry last year.The chief executive of the Childhood For too long, the problem of food insecurity, which Trust, Laurence Guinness, told the inquiry: affects children and adults in all corners of the UK, has “We have spoken to children who have shoplifted for food, been overlooked. It leaves lifelong scars on health and scavenged for food from bins, eaten tissue paper to fend off hunger, bartered for food at school, sold drugs for food, and wellbeing. Food banks and other food aid providers mugged other children for money for food.” cannot be left to continue to pick up the pieces and I am sure some of those issues are familiar to hon. distribute increasing numbers of emergency food supplies. Members here today. It is essential that we try to pin We need the Government to commit to regular food down what we are doing as a country to tackle food insecurity measurements and to the resulting data being insecurity and food poverty, and that Ministers have a scrutinised. yearly duty to monitor those trends in people who are food insecure. Victoria Prentis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. In some cases, people may not need to rely on food Lady, and I welcome her to her place. I thank the hon. banks yet, but they may be only one crisis away. I always Member for Bristol East for the amendment, and I recognise think that when people rely on very low incomes, all it the commitment of the hon. Member for South Shields 309 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 310 in her important work around food insecurity and in Clause 19 ensuring engagement with the devolved Administrations on the amendment. EXCEPTIONAL MARKET CONDITIONS: POWERS AVAILABLE We are planning to include a theme on household food TO SECRETARY OF STATE security, which is clearly set out in subsection (2)(d). As Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the part of that theme, we will be considering the key Bill. indicators that help us take a view on food insecurity and why it happens. I hope that the hon. Member for Victoria Prentis: In the health and harmony consultation, Bristol East will understand that we do not intend to list the majority of respondents suggested that Government in the Bill all the data sources we will use in the report, intervention is essential in extreme circumstances,identifying as it would make the Bill unhelpfully unwieldy. market interventions in times of extreme price volatility As I said on a previous amendment, our purpose in as an area of particular concern. However, a high producing the report is to set out our analysis of the proportion of responses argued that farmers should widest relevant sets of statistics relating to food security self-manage risk. While the Government understand in the UK, ranging from global UN data to UK national that there are events that even the most resilient of statistics. Many of those data sets are only published at farmers cannot provide for, the agricultural industry UK level, so breakdown to the devolved Administration must be sufficiently dynamic and self-reliant to survive area or regional level will not be available in all instances. in a free market. The clause tries to balance those two We will not commit at this stage to the precise data we factors by creating new powers for the Secretary of will use, but all available relevant data will be considered, State to provide financial assistance to farmers in England including breakdown by devolved Administration area and to run public intervention and private storage if appropriate. schemes during exceptional market conditions. It is our intention that the report will inform discussion and debate about UK food security, both across Daniel Zeichner: Before speaking on the clause, I give Government and with wider stakeholders—that is why the Minister advance notice that I will also say a word we are doing it. I assure the hon. Lady that we will of on clause 22, on data. I draw attention to paragraph 170 course consider the themes covered in the report, and of the explanatory notes to the Bill. This is potentially a the analysis, evidence and trends within it, with all sorts big issue and goes back to our philosophical discussions of stakeholders, including the devolved Administrations. last week on what the common agricultural policy had We have well-established forums for discussion of that been for, to some extent. Of course, it was there to deal nature. Introducing a more formal requirement for a with extreme volatility and difficulty and so on. The consultation for Ministers with Scotland, Wales and Government make the fair point of questioning whether Northern Ireland before the report is even laid is therefore that is appropriate in a modern, more complicated unnecessary. world. However, I urge a slight note of caution to those I hope that clarifies the intention of the clause and who imagine that this is pretty much a carry-over of the provides the hon. Lady with sufficient assurance. I ask current system. her to withdraw the amendment. There is a pretty clear cautionary note in paragraph 172 of the explanatory notes, where the Government say: Kerry McCarthy: The problem with subsection (2)(d) “Analysis suggests that public intervention and private storage is that it just talks about aid are not required to enable farmers to manage their risks.” “household expenditure on food (including in comparison to That is quite a strong sentence. The notes continue: expenditure on other items)”. “They can have negative effects, encouraging more risky farming As we have outlined today, that does not go anywhere practices and crowding out the development of futures markets, innovative contracts and private sector insurance products. Such near looking at the scale of the problem and the many market intervention schemes, if available routinely rather than in factors that contribute to food insecurity. I am not genuinely exceptional circumstances, run counter to the image of prepared to withdraw the amendment. a dynamic and self-reliant agriculture industry.” Question put, That the amendment be made. That could lead to many an academic paper, because The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. it is a huge subject for discussion and debate. Many of Division No. 15] us will think that it is probably fair enough that risk should be transferred on to the agriculture sector itself. AYES During the foot and mouth crisis almost 20 years ago, Debbonaire, Thangam Oppong-Asare, Abena many commentators made exactly that point. In particular, Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia those from the manufacturing sector, who had seen McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel their sector decimated by market forces, wondered why it was different for others. The reason is that food is a NOES basic human need. This goes almost back to the discussion we were just having about food security. We may be able Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon to live without some widgets, but we cannot live without Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia food. Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James This is a really big, substantial issue, but is tucked Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria away in a subsection. I suspect that some farmers will look at it and think not only that the future will hold no support and a much more complicated—in the view of Question accordingly negatived. some us—move to environmental land management Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. systems, but that they will also have to deal with Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. “futures markets, innovative contracts— 311 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 312

[Daniel Zeichner] possibility and many people in Cambridge are working on it. Agri-tech East is a powerful force for innovation I think a lot of us know what “innovative”often means— and, I hope, good—but alongside all the politics with “and private sector insurance products.” data there are one or two caveats. I raise that just to sound a warning note. I am not sure The House of Commons Library briefing says—I that the matter has been discussed sufficiently. imagine this has been deduced from the Bill: “Data would normally be published in anonymised form”. 11 am Evidence from elsewhere suggests that data anonymity Abena Oppong-Asare: I completely agree with my is really hard to achieve. What we have seen with hon. Friend’s points. The Tenant Farmers Association artificial intelligence and all the rest of it suggests that highlighted the same matter in its written evidence, the power is there to trace anything back, so I urge a saying that the clause mentions only “‘acute’ hardship word of caution on that. or difficulty” and would not be invoked for “‘chronic’ or The reason I am cautious is that my reading of long-lasting difficulties”, which, as has been mentioned, clause 22(4), dealing with people who are “closely would include foot and mouth disease or epidemic connected”, raises a few anxieties in my mind about diseases. In the current climate, we should look at that whether data is going to be collected on people working and make sure that agricultural producers are extremely in agriculture. That is not always a force for good, I am resilient, and that they have that level of support, particularly afraid, and I want to make sure there are proper protections when such crises happen, because they are expensive. for people. There could be a big impact, particularly on the agricultural The Bill mentions vets, and there may well be good community and on consumers, especially in the face of reasons for that related to animal health. However, we the economic challenges of Brexit. already have a workforce who are, in my view, often poorly paid and who face some serious and relentless Daniel Zeichner: That is an important intervention, challenges. I worry that further scrutinising them through and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the a monitoring and data system would create a series of evidence of the Tenant Farmers Association. There is a further problems, so I would welcome the Minister’s bigger debate to be had—the Minister is nodding—although observations on that, and ask whether she shares my I am sure that we can leave that for another day. The concerns. I am not sure there is much we can do about issue is important and I hope that it will be looked at this issue in the Bill at the moment, but monitoring is more closely. clearly being set out as a way forward, and I hope we can make sure that we protect the people involved. Victoria Prentis: By creating a new power we are moving away from the crisis measures that were designed with the EU market in mind and allowing schemes to be Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for created that are tailored to our domestic conditions. It what he has said, and I do not wish in any way to make is important that farmers feel the Government are able light of his concerns about data. How we obtain and to help where necessary. However, it is equally important hold data is extremely important, and I am very happy that those financial assistance and intervention powers to answer any concerns that he has on this subject. will not be seen as a panacea for any issue in agricultural The clause seeks to provide clarity about who might markets.They are intended for use in exceptional situations. be required to provide information. A fairly broad The discretionary nature of the power will, I hope, scope has been outlined within the clause, and I think reassure the sector that the Government will be able to the drafters were trying to take a common-sense and help should extreme circumstances come to pass, by down-to-earth approach to what sort of people we taking action and tailoring it to those exceptional might need to get data from. For example, farmers, circumstances. It will also ensure that intervention in abattoirs, vets, wholesalers and retailers might well be in the market and financial assistance will be limited to scope, but would not by any means always need to be in occasions when they are really necessary. the frontline of data collection; it depends on the circumstances. It is important to note that those connected Question put and agreed to. to the agri-food supply chain include people undertaking Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. activities capable of affecting the health of creatures Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. and plants in that food chain, or the safety of products.

Clause 22 Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate how difficult it is to frame these things, but that would include pretty much MEANING OF “AGRI-FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN” everybody who is involved, as far as I can tell. I cannot Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the think of anybody who is not going to be caught by that Bill. definition, which is really my concern. Obviously, we all hope these powers will be used for the right purposes, Daniel Zeichner: I apologise, Mr Stringer, for not but it is easy to see how they could become a new listing the clause earlier as one on which I wanted to tyranny if every tractor had a camera in its cab and make an observation. I should declare—I am a bit of a people were being monitored. data person—that I run the all-party parliamentary group on data analytics. The Minister sighs, but the Victoria Prentis: That is not at all the intention. The data is important and has huge potential. We are in an intention is that where it is necessary to collect data era of precision agriculture where we seek to be able to from those in the food chain, the clause gives us the provide, now and in the future, the correct nutrients for ability to do so. That is not at all to say that we will the individual Brussels sprout plant. That is an exciting routinely connect data from all these actors, only that 313 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 314 the power is there to enable us to do so when required. The idea is that an actor will receive the draft proposal. For example, with the coronavirus outbreak, it is possible— One example is that if a small-scale blackberry grower although I very much hope this is not the case—that does not think it appropriate for them to provide data further down the food chain, we will need to know who on productivity, which it may well not be, they will be is touching the food that we eat or is responsible for able to submit that in response to the Secretary of State. various areas of it. I can foresee a situation in which it The Secretary of State will then review whether it is might be possible to ask people who seem far away from necessary to carry out the initial requirement for data the farm gate to provide their data, although I very collection. much hope that does not happen. It has been difficult to draft this clause. The hon. Before any data requirements are imposed, a draft Member for Cambridge understands that the need for proposal must first be sent to all relevant parties. If a public safety and food security along the supply chain supply chain member believes that such a request is not has to be balanced with the need to protect people’s appropriate, they will be provided with at least four privacy and not to overburden them with regulation. I weeks to notify the Secretary of State of their reasoning. hope he feels we have broadly got the balance right. Question put and agreed to. Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister confirm whether Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. those interested parties include the relevant trade union? Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. Victoria Prentis: I am not sure that under the drafting —(James Morris.) of the clause trade unions would be included; in fact, I think they would not. However, it is open to members of a trade union to consult that union as necessary, and 11.13 am I would not seek to stop them doing so. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Tenth Sitting

Tuesday 3 March 2020

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 27 AND 28 agreed to. SCHEDULE 1 agreed to. CLAUSE 29 agreed to. SCHEDULE 2 agreed to. CLAUSES 30 TO 34 agreed to, some with amendments. SCHEDULE 3 agreed to, with amendments. CLAUSE 35 agreed to. SCHEDULE 4 agreed to. CLAUSES 36 TO 39 agreed to, one with amendments. Adjourned till Thursday 5 March at half-past Eleven o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 7 March 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/. 315 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 316

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †SIR DAVID AMESS,GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of † Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) (Con) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † attended the Committee 317 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 318

accept our ideas, our advice and our suggestions. There Public Bill Committee is no better time to start doing so than now, by accepting amendments 77, 78 and 79. Tuesday 3 March 2020 The amendments reflect a great deal of interest from many of the relevant external bodies, and we have received many thoughtful and reflective commentaries (Afternoon) from organisations including the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and Greener UK. I am [SIR DAVID AMESS in the Chair] grateful to them all for the hard work they are doing on behalf of their members and sectors, which includes a Agriculture Bill collective welcoming of the fact that fairness is required in the supply chain; we need to ensure that there is transparency and openness, too. The Bill is particularly Clause 27 weak in those areas.

FAIR DEALING OBLIGATIONS OF BUSINESS PURCHASERS The Government need to rethink and revisit the OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS supply chain provisions designed to secure a fairer price to farmers for the food they produce. Those provisions 2 pm have been broadened in this iteration of the Bill, but Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to move there is still no duty to use them, and the Government amendment 77, in clause 27, page 22, line 4, leave out have not published anything about how they intend to lines 4 to 7 and insert— use the powers and who would be enforcing, using and safeguarding them. Our amendments would provide “(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, some clarification on those questions. make regulations— We note that the NFU believes there should be an (a) imposing obligations on all business purchasers of obligation on a Secretary of State to introduce regulations agricultural products in relation to contracts they to ensure a baseline of fair dealings between business make for the purchase of agricultural products from purchasers and producers across all sectors, and that all qualifying sellers;” those regulations should be brought forward within 12 months of the Bill’s coming into force. They are right The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss to call for speedy implementation of the measures that the following: would give effect to the fairness we all want, so I support Amendment 78, in clause 27, page 22, line 11, after those calls from the NFU. “fair” insert “dealing and fair”. We have heard from a number of stakeholders about Amendment 79, in clause 27, page 22, line 12, at end the need for a strong and meaningful overarching body, insert— and they are right. We need the Minister to provide “(2A) The Secretary of State may also make regulations for some clarity about who that regulator will be, how it the purpose set out in subsection (2) in relation to the purchase will work, and what it will look like. It is clear to us on of agricultural products in one or more of the sectors listed in the Labour Benches that the Government have a vital Schedule 1 by business purchasers from qualifying sellers.” role to play, and our amendments will help ensure that This amendment would ensure that there is an overarching requirement this role is carried out. We should nail down today the for fair dealing across the whole agricultural industry, with the ability fact that the regulator should be the Groceries Code to develop sector specific regulations to address any particular areas of unfair practice. Adjudicator. The Bill as it stands leaves hanging the question of who the regulator should be, and the last Ruth Jones: It is a pleasure to serve under your things anyone in the real world needs at this time are chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I am pleased to uncertainty, indecision and confusion. speak to these important amendments. The elephant in the room—we spoke earlier about Over recent weeks, as we have worked our way through one elephant in the room, but this is another elephant—is the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge our departure from the European Union. There will and I have moved and spoken to a number of amendments, soon be tough and competing demands on the Government and I have noted not only the importance of this for resources, focus, scrutiny and implementation, but I legislation, but the potential that accompanies it. As we hope that in the weeks ahead, this Bill will receive the approach this stage in our consideration of the Bill, it is strong and guaranteed focus of Ministers on the Treasury time that we reminded ourselves of the motives and Benches. headlines around it. Before she was sent to the Back Benches, the former Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Does the hon. Lady accept that there are some areas in Barnet (Theresa Villiers), said that the Agriculture Bill the agricultural trade, such as the grain market, where “will transform British farming, enabling a balance between food there is no market failure? There are lots of buyers and production and the environment which will safeguard our countryside lots of sellers in that area, and it operates very well. and farming communities for the future.” I am sure Members will agree that those are aspirational Ruth Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his and noble aims—a vision that nobody could disagree intervention. Of course, he is an expert in this area and I with. I just wish that the content of the Bill matched the bow to his superior knowledge, but what we are saying media lines published by officials at the Department. is that we need to clear the matter up for the whole industry, However, I say to the Minister that we can deliver that not just for certain sectors that already work well. vision together on a cross-party basis if the Government However, I appreciate his intervention. 319 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 320

I hope that the amendments have shown the Government of the same theme. We do not want to treat all sectors that there is widespread support for this action. They the same when they raise different issues and come to us are about not partisan advantage, but clarity for the with very different current practices. sector and an improved set of circumstances and conditions. If issues that are consistent across multiple sectors I am proud to have tabled them. are revealed, and if they could be addressed under new, comprehensive regulation, we absolutely have the power TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment, to deliver that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): What a pleasure Newport West to withdraw the amendment. it is to have you back with us, Sir David! I thank the hon. Lady for the amendments, which reflect an obvious Ruth Jones: I listened very carefully to the Minister. I desire to ensure that all farmers and producers are agree that we do not disagree on the broad principles, spared from unfair trading practices. We absolutely but I am seeking to get the regulations tied down so that share that goal; our only disagreement is the means they are clear and comprehensive for everybody in the proposed to achieve it. agricultural sector. It seems reasonable that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be the regulator. I do not see Essentially, we believe in the principle of a targeted any dissent from that, but it would be helpful if we could solution for a specific problem, and we are keen to take tie things down in writing rather than, as the Minister the time to get the solution right. No two agricultural says, in verbal agreements. sectors are the same, and neither are the contractual issues that they face. Certain sectors, such as the poultry Imustapologisetotherighthon.MemberforScarborough and grain sectors, may, as my right hon. Friend the and Whitby—I misheard his earlier intervention; I thought Member for Scarborough and Whitby reminded us, be he was talking about the “grey” area, not the “grain”. I so well integrated that contractual problems do not misunderstood completely. I apologise, and will wash often arise. out my ears. We should have targeted solutions where they are I welcome the Minister’s assurances—she is listening needed, but we need to avoid burdensome new requirements and wants to make things run as smoothly as possible. where they are not. To ensure that, the specific detail of However, given this time of general unclarity, as we each code will be developed in consultation with industry leave the EU, with all the uncertainty that is throwing and set out in secondary legislation. Enforcing a time up, we need things set in writing now for the months limit on the creation of fair-dealing obligations would and years ahead, to prevent any misunderstandings or prevent regulations accounting for the complex nature anything going wrong in that respect. I accept that the of our agricultural market. Minister has described the Bill as a new iteration, and we accept that it is improved, but at the same time we Turning to amendment 78, I assure the hon. Member still need clarity, transparency and openness. We will for Newport West that all types of agreement to purchase therefore press the amendment to a vote. agricultural products can already be protected by the clause, and the position of farmers in the supply chain The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. will be protected under the current drafting. The clause Division No. 16] allows us to regulate for the purposes of fair contractual AYES dealing. That goes beyond a formal, written contract. As the hon. Lady no doubt knows, a contract constitutes Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia any agreement of sale, whether it is formally written Jones, Ruth down or not. In the dairy sector, it is commonplace to Oppong-Asare, Abena Zeichner, Daniel write things down; in other sectors, there are more informal, word-of-mouth arrangements, particularly in NOES the red meat world and parts of the arable world. Courts, Robert Jupp, Simon However, the clause covers all agreements, written or Crosbie, Virginia Kearns, Alicia otherwise. Dines, Miss Sarah Kruger, Danny On amendment 79, we deliberately designed the clause Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James to be as flexible as possible. That is a change since the Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria previous iteration of the Bill. Having listened to comments made at the time, we severed the link to the list of Question accordingly negatived. sectors in schedule 1 so that future regulations are no longer bound by it. It remains very much our belief that Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): I each sector is different and requires a tailored approach. beg to move amendment 19, in clause 27, page 22, line 9, at We intend to be forensic in establishing what the needs end insert— of each sector are. That will include detailed engagement “(1A) Regulations under this section containing provision that with industry. extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.” Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I am thinking This amendment would require that regulations containing provisions back to our earlier discussion on data throughout the that extend to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the entire system. Why do some sectors need to be treated Scottish Ministers. differently here, but did not when it came to the collection of data? The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 20, in clause 27, page 23, line 27, at end Victoria Prentis: During our earlier conversation, it insert— was clear that we will have to be forensic and tailored in “(10A) Before making regulations under this section, the our approach to data collection. This is very much part Secretary of State must consult persons— 321 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 322

(a) who are representative of— just that. We want to see consistent protection against (i) qualifying sellers of, or unfair trading practices for farmers wherever they are in (ii) business purchasers of, the United Kingdom. We continue to consult widely the agricultural products to which the regulations will and meaningfully with everyone who will be affected by apply, or our new codes of conduct, including the devolved (b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.” Administrations and producers in those territories. Their views will be listened to and respected. Deidre Brock: It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under Amendment 19 is designed to require the consent of your chairmanship, Sir David. Scottish Ministers in respect of the regulations, thereby potentially preventing the UK Parliament from developing It might help the Committee if I lay out briefly a little codes of conduct that would apply across the UK. We of the SNP’s reasoning behind our approach to the Bill do not think it appropriate, nor is it in line with the and to the amendments. Scottish agriculture has always devolution settlement. The objective of clause 27 is to followed a different line from UK agricultural policy. promote fair contractual dealing and to prevent the Different circumstances—very different, in many cases— abuse of a dominant market position. The Department demanded that. Agricultural policy had administrative for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sought a view devolution long before the modern era of democratic from the Competition and Markets Authority on whether devolution. that is a devolved matter. The CMA’s view is that the In the days before the Scottish Parliament was purpose of promoting fair contractual dealing is definitely reconvened, the old Scottish Office, which I am sure you related to the regulation of competition. Competition remember, Sir David, had responsibility for agricultural is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament. As such, policy in Scotland, just as it did for many other areas clause 27 is reserved and we should not be seeking of policy. It was administratively devolved, and the legislative consent to exercise powers that are reserved re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 to the UK Parliament. Amendment 20 deals with the simply democratised that devolution. In fact, stories tell obligation for broader consultation, and we are committed of Scottish Ministers of old doing battle with their UK to using those powers in the most effective and least counterparts on such issues, arguing the case for that burdensome way possible. devolution settlement to be respected, way back as far We fully acknowledge that it is crucial for any new as Mrs Thatcher’s Government and George Younger’s codes to be the product of a deep partnership between ding-dongs with colleagues. Government and industry. Thorough consultations will The SNP is simply seeking to protect the decision-making be conducted prior to the design and introduction of powers of the Scottish institutions in the Bill, to ensure the new statutory codes. However, placing a requirement that the policies applied can be the best fit for the to consult in primary legislation would be burdensome, farmers and crofters concerned. That is why we have especially for regulations that make only minor and argued and continue to make the case for the Scottish technical changes. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to consider Parliament and its Ministers to hold the powers for withdrawing the amendment. Scottish agriculture and food production. That is why I am in Committee now: I will make a case that some Deidre Brock: I thank the Minister for her response, present might not give two hoots about. Despite all that, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. It I will continue to argue it. is very much the SNP’s view that these competencies Amendment 19 specifically mandates that Scottish rest with Scottish Ministers. Where common frameworks Ministers retain their devolved powers and that when, are to be decided on, they should be agreed, not imposed. and only when, regulations made under the clause That lies at the heart of what we are talking about. I extend to Scotland, the Scottish Government will have appreciate the Minister’s honesty on this issue, but I will to consent to them. I have been following the Tory ask for the amendments to be pushed to a vote. leadership election in Scotland; I understand that the Question put, That the amendment be made. current Scottish Tory leader intends to be the next First The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 15. Minister, so enshrining that principle in legislation would Division No. 17] clearly be a big help to him. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind. It would also have the benefit of AYES being the right thing to do, and it respects the devolution Brock, Deidre Doogan, Dave settlement. I certainly hope the Government will support the amendment. NOES Amendment 20 would sensibly ensure that the businesses most closely affected by the regulations are consulted Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia before the regulations are created. That is an extremely Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny sensible way to conduct Government, and it helps to Debbonaire, Thangam Morris, James Dines, Miss Sarah Oppong-Asare, Abena ensure that unintended consequences are kept to the Goodwill, rh Mr Robert bare minimum and that the industry buys into the Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria regulations. It seems to be a sensible and measured Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia amendment, and I hope the Minister will support it. Jupp, Simon Zeichner, Daniel

2.15 pm Question accordingly negatived. Victoria Prentis: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s clear desire to ensure that any statutory codes are fit for Amendment proposed: 78, in clause 27, page 22, line 11, purpose, and we are equally committed to ensuring after “fair”insert “dealing and fair”.—(Daniel Zeichner.) 323 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 324

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. role for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It has been Division No. 18] proposed instead that the Rural Payments Agency would be an appropriate regulator. The Government need to AYES explain why they think that the RPA has sufficient Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia expertise in that area; I look forward to the Minister’s Jones, Ruth explanation on that specific point. There seems to be no Oppong-Asare, Abena Zeichner, Daniel reason why the responsibility should be placed anywhere other than with the Groceries Code Adjudicator. NOES The Government have previously decided not to broaden Courts, Robert Jupp, Simon the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Those Crosbie, Virginia Kearns, Alicia decisions suggest that, without a clear duty, they will Dines, Miss Sarah Kruger, Danny come under pressure from retailers to row back on the Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James provisions. We need to be focused and tenacious in how Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria we monitor the assessment process, including the criteria used. Importantly, the amendments would provide the Question accordingly negatived. clarity and certainty that are desperately needed by our farmers and the agricultural sector more generally. We need to drill down to the detail and explicitly Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 82, in identify which regulatory body will be in charge and clause 27, page 23, line 15, leave out “a specified person” what expertise and experience the Government expect it and insert “the Groceries Code Adjudicator”. to have. When will the Government see fit to provide a clear answer on that? I look forward to the Minister’s The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss response to these probing amendments. the following: Victoria Prentis: We are committed to tackling supply Amendment 83, in clause 27, page 23, line 23, at end chain injustices, and an effective enforcement regime is insert— a crucial part of that process. It is important to state ‘(8A) The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 is amended, that no decisions have yet been made about the nature by inserting after section 2 (Arbitration)— of enforcement or the body responsible for it. We intend “2A Fair dealing: determination of complaints alleging to listen to the ideas and concerns of the industry non-compliance before any decisions are made, and we will of course (1) If a complaint relating to alleged non-compliance is referred exercise due diligence in designing the enforcement regime to the Adjudicator under section 27(8)(a) of the Agriculture Act when we appoint the regulator. 2020, the Adjudicator must determine the complaint. (2) In determining any allegation of non-compliance under I understand the attraction of replicating the success subsection (1), the Adjudicator must act in accordance with any of the GCA elsewhere in the food supply chain, but it is regulations made under subsection (1) of section 27 of the important to recognise that the GCA works so well Agriculture Act 2020 which make provision for investigation of because it has a very targeted focus on the behaviours of complaints, imposition of penalties or a requirement to pay extremely large retailers that deal with their direct suppliers compensation, as specified by subsection (8) of section 27 of that and have a good understanding of how that particular Act.”’ supply chain works. Amendment 80, in clause 27, page 23, line 25, after A 2018 Government review found insufficient evidence “any” insert “competent and appropriate”. of widespread problems further down the groceries This amendment would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural supply chain to justify extending the remit of the GCA contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative to indirect suppliers. The issues that the review identified assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office. were sector-specific and are best addressed with the Amendment 81, in clause 27, page 23, line 26, after proportionate and targeted interventions contained in “provide for a” insert “competent and appropriate”. the Bill. This amendment would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural No decisions have yet been made about enforcement. contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office. Although the RPA has undoubtedly had difficulties with direct payments in the past, it has a wealth of experience in the agricultural markets. We will take a Ruth Jones: I will speak to all the amendments together. measured approach to arrive at the best possible decision. Being mindful of time, I will not read out the wording I ask the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a of the amendments. I know that hon. Members are vote. grateful for that. The amendments would ensure that the role of regulating Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her explanation. agricultural contracts is given to a body that is competent Obviously, external bodies and stakeholders will be to undertake qualitative assessments, such as the Groceries actively encouraged to lobby the Government on the Code Adjudicator’s office. That sensible suggestion would matter, and I hope that they will take the opportunity to ensure that effective and authoritative oversight and do so. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw assessment takes place. the amendment. External organisations such as the Tenant Farmers Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Association believe that the Government have a vital Amendment proposed: 20, in clause 27, page 23, line 27, at role in the face of significant market failure in agriculture end insert— and food supply chains, but it is concerning that the “(10A) Before making regulations under this section, the Government do not see that as forming part of an expanded Secretary of State must consult persons— 325 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 326

(a) who are representative of— This amendment, together with Amendment 25 would require (i) qualifying sellers of, or organisations of agricultural producers, associations of recognised (ii) business purchasers of, producer organisations, and organisations of agricultural businesses to apply for recognition to the appropriate authority in the country of the the agricultural products to which the regulations will UK where the applicant is principally based. apply, or (b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.”— Amendment 27, in clause 29, page 26, line 9, leave out (Deidre Brock.) “the Secretary of State” and insert Question put, That the amendment be made. “an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section 28(13))”. The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 15. This amendment would require the delegation of functions to require Division No. 19] permission from the appropriate authority. AYES Amendment 28, in clause 30, page 26, line 16, leave Brock, Deidre Doogan, Dave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section NOES 28(13))”. This amendment would allow regulations to give the power to delegate Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia functions to be made by an appropriate authority. Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Debbonaire, Thangam Morris, James Dines, Miss Sarah Deidre Brock: I will speak to all of these amendments Oppong-Asare, Abena Goodwill, rh Mr Robert very briefly; they are completely self-explanatory. Again, Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria they are about respecting the devolution settlement and Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia the current powers of the Scottish Parliament and Jupp, Simon Zeichner, Daniel Government. Ensuring that Scottish organisations apply in Scotland rather than in Whitehall would help to keep Question accordingly negatived. the task off Whitehall’s desk, saving unnecessary effort on the part of UK Ministers and officials, which the Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Minister might want to keep in mind.

Clause 28 2.30 pm Victoria Prentis: I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful Producer and interbranch organisations etc: desire to progress with these amendments, to ensure application for recognition that Scottish farmers are effectively and appropriately supported. Weare committed to ensuring that the provisions Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 21, in are applied effectively in all the nations of the United clause 28, page 23, line 42, leave out Kingdom. “to the Secretary of State”. Recognition as a producer organisation, association of producer organisations or inter-branch organisation The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss automatically activates exemptions from competition the following: law. That has been the case under the EU regime since Amendment 22, in clause 28, page 24, line 12, leave out the omnibus regulation, which amended several CAP instruments at the beginning of 2018. “to the Secretary of State”. That approach will continue under the new domestic Amendment 23, in clause 28, page 24, line 20, leave PO regime. The act of granting recognition therefore out relates directly to competition law, which, as I said “to the Secretary of State”. earlier, is reserved to the UK Parliament. However, I Amendment 24, in clause 28, page 24, line 38, at end will take this opportunity to assure both the hon. Lady insert and Scottish Ministers that this merely reflects the “(6A) An application under subsection (1), (3) or (5) is to be status of competition law as an area reserved to the UK made to and determined by— Parliament. The PO regime will continue to operate as (a) the appropriate authority for the part of the United it always has. We have no intention of introducing Kingdom in which the applicant has its registered jarring changes that will undermine its functioning. It office or principal place of business, or will continue to be administered by the RPA, as is (b) where the applicant is made up of producers, producer currently the case. We will consult thoroughly, both organisations or,as the case may be, businesses operating with the devolved Administrations and with farmers, in in more than one part of the United Kingdom, the every part of the UK, during the development of our appropriate authority for any of those parts.” bespoke UK regime. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw Amendment 25, in clause 28, page 25, line 5, leave out the amendment. “The Secretary of State” and insert “The appropriate authority to which an application is made Daniel Zeichner: A number of these amendments under this section”. relate to wider devolution issues; my comments are Amendment 26, in clause 28, page 25, line 24, at end applicable to a number of them, in particular those that insert we are discussing at the moment. ““appropriate authority” means— We are going to need clarity on how we will work (a) in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland, together in the future, because the structures being set the Secretary of State, up are quite complicated. For some, it would be entirely (b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;” reasonable for the powers to be passed to the devolved 327 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 328 organisations, but there needs to be a detailed discussion much Ministers have worked with Scottish Ministers on about the merits in each case. At the moment, I am not the Bill so far, so I look forward to seeing her support convinced in this instance. I was actually persuaded by for the amendment. the Minister’s arguments about whether, as we stand, passing these matters down to the devolved nations Victoria Prentis: The amendment seeks to give Scottish would be the right way to go. Although I certainly Ministers discretion in respect of the regulations,potentially would not rule out considering doing that further in preventing the UK Parliament from creating a UK-wide future, because we want to ensure that we devolve as producer organisation scheme. As I noted previously, much power as possible,there are issues around competition the act of granting producer organisation recognition law—we will come to further amendments where is relates directly to competition law, which is reserved to some interaction with World Trade Organisation rules, the UK Parliament. We absolutely look forward to general agreement on tariffs and trade rules and so on, working collaboratively with our colleagues from the which make it difficult to do that. While supporting the devolved Administrations when designing the new UK-wide Government on this occasion, I want to put down a domestic scheme, but given the circumstances outlined, marker to say that in future we would want to devolve I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment. where possible. Deidre Brock: The amendment gets to the heart of Deidre Brock: I am very interested to hear the hon. the issue. This is designed to be a common framework. Gentleman’s comments. Clearly, there are discussions As many will recall from when we heard evidence, and to be had—before Report, perhaps—on this and many from the previous Agriculture Bill Committee as well, other issues. However, I am afraid this still comes back where common frameworks were to be agreed across to the point that, in our view, these decisions are more the UK, all the NFUs were in favour of decisions being properly reserved to Scottish Ministers, and so we will agreed, not imposed. I see this as part of that outlook, be pushing the amendment to a vote. which is not one that we are willing to support, so we Question put, That the amendment be made. will push this amendment to a vote. The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 15. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Division No. 20] Bill. AYES The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 15. Division No. 21] Brock, Deidre Doogan, Dave AYES NOES Brock, Deidre Doogan, Dave Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny NOES Debbonaire, Thangam Morris, James Dines, Miss Sarah Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Oppong-Asare, Abena Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Prentis, Victoria Debbonaire, Thangam Jones, Fay Morris, James Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia Dines, Miss Sarah Oppong-Asare, Abena Jupp, Simon Zeichner, Daniel Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia Question accordingly negatived. Jupp, Simon Zeichner, Daniel Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 agreed to. Question accordingly negatived. Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2 agreed to. Clause 31 Clause 30 FERTILISERS REGULATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 28 AND 29 Victoria Prentis: I beg to move amendment 51, in Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 31, page 28, line 48, leave out clause 30, page 26, line 29, at end insert— “the National Assembly for Wales” “(2A) Regulations under section 28 or 29 containing provision and insert “Senedd Cymru”. that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 (2020 the Scottish Ministers.” anaw 1) changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru This amendment would ensure that regulations under section 28 or 29 or the Welsh Parliament”. This amendment and Amendments 52 to 61 containing provision that extend to Scotland may be made only with the are consequential amendments and they follow the new practice in the consent of Scottish Ministers. English language version of devolved Welsh legislation of using the This amendment would ensure that the Scottish Welsh name only when referring to the Welsh legislature. Administration is involved in decisions on devolved areas, which seems sensible—I would be interested to The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss hear support from Labour in certain regards. The Minister Government amendments 57 to 60, 52, 53, 61, and 54 would surely approve of the amendment, given how to 56. 329 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 330

Victoria Prentis: Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections Clause 33 (Wales) Act 2020 changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru”—I hope the hon. Member for Newport West will correct me if got that wrong, although my RED MEAT LEVY: PAYMENTS BETWEEN LEVY BODIES IN Welsh relatives would not forgive me—or “the Welsh GREAT BRITAIN Parliament”. Amendments 51 to 61 are technical consequential amendments. They follow the new practice, in the English language version of devolved Welsh Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 30, in legislation, of using only the Welsh name when referring clause 33, page 31, line 32, at end insert— to the Welsh legislature. “(10) The first scheme under this section must come into force no later than 1 April 2021.” Ruth Jones: These are simple amendments that reflect The amendment is basically all about ensuring that the strengthened importance of Wales as an equal partner equitable distribution of the red meat levy moneys is in the four-way relationship that makes up the United made timeously. I want that to be done as early and Kingdom. Labour will support them, as they are clearly smoothly as possible. It has been waited on throughout a tidying-up exercise. However, we should not be clearing the UK for a considerable time, but I certainly imagine up on matters of respect, so I caution all Ministers to be that Ministers in the various Administrations have discussed mindful and respectful. it. If the Minister could assure me that that is happening, Amendment 51 agreed to. and that we are looking at an implementation date in April next year, I would not see any need to press the Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the amendment to a Division. Bill.

Clause 32 2.45 pm Victoria Prentis: I am grateful to the hon. Member IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY OF ANIMALS for raising the issue of the red meat levy with her Amendments made: 89, in clause 32, page 30, line 5, after amendment. I recognise that there is an inequality “England” insert “or Wales”. arising from the current system of producing the red This amendment treats Wales in the same way as England in terms of meat levy. Indeed, our Parliamentary Private Secretary the future application of section 8(1)(a) of the Animal Health Act has been assiduous in bringing that to our attention. 1981, once the provisions of European law mentioned in clause 32(3) and (4) cease to apply in England and Wales. The clause is designed to provide a permanent solution Amendment 90, in clause 32, page 30, line 7, leave out to this long-standing issue. In the meantime, the three “Wales or”. levybodies—theAgricultureandHorticultureDevelopment This amendment is consequential on Amendment 89 Board, Quality Meat Scotland and the HCC, which I will not even begin to pronounce—[Interruption.] The Amendment 91, in clause 32, page 30, line 10, leave hon. Member for Newport West must bear it in mind out from “under” to end of line and insert that I have a vast number of Welsh relations who would “subsection (1)(a) made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers”. not appreciate it if I did not get my pronunciation This amendment limits the proposition inserted in section 8 of the perfect. The three levy bodies are working collaboratively, Animal Health Act 1981 by clause 32(2)(b) to provision made under using the interim fund, to benefit the red meat industry section 8(1)(a) about the means of identifying animals. It also secures across the whole of Great Britain. Adequate time must that the Welsh Ministers, as well as the Secretary of State, can make be allowed for the full and careful development of a provision under section 8(1)(a) that binds the Crown. redistribution scheme, allowing for due consideration Amendment 92, in clause 32, page 30, line 16, after and consultation in order to provide a workable solution. “England” insert “or Wales”. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for This amendment alters the words inserted in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 by clause 32(3) in order to treat Wales in the same way as Edinburgh North and Leith would provide a short England in disapplying Title 1 of that Regulation. timeframe in which to create a new scheme. Imposing Amendment 93, in clause 32, page 30, line 16, at end such a deadline is not appropriate, because it is important insert that we consult properly on how the redistribution of “, and the red meat levy is delivered, and the Administrations (b) in Article 22 (compliance)— must have time to agree the scheme. The interim fund (i) in paragraph 1 at the end insert— continues to be available in the meantime. I therefore ‘The fourth, fifth and sixth subparagraphs do not apologise that I cannot give her every assurance she apply in relation to England or Wales.’, and seeks at this point, but she knows that we have worked (ii) in paragraph 2 at the end insert— hard to put right this wrong, and will continue to do so. ‘This paragraph does not apply in relation to England In that spirit, I ask that she withdraw the amendment. or Wales.’” This amendment makes changes to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 which are consequential on the disapplication by clause 32(3) of Title 1 Daniel Zeichner: I will be brief, but the clause is of that Regulation in relation to England and Wales. something that we can all welcome. There has been a Amendment 94, in clause 32, page 30, line 21, at end long-running difficulty and it reflects changes in the insert “or Wales”.—(Victoria Prentis.) availability of local abattoirs in particular. Many of us This amendment alters the words inserted in Council Regulation (EC) would like to see measures elsewhere to try to redress No 21/2004 in order to treat Wales in the same way as England in that. In the absence of that, the world has changed and disapplying that Regulation. it is welcome that the Government are responding positively. Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the If it is pressed to a vote, we will be happy to support the Bill. SNP’s position. 331 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 332

Deidre Brock: I confess that I am disappointed by the in the Bill for the Government to use the weakest Minister’s response, because this situation has been language possible or to take the most timid of approaches. ongoing for years. Many people have been waiting In our view, it is essential that tenant farmers are given patiently, for the most part, to get a decision taken on full certainty in this situation. this. It is extremely disappointing to hear that we cannot Tenant farmers have welcomed the recognition that even get an assurance that this will be available and they require and deserve additional measures to protect implemented in April 2021. In the light of that, I will them, and this is one of the areas that we highlighted press the amendment to a vote. during discussions on a previous version of the Agriculture Question put, That the amendment be made. Bill. We are pleased that our probing has produced a The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10. framework of protection for tenants, but it is essential Division No. 22] that the provisions are used. If they are not used, what is the point of having them in the Bill? If it is the AYES Government’s intention to use the provisions, it will not Brock, Deidre Oppong-Asare, Abena be a problem to change them from a “may” to a “must”. Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia That is one of our big points on the Bill—we would Doogan, Dave strengthen the weak wording. We want to strengthen Jones, Ruth Zeichner, Daniel up, not level down. The Minister’s predecessor, now the Secretary of State, NOES has shown a willingness to listen, engage and reflect on Courts, Robert Jupp, Simon Opposition amendments. I hope that the Government Crosbie, Virginia Kearns, Alicia will go further,listen harder and deliver for tenant farmers. Dines, Miss Sarah Kruger, Danny Amendment 88 is about action. It would close a Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James potential loophole in the Bill about the consent of the Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria landlord. Currently, it sets out the circumstances where any regulations will apply in respect of a landlord’s Question accordingly negatived. consent. They are defined as circumstances where either Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the the agricultural tenancy legislation or the contract of Bill. the tenancy requires the tenant to have the landlord’s consent. What that appears to have missed out—I am Victoria Prentis: The clause will address the current sure it is inadvertent, but it has done so—is where the inequality in the distribution of the red meat levy within provisions of the financial assistance scheme itself require Great Britain caused by the complex movement of pigs, the tenant to obtain the landlord’s consent. cattle and sheep when animals cross from one country As an example, the current countryside stewardship to another for further rearing and finishing and for scheme requires all tenants occupying land under the slaughter. The levy is collected at the point of slaughter Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 to have their landlord’s and can only be spent to benefit that country’s industry. consent, even though those tenants will have security of The clause will allow for a scheme to redistribute some tenure. The amendment would ensure that tenants have producer red meat levy between the levy boards of recourse to the regulations in every case where the England, Scotland and Wales. It will sit beside the landlord’s consent is required. I am sure the Minister current legal framework and allow the transfer of levy. would not want any of the provisions or effects of the Question put and agreed to. Bill to create difficulties for tenants in accessing public money for public good, which is obviously the Government’s Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. favoured system for replacing the basic payment scheme. Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. I place on record my thanks to all those organisations that have made representations on the issue. I think of Schedule 3 the Tenant Farmers Association and their chief executive George Dunn as an example of strong and effective campaigning. AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES These are simple, arguably technical, but important Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 87, in schedule 3, and empowering amendments. The Government have page 50, line 15, leave out “may” and insert “must”. demonstrated a willingness to listen and engage to a degree, but I call on them to go further—to take the plunge and deliver on what is a cross-party and all-UK The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss commitment to empowering and supporting our farmers. amendment 88, in schedule 3, page 50, leave out lines 27 The Bill needs to be joined up, it needs to be smart and to 29 and insert— it needs to be fit for purpose. The amendments help in “the landlord’s consent to a matter on which the landlord’s that purpose. I hope the Government, and indeed the consent is required,”. hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, will support them. Ruth Jones: Amendment 87 is designed to make it a requirement for the Government to bring forward Victoria Prentis: Agricultural tenancies are a vital regulations to provide a framework for tenants to object part of our farming industry, accounting for nearly a to their landlord’s refusal to allow them to enter a third of all farmland in England and Wales. I want to relevant financial assistance scheme. As drafted, the Bill see a thriving tenant farming sector in the future. That provides the power for the Government to introduce is why we have included provisions in the Bill to modernise regulations, but it is not a requirement. There is a trend agricultural tenancy legislation. 333 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 334

[Victoria Prentis] Amendments made: 57, schedule 3, page 51, line 37, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert Turning first to amendment 87, the Committee has “Senedd Cymru”. already considered at length the use of the words “may” See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. and “must” in legislation. I do not intend to go over Amendment 58, schedule 3, page 54, line 9, leave out those arguments again. As I said last week, the use of “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd the word “may”is entirely consistent with other legislation Cymru”. in this sphere. I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that there is absolutely no doubt that the Government See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. intend to use the powers to make these important Amendment 59, schedule 3, page 54, line 14, leave out regulations and that we will move quickly to do so. “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Plans are already under way to meet industry representatives Cymru”. for discussions on their scope and content. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. I understand the drive behind amendment 88, which Amendment 60, schedule 3, page 54, line 19, leave out seeks to broaden the scope of the dispute provisions to “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd cover any situation where the tenant may need the Cymru”.—(Victoria Prentis.) landlord’s consent to undertake an activity. However, See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. the intention of these provisions is to provide tenants of the older Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 agreements with a mechanism to challenge outdated restrictions in 3 pm those agreements. In some cases, they were written 30 or Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 3, 40 years ago, when there was a very different policy and page 55, line 20, at end insert— commercial environment. That is why it is important ‘(1A) In subsection (1) leave out “section” and insert that the procedure for referring requests to dispute “sections 28A and”.” remains clearly linked to the terms of the tenancy agreement. To broaden the scope further to include any issue or activity where landlord consent is required risks The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss unintended consequences and opens up the potential amendment 86, in schedule 3, page 55, line 31, at end for misuse of the provisions, which could damage landlord- insert— tenant relations. 26A After section 28 insert— The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support in “28A Disputes relating to requests for landlord’s consent our public consultation. They have been shaped to or variation of terms ensure that the interests of both tenants and landlords (1) Subsection (2) applies where a tenant under a farm are considered. We will continue to consult the industry business tenancy has made a request to a landlord for the generally, including members of the tenancy reform purposes of— industry group, as we develop the supporting regulations. (a) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in regulations under subsection (2), withdraw the amendment. or Ruth Jones: Again, the Minister and I share the same (b) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in regulations under broad aims and principles, which is great. However, we subsection (2), applicable to the tenant, have not changed our minds about “may” and “must”, and the request meets such other conditions (if any) as may be and the need to strengthen this legislation and beef it up specified in regulations under subsection (2). to give people the protection they require. I am glad (2) The appropriate authority may by regulations make that the Minister has agreed that stakeholders will have provision for a tenant under a farm business tenancy to refer for the opportunity to lobby and that she will be consulting arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 a request widely as the Bill is developed. I accept the history of under subsection (1) if no agreement has been reached with the the tenancy agreement Acts, but we will press the landlord on the request. amendment to a vote. (3) Subsections (2) and (4) to (6) of section 19A of the Question put, That the amendment be made. Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (as inserted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Agriculture Act 2020) shall apply to any The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. regulations made under subsection (2) of this section. Division No. 23] (4) In this section— AYES “appropriate authority” means— (a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia and Jones, Ruth Oppong-Asare, Abena Zeichner, Daniel (b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers; “relevant financial assistance”means financial assistance NOES under— (a) section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (powers of Courts, Robert Jupp, Simon Secretary of State to give financial assistance), Crosbie, Virginia Kearns, Alicia (b) section 19 of, or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to, Dines, Miss Sarah Kruger, Danny that Act (powers of Secretary of State and Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James Welsh Ministers to give financial assistance in Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria exceptional market conditions), or (c) a scheme of the sort mentioned in section 2(4) Question accordingly negatived. of that Act (third party schemes); 335 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 336

“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under— vary the terms to fit changing commercial conditions, (a) an Act of Parliament; and ensure that they can access future financial assistance (b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru; schemes. (c) retained direct EU legislation.”” Secondly, the legal framework governing farm business tenancies already provides for enabling the parties to Ruth Jones: I will speak briefly to both amendments. agree terms, so that the tenant can continue to deliver Like all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and diversified activities, such as environmental schemes, me, they are important, and I hope they will receive a alongside farming. Thirdly, extending the provisions to fair hearing. They cover the elements of the Bill that include farm business tenancies risks undermining landlord look at powers available to tenants, succession rules and confidence in tenancy agreements that had been freely guidance around rent reviews. Anybody who has been and relatively recently entered into by both parties. That to a farm or has a farm in their constituency will know could lead to landlords withdrawing from the let sector that, although those areas are niche, they are incredibly in favour of contracting or farming in hand, which important. would reduce opportunity for tenant farmers. Amendments 85 and 86 would ensure that tenants The aim of the provisions is to provide a dispute renting land under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 mechanism specifically for tenants of 1986 Act agreements, can object to a landlord’s refusal to allow access to because those are lifetime agreements that were negotiated financial assistance. The Bill currently omits cover for 30 to 40 years ago in a very different world. They often those tenants and we need to address that. That lack of contain outdated restrictions that could act as a barrier protection is odd, given that, as the Minister has said, to tenants meeting modern statutory requirements and, nearly half the land in the tenanted sector in England is in England, accessing future farming schemes that we now let under 1995 provisions. In Wales, the figure is are setting out. more than a quarter of the land. Over time, that area of land will grow and it will be Daniel Zeichner: This is a complicated set of issues, important to ensure that those tenants are protected as and I seek clarification. Some lack of clarity about much as those under the 1986 Act. Given that these are post-1995 holdings has been raised with me. The question more modern agreements, which will have had the full is, going back to the financial assistance schemes, who attention of the legal profession in their drafting, they would make the decision to de-link? Who would get the are more likely to include more restrictive clauses than lump sum? Is it the tenant in post-1995 cases? those under the older legislation. That will cause problems for tenants if they do not have adequate recourse to Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman and I have object to the use of those restrictive clauses within the undertaken to have a specific conversation later about new policy framework. de-linking and lump sum payments. I tried to set out the It will be a significant failure if we cannot provide the position this morning. Once a decision has been made same level of protection to tenants under the 1995 Act to de-link payments, they may continue to be paid to as we are seeking to provide to tenants under the 1986 the tenant. Indeed, the person farming the land—so the Act. That is a simple but important point. I hope that tenant—would apply for any lump sum. However, the the Minister will receive it warmly, in the spirit that it is two are separate, as I set out this morning. I hope that intended. answers his question. The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support in Victoria Prentis: I receive all the hon. Lady’samendments the public consultations in England and Wales. They warmly. She has again raised an important issue. Farm have been shaped to ensure that the interests of tenants business tenancies are a vital part of our farming industry. and landlords are considered. We will continue to consult They provide a flexible way for established farmers to industry widely, including members of the Tenancy expand their business, by renting additional parcels of Reform Industry Group, as we develop future regulations. land. Crucially, they also open the way for new entrants, I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to with no family connection to the land, to get a foothold withdraw her amendment. in the sector. Ruth Jones: I welcome the Minister’s commitment to As I have already stated, I want a thriving tenant a thriving tenancy sector—that is great news. I thank farming sector. That is why we have included provisions her for the explanation and for her commitment to have in the Bill to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation. an ongoing dialogue with my hon. Friend the Member Although I recognise concerns that the new dispute for Cambridge. I look forward to the outcome of those conditions do not include farm business tenancy agreements, discussions. Westill have reservations about this important there are very important reasons for that. area, but we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister give way? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Victoria Prentis: Shall I set out some of my reasons Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. first? Then, if necessary, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. First, evidence from the public consultation Clause 35 on this issue in England does not support extending the MARKETING STANDARDS provision to include farm business tenancies. That is because, as the hon. Member for Newport West said, Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 84, in they are more modern, commercial agreements, negotiated clause 35, page 31, line 38, leave out “may” and insert more recently than agreements under the 1986 Act. “must”. They are shorter term and reviewed more regularly, so This amendment would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to that tenants have the opportunity to renegotiate and make regulations as to labelling as to method of production. 337 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 338

[Daniel Zeichner] It is not the same in other sectors. Consumers are still very much in the dark about the production of meat We welcome the fact that subsection (2)(g) enables and milk. It is hard to find meat or dairy products that the Secretary of State to make regulations on marketing have a labelled method of production. For meat, there standards regarding farming methods. We believe that is some labelling of free range and organic, but not it opens the door to looking properly at the labelling of much else. There is even less information about the farmed products. Under the clause, however,the Secretary farming methods of milk. Most milk is pooled together, of State once again has a power rather than a duty and making it difficult to distinguish between pasture-based so has no actual obligation to take the matter forward. and intensively produced milk. From personal experience That bothers us. perusing the supermarket shelves, it seems the world is Wetherefore believe that the Bill should be strengthened becoming more complicated these days; there is a greater to require the Secretary of State to make labelling range, but we need to go further. I find it confusing. It is regulations requiring meat, milk and dairy products, confusing for consumers and it does a disservice to including those produced intensively, to be labelled farmers who are already producing to higher standards as to farming method. That would be an important but do not have any means of distinguishing their development and helpful to consumers. A great step products because of labelling ambiguities. forward for consumers would be to know what they are A lot of marketing and packaging borders on the purchasing across the board in terms of animal products. misleading. Intensively produced meat and dairy products, Consumers could then make decisions based on those where animals may have seen very little of the outside higher animal welfare and environmental considerations. world, are packaged in pretty green packets featuring I am reaching back to find my favourite document, or rolling hills and what looks like a welfare-friendly world. this week’s favourite document—never to hand when I That does not help consumers make informed choices, want it, of course—[Interruption.] I am delighted—the and it does not help producers extract the higher value Minister obviously loves the document too. that they deserve from their products. Proper labelling would work in everyone’s interests. Victoria Prentis: I love it too. The production methods highlighted would differ for Daniel Zeichner: Of course. Last week, we had an different products, but mandatory labelling could be interesting discussion about labelling. I take Members used to indicate on the packet whether the product has back to that because on page 16 of the document is a been produced intensively indoors or extensively outdoors, theoretical discussion of the effect of labelling. The with the full range of production methods in between, Government tell us: so that consumers can make a decision in the shop about what they want. That is something that the “Tapping into the consumer willingness to pay begins with understanding the value-action gap”— Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee which I am sure is being discussed on every omnibus recommended twice to the Government in 2018, and it around the country—and that makes a lot of sense. “it is possible for someone to derive positive value from the fact At the moment, any consumer demand for less that animals are being well cared for as a result of another’s intensively produced meat and dairy is impeded by the purchasing decision. Those not buying animal products should lack of clear information at the point of sale about how be included in any assessment of public value, one person’s the products have been produced. Informing consumers holding of this value does not detract from another’s.” about methods of production allows them to make that I find that a puzzling suggestion. I tried it out on my choice. We could see important shifts in the market partner—I will not say what she said, but she was not towards the production of food that is less intensive, convinced that, basically, other people buying poorly more environmentally sustainable and based on higher produced food somehow does not detract from the animal welfare. wider public good. That is a theoretical discussion the A good labelling system could also play an important Government may want to go back to. The following page role in further incentivising farmers to take up states: environmental land management schemes and deliver “Addressing consumer understanding, and understanding how purchasing decisions are made in practice in the retail environment the public goods that we discussed last week under and online, are also key elements…It is important to note that clause 1, particularly those who seek to promote higher improved transparency alone can only address information asymmetry, animal welfare measures, by giving them the recognition and does not capture the public value held by non-consumers.” they deserve for using less intensive production methods. I am not sure what any of that means, and I am sure If the consumer has no idea what farmers are doing, it that the public have little idea of what it means. I think stands to reason that farmers will see the benefits of it shows that labelling is not simple; there is a big making positive changes only in the direct payments discussion to be had. Is it enough to use labelling? The they receive, rather than in any changes in consumer right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and I demand. There needs to be a wayfor farmers to demonstrate had an exchange on that last week; there are sincerely that they are delivering food in a way that consumers held differences of opinion about it. may choose to pay for. Back in the simpler, empirical world, we have seen the International debate is moving quickly in this area. positive impact that labelling can have on eggs. Since We heard evidence of the number of schemes that are 2004, when EU law began to require eggs and egg packs being looked into across Europe. The Government have to be labelled to highlight production method, there has talked big talk about using the new opportunity post been a considerable move in the market towards free-range Brexit to improve our animal welfare standards and eggs and away from caged egg sales. I am told that modernise our farming processes. It is important that around 52% of all UK eggs come from cage-free systems, we do not miss key opportunities to adopt mechanisms which is welcome. that can help support that. A relatively simple change of 339 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 340 wording would give this clause the strength it needs to events during a general election campaign: by the time deliver the Government’s aim of achieving an impact we come to the end, we all know one another’s lines. we all support. What the Minister said was not a surprise to me, and it will be no surprise to her to hear me say the same thing Mr Goodwill: I note that the amendment would substitute again. “must” for “may” in subsection (1), but all the other This is partly a question of trust, I am afraid. It is subsections contain the word “may” too. Has not the also a question of wanting to move quickly to take up hon. Gentleman made an omission by not seeking to these opportunities. I think there is real desire out there insert “must” in all the others? Surely having “must” in among consumers to make informed choices, despite subsection (1) would be completely counteracted by all the slight difference of opinion expressed by the right the “may”s in the rest of the clause. hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby last week about the role of labelling in making the changes we 3.15 pm want. If we are going to go down the labelling route as Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the right hon. the driver for change, for goodness’ sake push on with Gentleman, who unfortunately was out of the room it. Do it soon. The Government should tie themselves this morning during one of my earlier attempts to bait to it. If they accepted our amendment, they would be him. He never fails to please. His deft and diligent bound to do it and there would be no backsliding. My examination of the wording may well have identified a guess is that we will be discussing this in many months’ minor drafting error from our point of view, but I am time and we will find it has not moved as quickly as sure he gets the thrust of the argument. On that basis, many of us would have hoped. On that basis, I am not I very much hope he supports us on this occasion. prepared to withdraw the amendment; we will press it to a vote. Victoria Prentis: Again, we broadly share the same Question put, That the amendment be made. values and principles, but—I am sorry to be tedious The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. about the law and the drafting, not that I would ever Division No. 24] accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby of being tedious—it is important that we AYES look at what the amendment would actually do. Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia I welcome this opportunity to further clarify the purpose Jones, Ruth of the clause. The proposed amendment seeks to change Oppong-Asare, Abena Zeichner, Daniel the wording of the clause to include “must” instead of “may”. We have been through this many times in the past NOES week and I do not propose to do so again. There is no Courts, Robert Jupp, Simon need to add a duty here, as regulations concerning the Crosbie, Virginia Kearns, Alicia marketing standards already exist in EU law.Using powers Dines, Miss Sarah Kruger, Danny in the withdrawal Act, we will retain the current EU Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James marketing standards and roll them over into UK law, Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria ensuring continuity for farmers and the farming industry. The power in subsection (1) will provide an opportunity Question accordingly negatived. for the current standards to be amended when it is Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill. appropriate to do so, to ensure that they deliver domestic Schedule 4 agreed to. standards. It will also allow us to introduce new standards should that be deemed necessary. We anticipate that the power will be used to respond to developments in Clause 36 production. The amendment could create a situation in which new marketing standards regulations must be made, ORGANIC PRODUCTS regardless of whether they were needed. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the I should add that marketing standards do not apply Bill. to all food products and so would not be the appropriate vehicle for any general changes to food labelling rules, such as those about stating allergens on labels. That is Victoria Prentis: The clause will allow the Government already covered by existing food information and food to modernise organic regulations. I appreciate the safety laws. opportunity to say a few brief words to clear up previous I hope I have given some explanation of why the misunderstandings. clause is drafted in the way it is. I ask the hon. Gentleman The Committee should note that the EU will bring in to withdraw the amendment. new organics regulation 848/2018 on 1 January 2021. Since that is after the end of the transition period, the DanielZeichner:Thatissodisappointing.TheGovernment current organics regulation, 834/2007, will form part of should have more ambition to do these things. That is retained EU law. The clause allows us to amend organics why we are pressing and encouraging them. This is such regulations so that they work for our producers, exporters an opportunity; to us, it seems like a win-win. and consumers. The organics sector is at the forefront of sustainable agriculture. The powers in the clause will I fully accept that there may be some points of ensure that the sector can continue to thrive, while drafting or direction—I do not blame the people who enhancing our precious environment. drafted the amendment—on which we could improve, but it would be wonderful if the Government accepted Question put and agreed to. the thrust of the argument. This is a bit like hustings Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 341 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 342

Clause 37 Amendment 53, in clause 37, page 35, line 16, leave out “that Assembly”and insert “the Senedd”.—(Victoria Prentis.) See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. Organic products: supplementary Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Amendments made: 52, in clause 37, page 35, line 15, leave Bill. out Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. “the National Assembly for Wales” —(James Morris.) and insert “Senedd Cymru”. 3.24 pm See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. AdjournedtillThursday5Marchathalf-pastEleveno’clock. 343 Public Bill Committee 3 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 344

Written evidence reported to the House AB58 The British Horse Society AB53 The Food Foundation AB59 Independent Food Aid Network AB60 Soil surveyors - Former members of the Soil AB54 Essex Local Access Forum Survey of England and Wales and Soil Survey and AB55 Northern Ireland Environment Link Land Research Centre AB56 Feeding Britain AB61 National Farmers’ Union (NFU) Cymru AB57 Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) AB62 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

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. SCHEDULE 6 agreed to. CLAUSES 46 TO 49 agreed to, some with amendments. SCHEDULE 7 agreed to. CLAUSES 50 TO 54 agreed to, some with amendments. New clauses under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 9 March 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/. 345 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 346

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †SIR DAVID AMESS,GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) (Con) † Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † attended the Committee 347 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 348

We therefore maintain that the clause is reserved, and Public Bill Committee we cannot concede that the regulations may be made only with consent from Scottish Ministers, because that Thursday 5 March 2020 would impinge on our powers to ensure our compliance with the World Trade Organisation agreement. Werecognise (Morning) that devolved Administrations have significant interests in these matters, and we are working closely with those [SIR DAVID AMESS in the Chair] Administrations on the draft regulations. We have made a firm commitment to consultation now and in future in Agriculture Bill the making and operation of the regulations. Turning to amendment 99, the clause underpins the 11.30 am Government’s commitment to continued compliance The Chair: Good morning everyone for what might with WTO regulation following European Union exit. be the last day of consideration in Committee of the The UK is a founding member of the WTO, but, as a Agriculture Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is member of the EU, was bound by the regulations of the available in the room. common agricultural policy, which ensured compliance by all member states with WTO obligations. Outside Clause 40 the common agricultural policy, we will have to have a new regime and a new approach to ensuring compliance POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS FOR SECURING with our continuing WTO obligations. COMPLIANCE WITH WTO AGREEMENT ON Agriculture is devolved in the UK, so each AGRICULTURE: GENERAL Administration will decide their own future policy on farm subsidies. The clause allows each Administration Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): I to do that, but it gives the Government powers to beg to move amendment 31, in clause 40, page 36, line 20, at ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO obligations. We end insert— will continue to work closely with devolved Administrations “(1A) Regulations under this section containing provision that officials, as we have been doing for more than a year. I extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the am assured that the relationship is good and that that Scottish Ministers.” work is going well. It is important to ensure that all This amendment would require that the power to make regulations extending to Scotland can only be exercised with the consent of parties’ views are properly considered. Scottish Ministers. An agreement between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss contains commitments that the draft regulations will be amendment 99, in clause 40, page 36, line 20, at end presented to the UK’s four Agriculture Ministers with insert— the aim of securing agreement, followed by an exchange “(1A) No regulations may be made under this section unless of letters. In that context, I ask that the hon. Lady the Secretary of State has consulted each devolved authority on a withdraw her amendment. draft of the regulations.”

Deidre Brock: I will be brief, because this is basically Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): I rise to a rerun of arguments I have made in Committee on speak—I am double hatted—not as a Whip, but as a earlier amendments on Scottish Ministers getting a say shadow Minister with responsibility for European affairs, over areas of devolved competence. We are concerned formerly Brexit, which I still am at the moment. that the views of Scottish Ministers might be overlooked I shall speak to amendment 99, which I hope will or overruled in future. In our view, the agreement of offer a balance. The Minister obviously understands Scottish Ministers should be sought in all areas of that we recognise that WTO compliance is a reserved devolved competence. Again, I cannot see why it is matter, but also that agriculture is devolved. We therefore possible in other Bills being scrutinised by this Parliament feel that placing requirements on the devolved legislatures, to insert that the agreement of the devolved Administrations without a corresponding requirement on the Government is required, not simply that their views will be taken into to at least consult them, is not fair. This is a delicate account, only for that perhaps to be subsequently ignored balance to strike, and we feel that amendment 99 is a by this or future Secretaries of State. I will leave it there, balanced way forward. but our views on the issue are particularly clear. I am It is interesting that clauses 40 to 42 will mean that we interested to hear what the Minister has to say in have to adhere to WTO rules—specifically, the agreement response. on agriculture. They bind us to supranational rules, which is an interesting take on where we are as a TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment, country,given that so manyMinisters and Brexit-supporting Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): It is a pleasure MPs have for many years made the Brexit case by to be back for a busy day in the Agriculture Bill Committee. stating, and in fact restating, their devotion to sovereignty We do not dispute that agriculture is a devolved and their desire for the UK Parliament to have complete matter.However,this particular provision is about ensuring control of our laws, borders and money, to use a phrase, UK-wide compliance with an international agreement. which they appeared to want. However, here we are That responsibility is, rightly, reserved to the UK putting into legislation the requirement to adhere to a Government. This is not about whether the devolved supranational, unelected body, with its own court of Administrations have the competence to implement dispute resolution, the findings of which we will all be and observe international agreements; it is about ensuring bound by.I want to make sure that Government Members UK-wide compliance in an international sphere. are aware of that. 349 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 350

Victoria Prentis indicated assent. that is the previous Minister, who is now Secretary of State— Thangam Debbonaire: Good. Excellent. We have that “has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried over with on the record. I happen to like supranational rules— this Bill. We look forward to him”— provided that nation states have debated and agreed to presumably, this now means the new Minister— them—which advance the course of human wellbeing, “making that statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a equality, sustainable development, animal welfare, later stage in the House, about how we would work together on biodiversity and all those other wonderful things that that, about the advice and about, were there to be disagreement, the Bill will put into law. I would like us to amend the our opposition being formally presented to the House of Commons Bill with amendment 99, so that the way we do that to be part of your decision-making process.” balances out the responsibilities between the nations of He wanted there to be a way that any opposition by a the United Kingdom. devolved legislature could be presented to the House of Signing up to an international treaty is not a loss of Commons. He said: sovereignty—clearly the Government agree in relation “We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is to the WTO, which is quite interesting—but an exercise heard effectively.” of it. We believe that co-operation with other nation I do not doubt that, but when I asked him again about states is good. Contrary to what some have said, nations what that agreed way of working was, saying that it was do not do better when they isolate themselves from not in the Bill, he confirmed that it is not in the Bill, but supranational co-operation; I definitely heard a Minister said: say that recently. “It is an exchange of letters”.––[Official Report, Agriculture I am curious, because it appears from these clauses—I Public Bill Committee, 13 February 2020; c. 94, Q145-46.] might have this wrong—that the Government seem to Exchange of letters is a good thing, but it is not legally want to take back control not to share that control with binding. Bilateral conversations, again, are a good thing, the nations of the UK, but to concentrate power in and I have absolutely no doubt that DEFRA, the Welsh ministerial hands. We would like to make sure that that Government and other devolved Administrations are power is properly shared with our elected representatives consulting properly, but we want this in the Bill, because in the regions and nations. an exchange of letters is not adequate. It relies on the Clauses 40 to 42 are perfect examples of that good will of Ministers. I have no doubt that the Minister concentration, because they give Ministers the power to has good will towards all the devolved nations, but we make demands of the elected legislatures on a devolved want to ensure that that good will is bound into law with matter, but with no reciprocal requirement on the a modest requirement to consult the devolved legislatures. Government to involve or even consult those legislatures. Given that the previous Government found that the I ask Government Members, and the Minister, to WTO-only option was most damaging to the economy, note that the backdrop to these clauses is that the WTO and that the current Government do not seem to want now appears to be no longer just the backstop, but the to release any more recent assessment of the impact of frontstop—I do not know whether there is such a thing downgrading our ambition to the much inferior WTO-only as a frontstop, but this seems to me to be a problem, agreement, we think it even more necessary to make because that is the worst of all the possible options sure that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted. identified by the previous Government. At the very least, we should be ensuring that our devolved legislatures WTO means tariffs on some products and a regime are properly consulted. for which our farms are not ready. The amendment cannot fully ameliorate the potential damage to our economy and farms from reverting to a WTO-only Victoria Prentis: Very briefly, the hon. Lady has deal, but it would at least mean that the devolved made an entertaining speech, in which, I politely suggest, legislatures were properly involved. she is trying on this particular issue to have her cake and During the evidence session, I asked the Welsh eat it. The reason we cannot agree to these amendments— Government’s director of environment and rural affairs though we share her views on the importance of talking whether he wanted a requirement for the Secretary of to and consulting with devolved Administrations; I do State to consult the devolved legislatures on the operation not think there is any doubt in this room about that—is of those provisions. I said: that we keep as a reserved matter compliance with “This is about classifying domestic support in so far as it WTO rules. We are absolutely part of the WTO; she is affects the agreement on agriculture and relates to our position in right on that. I take on the chin her sharper comments the WTO. It is a very specific question: do you think that about whether that is fully understood, but it is certainly Wales—and Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, understood by those on the Government Benches, and as well as required to provide information?” she should be in no doubt about that. He said: On the hon. Lady’sspecific point about what Mr Render “This is an issue that we had extensive conversations with the said in evidence and the assurance given by my predecessor, Minister about”— who is now Secretary of State, I am happy to look at I am absolutely sure that that is true— whether we should restate that commitment, and I “regarding the equivalent text in the previous version…we would undertake to do so. love a consent provision”. He also said that “in the context of the last Bill we came to a bilateral agreement Thangam Debbonaire: I completely understand that between the UK Government—the Department for Environment, agriculture is devolved and compliance is reserved. That Food and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how the is why our amendment would require consultation to provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister”— take place. It would not be a veto on the part of the 351 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 352

[Thangam Debbonaire] Division No. 26] devolveds, which I understand others might wish to AYES have. I would like the Minister to consider that as a Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia compromise. Jones, Ruth McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel Victoria Prentis: We need to ensure that the provisions made under the clause are fair and proportionate. We NOES want to involve devolved Administrations and I have set Brock, Deidre Jones, Fay out how we intend to do so. In my view, that is adequate, Clarke, Theo Kearns, Alicia so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Leith to withdraw her amendment. Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria Deidre Brock: I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West that power is being concentrated under this Question accordingly negatived. clause towards the UK Government and the Secretary Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. of State. Once again—when there is a common view among the four National Farmers Unions of the four Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill. nations that any common frameworks covering anything to do with agriculture must be agreed, not simply Clause 42 consulted upon—I fail to see why this quite reasonable suggestion is continually disagreed with by Ministers. REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 40: CLASSIFICATION OF I speak here, I suppose, on behalf of the Scottish DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND Government, rather than every devolved Administration, because I would not presume to do that. However, I PROVISION OF INFORMATION assume that they feel exactly the same and follow the views of their National Farmers Unions as well. The Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 32, in possibility exists within this clause and others for our clause 42, page 38, line 17, leave out from “support” to Ministers’ policy choices to be constrained. Those policy end of line 19. choices reflect closely the conditions of their own nations, This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State as and they must be taken into account. Their views must final arbiter in dispute resolution. be listened to and their agreement sought. That is why, although I agree with much of what the The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss hon. Member for Bristol West has said, properly involving amendment 33, in clause 42, page 38, line 20, leave out the devolved Administrations means respecting their subsections (4) and (5). wishes and seeking their consent, rather than simply seeking to consult with them but ultimately, perhaps, This amendment would remove the requirement to provide information to the Secretary of State. ignoring them. I will therefore push the amendment to a vote. Deidre Brock: These amendments once again go to 11.45 am the heart of the devolved settlement, and the question of whether for Scotland, “taking back control” means That the amendment be made. Question put, actually taking back control. The principle is that Scotland The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 9. should be the arbiter of her own schemes and provisions, Division No. 25] and should decide what is covered in them. There should be no role for a Secretary of State in the UK AYES Government to be an overlord for Scotland’s agricultural sector, or for its support schemes. It makes sense for Brock, Deidre Scottish Ministers, overseen by the Scottish Parliament, to make those decisions. NOES I appreciate that, as we have already heard, the opinion Clarke, Theo Kearns, Alicia of the UK Government is that compliance with the Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny WTO agreement is an international obligation, and that Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James the final decision should rest with them. I remind them Goodwill, rh Mr Robert that the Scottish Administration have had cases where Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria they have been held liable for infringements of international agreements. I argue that Scotland’s Government should Question accordingly negatived. not be reliant on the UK Government to get those Amendment proposed: 99, in clause 40, page 36, line 20, at decisions right in order to avoid being stung by the end insert— consequences. Scotland is more than capable, I assure all hon. Members, of getting these things absolutely “(1A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has consulted each devolved authority on a right on its own. draft of the regulations.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.) Question put, That the amendment be made. Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): It seems somewhat ironic that with all those policies, the The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. Scottish National party would abdicate the decisions to 353 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 354

Brussels; certainly on agriculture and fisheries policies, and potentially impede our ability to comply with WTO particularly those involving trade, Brussels would be obligations where we cannot reach agreement, although making the important decisions. we hope that we will. Turning to amendment 33, the whole clause must be read in the context of “securing compliance” with the Deidre Brock: I am not really inclined to rehearse all WTO agreement on agriculture, which is incontrovertibly the arguments of the Brexit situation back and forth—they a reserved matter. We need to be able to reassure WTO have been ongoing for some time. I am certain the right members that, despite the unusual degree of agricultural hon. Gentleman is well aware of the Scottish Government’s devolution in the UK, we have the means to ensure that views on these issues, as well as those of the SNP group we will have the relevant data to be able to comply. The at Westminster. amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability I will refrain from pointing out that the WTO is to make regulations for securing, from any part of the falling apart at the moment, unfortunately, as a result of UK, the information necessary for the UK Government the actions of the US President, because that would be to meet those international obligations. I therefore ask beneath my dignity, but it should be borne in mind that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to without a tribunal system, the WTO simply does not withdraw the amendment. function. The point of the amendments is simply to ensure that Scotland has the freedom of movement to Deidre Brock: I heard what the Minister said and we ensure that it complies with the agreements, whether or are clearly having great difficulty in coming to an agreement not the UK does. That seems a very fair and equitable between the two Governments and between us on the way to do things. I hope the Minister will take that into Committee. From my point of view, decision-making consideration and agree to my proposals. powers that allow not for agreement but simply for consultation do not seem fair or equitable, so I will press the amendment to a vote. Thangam Debbonaire: I wish to make a few remarks on amendments 32 and 33. Wewill not support amendment 32 Question put, That the amendment be made. because it provides a veto for Scotland on the reserved The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 15. matter of WTO compliance. The hon. Lady is right Division No. 27] about the WTO; we could have a whole discussion about why and how we have ended up with the WTO AYES and where we seem to be going, but today is not the day for that. Brock, Deidre On amendment 33, we still feel that our amendment NOES to clause 40 would have provided a good compromise of Clarke, Theo Kearns, Alicia a consultation process, whereas the SNP amendment Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny removes the requirement on the devolved Administrations Debbonaire, Thangam McCarthy, Kerry to provide that information. It would have been better Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James to be more balanced. We will not vote against that Goodwill, rh Mr Robert amendment, but we wish the Minister to take into Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria account the fact that we offered a compromise in Jones, Ruth Whittome, Nadia amendment 99, and we urge her to consider that at a Jupp, Simon Zeichner, Daniel later stage. Question accordingly negatived. Victoria Prentis: Starting with amendment 32, now Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 42, page 38, line 20, that the UK has left the EU, we have become a fully leave out subsections (4) and (5)—(Deidre Brock.). independent member of the WTO. That means that the This amendment would remove the requirement to provide information UK Government are responsible for ensuring that the to the Secretary of State. whole of the UK complies with its obligations. In fully The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10. federal countries such as the USA and Canada, the Division No. 28] WTO always insists that agricultural trade is reserved—that is how the WTO functions with federal states. One of AYES the UK Government’s obligations under WTO rules is to notify the UK’s use of agricultural support to the Brock, Deidre WTO membership. It is essential that the nations of the UK take a consistent approach to classifying agricultural NOES support in accordance with those requirements. Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon Crosbie, Virginia Kearns, Alicia Clause 42 provides for a decision-making process Dines, Miss Sarah Kruger, Danny that will, quite properly, involve all four nations of the Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James UK. That will be set out in regulations made under the Jones, Fay Prentis, Victoria clause. Where a decision cannot be reached through that process, the UK Government, as the hon. Member Question accordingly negatived. for Bristol West said, must ultimately be responsible for the final decision, but we hope that agreement can be Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill. reached. The amendment would remove the safeguard of final decision making from the Secretary of State Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 355 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 356

Schedule 5 (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 legislation operates in relation to such persons; PROVISION RELATING TO WALES (d) securing that any sanction or penalty imposed by such Amendments made: 65, in schedule 5, page 58, line 18, legislation is appropriate and proportionate.’. leave out from “scheme” to end of line 20 and insert See the explanatory statement for Amendment 68. ‘, so far as it operates in relation to Wales, for or in connection Amendment 72, in schedule 5, page 59, line 21, after with making changes the Welsh Ministers consider would serve “paragraph” insert— any one or more of the following purposes— ‘“burden” includes— (a) simplifying the administration of the scheme or otherwise (a) a financial cost; making its operation more efficient or effective; (b) an administrative inconvenience; (b) removing provisions which are spent or of no practical (c) an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or utility; profitability;’. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 68. (c) removing or reducing burdens, or the overall burdens, on persons applying for, or entitled to, direct Amendment 73, in schedule 5, page 59, line 26, at end payments under the scheme or otherwise improving insert— the way that the scheme operates in relation to them; ‘(c) the legacy regulations. (d) securing that any sanction or penalty imposed under ‘(3A) In sub-paragraph (3), the “legacy regulations” means the scheme is appropriate and proportionate; retained direct EU legislation relating to the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (e) limiting the application of the scheme to land in Wales only.’. that preceded Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 and includes— This amendment and Amendments 66 and 67 amend the powers of the (a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May Welsh Ministers to make regulations modifying legislation governing 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural the basic payment scheme in relation to Wales. The amendments take policy; account of changes to clause 9, which confers similar powers on the (b) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of Secretary of State in relation to England. 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the Amendment 66, in schedule 5, page 58, line 23, leave implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No out from “Wales” to end of line 24 and insert 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of ‘so long as that provision does not reduce the amount of a direct rural development support measures; payment to which a person would have been entitled had the (c) Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of provision not been made.’. 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the See the explanatory statement for Amendment 65. implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control Amendment 67, in schedule 5, page 58, line 24, at end procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of insert— rural development support measures.’. ‘(2A) In this paragraph, “burden” includes— See the explanatory statement for Amendment 68. Amendment 61, in schedule 5, page 61, line 30, leave (a) a financial cost; out “the National Assembly for Wales”and insert “Senedd (b) an administrative inconvenience; Cymru”.—(Victoria Prentis.) (c) an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability.’ See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 65. Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to. Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendment 68, in schedule 5, page 59, line 12, after “modify” insert Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 6 agreed to. ‘the following legislation so far as it operates in relation to Wales’. Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill. This amendment and Amendments 69 to 73 amend the powers of the Welsh Ministers to make regulations modifying certain legislation governing payments to farmers and others as it operates in relation to Clause 47 Wales. The amendments take account of changes to clause 14, which confers similar powers on the Secretary of State in relation to England. REGULATIONS Amendment 69, in schedule 5, page 59, line 16, leave out “the purpose of” and insert 12 noon “or in connection with making changes that the Welsh Ministers Amendments made: 54, in clause 47, page 41, line 3, leave consider would serve any one or more of the following purposes”. out “the National Assembly for Wales” See the explanatory statement for Amendment 68. and insert “Senedd Cymru”. Amendment 70, in schedule 5, page 59, line 18, leave See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. out “in relation to Wales, or” Amendment 55, in clause 47, page 41, line 16, leave See the explanatory statement for Amendment 68. out Amendment 71, in schedule 5, page 59, line 19, leave “the National Assembly for Wales” out paragraph (b) and insert— and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Victoria Prentis.) ‘(b) simplifying the operation of any provision of such See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. legislation, or making its operation more efficient or Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the effective; Bill. 357 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 358

Clause 48 Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. INTERPRETATION Amendment made: 56, in clause 48, page 41, line 46, leave out The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss “the National Assembly for Wales” the following: and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Victoria Prentis.) New clause 4—Import of agricultural goods after IP See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51. completion day— Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the ‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported Bill. under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. if the standards to which those goods were produced were as Schedule 7 agreed to. high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to— Clause 50 (a) animal welfare, (b) protection of the environment, POWER TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL ETC PROVISION (c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and Amendment made: 95, in clause 50, page 42, line 31, at end insert— (d) plant health. (ia) section 32(3) and (4), so far as relating to (2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK Wales,”.—(Victoria Prentis.) production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods This amendment makes the Welsh Ministers responsible for making imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere. provision under clause 50 in connection with clauses 32(3) and (4) as (3) “Agricultural goods” for the purposes of this section, they apply in relation to Wales. mean— Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the (a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5), Bill. (b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 22(6), (c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds. Clause 53 (4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’ COMMENCEMENT Amendments made: 96, in clause 53, page 43, line 35, leave New clause 7—International trade agreements: out paragraph (c). agricultural and food products— This amendment removes clause 53(2)(c) which is superseded by the ‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an words proposed to be inserted in clause 53(2)(d) by Amendment 97. international trade agreement before Parliament under Amendment 97, in clause 53, page 43, line 36, at end section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act insert— 2010 unless the agreement— (ia) section 32(3) and (4),”. (a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to commence rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and clause 32(3) and (4) to those provisions as they apply in relation to (b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of England. agricultural and food products in relation to which Amendment 98, in clause 53, page 44, line 3, at end the relevant standards are lower than the relevant insert— standards in the United Kingdom. (ia) section 32(3) and (4),”.—(Victoria Prentis.) (2) In subsection (1)— This amendment makes the Welsh Ministers responsible for “international trade agreement” means— commencing clauses 32(3) and (4) as they apply in relation to Wales. (a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under— Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the (b) an international agreement that mainly relates Bill. to trade, other than an agreement mentioned Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill. in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii); “Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in New Clause 1 the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975; “relevant standards” means standards relating to IMPORT OF AGRICULTURAL GOODS environmental protection, plant health and ‘(1) Agricultural goods may be imported into the UK only if animal welfare applying in connection with the the standards to which those goods were produced were as high production of agricultural and food products; as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to— “SPS Agreement” means the agreement on the (a) animal welfare, Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO (b) protection of the environment, and Agreement (as modified from time to time); (c) food safety. “WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing (2) “Agricultural goods”, for the purposes of this section, means— the World Trade Organisation signed at (a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5), Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.’ (b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6), This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported (c) any product derived from livestock, plants or foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are seeds.’—(Daniel Zeichner.) held to. This new clause would set a requirement for imported agricultural goods to meet animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards New clause 30—Prohibition on the sale of certain which are at least as high as those which apply to UK produced animals and animal products: substances— agricultural goods. ‘(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall sell or Brought up, and read the First time. supply for human consumption any animal— 359 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 360

(a) which contains or to which there has been (6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by administered— statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument may not (i) a Class I prohibited substance listed in paragraph 1 be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, of Schedule [Prohibited substances], and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. (ii) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 (7) For the purposes of this section— of Schedule [Prohibited substances], a veterinary medicinal product is a compliant veterinary medicinal product if it complies with (iii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 the requirements of Regulation 25 of the Animals of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or and Animal Products (Examination for Residues (iv) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and of Schedule [Prohibited substances], Scotland) Regulations 2015), and unless that substance was administered in accordance with “withdrawal period” shall have the meaning given in subsection (4); Regulation 2 of the Animals and Animal (b) that is an aquaculture animal to which— Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and (i) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 Scotland) Regulations 2015). of Schedule [Prohibited substances], (8) Regulations 9 and 10 of the Animals and Animal Products (ii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 are revoked.’ (iii) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 New clause 31—Prohibition on sale: hygiene— of Schedule [Prohibited substances], ‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any animal which has been has been administered; treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination (c) which contains a substance specified by the Secretary with a substance other than potable water. of State in regulations under subsection (5)(a) at a (2) No person shall sell or supply any animal product which is concentration exceeding the maximum residue limit; derived wholly or partly from an animal which has been treated or for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a (d) to which a medicinal product has been administered if substance other than potable water.’ the withdrawal period for that product has not New clause 32—Prohibition on sale: stocking densities— expired. ‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any chicken, any part of a (2) No person may sell or supply for human consumption any chicken or any product which is partly or wholly derived from a animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal chicken unless the condition in subsection (2) is met. the sale or supply of which is prohibited under subsection (1). (2) The condition is that the stocking density in any house in (3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(d) shall prohibit the sale before which the chicken was reared— the end of the withdrawal period of any high-value horse to 2 which has been administered allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist in (a) did not exceed 33 kilograms per m of usable area, or accordance with regulation 5 of the Animals and Animal (b) did not exceed 39 kilograms per m2 of usable area if Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue the requirements of subsection (3) were met. Limits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015, provided that (3) The requirements of this subsection are that the keeper must— the type and date of treatment was entered on the horse’s (a) maintain and, on request, make available to the passport by the veterinary surgeon directly responsible for the Secretary of State, documentation in the house treatment. giving a detailed description of the production (4) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply systems, in particular information on technical to the sale of an animal, or of an animal product derived wholly details of the house and its equipment, including— or partly from an animal to which has been administered a (i) a plan of the house including the dimensions of the compliant veterinary medicinal product— surfaces occupied by the chickens; (a) containing testosterone, progesterone or a derivative of (ii) ventilation and any relevant cooling and heating these substances which readily yields the parent system (including their location), and a ventilation compound on hydrolysis after absorption at the site plan, detailing target air quality parameters (such of application, if the administration is in accordance as airflow, air speed and temperature); with regulation 26 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum (iii) feeding and watering systems (and their location); Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations (iv) alarm and backup systems in the event of a failure 2015; of any equipment essential for the health and (b) containing allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist, if the well-being of the chickens; administration is in accordance with regulation 27 of (v) floor type and litter normally used; and the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for (vi) records of technical inspections of the ventilation Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and alarm systems; and Scotland) Regulations 2015; (b) keep up to date the documentation referred to in (c) having oestrogenic action (but not containing oestradiol 17β subparagraph (a); or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic action or (c) ensure that each house is equipped with ventilation gestagenic action, if the administration is in accordance and, if necessary, heating and cooling systems with regulation 28 of the Animals and Animal Products designed, constructed and operated in such a way (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue that— Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015. (i) the concentration of ammonia does not exceed 20 (5) The Secretary of State may make regulations— parts per million and the concentration of carbon (a) specifying for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) dioxide does not exceed 3,000 parts per million, maximum residue limits for pharmacologically active when measured at the level of the chickens’ heads; substances, and (ii) when the outside temperature measured in the (b) adding one or more substances to any of the classes of shade exceeds 30°C, the inside temperature does prohibited substances in Schedule [Prohibited not exceed the outside temperature by more than substances]. 3°C; and 361 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 362

(iii) when the outside temperature is below 10°C, the A document relevant to our discussion has once average relative humidity measured inside the again been released in the middle of a morning. This house during a continuous period of 48 hours time, it is a 109-page document on bovine TB. Although does not exceed 70%. it is another favourite document of mine, hon. Members (4) In the case of a chicken reared in a house which is not in will be grateful that I will not subject it to rigorous scrutiny, the United Kingdom, it shall be a requirement upon the importer but one of my hon. Friends will talk to it this afternoon. to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that— Let me get to the core business. Throughout the (a) documentation equivalent to that specified in Committee, we have said that it is crucial that, in any subsection (3) was maintained by the keeper and was future trade deals, imported agricultural goods meet available for supply to the appropriate regulatory ouranimalwelfare,environmentalandfoodsafetystandards authority, and to protect our consumers and prevent our farmers (b) the conditions under which the chicken was reared being undercut by lower-standard imports. The Bill were equivalent to, or better than, those set out in improves the standards that we set ourselves by reducing subsections (2) and (3). environmental impacts and incentivising public goods, (5) For the purposes of this section, “chicken” shall mean a such as high welfare standards. If we do not have conventionally reared meat chicken.’ coherency between our agricultural and trade policies, New schedule 1—Prohibited substances— however, the Government might as well make the entire Bill null and void. 1 Class I prohibited substances Hon. Members will have noticed in the oral evidence sessions that I asked almost every witness the same Aristolochia spp. and preparations thereof question. Although they put it in different ways, they all Chloramphenicol gave similar answers and agreed that it is the key issue. Chloroform The Government have said that they are committed not to allow future trade deals to weaken our food standards—I Chlorpromazine anticipate the Minister’s response—but the problem is Colchicine that we have yet to find anyone who believes that. I Dapsone suspect the same goes for most Government Members. There is a simple solution, which we will say again and Dimetridazole again: put it in the Bill. I am tempted to follow the Metronizadole Prime Minister’s lead and get Opposition Members to Nitrofurans (including furazolidone) chant, but I think that is a bit naff, so we will not do that. We will try to do better. Ronizadole Weare sceptical because the actions of the Government 2 Class II prohibited substances and the Prime Minister seem to point in a different direction. On Sunday, the Secretary of State had the Thyrostatic substances opportunity, but again refused to rule out chlorinated Stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters chicken and hormone-treated beef being imported from the US under a new deal. Oestradiol 17β and its ester-like derivatives 3 Class III prohibited substances Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we have put it into Beta-agonists law that we cannot import chlorinated chicken? We 4 Class IV prohibited substances would require primary legislation for that to be removed once we have left the EU, so it is not up for discussion. Substances having oestrogenic (other than oestradiol 17β It is in the legislation. All hon. Members will have a or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic or gestagenic chance to vote on that. action. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are giving all the signs of having no interest in protecting standards, but did he not note Liz Truss’ announcement of our red lines, which are standards? That has reassured Daniel Zeichner: It is a pleasure to continue serving my farmers locally,who are very happy for all amendments under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am afraid that on trade standards to go into a trade Bill, not the we will not be rattling on at quite the pace you have Agriculture Bill. managed so far. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be delighted that today we are going to unleash, as the Daniel Zeichner: I am delighted that we are getting Prime Minister would say, the full talents of the shadow some rumbustious debate. I will come to the point later Front-Bench team and Labour Back-Bench Members. of the exact legal position on the current status, which I Again, I encourage the Government to do the same. suspect is not nearly so clear. I am not convinced that Yesterday morning, while eating my porridge, I enjoyed many are as reassured by the Secretary of State for a thoughtful contribution on the “Today” programme— International Trade’s document, which I have started territory currently uninhabited by Ministers of course— reading, as the hon. Lady has, but I am glad that some from the hon. Member for Devizes.It is an odd world where of her constituents are satisfied, because many are not. Back-Bench Members are free to speak on national media We know that the Prime Minister will not prioritise but are constrained on detailed scrutiny.The Government alignment with EU standards in the upcoming EU love power but may be less keen on responsibility. trade deal. When asked last month about lower-standard 363 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 364

[Daniel Zeichner] Moving on from jousting about newspapers, it is important that to have a discussion about levels of food American products coming to the UK, he described security, as I have mentioned. It is an intellectually such fears as “hysterical” and “mumbo-jumbo”. Given plausible position to say that we do not have to produce his past record, as I take that as, “Yes, we should be very our own food and that we could become like Singapore. worried indeed.” That is an important political debate that should be had If the Minister is in any doubt about the need to transparently, not in private emails between advisers. include a safeguard for our production standards in the Without proper legal protection in place, many people Bill, I point to the comments made by a Government will feel that whatever the Government say will just be adviser on food strategy at the weekend, which reveal warm words. that the iconoclasts running the show have little regard To go back to the point raised by the hon. Member for protecting our farmers and the domestic production for Rutland and Melton, at the last DEFRA questions of food. The Mail on Sunday article was a classic of its the previous Secretary of State said pretty much what type, including comments such as she just said. She said: “Britain doesn’t need famers,” “Our high environmental, animal welfare and food safety according to the adviser, and standards are already in law, including legislating to prevent the importation of chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef”.— “the food sector is not ‘critically important’ to the economy.” [Official Report, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 438.] It concluded with the memorable message from the We were interested by that statement. Can the Minister Mail on Sunday to the Government: clarify further the statement that they are “already in “Britain doesn’t need farms? Find another box to think outside!” law” by providing the details of the legislation where those standards can be found? Can she explain what Alicia Kearns: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise mechanism would be used if the Government are required that that email was sent in a personal capacity by an in a trade negotiation to amend or remove any of the adviser? It is MPs and Ministers who make legislation, standards and describe, in that scenario, the level of not advisers—I am pretty sure about that. [Interruption.] parliamentary scrutiny that would apply? I do not know who that individual adviser is, so clearly That should be good ground for the Minister as she is he is not advising my views. The Secretary of State for an esteemed lawyer. I am neither esteemed nor a lawyer, International Trade,the Secretary of State for Environment, so I was grateful that, after the exchange at DEFRA Food and Rural Affairs and the Prime Minister have all questions, the shadow Secretary of State sought advice. made it clear that the points the adviser makes are not We have advice from the House of Commons Library Government policy. We can either listen to nonsensical and—guess what?—it is complicated. Inevitably, trying personal emails or pay attention to what those on the to unravel the complexity of bringing EU law into Front Bench are saying. I think they have been clear domestic law and the overlaps is difficult. I suspect the that the Mail on Sunday story was complete nonsense. law would need to be tested and, as ever, different Does the hon. Gentleman agree? lawyers would give different advice; that tends to happen. Some think that EU-derived domestic legislation covering these matters could, in some circumstances, be changed The Chair: Order. I remind hon. Members that when by the Government using delegated powers in the Food they refer to other hon. Members they need to use their Safety Act 1990, without the need even to seek constituency titles. parliamentary approval, let alone primary legislation. We are questioning the Government on this. My hon. Daniel Zeichner: I have to say that I do not normally Friend the shadow Secretary of State queried it with the find myself in agreement with the Daily Mail, but on previous Secretary of State, and we await a response this occasion there may be something in it. The important with interest, because it is an important point. However, point is that there are clearly people close to Government the seeming lack of clarity hardly fills us with confidence, who have dramatic views that seem different to those of because this is such an issue. Clearly, in the interests of the vast majority of Conservative Members, as well as certainty and clarity—which, in fairness, we can agree Labour Members. It is a question for the Government we do not have—we should put this in the Bill. We to decide who they choose to seek advice from, but it should agree an amendment to create a proper legislative can hardly be denied that it is out there. guarantee that future trade deals will not allow imports of agricultural goods used to lower environmental, public health, and animal welfare standards. This is that Mr Goodwill: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in amendment. an earlier evidence session George Monbiot advocated for precisely those points, and argued for desisting in the production of sheep and cattle on the uplands and 12.15 pm planting them with trees? Does he subscribe to that view, as espoused by The Guardian? Farming and environmental groups are, as far as I can see, pretty unanimous in their agreement that we need that guarantee. We have heard reference in the Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the right hon. evidence sessions and in some previous discussions to Gentleman, but there is a subtle difference between the 60-plus farming, environmental, animal welfare and witness evidence and the evidence that has been given in food industry organisations that have all written to the the important Dimbleby review on our future food Prime Minister, calling for that safeguard. As I am sure policy. I think there is a difference, but, as always, I we are all aware, in a couple of weeks we expect many respect his observation. farmers to be lobbying Parliament on just that issue. 365 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 366

Interestingly, that is a consensus not just across includes animal feed. It is pretty much accepted that organisations, but across the party divide in the Chamber. environmental standards in Brazil, Argentina, the United The words of the new clause are not ours, not Labour’s States and Canada are lower than ours. Would the new words, but the exact same words tabled in the amendment clause ban the importation of all agricultural feed, of the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Tiverton including soya beans and maize, into the United Kingdom, and Honiton (Neil Parish), the esteemed Chair of the should the exporting country’s environmental standards Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural not be as high as ours, given that those products are Affairs. I suspect the words of one of the senior members mixed, so it could not be done on an individual farm basis? of a previous Committee at the end of Second Reading are still ringing out—he certainly expected to see improvements, and if we cannot deliver those today, Daniel Zeichner: I fully accept that the provision they will certainly be introduced on Report. would need to be thought through and worked through Toadd to the evidence,the cross-party EFRA Committee in future. My point is that in general we must be careful clearly concluded in its scrutiny report of the earlier about such changes, because I do not want our agriculture Agriculture Bill in 2018 that, in its collective opinion: sector to be put at a disadvantage. “The Government should put its money where its mouth is and We do not want what I have just been outlining to accept an amendment to the Agriculture Bill stipulating that food happen. I suspect that the Minister and the vast majority products imported as part of any future trade deal should meet or of her colleagues do not want it to happen either. I exceed British standards”. mentioned the chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected This is that amendment. beef, and it is worth spending a moment to remind The direction could not be clearer. I ask the Minister ourselves of the exact nature of the kinds of low-standard to take a long think. Are the concerns of that wide range food imports that we need to guard against. of organisations, almost every witness seen by this Bill When it comes to a trade deal with the US, we Committee and the Government’s own Back Benchers know that by and large its regulations on farm animal really as hysterical as the Prime Minister seems to think? welfare are substantially lower than those of the UK. Or could it be that there is actually a serious issue? My understanding is that the US has no federal regulations What would be the point of the Bill if all its good at all in many of the areas in which the UK has enacted workinencouragingfarmerstoadopthigherenvironmental detailed regulations. The RSPCA raised, in evidence, and animal welfare standards is undermined on day one the fact that 55% of the pork meat and bacon that we byimportswithlowerstandardsfloodinginandundercutting eat is imported. Virtually all of it comes from the EU, them?If farmershavetofacethatcompetitionfromcheaper which follows comparatively high standards of production. food produced to lower standards than those they will rightly be expected to work to in the environmental land If we start going to the US, where they still use sow management schemes, the real danger is that they will be stalls and inject pigs with ractopamine, both of which forced to walk away from delivering those public goods are rightly illegal in UK pig farming on animal welfare entirely. That has a further consequence. The danger is grounds,we completely undermine our moral commitments that all the environmental improvements we are hoping against those practices, and allow undercutting of our for from the Bill would be undermined. In fact, our farmers, who are committed to such higher standards. I environmental standards could fall. That danger was raised remind members of the Committee that ractopamine is repeatedly by the witnesses the Committee heard from. a feed additive used to manipulate growth in pigs, which has been shown to be highly detrimental to pig welfare, The Government have already rejected our amendment causing lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of calling for proper baseline environmental and welfare breath. There is a reason we do not use it. It is the same standards, so the reality we will be faced with, if they do for hormone-treated beef, which is produced in the US not respond positively to our new clause, is that the new by injecting cattle with growth hormones to generate green world of farming that we had hoped for will be greater mass more quickly. That is banned in the EU on one where the environmental public goods are not animal welfare and public health grounds. delivered, where our farmers are forced to produce food at lower animal welfare and environmental standards, The issue with the chlorinated chicken produced in and where we will have imports of chlorinated chicken the US is that the chickens have been kept in such and hormone-injected beef on our supermarket shelves, dismal and intensive conditions that the chlorine is which we do not wish to see. required to wash off the pathogens that they have become infected with during rearing and slaughter. The Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): My hon. Friend is principle is animal welfare, but there is also a real making a powerful speech. Does he agree that it is question over food safety. Of course, we heard evidence strange that the shadow Minister wrote to the now on that. It is fair to say that there is dispute about the Minister on 19 February on the specific question of comparative rates of food-borne illnesses in the US and standards already in law and, as of today, we have still the UK but, as we heard from Professor Keevil of the have had no response? University of Southampton, there are now studies that suggest that chlorine washing is not as effective as was Daniel Zeichner: It is, because it was made clear that once thought, and can make pathogens undetectable there would be a clear response. I suspect that the issue without actually killing them, so that they may remain is complicated and people are working on it, but I capable of causing disease. absolutely share my hon. Friend’sconcern. This is something we need clarity on. I feel strongly that those are not products that we want on our shelves or in our freezer cabinets. I will Mr Goodwill: I absolutely understand and sympathise echo the words of the president of the National Farmers with the hon. Gentleman’s objectives. His new clause Union, who last week delivered this statement to a talks about “agricultural goods”, which presumably clearly discomfited Secretary of State: 367 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 368

[Daniel Zeichner] It is truly a fascinating read to see what these compounds include. Schedule 1 lists testosterone, progesterone, “To sign up to a trade deal which results in opening our ports, oestradiol 17β, stilbenes and trenbolone, which are all shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here hormones permitted as growth promoters in US beef would not only be morally bankrupt, it would be the work of the production. The beta-agonists listed are used as growth insane.” promoters, more commonly in pig production, and I I might not have used exactly the same words, but I agree believe that ractopamine, which I mentioned earlier, with the sentiment, and I think that the Secretary of would be classified under that category. State was discomfited because he knows that she is Most interestingly, new clause 31 would prohibit the right. sale, for hygiene reasons, of any animal product that It is crystal clear that we need a safeguard. How on comes from animals being treated with any substance earth do the Government expect to negotiate their way other than potable water for the purpose of removing out of this, when the US Secretary of State Mike surface contamination. By my understanding, that would Pompeo has clearly said that chlorinated chicken must essentially preclude the sale of chlorine or oplactose-acid be part of any UK-US trade agreement? Why not come washed chicken in this country. clean and admit that in the negotiations there will be trade-offs, one of which, sadly, could be selling out our farmers and our environment? Mr Goodwill: New clause 31 does not actually refer to New clauses 30 to 32 are particularly interesting, and post-slaughter use and, as it is sloppily drafted, would members of the Committee who have read them will apply to the washing of show animals at shows, the use note that they are detailed. They may think, “Gosh, of saline solution for washing eyes or, indeed, the use of what a clever bunch they are on the Labour side.” They diluted sheep dip after docking of sheep. Does the hon. may not—but it is actually better than that. Let me Member recognise that the new clause needs tightening explain where the new clauses came from. I suspect that up? It refers to an animal during its entire lifecycle. some Members already know, and I hope that the Minister was warned when she took the job. The new clauses—the exact words—were tabled to the previous Daniel Zeichner: As ever, I am hugely grateful to the Bill by none other than the current Secretary of State, right hon. Member, whose drafting skills I would happily the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth draw on in trying to improve the amendments. He will (George Eustice). That Bill never reached Report and reflect that the new clause was sloppily drafted not by there was no opportunity to debate the new clauses. I Opposition Members, but by the current Secretary of am grateful to eagle-eyed experts from an organisation State. We are very happy to work with the right hon. that shall remain nameless—they know who they are—for Member on improving it, but I think he knows what drawing them to our attention. was being referred to in those circumstances. We judge that it would be of use to the Committee to It seems to us that the Government are currently consider the new clauses. They are deeply probing and refusing to include in the Bill a ban on food imports have an illustrious pedigree, because they first saw the produced to lower standards than our own. They have light of day during the brief, tricky period when the also dodged amendments to the Bill that were suggested current Secretary of State was on the Back Benches, previously by the current Secretary of State himself, having resigned his post over a difference of opinion which seemed to aim to ensure the exact same thing— with the then Prime Minister about our relationship banning the sale of animal products in this country that with the European Union. To some extent, we are had been subjected to chemicals and processes that we slightly puzzled that those amendments have not been do currently allow here. re-tabled by the Government for this version of the Bill. What exactly has been going on? The Minister needs It would be useful to hear the Minister explain why the to come clean on this. The Secretary of State did not Government apparently now feel that these worthy include these prohibitions either in the previous Bill or proposals, tabled then, are not worth revisiting now. I in the current Bill, even though he was the Minister in will choose my words carefully, because the Secretary of charge of both Bills. What came over him when he briefly State is clearly not part of the Committee. I ask the left the Government? What conditions was he made to Minister, why does she not agree with the proposals? accept when he agreed to come back and then to Perhaps she does. become Secretary of State? Does this whole episode not We were particularly struck by what these new clauses show that, in his heart of hearts, he probably agrees seemed to be looking to achieve. Members of the with us that the only way to safeguard our animal Committee will agree that they deal with complex and welfare and food safety standards and to prevent our technical matters on which a degree of expertise is hard-pressed British farmers from being undercut by needed in matters of animal health and veterinary cheap, sub-standard imports, is to put these provisions pharmaceutical practice. Our understanding is that the in the Bill? aim here was to place in primary legislation many of the We believe that new clause 1 is the crucial amendment. protections and safeguards on food safety and animal It would not just strengthen the Bill but safeguard its welfare that already currently exist in secondary legislation, core aims. We make no apology whatever about pressing both retained EU and domestic. The force of the proposals it to a vote. I urge the Minister to listen closely to the would be to ban the sale of animals or products from unanimity of voices on this amendment and to recognise animals that have been treated with a range of compounds the need for this addition to the Bill. I appreciate that whose use is currently illegal in this country, except in this is a tough moment for Government Members. As restricted circumstances where they are being used under they vote, they must be aware that the future of many of veterinary supervision for veterinary therapeutic purposes, their constituents is on the line. I want to safeguard and only then if residues are acceptably low. their future, our countryside and our food safety. 369 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 370

12.30 pm The vested interests involved in the US food sector are absolutely immense, with huge lobbying efforts and Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I rise to support huge amounts of disinformation and press work. The everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge article continues: has said on new clause 1. I shall also speak to new “Its livestock sectors often suffer from poor husbandry, which clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North leads to more prevalence of disease and a greater reliance on Dorset (Simon Hoare), with the support of many of his antibiotics”, Conservative colleagues. At the moment, I am the only which we know is an issue. Labour Member whose name has been added to it, but I “Whereas we have a ‘farm to fork’ approach to managing am sure that many others would join me on Report. disease and contamination risk throughout the supply chain through good husbandry, the US is more inclined to simply treat Some of us sat on the Committee that considered the contamination of its meat at the end with a chlorine or similar first draft of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament. wash.” I was also on the Environmental Audit Committee and The article continues: the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “In the US, legislation on animal welfare is woefully deficient.” as well as part of as various all-party parliamentary That article was penned by the now Secretary of State groups, and there were also debates on these matters in at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural the Chamber and at oral questions. Ministers, including Affairs, during the brief hiatus after he left the Government the then Secretary of State for the Department of in February 2019. He immediately turned to The Guardian Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Farming to make known his views on just how worried he was Minister and, at various points, the International Trade about US animal welfare. Secretary, gave us verbal reassurances. There was a bit of a trajectory, because in the early Mr Goodwill: Does the hon. Lady understand that days, we could get Ministers to say only that UK the US actually consumes most of its own beef? Only standards would be protected. Eventually, after lots of about 13.5% of its beef is exported, mainly to Japan prompting on our part, some of them—although certainly and the far east. There is not a great stockpile of not on the International Trade side—said that that also American beef looking for a market, either in the UK applied to imported goods. The Minister needs to reflect or the EU. on why it is very clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, that those assurances are not believed. Kerry McCarthy: I am not sure that that is particularly The absolute fact of the situation is that everyone, from relevant. At the moment there is a ban on hormone-pumped the NFU to environmental and consumer groups, wants beef entering our markets. The UK is the third biggest those things enshrined in law, as do the Conservative market in the world for food imports. It is clear that if Members who have signed the new clause. the doors were open, there would be a potential market here and the US would be very keen to get into it. Most The Minister has talked about including those assurances of the discussion on trade deals so far has not been in a trade Bill, but when the Trade Bill was introduced about the beef sector anyway. to Parliament, we were fobbed off. We tried to get As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has something in there, but were told that it applied only to already said, at about the time that the now Secretary of current trade agreements and not to future ones, although State wrote that article, he also tabled what are now new some legal opinion said that it did. When we tried to clauses 33, 34 and 35 to the then Agriculture Bill. Why discuss that during the passage of the European Union would he do that? He had made the arguments in (Withdrawal) Bill and all the discussions about Brexit, public. He did a sterling job trying to defend the we were told that it would pop up somewhere else. That Government’s position during the first sitting of the game of musical chairs just does not wash with people. Agriculture Bill. He came across as reasonably sincere, We want to see this measure in the Agriculture Bill but the moment he had the freedom to say what he because it specifically relates to food standards and really thought, he went to the press and wrote an article animal welfare, as we have heard in detail. in The Guardian outlining clearly and eloquently what I remember trying to bring the matter up during his concerns were. He did not seek verbal reassurances arguments about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment from the Government; he sought legislative reassurances. Partnership, way before Brexit. The then Member for So if it is good enough for the Secretary of State when Streatham, who was our shadow Business Secretary, he is allowed free rein to say what he feels, I am sure the made great play about the NHS being at risk under Minister can understand why many of her colleagues TTIP. When I started trying to talk to him about on the Conservative Back Benches and Opposition chickens, he looked at me as if to say, “What on earth is Members also agree with him. she on about now?” Now, the chickens have come home to roost—metaphorical chickens—and everyone knows Deidre Brock: I agree with much of what the previous about the issue, but nobody is convinced that the speakers have said. New clauses 1 and 4 are grand in Government are willing to support preventive measures. their way and I will support them, but we have to go further. I want to see the standards of the EU maintained, We spoke earlier about articles in the Daily Mail but perhaps that is for a different debate. However, it is and The Guardian. I will quote a Guardian article from possible to write it into domestic law that imports have 6 March—hon. Members are probably ready to sneer at to match the sanitary and phytosanitary standards of it—which said: the WTO. “Agriculture in the US remains quite backward in many respects. The WTO agreement on the application of sanitary It retains a position of resisting more information on labels to and phytosanitary measures is clear that science has to limit consumer knowledge and engagement.” underpin the standards to protect human, animal or 371 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 372

[Deidre Brock] Kerry McCarthy: I am sure the Minister does, but the problem is that I suspect I know what she will say. To plant health. The agreement allows states to protect cut to the chase, given that it would make everybody so their food supplies and the imports of supporting products much happier if that commitment was in the Bill, what to the benefit of citizens. I know the argument will is the reason for its not being? be that Ministers seek to protect citizens, but we do not know that that will always be the case. We should seek Victoria Prentis: I will set out the Government’s to ensure that citizens have the confidence to believe in position on that. The hon. Member for Cambridge was this measure and in future Governments, and in the kind enough to say that I was an esteemed lawyer. I do commitment to protecting foods and health. Citizens not know whether that is true, but I am certainly a very should also have the right to understand how Governments experienced Government lawyer, and I gently say that intend to do that and should have the ability to challenge the purpose of primary legislation is not about making them if necessary. people happy, although the purpose of the policy behind The SPS agreement allows standards to be set, so we it might well be that. We come at this from the same should have them set. That would have allowed Ministers place: we all like high standards in British agriculture to assure the public that animal welfare and plant and want to support our farmers. However, I will set out health would be maintained, and that imported food why the Government have come to this conclusion, which would be of a standard that we could rely on for health will take some time, I am afraid, and I will deal with the and the protection of life. As NFU Scotland recently point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East. pointed out, assurances around priorities in negotiations work only if the US upholds its side of the bargain. It To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for stated: Bristol West, we are retaining existing UK legislation, and at the end of the transition period, the European “After all, there’s no point having a level playing field if the two sides are playing to different rules.” Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert on to the I therefore support new clause 7. UK statute book all EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards. That will ensure that our high Thangam Debbonaire: I will make a few brief remarks standards, including import requirements, continue to on behalf of the shadow European affairs team. As we apply. leave the European Union, we want to make sure we do The hon. Member for Cambridge said I was an not lose anything in terms of our high standards and esteemed lawyer—who knows?—and also that he was that we try to spot the places where there is potential for waiting for a letter from the Department. I am certainly loopholes, which I hope none of us wants. an experienced enough lawyer not to wish to interfere in My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East admirably that process. If a letter is being drafted, I will make sure made the case that the Secretary of State’s real views are to look at it. However, he asked specifically about in alignment with ours. We therefore present the hormone-treated beef and washed chicken. I will give Government with an opportunity to vote for the Secretary him the directives and the way they are transposed into of State’s actual views. We in the European affairs team British law as I see it. The top line is that all EU law on feel we are here to make sure that the transference of food safety standards was carried over by the 2018 Act. Europe-wide rules to UK standards is not undermined EU Council directive 96/22/EC, as amended, which by trade agreements with other parts of the world. We bans the import and production of hormone-treated simply want to safeguard that. So, on behalf of the beef, was transposed into UK law through national shadow European affairs team, I want to add my support legislation. It is found in various regulations, including to the case made by Opposition Front and Back Benchers, the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for which, after all, reflects the Secretary of State’s views. Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015; Animals and Animal Products Victoria Prentis: I thank hon. Members for tabling (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) these new clauses. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity (Wales) Regulations 2019; and the Animals and Animal to talk once again about the importance of food standards. Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum The hon. Member for Bristol East will never find me Residue Limits) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. I sneering at or questioning the importance of food standards. will write to the hon. Gentleman on that, because I This is an important debate, and it is right that we have do not expect him to take a note of all those, or the it here, and while considering other Bills, as we move to Secretary of State will write to the shadow Secretary of a new world where we have left the EU and hopefully State. I do not want to interfere in that letter-writing have free trade agreements with many other countries. process. I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to not lowering our standards as we negotiate On the washing of poultry, European Union controls new trade deals. The Prime Minister has consistently on the surface decontamination of poultry—regulation 853 stated that we will not compromise our high environmental, /2004—will be retained through the 2018 Act, and have food safety or animal welfare standards now that we been made ready to be carried over into UK law have left the EU. We made that commitment in our immediately after the transition period through the manifesto, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) for International Trade reaffirmed that commitment to (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which will the House earlier this week in respect of a US trade deal. maintain the status quo that no product other than drinking water is currently approved in the EU to Kerry McCarthy rose— decontaminate poultry carcases. That will remain the same in the UK. I will write to the hon. Gentleman Victoria Prentis: I will give way, but I have a long properly about that, so that he has the details. It is speech and a lot to cover. complicated, as he says. 373 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agriculture Bill 374

The regulations I have mentioned include artificial Prior to the start of negotiations for each new free growth hormones for domestic production and imported trade agreement, the Government will publish—indeed, products, and we would require legislation to change we have done so this week—our approach to negotiations, those regulations. Both hormone-treated beef and washing including our negotiating objectives and other explanatory of poultry are covered. The Government have said that material. We did so on 27 February ahead of the start any future deals must respect our regulatory autonomy, of negotiations with the EU, and on Monday this week which means that we will not sign agreements that for the US negotiations. Right hon. and hon. Members, threaten our ability to set our own high standards, of and the general public, have a chance to scrutinise those which we are proud. Our standards are driven by consumer documents and the Government will rightly be held to and retailer demand and frequently go above current account. Once negotiations are under way, we will regulatory standards; most of us would welcome that. continue to keep the public and Parliament informed. The Agriculture Bill will help to ensure that we continue We believe that that approach strikes the right balance to maintain those high standards in line with the needs of allowing Parliament and the public to scrutinise the of our farmers, retailers and consumers. trade policy, while maintaining the ability of Government to negotiate flexibly in the best interests of the UK. 12.45 pm I turn to new clause 30 and new schedule 1. As several The Government take the view that banning imports hon. Members have said, the provisions were tabled unless all domestic standards are met is not always when the previous Agriculture Bill was before the House appropriate. For animal welfare, some domestic legal during the last Session. The hon. Member for Cambridge requirements can be assessed and enforced as part of will recognise that domestic legislation already provides inspections considering the holistic welfare of animals for a prohibition on the use of substances listed in new on farms, but those standards will be unsuitable metrics clause 30, and for maximum residue limits for substances for decisions on individual imports. Indeed, we would to be specified. My response to the comments about the have no way to enforce such restrictions or to check on new clauses that were tabled by the current Secretary of the position of farms abroad. State is this: are we not fortunate to have a Secretary of Accepting new clause 1 would create considerable State who is a champion of standards in our food and uncertainty about whether current imports—on which agricultural sector? Quite frankly, to turn around the we rely for food security, particularly at times of worry— words of the hon. Member for Bristol East, the Secretary including those from the EU,could continue.Our significant of State wholly supports the Agriculture Bill as drafted. concern is that the new clause would put current trade He has been reassured that this is not needed in primary agreements at risk and threaten our vital agri-food legislation, and if it is good enough for the Secretary of export trade. For example, 23% of our whisky exports State, it is good enough for me. are covered under current trade agreements that we are seeking to transition at the end of this year, and we would To go into detail, as the hon. Member for Cambridge not want to put those at risk. The UK already ensures did, new clause 30 does not refer to the operability that, without exception, all imports of food meet the amendments and other provisions in the exit legislation stringent food safety standards that are required of our made last year—obviously, because it was drafted before domestic producers. The independent Food Standards that. That legislation deliberately took a flexible approach Agency will continue to ensure that that remains the case. to the specification of maximum residue limits, rather The World Trade Organisation allows for trade than the more onerous scrutiny that the new clause would restrictions in very specific circumstances, such as for lead to. The legislation will come into force at the end of food safety or to protect public morals. It is not clear to the transition period. Setting a maximum residue limit the Government that the requirements of new clause 1 for a particular substance does not overturn the legislative would meet the WTO criteria, and we are concerned prohibition on the use of substances as growth promoters. that we would risk significant challenge from it. That is Parliamentary scrutiny is, of course, important. But, what I was trying to say, in a slightly flippant way, to the aswasexplainedindebatesontheexitstatutoryinstruments hon. Member for Bristol West earlier about having our last year,a non-legislative approach when setting maximum cake and eating it. As she said, we are signed up to the residuelimitsismoreefficientandlikelytoavoidunnecessary WTO; as such, we must abide by its rules. We are delays,which might have financial implications for industry concerned that the new clause would affect the trade of and make the UK less attractive to pharmaceutical the more than 160 WTO members. It could draw a companies looking to market veterinary medicines. If challenge from any of them, if they believed our import that were to lead to a reduction in available medication, measures were arbitrary, discriminatory or a disguised it could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As form of protectionism. such, although we recognise that there are arguments for increasing the level of parliamentary scrutiny, the Thangam Debbonaire: Is the Minister not making my Government prefer to maintain the approach set out in case that the WTO is therefore the lowest common our exit legislation—of course, it was not around when denominator? It is a real problem that we have ended up the amendment was drafted—that was considered and heading in this direction. approved by Parliament at the end of last year. Victoria Prentis: I feel that the hon. Lady was partly Turning to new clause 31, I hope the hon. Member making my point: we have to stick to WTO rules. I for Cambridge can agree that there are instances in think she and I agree that we want to comply with WTO which substances other than drinking water are already rules. As a lawyer with many years’ experience, I am deemed appropriate for the specified purposes, having explaining my concern that the new clause would possibly been subject to rigorous risk analysis processes. In fact, not comply with WTO rules—I put it no more strongly the EU has approved lactic acid for treating beef carcases, than that. recycled hot water for carcases of certain species and 375 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agriculture Bill 376

[Victoria Prentis] to deal with this conundrum. I have to say that I think the Bill—this is the part the Minister was not really able clean water—not drinking water—for fishery products. to address—in effect takes apart what the Secretary of I hope we can agree that it would be regressive to undo State was trying to do, which we think was really what are already considered safe practices.The unfortunate important. I invite the Minister to reflect on whether it effect of the new clause would be to stymie any process would be possible to work cross-party before we get to for considering new substances for use in the UK in the next stage of the process to amend some of the future. It could restrict the potential for innovation to detail. That would seem to me to be a good way realise new hygiene benefits. forward, and it would reflect what I suspect we can The wording of new clause 31, whether intended or probably all agree on. Knocking this down on the basis not, goes much further than existing restrictions—I do that there are problematic points of detail—I do not not want to talk about sloppy drafting, but I am concerned dispute that it is complicated and difficult—is not the that such a provision could result in serious animal right way to go. health and welfare implications. Live animals could no longer be effectively washed or treated with antiparasitic That leads us to the Minister’s point about our treatment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for relationships in the WTO. We know that the WTO is a Scarborough and Whitby said, such as sheep dips. troubled organisation at the moment, but we also know Udder washing is a perfectly normal practice to stop that there is plenty of opportunity all the time for mastitis, and we would not want to interfere with that. people to challenge. The question is why they do it at Maintaining safety and public confidence in the food some times and not others. That goes back to the points we eat remains a high priority for the Government, and made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West. the current regulatory framework ensures that. There is a political set of questions about how trading New clause 32 would prevent meat and other products blocs deal with disputes. The sad truth is that we from conventionally reared meat chickens from being are now outside one of the big trading blocs and we do sold or supplied in the UK unless they are produced to not have the power of an umbrella that would probably a stocking density no greater than 39 kg per square prevent others from making challenges that we might metre, which is our current maximum in Great Britain. not think reasonable. We have seen that in the new world Northern Ireland has set a maximum stocking density order, with Trump and so on, quite spurious challenges of 42 kg per square metre. As such, the new clause may be made that generate a whole raft of legal procedures, would mean that meat chicken legally produced in which take time and are difficult to deal with. A small Northern Ireland over 39 kg per square metre could not be sold in the UK. I am sure that was not the intention player is much more vulnerable than a big player to when the new clause was drafted. being picked off, because big players have more resources in their armoury to fight back with. Further, although we have a strong domestic sector producing around £2.4 billion of poultry meat per year, I am afraid that is the difficult situation that the in 2018 we imported £2.1 billion of chicken meat and Government have got us into. On the WTO rules, I chicken products. Some of those, including imports recognise that there is some potential for challenge, but from some EU member states, do not meet our stocking that is where we are at. We must ensure that we do density requirements. Imposing a restriction of this kind everything we can to protect our people in this new on imports might result in food security issues, and it world. The clearest and most helpful way of doing that would certainly impact cost. We all want to move in the in negotiations would be to put what we have proposed same direction on animal welfare, but we may not be in the Bill; if we did so, the others in the negotiations able to do so by means of new clause 32. would know it was non-negotiable. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to restate That goes back to the basic point that the Minister the Government’s commitment to standards and to made at the beginning of her speech. I am afraid the highlight Parliament’s role in scrutinising our negotiation harsh truth is that when the Prime Minister makes a approach to free trade agreements.However,as I mentioned, series of promises, they are not believed. My hon. we have retained EU legislation for existing protections Friend the Member for Bristol East made some excellent on food safety,animal welfare and environmental standards, points: for all the reasons we have heard about today, and I therefore the Opposition to withdraw the new clause. including the piece that the current Secretary of State wrote all those months ago, how can we believe the Daniel Zeichner: I have listened very closely to the Prime Minister when— Minister addressing a range of complicated issues. In Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James responding, I will work backwards. Morris.) Wefully accept that drafting the detail in these proposals was a complicated process, and we pay tribute to the 1 pm current Secretary of State for the work he did in attempting Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

AGRICULTURE BILL

Twelfth Sitting Thursday 5 March 2020

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS New clauses considered. Bill, as amended, to be reported. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 007) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 9 March 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/. 377 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 378

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †SIR DAVID AMESS,GRAHAM STRINGER

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) † Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Melton) (Con) † Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con) † Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con) † Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con) † McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab) † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) † Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) † Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP) † Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab) † Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) (Con) Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) Kenneth Fox, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks † Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab) † Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con) † attended the Committee 379 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 380

(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of Public Bill Committee agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom. Thursday 5 March 2020 (2) In subsection (1)— “international trade agreement” means— (Afternoon) (a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under— (b) an international agreement that mainly relates [SIR DAVID AMESS in the Chair] to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii); Agriculture Bill “Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975; New Clause 1 “relevant standards” means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal IMPORT OF AGRICULTURAL GOODS welfare applying in connection with the production ‘(1) Agricultural goods may be imported into the UK only if of agricultural and food products; the standards to which those goods were produced were as high “SPS Agreement”means the agreement on the Application as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of under UK law relating to— Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified (a) animal welfare, from time to time); (b) protection of the environment, and “WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing (c) food safety. the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh (2) “Agricultural goods”, for the purposes of this section, on 15 April 1994.’. means— This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the (a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5), quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs (b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6), are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to. (c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.’ New clause 30—Prohibition on the sale of certain —(Daniel Zeichner.) animals and animal products: substances— This new clause would set a requirement for imported agricultural goods ‘(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall sell or to meet animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards which supply for human consumption any animal— are at least as high as those which apply to UK produced agricultural goods. (a) which contains or to which there has been administered— Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (i) a Class I prohibited substance listed in paragraph 1 (this day), That the clause be read a Second time. of Schedule [Prohibited substances], 2pm (ii) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 Question again proposed. of Schedule [Prohibited substances], (iii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 The Chair: I remind the Committee that with this we of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or are considering the following: (iv) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 New clause 4—Import of agricultural goods after IP of Schedule [Prohibited substances], completion day— unless that substance was administered in accordance with subsection (4); ‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only (b) that is an aquaculture animal to which— if the standards to which those goods were produced were as (i) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import of Schedule [Prohibited substances], applied under UK law relating to— (ii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 (a) animal welfare, of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or (b) protection of the environment, (iii) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 (c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and of Schedule [Prohibited substances], (d) plant health. has been administered; (2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods (c) which contains a substance specified by the Secretary imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere. of State in regulations under subsection (5)(a) at a concentration exceeding the maximum residue limit; (3) “Agricultural goods” for the purposes of this section, or mean— (a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5), (d) to which a medicinal product has been administered if the withdrawal period for that product has not (b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6), expired. (c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds. (2) No person may sell or supply for human consumption any (4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’. the sale or supply of which is prohibited under subsection (1). Newclause7—Internationaltradeagreements:agricultural (3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(d) shall prohibit the sale before and food products— the end of the withdrawal period of any high-value horse to ‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an which has been administered allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist in international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) accordance with regulation 5 of the Animals and Animal Products of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(England the agreement— and Scotland) Regulations 2015, provided that the type and date (a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s of treatment was entered on the horse’s passport by the veterinary rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and surgeon directly responsible for the treatment. 381 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 382

(4) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply (i) a plan of the house including the dimensions of the to the sale of an animal, or of an animal product derived wholly surfaces occupied by the chickens; or partly from an animal to which has been administered a (ii) ventilation and any relevant cooling and heating compliant veterinary medicinal product— system (including their location), and a ventilation (a) containing testosterone, progesterone or a derivative of plan, detailing target air quality parameters (such these substances which readily yields the parent as airflow, air speed and temperature); compound on hydrolysis after absorption at the site (iii) feeding and watering systems (and their location); of application, if the administration is in accordance (iv) alarm and backup systems in the event of a failure with regulation 26 of the Animals and Animal Products of any equipment essential for the health and (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue well-being of the chickens; Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015; (v) floor type and litter normally used; and (b) containing allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist, if the (vi) records of technical inspections of the ventilation administration is in accordance with regulation 27 of and alarm systems; the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for (b) keep up to date the documentation referred to in Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England subparagraph (a); and Scotland) Regulations 2015; (c) ensure that each house is equipped with ventilation (c) having oestrogenic action (but not containing oestradiol and, if necessary, heating and cooling systems designed, 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic action or constructed and operated in such a way that— gestagenic action, if the administration is in accordance (i) the concentration of ammonia does not exceed with regulation 28 of the Animals and Animal Products 20 parts per million and the concentration of carbon (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue dioxide does not exceed 3,000 parts per million, Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015. when measured at the level of the chickens’ heads; (5) The Secretary of State may make regulations— (ii) when the outside temperature measured in the (a) specifying for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) maximum shade exceeds 30°C, the inside temperature does residue limits for pharmacologically active substances, not exceed the outside temperature by more than and 3°C; and (iii) when the outside temperature is below 10°C, the (b) adding one or more substances to any of the classes of average relative humidity measured inside the house prohibited substances in Schedule [Prohibited substances]. during a continuous period of 48 hours does not (6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by statutory exceed 70%. instrument, and any such statutory instrument may not be made (4) In the case of a chicken reared in a house which is not in the unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved United Kingdom, it shall be a requirement upon the importer to by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that— (7) For the purposes of this section— (a) documentation equivalent to that specified in subsection a veterinary medicinal product is a compliant veterinary (3) was maintained by the keeper and was available medicinal product if it complies with the requirements for supply to the appropriate regulatory authority, and of Regulation 25 of the Animals and Animal Products (b) the conditions under which the chicken was reared were (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue equivalent to, or better than, those set out in Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015), subsections (2) and (3). and “withdrawal period” shall have the meaning given (5) For the purposes of this section, “chicken” shall mean a in Regulation 2 of the Animals and Animal Products conventionally reared meat chicken.’ (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue New schedule 1—Prohibited substances— Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015). 1 Class I prohibited substances (8) Regulations 9 and 10 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Aristolochia spp. and preparations thereof (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 are revoked.’. Chloramphenicol New clause 31—Prohibition on sale: hygiene— Chloroform ‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination Chlorpromazine with a substance other than potable water. Colchicine (2) No person shall sell or supply any animal product which is Dapsone derived wholly or partly from an animal which has been treated Dimetridazole for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.’. Metronizadole New clause 32—Prohibition on sale: stocking densities— Nitrofurans (including furazolidone) ‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any chicken, any part of a Ronizadole chicken or any product which is partly or wholly derived from a 2 Class II prohibited substances chicken unless the condition in subsection (2) is met. (2) The condition is that the stocking density in any house in Thyrostatic substances which the chicken was reared— Stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters 2 (a) did not exceed 33 kilograms per m of usable area, or Oestradiol 17β and its ester-like derivatives 2 (b) did not exceed 39 kilograms per m of usable area if 3 Class III prohibited substances the requirements of subsection (3) were met. (3) The requirements of this subsection are that the keeper Beta-agonists must— 4 Class IV prohibited substances (a) maintain and, on request, make available to the Secretary of State, documentation in the house giving a detailed Substances having oestrogenic (other than oestradiol 17β description of the production systems, in particular or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic or gestagenic information on technical details of the house and its action. equipment, including— 383 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 384

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Sir David, you (4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of will be glad to hear that earlier I was mid-sentence but the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’— close to my conclusion. All I was going to say was, when (Kerry McCarthy.). we come to conclude our discussion, the simple answer Brought up, and read the First time. is to put it in the Bill. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. The important point about new clauses 1, 4 and 7 is that Division No. 30] they would allow us to set standards high to protect the food chain and therefore the consumer. The Minister AYES might, and indeed I am sure she does, have a commitment Brock, Deidre McCarthy, Kerry to maintaining high standards, and she might even Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia believe that her colleagues have a similar commitment. Jones, Ruth Zeichner, Daniel However, as we all know, Governments change—we are still within five years of David Cameron’s last election NOES victory, after all—and the current Ministers will not Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon always be in post. I would hate to think of the Minister, Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia in the far-off days of her declining years, staring at a Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny plate of questionable food in front of her, wishing that Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James she had taken steps to guard against it when she could Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria have done. We should take those steps to safeguard our food standards, protect our food producers and maintain Question accordingly negatived. the health of consumers, who are, after all, the people who send us here. The SNP therefore supports new clauses 1, 4 and 7. New Clause 5 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. SMALLHOLDINGS ESTATES Division No. 29] ‘(1) Every smallholdings authority which immediately before the commencement of Part 1 of this Act holds any land for the AYES purposes of smallholdings shall review the authority’s smallholdings estate and shall, before the end of the period of eighteen months Brock, Deidre McCarthy, Kerry beginning with the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, submit Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia to the Minister proposals with respect to the future management Jones, Ruth Zeichner, Daniel of that estate for the purposes of providing— (a) opportunities for persons to be farmers on their own NOES account; Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon (b) education or experience in environmental land Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia management practices; Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny (c) opportunities for increasing public access to the natural Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James environment and understanding of sustainable farming; Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria and (d) opportunities for innovation in sustainable land Question accordingly negatived. management practices. (2) For the purposes of this section, “smallholdings authority” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Agriculture Act 1970.’—(Kerry McCarthy.). New Clause 4 This new clause would require local authorities to review their smallholdings and submit proposals for future management to provide IMPORT OF AGRICULTURAL GOODS AFTER IP opportunities to extend access to farming, education, and innovation. COMPLETION DAY Brought up, and read the First time. ‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I beg to move, as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied That the clause be read a Second time. under UK law relating to— (a) animal welfare, The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss (b) protection of the environment, new clause 26—Smallholdings estates: land management— (c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and ‘(1) A smallholdings authority which immediately before the (d) plant health. commencement of Part 1 of this Act holds any land for the (2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK purposes of smallholdings shall review the authority’s smallholdings production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods estate and shall, before the end of the period of eighteen months imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere. beginning with the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, submit to the Secretary of State proposals with respect to the future (3) “Agricultural goods” for the purposes of this section, management of that estate for the purposes of— mean— (a) providing opportunities for persons to be farmers on (a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5), their own account; (b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6), (b) providing education or experience in environmental (c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds. land management practices; 385 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 386

(c) providing opportunities for increasing public access to We spoke earlier—I think it was when we were talking the natural environment and understanding of sustainable about de-linked payments and other things—about the farming; average age of farmers in this country and how we (d) contributing to a mitigation of climate change, including really need to bring a new generation on board. County a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, farms seem to be doing that in Cambridgeshire. The (e) providing support for innovative food production techniques estate is also supporting a pioneering agroforestry farmer, (including techniques which do not involve management of land), and Stephen Briggs. (f) providing opportunities for innovation in sustainable At the very least, I hope the new clause will encourage land management practices. councils to look favourably on including enhanced (2) No land held by a smallholdings authority as a smallholding management and environmental obligations as part of immediately before commencement of Part 1 of this Act is to be the tender process and management. This is about not conveyed, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of otherwise only allowing access to land through the county farm than— movement, but encouraging people to farm in a certain (a) in connection with the purposes listed in subsection way. CPRE’s recent report on county farms highlighted (1); and the fact that a number of councils already view their (b) in accordance with proposals submitted under subsection estates as a crucial lever in responding to the climate (1). emergency. (3) For the purposes of this section, “smallholdings authority” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Agriculture As I said at the beginning, we have had some promising Act 1970.’. words from the Government, but we have not had action This new clause would limit the disposal of smallholdings (“county yet, and the Bill is still completely silent on this. The farms”) by local authorities and would require local authorities to now Secretary of State told us in the Agriculture Bill review their holding and submit proposals for future management to Committee back in October 2018 that he was considering provide opportunities to extend access to farming, education, and innovation. whether to use funds under the productivity strand of the Bill to refresh the model. In January 2019, I chaired Kerry McCarthy: This revisits something that we a session at the Oxford Real Farming Conference, discussed when the previous Agriculture Bill Committee interviewing the then Secretary of State on stage. It met, but there have been some positive moves from the must be said that all the promises he made then went Government in respect of county farms since then. I am down very well. pleased that there have been quite a few indications of support, but we could do more, which is why I have One of those promises was to announce a new package tabled the new clause. of financial support for county farms in the coming months. He reaffirmed that promise in a letter to the County farms are an undervalued national asset, and EFRA Committee in March 2019, stating his desire to they could play a significant role in the future of UK farming. I have the support of the Campaign to Protect “create a financial incentive for local authorities who want to invest in their council farms”. Rural England, Sustain and the Landworkers Alliance for the new clause, which is aimed at rejuvenating the In September, that promise was repeated, this time in county farms project and improving the information response to a written question that I asked the current that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Secretary of State. Affairs holds on the estate. It would require councils to While I warmly welcome the statement in the “Future submit a report to the Secretary of State within 18 months for Food, Farming and the Environment”policy statement of this Act’s becoming law, saying how they would published last week that the Department make best use of their smallholdings to support new “will offer funding to councils…who want to invest in creating entrants to farming. We have heard, and it is generally new opportunities for new-entrant farmers”, accepted, that the price of land in particular can act as a when can we expect some firm detail on the timetable of real deterrent to new entrants. financial assistance that will be offered? In the meantime, The new clause also looks at promoting sustainable based on the language in the policy statement, I see no land management practices, sharing knowledge of those reason that the new clause, which is designed to encourage practices, and increasing public access to the natural new entrants and sustainable farming, would not help environment and farming. The new clause is needed the Government to achieve their desired outcome. because there has been a steep decline in the county farm estate over the past 40 years, and that sell-off The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for appears to be continuing. Between 2010 and 2018, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis): size of England’s county farm estate fell by more than I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for tabling the 15,000 acres, with 58% of that sold between 2016 and new clause and look forward to working with her on 2018. If we want to reverse that trend, it is clear that we how we can support smallholding authorities to invest need a fresh approach, rather than business as usual, in, and commit to, their county farms. We want to help and I hope that the new clause will kick-start that. them to provide more opportunities for new entrant There was a session—I think it was of the Environment, farmers and to continue to offer the wider environmental Food and Rural Affairs Committee, but I get confused and public benefits. sometimes, because we also discussed this at the all-party I am concerned that the new clauses would constrain parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable smallholding authorities’ ability to manage their estates food and farming—where Cambridgeshire County Council effectively and would create an additional administrative was spoken of. It does really good work on this front. burden. Rather than legislating, I would prefer to work Its estate generates a substantial income for the council collaboratively with smallholding authorities. We want of more than £4 million each year, and since 2009, the to support them to manage their estates so that they can 109 new tenants who have joined the estate have an provide more opportunities for new farmers and existing average age of 30, which is half the UK average. tenants, as well as for the benefit of the wider public. 387 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 388

[Victoria Prentis] Let me explain what our worry is. Weare here discussing major, flagship legislation for the future of the sector, I hope that the hon. Lady is assured by the document and to us it would seem sensible to ensure that there was published last week and that she will continue to talk to provision for this very important part of the sector, me. We will continue to talk to smallholding authorities particularly when there was such an opportunity, through about how we can take things forward. I therefore ask the local authorities, to deliver a range of public goods, her to withdraw the motion. including land management practices that mitigate climate change; public access; and even the promotion of innovative Daniel Zeichner: New clause 26 is broadly similar to food production systems, such as vertical farms or city new clause 5, which my hon. Friend has just moved. She farms. If local authorities were to build into their spoke powerfully about the plight of our county farms. management practices for their smallholdings the aims She did mention, of course, successes in Cambridgeshire. of aiding nature recovery and carbon sequestration and I rarely find reason to praise Cambridgeshire County of promoting biodiversity, county farms could be a very Council, but on this occasion, I think that it is doing useful tool for local communities, particularly in areas good work. such as mine, where we have such interest in environmental As farms owned by local authorities that can be let issues being promoted. out at below-market rents—I suspect that there is agreement It is important that we stop the loss and refresh the on this—they are a vital means to encourage young and purpose of our county farms. I am not sure that that first-time farmers into the sector. They provide a key makes it easier for local authorities, because they are way in for those who have not had the good fortune to making difficult decisions, but it would make it harder inherit or are lacking the capital required to buy or rent. for them to make that particular decision. As well as offering a sustainable income stream for local authorities, these farms have been recognised as particularly 2.15 pm well placed to deliver locally driven social and environmental Last December, a report for CPRE by the New goods, ranging from tree planting and local education Economics Foundation, Who Owns England? and Shared initiatives on farming to public procurement of locally Assets looked at what would need to be done to revive produced food. our county farms. The report said: As we have heard, however, county farms have been “The government should protect the future of the county farm left in serious long-term decline. An investigation last estate by legislating for a ministerial lock on their disposal, and a year by Who Owns England? showed that the acreage rejuvenated purpose statement. A forthcoming Agriculture Act should safeguard county farms from extensive disposal by making has halved in the past 40 years—first driven by the it incumbent on councils to submit a report to the Secretary of privatisation drive and cuts to county budgets and State for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural powers under the Thatcher and Major Governments, Affairs (Defra). This should detail how they plan to best manage and by the austerity agenda in recent times. Cash-strapped their county farms to deliver on a range of stipulated social and local authorities making difficult decisions have been environmental purposes, and - if they wish to sell off county forced to take cost-saving measures, and 7% of England’s farms - how doing so accords with these purposes.” county farms estate was sold off between 2010 and That is exactly what our new clause would achieve. I 2018, with three quarters of all smallholding authorities invite the Government to support the new clause because having sold parts of their estate. they believe in the importance of county farms and they As we have heard, some authorities, such as my own now have the opportunity to put that in the Bill. in Cambridgeshire, have recognised the importance of As with new clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. county farms and have increased the number of acres in Friend the Member for Bristol East, our new clause 6 the past decade. Interestingly, they are now bringing in would require any authority with smallholdings to submit a sustainable income for the authorities. I am told that, proposals on how they expected to manage their estate in Cambridgeshire’s case, that is in excess of £4 million to provide opportunities for new farmers, provide each year. However,the situation is not so good elsewhere. educational and environmental land management practices, I am told that Herefordshire, for instance, has sold ensure opportunities for increasing public access to many of its county farms; there has been a decline land and understanding of sustainable farming, and of 89%. provide support for improved food productions, such as The Government’s recent policy document on farming vertical or city farms. for the future mentions that funding will be offered to councils with county farm estates, but we still have no Mr Goodwill: What does the hon. Gentleman think clear detail on how much that would be and whether it about the example of Staffordshire County Council? would be sufficient. It is rather surprising that in a When selling off farms, the council has given tenants flagship Bill on reforming our agricultural system— the first opportunity to buy, but if that has not happened it has sold the farms with sitting tenants. The tenants Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): continue their tenancies, but the council can use the Are there any examples of where local authorities have money to spend on other priorities, such as schools, sold the farms but to the tenants so that they can getting homeless people into housing and all the other become owner-occupiers—a sort of right-to-buy scheme local authority priorities. —or are the farms being sold off outside the sphere of those tenants? Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate what the right hon. Member says. We are not seeking to stop that kind of Daniel Zeichner: I do not know the answer, but I am process. We are trying to make it more difficult for happy to go away and look for it, because that sounds councils to respond to funding cuts by selling county like an interesting idea. farms, which in some ways I do not criticise because 389 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 390 they face difficult choices. If that practice is not stopped, (a) as they have effect in domestic law by virtue of the then, frankly, it will go on happening, unless there are European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and significant changes in funding for local authorities. (b) as amended from time to time whether by virtue of that Act or otherwise.”— In recognition of the key role that local authorities (Deidre Brock.) can play in incentivising these farms to be environmental Brought up, and read the First time. public goods, we would also require local authorities to submit proposals on how they intended to manage their Deidre Brock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a smallholdings in a way that contributed to those various Second time. public goods, including the mitigation of climate change The new clause is about protected geographical indictors. and reducing gas emissions. As discussed, our new They are a vital part of the business plan of many of clause would also limit the continued disposal of farms Scotland’s top food producers and many food producers by stipulating that no local authority smallholding would in other nations. They are a guarantee of quality and of need to have its ownership transferred unless that was the care and skill that goes into their production. clearly in accordance with those purposes. I am sorry to say that I remain to be convinced that a UK system would be any kind of replacement or match Victoria Prentis: I have already responded fairly fully for the EU system, but the UK Government still intend to the hon. Member for Bristol East and I feel that the to create their own new system instead of sticking with Labour Front-Bench amendment is strikingly similar. I the EU system, as I understand they could have done. It have said all I need to say on this subject. therefore seems sensible to me to make sure that the new scheme properly serves producers who have the full protection under the current scheme, and any new Kerry McCarthy: I hope we can continue the dialogue producers wishing to get geared up for it. about county farms and that we can see some concrete action from the Government. Given what the Minister To protect Scottish producers, it seems sensible to has said, for once I will take her at her word that she has ensure that there is input from the Scottish Government leapt upon this and I will not push the measure to a to the new scheme. The new clause would simply ensure vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. that the views of Scottish Ministers are properly considered in the exercise of functions under the scheme. It reflects Clause, by leave, withdrawn. and respects the devolution settlement and is measured.

New Clause 6 Victoria Prentis: I see the good intentions behind the new clause, and I understand the desire to ensure that Ministers’ decisions on geographical indicators are made QUALITY SCHEMES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND in the best interests of all stakeholders across the nations. FOODSTUFFS However, that is not quite what the new clause would “(1) Subsection (2) applies to any function of the Secretary of do.It would give Scottish Ministers a veto over Government State under— decisions, even when there was no Scottish interest in (a) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament those decisions. GIs are a form of intellectual property and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality law and are therefore a reserved matter, so it would not schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (“the EU Regulation”), be appropriate to go down the path proposed in the new clause. (b) the delegated and implementing Regulations, Nevertheless, even though GIs are reserved, the (c) any regulations made by the Secretary of State under the EU Regulation, and Government recognise that the devolved Administrations have always played an important role in these schemes— (d) any regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 relating to the enforcement of Scottish salmon, for example, is an important export—and the EU Regulation or the delegated and implementing I am keen for that to continue. I assure the hon. Member Regulations. for Edinburgh North and Leith that my officials have (2) The Secretary of State may exercise the function only with worked closely with colleagues from the devolved the consent of the Scottish Ministers. Administrations to agree a working-level arrangement (3) In subsection (1), the “delegated and implementing to underpin very close co-operation in the new domestic Regulations” means— schemes. That was agreed and signed by senior officials (a) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 in the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish supplementing the EU Regulation with regard to Government, on 4 October last year. The arrangement the establishment of Union symbols for protected ensures that the devolved Administrations will be included designations of origin, protected geographical indications in the assessment of GI applications and will have a say and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard in the development of scheme rules. I believe that this to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules arrangement does what the hon. Lady seeks with her and certain additional transitional rules, new clause. (b) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2014 supplementing the EU Regulation with regard to conditions of use of the quality term “mountain Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): I rise to product”, and say on behalf of the shadow European affairs team—in (c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 the spirit of transitioning from one state of affairs to laying down rules for the application of the EU another—that Labour Front-Benchers have a lot of Regulation. sympathy with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh (4) The references in subsection (1) to the EU Regulation and North and Leith and the SNP are trying to do. Of the delegated and implementing Regulations are to those course, we want to protect GIs and people’s ability to instruments— trade using them, which is a strength. We particularly 391 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 392

[Thangam Debbonaire] use the word fragile when talking about rural areas because I know how it sometimes offends people who want to make sure that, given that—I have to reiterate live up there, but there is no doubt that PGI status is this—the prediction that moving to World Trade crucial to maintaining people’s ability to stay in some of Organisation trading rules will be the worst-case scenario, those areas, to work there and to keep the countryside we do everything we can to protect our specialist food alive with people. I will press the new clause to a vote. producers. However, the Labour party cannot support Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. the new clause as worded because of subsection (2), which The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10. would give Scottish Ministers a veto. I will not go over Division No. 31] old ground, but it is consistent with Labour policy that we could not support it because of that part, but we AYES support the spirit of what the hon. Lady is trying to Brock, Deidre achieve. I urge the Minister to work with all parties and NOES producers across the whole United Kingdom so that we can protect our GI products. They are dear to us and to Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia our sense of who we are, and as we leave the European Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Union, they may matter even more. There are Members Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James across the Committee who feel very strongly about GIs Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria in their own constituencies.

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con): Work is Question accordingly negatived. ongoing on this exact issue. I encourage Labour Members to join the all-party parliamentary group on geographically New Clause 7 protected foods, at which we will discuss this, so that we can hold the Minister to account. INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS: AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTS Thangam Debbonaire: What a wonderful invitation. I was mentally running through Government Committee “(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) members and trying to think of a geographical indicator of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless in the constituency of each one, and I think I did pretty the agreement— well, actually. Probably all of us have a product in our (a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s constituencies whose GI status we want to protect, so rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and the hon. Lady’s offer is useful. (b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of In that spirit, as I said, we support the sentiment behind agricultural and food products in relation to which the new clause. We cannot support subsection (2), but the relevant standards are lower than the relevant in every other way we support making this law, because standards in the United Kingdom. we need to do everything we can to protect our GIs. I (2) In subsection (1)— am sorry if that disappoints the hon. Member for ‘international trade agreement’ means— Edinburgh North and Leith, but that is where we are at (a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under— the moment. (i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Deidre Brock: I appreciate the words of the hon. Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified Member for Bristol West. There is that veto word again. from time to time), or I think it is more a matter of respect for the devolved (ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Administrations and their knowledge of the conditions Agreement on Trade in Services,part of Annex 1B that apply in their areas, rather than seeking to override to the WTO Agreement (as modified from their views of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Ministers, time to time), or as the Bill potentially allows for. (b) an international agreement that mainly relates to Leaving that aside for the moment, I stress how trade, other than an agreement mentioned in incredibly important protected geographical indicators sub-paragraph (i) or (ii); are in Scotland and to those producers and areas fortunate ‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the enough to have been awarded membership of the scheme. Ministers of the Crown Act 1975; There are many questions outstanding about the ‘relevant standards’means standards relating to environmental replacement scheme. There are fears that it will be in no protection, plant health and animal welfare applying way strong enough to stand up to the US tendency to in connection with the production of agricultural and food products; prefer a trademark system, which is a lot weaker than the European PGI scheme. Previously, a producer who ‘SPS Agreement’ means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of came across a good that made use of their brand Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from inappropriately had the whole of the EU standing time to time); behind them when they took action against the offender. ‘WTO Agreement’ means the agreement establishing the We are not entirely sure what we will have instead. World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on This is something I feel very strongly about. I have 15 April 1994.”—(Deidre Brock.) done quite a lot of work on PGIs. We have taken a lot of This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the evidence about them in the Scottish Affairs Committee, quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs and I know how important they are, particularly particular are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to. to some of the further flung areas of Scotland. I hate to Brought up, and read the First time. 393 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 394

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. (4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Daniel Zeichner.) The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. Brought up, and read the First time. Division No. 32] Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. AYES The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. Brock, Deidre McCarthy, Kerry Division No. 33] Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia Jones, Ruth Zeichner, Daniel AYES Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia NOES Jones, Ruth Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny NOES Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Question accordingly negatived. Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria

New Clause 9 Question accordingly negatived.

DUTY AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING AGRICULTURAL New Clause 10 AND HORTICULTURAL ACTIVITY “(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a IMPORT OF FOIE GRAS regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural “(1) Foie gras may not be imported into the UK. activity for or in connection with the following purposes— (2) ‘Foie gras’, for the purposes of this section, shall mean a (a) the management of land or water in a way that protects product derived from the liver of any goose or duck which or improves the environment; has been force-fed for the purpose of enlarging its liver.”— (b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, (Nadia Whittome.) farmland or woodland and better understanding of This new clause would prohibit the import of foie gras into the UK. the environment; Brought up, and read the First time. (c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage; (d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way 2.30 pm that mitigates or adapts to climate change; Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab): I beg to (e) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, move, That the clause be read a Second time. reduces or protects from environmental hazards; The new clause would ban the import of foie gras in (f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare the UK. As I am sure many here will be aware, foie gras of livestock; is a product made from the livers of ducks or geese that (g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or have been repeatedly force-fed, by having a metal tube genetic resources relating to any such animal; inserted down their throats several times a day, when (h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants; they are just 12 weeks old. It is effectively produced by (i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on rendering the animal diseased. an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their While the production of this so-called delicacy has wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such been banned in Britain since 2000, the fact that imports plant; and to the UK are allowed is an effective green light to the (j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil. continued suffering and mistreatment of these animals. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision Shockingly, the UK imports around 200 tonnes of foie about the standards to which activity for or in connection with gras each year from mainland Europe. Today we have all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform. an opportunity to put a stop to that once and for all. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision Some members of this Bill Committee may recall that about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision— the Labour DEFRA team tabled an amendment banning foie gras imports during the Committee stage of the (a) about the provision of information; Agriculture Bill in 2018. It was extremely disappointing (b) conferring powers of entry; and embarrassing that the then Government chose not (c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure; to accept that reasonable and common-sense amendment. (d) about the keeping of records; I sincerely hope that they will not choose to repeat the (e) imposing monetary penalties; mistake today in voting against new clause 10. (f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a We know that the Secretary of State has spoken fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, favourably of a ban. He is on record saying: which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale); “When we leave the European Union, we do indeed have an (g) about appeals; opportunity to look at restrictions on sales”.—[Official Report, (h) conferring functions (including functions involving the 13 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 1052.] exercise of a discretion) on a person. That opportunity is today, and the time is now. 395 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 396

Deidre Brock: I support the new clause simply because (a) any of paragraphs 3 to 32 of Schedule 1 (additional it is the right thing to do. I appreciated the speech by the requirements for slaughterhouses) to the Welfare of hon. Member for Nottingham East very much, and I Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations hope the Minister will see her way clear to coming to 2015 (S.I., No. 1782), some sort of agreement on this, because many of us are (b) any of paragraphs 3 to 32 of Schedule 1 (additional requirements for slaughterhouses) to the Welfare of very disturbed by this trade and would like to see it Animals at the Time of Killing (Wales) Regulations stopped. 2014 (S.I., No. 951 (W. 92)), Victoria Prentis: While allowed under EU law, the (c) any of paragraphs 3 to 32 of Schedule 1 (additional Government have made clear that the production of requirements for slaughterhouses) to the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations (Northern foie gras from ducks or geese using force-feeding raises Ireland) 2014 (Northern Ireland Statutory Rules 2014 serious welfare concerns, as the hon. Member for No. 107), or Nottingham East outlined. The production of foie gras (d) any of sections 4, 5 or 7 of the Animal Welfare by force-feeding is banned in the UK, as it is incompatible Act 2006, in relation to livestock. with our domestic legislation. After the transition period, (3) The Agency shall take steps to promote awareness of the there will be an opportunity to consider whether the method established under subsection (1). UK can adopt a different approach to foie gras imports (4) The Agency may share with an enforcement authority and sales in this country. I am afraid the time is not (within the meaning of section 15(2) of this Act) information quite now; the time is after the transition period. received under a qualified disclosure. I understand the strength of feeling on the issue, but (5) “Livestock” shall, for the purposes of this section, have the this Bill is not about making provisions prohibiting meaning given in section 1(5) of the Agriculture Act 2020.’”— imports. I reassure hon. Members that the Government (Ruth Jones.) will use the opportunities provided through future free This new clause would require the Food Standards Agency to set up and trade agreements and, of course, our wider international publicise a channel for whistleblowing about conduct in abattoirs. engagements to promote high animal welfare standards Brought up, and read the First time. among our international trading partners. I am afraid the time is not yet, and I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to move, the amendment. That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to continue under your chairmanship, Nadia Whittome: I must say I am disappointed in the Sir David. I am pleased to speak briefly to the new Minister’s response. What she says on animal welfare is clause, which is about standards, animal welfare and at odds with what is in the Bill. Therefore, I will move what is right. It is about who we are and what we eat, this new clause to a vote. although I am mindful of my hon. Friends from Bristol, Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. so the last part applies only to some of us. The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10. Sir David, we know that many people in Southend Division No. 34] West, Newport West and right across the United Kingdom AYES are concerned that Britain’s departure from the European Union could lead to laws on the quality of meat standards Brock, Deidre McCarthy, Kerry being relaxed to the point of impotency, purely so that a Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia Jones, Ruth Zeichner, Daniel deal can be struck between the Prime Minister and the United States Government. Many Opposition Members NOES have loudly made the case that we cannot sell out or trade off our high standards and practice, and many on Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon the Government Benches make those points in private Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia too. This morning, the Secretary of State for International Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Trade made a strong comment in response to my question Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James in the House. She said that the Government would walk Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria away from any US-UK deal that did not protect our high standards. Obviously, we will watch that very closely. Question accordingly negatived. I commend Unison for commissioning a recent survey that looked at the wider issues of meat standards. It is important for representative bodies such as Unison to New Clause 11 take the lead in highlighting those issues. In Labour’s 2019 manifesto, we pledged to introduce a formal whistleblowing WHISTLEBLOWING: STANDARDS IN ABATTOIRS procedure through the Food Standards Agency, to enable employees to report bad behaviour and practice in “(1) The Food Standards Act 1999 is amended as follows. abattoirs. The new clause would make good on that (2) After section 20 insert— pledge, but more importantly ensure that malpractice ‘20A Whistleblowing: standards in abattoirs and impropriety had no place in abattoirs across the (1) The Agency shall establish a method by which a person can country. The new clause is sensible, and essentially make a qualified disclosure under section 43B(1) of the Employment self-explanatory. Surely the Government will have little Rights Act 1996 (as inserted by the Public Interest Disclosure issue accepting it, and I call on them to do so. Act 1998) to the Agency. (2) A qualified disclosure under subsection (1) may relate to any act which, in the reasonable belief of the person making the Victoria Prentis: Whistleblowing is already protected disclosure, tends to show that an offence has been committed, is in legislation in Great Britain through the Public Interest being committed or is likely to be committed in England, Wales Disclosure Act 1998, and the Food Standards Agency or Northern Ireland under— already has robust procedures in place to process 397 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 398 whistleblowing in relation to animal welfare offences NOES committed in abattoirs. The Act provides procedures to Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon support staff and workers to raise concerns regarding Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia possible past, current or future wrongdoing during the Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny course of their work. That includes abattoir workers who Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James are concerned that animal welfare offences might have Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria been committed by their employer. That legislation and the FSA procedures provide a clear framework to handle Question accordingly negatived. whistleblowing and encourage disclosure—not just within abattoirs, but across the scope of work carried out by the FSA. New Clause 13 Following the 2013 review into the integrity and insurance of food networks, the National Food Crime LIVESTOCK FARMING PRACTICES: RESEARCH Unit was established in 2015, which allows anyone to “(1) The Secretary of State must— report any suspected food crime by calling Food Crime (a) conduct, Confidential on a dedicated number. That crime unit is (b) commission, or strengthening its capabilities and will be opening a fully (c) assist the conduct of functioning in-house criminal investigations unit by research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive April 2020. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport livestock farming practices in England. West will agree that this is progress, so I ask her to (2) The Secretary of State, in assisting in the conduct of withdraw her proposal. research under subsection (1)(c), must— (a) provide financial assistance, and Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her comments (b) make available the services of any person or other and her affirmation of what is already going on. However, resources.”—(Daniel Zeichner.) if this is already in law, it could do no harm to enshrine This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct or and reaffirm it in the Bill, so we will not withdraw the commission research into the impact on animal welfare of highly new clause; we will push it to a vote. intensive livestock farming practices in England. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. Brought up, and read the First time. The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move, That the clause be Division No. 35] read a Second time. AYES The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia Jones, Ruth new clause 14—Livestock farming practices: duty to McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel promote research— “The Secretary of State must promote the conduct of research NOES into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England.” Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote the Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia conduct of research into the impact on animal welfare of highly Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny intensive livestock farming practices in England. Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria Daniel Zeichner: These two new clauses would require the Secretary of State to conduct or commission research Question accordingly negatived. into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England. We know that effective research into the impact of highly intensive New Clause 12 farming practices is going to be vital to contributing to a better understanding of what we can do to improve SOW FARROWING STALLS animal welfare and what better welfare practices can be “Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of the Welfare of Farmed promoted within the public goods element of the Bill, Animals (England) Regulations 2007 shall be omitted.”— which we will of course support. (Daniel Zeichner.) This new clause and Amendments 40 and 41 would end the use of sow As I outlined during the debate on some previous farrowing crates (subject to a delayed commencement) and add amendments regarding the need for baseline animal improving the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows to the welfare standards, we think much more could be done purposes for financial assistance in Clause 1. to improve the lives of animals on our farms, looking Brought up, and read the First time. particularly at species-specific needs. We think research Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. has a big role to play in that, but unless that research is properly co-ordinated and incentivised by the Government, The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. we will be leaving it largely up to market forces to keep Division No. 36] the science up to date. We believe the welfare of our farm animals is too important to be neglected, and we AYES want to see action now. I appreciate that there is a Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia question whether such a provision would be covered by the Bill’s money resolution, so we have helpfully provided Jones, Ruth two versions. I very much hope that the Government McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel might find it in their heart to support one of them. 399 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 400

2.45 pm (2) The Secretary of State must make available the services of any person or other resources to assist in the conduct of a review Victoria Prentis: The Government are committed to under subsection (1)(a). animal welfare. I reassure Members that high-quality (3) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of research and evidence from a range of sources will responses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b). always inform our animal welfare policy. Using the (4) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months powers set out in the Bill, we are developing a scheme, from the day on which— as the hon. Gentleman knows, that aims to improve (a) the review commissioned under subsection (1)(a) is farm animal welfare in England. As part of that, we are received, or exploring one-off grants that will help farmers to improve (b) the consultation under subsection (2) closes, welfare on farms, as well as a payment by results scheme whichever is the sooner, publish a statement of future policy on through which farmers could receive ongoing payments grouse shooting and grouse moor management.”—(Ruth Jones.) for delivering specific animal welfare enhancements. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a New clause 13 would make it a legal requirement for review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting and publish proposals for regulation. the Secretary of State to conduct, commission or assist the conduct of research that specifically considers the Brought up, and read the First time. impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock Ruth Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a farming practices in England. Although the new clause Second time. is well intentioned, it fails to recognise the unintentional consequences that could occur as a result. Farm animal The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss welfare relies primarily on good stockmanship. The new clause 16—Grouse shooting and management: review Animal Welfare Committee frequently concludes that and consultation (No. 2)— good stockmanship is more important than the system “(1) The Secretary of State must— in which animals are kept when it comes to meeting (a) undertake a review of the economic, environmental their welfare needs. In addition, it is difficult to be clear and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting, and about what constitutes a highly intensive farming system, (b) consult on regulation of grouse moor management. because the term is not defined. (2) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of The Department for Environment, Food and Rural responses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b). Affairs already conducts internal and external research (3) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months into farm animal welfare, and is supported by a range from the day on which the consultation under subsection (2) of evidence committees, such as the Animal Welfare closes, publish a statement of future policy on grouse shooting Committee. Although new clause 14 does not state what and grouse moor management.” is meant by “promote” and is ambiguous on what This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a would fulfil that requirement, I reassure Members that review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven DEFRA already promotes animal welfare research in a grouse shooting and publish proposals for regulation. number of ways. However, we do not wish to be restricted Ruth Jones: I am pleased to speak to new clauses 15 to focusing only on intensive farming systems, however and 16. We know that our planet and climate are defined. DEFRA publishes details of current research experiencing huge change, and the effects of the climate and development online, as well as the final reports emergency are becoming an increasing feature of the from internal and external research projects. world in which we live, affecting not just humans, but I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government our natural world and our wildlife. The new clauses call share the public’s high regard for animal welfare, and on the Government to think about biodiversity, the recognise the need for animal welfare policy development uplands, the fragile and insecure rural economy, and the and implementation to be very well founded in evidence. many people who live and make their way of life in our That will ensure that we remain at the global forefront green and open spaces. The new clauses are also about of animal welfare policy.I therefore ask the hon. Member the welfare of our wildlife. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge to withdraw the motion. for Bristol East has campaigned on such issues over many years, and I pay tribute to her tenacity and Daniel Zeichner: I anticipated the question on the commitment to animal welfare and our environment. definition of highly intensive farming when I reread the The weight of the scientific evidence before us is such new clause over lunchtime. I rather thought that it that we can see that driven grouse shooting damages would be the right hon. Member for Scarborough and habitats, pollutes our water, increases greenhouse gas Whitby who raised that query, but the Minister got in emissions, and involves the illegal persecution of birds there first. I am pleased by her response. On that basis, I of prey. The practice also increases the risk of floods, beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. which damage properties and green spaces and lead to Clause, by leave, withdrawn. devastating deaths of people and animals alike. Right now, flooding is an issue of real concern for many people up and down the country. Those of us who were New Clause 15 present for yesterday’s Opposition day debate on flooding heard powerful stories illustrating the need for upstream GROUSE SHOOTING AND MANAGEMENT: REVIEW AND land management to prevent downstream flooding. As CONSULTATION shadow flooding Minister, I was delighted that the “(1) The Secretary of State must— Opposition motion received support from both sides of (a) commission an independent review of the economic, the House, including the Government Benches. By voting environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse with us, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew shooting, and Percy) showed that, sometimes, politics does not need (b) consult on regulation of grouse moor management. to win but common sense can. 401 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 402

The new clause addresses the effects of a practice that carbon sink, we should follow the advice of George cuts across many different and important issues, and Monbiot and plant more trees. Perhaps we should plant the Minister can surely support it. It would allow us to more trees, but not at the expense of our traditional look at specific areas such our soil, drainage and hydrology, moorland. We should also make a distinction between conservation, wildlife crime, and the wider concern blanket bog, such as the bog on Saddleworth moor, about sustainability. As legislation such as this Bill which tends to occur in the west of the country, and the passes through the House, we have the chance to address dry heathland found in other parts of the country, the many issues that have fallen off the to-do list. Let us particularly in the east. Wesaw on the news the apocalyptic take the opportunity new clauses 15 and 16 offer to scenes on Saddleworth moor when it was on fire in commission a review so that we can methodically, clearly February 2019. During the recent fires in Australia, and carefully work our way through those important much criticism was made of the absence of what they issues. The future of our planet and our natural world is called back burning. I maintain that the controlled in our hands, so let us get on and save it. burning of small areas of the moorland, at a time of year when those fires are unlikely to get out of control, Mr Goodwill: My North Yorkshire constituency includes means that we have natural fire breaks. I suggest that about two thirds of the North York Moors national the new clause is not needed. park and vast areas of heather moorland, which is a I suggest that there are those in this country who glory to behold in late summer when the heather is in oppose grouse shooting for reasons that are not particularly flower. Indeed, many people flock to the area to see the environmental, but are to do with animal welfare or natural beauty of the landscape and to enjoy all the with the people who go shooting, whom they may not activities that take place there. like. We should not use a false environmental argument A grouse moor is a fragile environment. Historically, to stop the traditional management of the moorland. much of the area was forest. It was only when the trees My wife’s grandfather managed a moor at Troutsdale were cut down for domestic fuel or to turn into charcoal until he retired. That moor is not a moorland now; to smelt with the limestone that was mined in the area there are no grouse, there are no lapwings; it is brash that the forest disappeared. If we do not look after the and trees are growing rapidly. If it is not kept on top of heather in the right way, we will not keep it for very and managed, that type of habitat, which is unique in long. It needs managing not only for grouse, which Europe, is not preserved. We need to protect it. cannot be reared artificially—it is an indigenous species in this country and needs to be reared in the wild—but Victoria Prentis: It is a genuine pleasure and honour for other species, particularly ground-nesting birds such to be surrounded by so manyknowledgeable and committed as golden plover and lapwing, which rely on that fragile environmentalists.The Government consider that shooting environment. activities can bring many benefits to the rural economy, I join hon. Members who condemn the illegal persecution and in many cases are beneficial for wildlife and habitat of raptors, but it is the case that by managing the conservation. We recognise that it is vital that wildlife moorland, the small mammals, birds’ eggs and other and habitats are respected and protected. Wewill continue prey that the raptors feed on are facilitated. When we to work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial consider how to maintain those areas, it is important to relationship between shooting and conservation. There listen to the experts. In an article, the North York is no need for a commitment to review driven grouse Moors national park ranger David Smith said: shooting, as defined in the new clause, because we are already considering these issues. If there were to be a “Controlled burning is used to manage the heather better. After 15 to 20 years the heather gets old and leggy and you need review, it might be more efficient and effective to consider different age structures for the wildlife that lives on the moor. other forms of grouse shooting and wider moorland Grouse shelter underneath the older heather and the fresh new management where there are no grouse, alongside driven heather is more palatable for both sheep and grouse. What people grouse shooting. don’t realise is that the North York Moors is a managed moorland. The Government are already addressing rotational If you don’t stay on top of it, it would turn back to woodland, burning associated with grouse moor management on with birch and rowan trees quickly re-establishing themselves.” protected blanket bog. We have always been clear of the The article continues: need to end burning on protected blanket bog to conserve “Cutting the heather, the alternative to burning, does work, vulnerable habitats, and we are actively looking at how but on very stony ground or uneven ground…it’s impractical”. legislation could achieve that. Our intention has always David Smith says: been to legislate if a voluntary approach fails to deliver. “If you only cut the heather, you leave smaller vegetation close Real progress is being made in promoting sustainable to the ground, it doesn’t destroy everything which is needed to alternatives, including consent for cutting of vegetation give the new growth a fresh start. as an alternative to rotational burning, and removing or Controlled burns flash across the top of the moor. They don’t modifying consents to burn as higher level stewardship destroy the seed bank. If you cut the heather, brash is left behind agreements are renewed. We have urged landowners to and smothers what’s underneath. It stops it from regenerating adopt those measures and continue to work with them and slows down regrowth.” constructively. The article concludes: The recently released Werritty review addresses those “Another reason for controlling the heather is to allow the issues in Scotland. The group’s report recognised the sheep to move about more easily” socioeconomic contribution that grouse shooting makes and to provide tender young growth for the sheep, to Scotland’s rural economy, but made a number of particularly the young lambs, to graze. recommendations that are currently being considered We have obligations regarding CO2 and we need to by the Scottish Government. We will watch closely to protect our peat areas, but the deposition of new peat see how they respond. We do not rule out the possibility is glacial in pace. If we want to use those areas as a of a wider review into grouse moor management in 403 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 404

[Victoria Prentis] 3 pm Deidre Brock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a the future, but I would not want to restrict that just to Second time. driven grouse management. Once Scotland has announced its plans, we will consider the benefits or otherwise of Briefly, what new clause 17 boils down to is ensuring regulatory alignment between the two jurisdictions. I that Scottish farmers can plan ahead. It would ensure therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clauses. that the resources that will be made available to support Scottish farmers are known about in advance of the Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister and the right hon. implementation period completion day. To be honest, I Member for Scarborough and Whitby for their comments. am not sure that a month is long enough notice, but it I bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this would at least be notice. area; I accept his comments and I am pleased that he I am sure that the Minister could give that commitment agrees with us at least in part. today, but I think we would all agree that it would The burning of heather is an emotive issue, and there be much better written into the Bill. The Minister are many different expert opinions on it. It is certain can think of the new clause as a sort of love letter to that careful land management is crucial to ensure that Scottish farmers, Parliament can think of things being we achieve our environmental standards. That is why we done in the right way, and I would just be glad to have it tabled our new clauses. We all agree that tree planting is confirmed. essential; the Government are already missing their own Farmers, just like any other business, do best when targets by at least 70%, so we must keep pushing. they have some clarity on their long-term planning—we I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments have heard the Secretary of State say that on several that this is a false animal welfare issue—it is not. It is a occasions. Providing that certainty and clarity—that very real issue, which is why we have tabled the new honesty and transparency—is the work of the Government clauses, following advice from outside organisations. I in this instance, and that is what new clause 17 asks for. am pleased that the Minister is considering driven grouse Scottish farmers need that certainty and therefore the shooting legislation, but let us start now and put it in Scottish Government need certainty on funding. I would the Bill. prefer farmers, crofters and Ministers to be told earlier Question put, that the clause be read a Second time. whether funds will be made available that are at least equivalent to the cash that has been available to farmers The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10. and crofters up to now, but I look forward to the Division No. 37] Minister telling us that the Government agree that AYES farmers and crofters need that certainty and that they accept the new clause. Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia Jones, Ruth Thangam Debbonaire: We on the Labour Front Bench McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel would say that the new clause makes a reasonable request. There are lots of ways in which we could try to NOES deal with the problem of divergence and the tension Clarke, Theo Jupp, Simon between devolved and reserved matters and protecting Courts, Robert Kearns, Alicia regional interests, which we wish to do. There are various Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny alternatives that the Minister could commit to. Having Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James something from her on the record today, in Hansard, Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Prentis, Victoria will be helpful. Regardless of whether the new clause is agreed to, I Question accordingly negatived. am sure that all of us on the Opposition Benches will hold the Minister to her word; she is a woman of her word. If she makes a commitment on the record that New Clause 17 there will be some form of report, we will put it in our diaries to follow that up. If the new clause falls, but she REPORT ON AGRICULTURAL PAYMENTS TO THE SCOTTISH has made that commitment, we will be coming back to MINISTERS this point a month before the implementation period is “(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than one month before over, at the beginning of December. I hope that, in that IP completion day, lay before Parliament a statement of his or her spirit, the Minister will consider making the commitment policy on whether sums will be made available to Scottish Ministers and therefore, when the time comes, the relevant statement each year after IP completion day which are at least equivalent to can take place. It is completely reasonable that farmers the sums made available to Scottish Ministers in the year prior to across the whole of the regions and nations—not just IP completion day for the purpose of expenditure under— Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom—can (a) the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, and have that continuity and some certainty at least. (b) the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development as established under Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No I may be wrong, but I am guessing that the Minister 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the might be about to say that it is not necessary to add the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, new clause to the Bill. We have heard that before, and I management and monitoring of the common agricultural understand the argument, but it would be good to have policy. some recognition on the record that we can hold her to. (2) “IP completion day” shall have the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Victoria Prentis: In my experience, farmers would Act 2020.”—(Deidre Brock.) much prefer a cheque to a love letter. Maybe I have met Brought up, and read the First time. the wrong ones. In that spirit, the only commitment I 405 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 406 am going to make is the important one, which is a New Clause 19 commitment to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament, giving real certainty over REPORT ON IMPACT OF ACT UPON AGRICULTURAL funding for the coming years. That is worth a great deal WORKERS more to farmers than a new clause that would merely require the Secretary of State to make a statement on “(1) The Secretary of State shall, within 18 months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, lay before Parliament a report agricultural funding for Scotland. containing an assessment of the impact of the provisions of this I reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North Act on agricultural workers in England. and Leith that in recognition of the perceived injustice (2) The report under subsection (1) shall include assessments felt by Scottish farmers over convergence funding, the of the impact of the Act upon each of the factors listed in Scottish Government will receive an extra £160 million subsection (3). over two years in 2019-20 and 2020-21. All Members (3) The factors are agricultural workers’— will know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is ultimately (a) living standards, responsible for financial matters across UK Government. (b) pay, Treasury colleagues lead on discussions on all funding (c) conditions of employment, and matters with Finance Ministers in the devolved (d) accommodation. Administrations. DEFRA will continue to work closely (4) The report under subsection (1) shall include an analysis of with the Treasury and the devolved Administrations on the impact on each factor under subsection (3)— funding arrangements,but the Government have committed (a) in each region of England, and to year-on-year funding, and I am afraid that is the best I can do. (b) in each agricultural sector, within the meaning given in Schedule 1. (5) The Secretary of State shall, no later than three months Deidre Brock: I cannot say that I am not disappointed after the report under subsection (1) has been laid, open a public by the Minister’s response. Yes, the convergence funding consultation on— was welcome, but that was after many years of tussling (a) the report laid under subsection (1) and any conclusions over it, as Members will be aware. In our view, that which it might draw or proposals which it might money was returned to us after it was wrongfully taken contain, and away by the UK Government. We are delighted we have (b) the merits of establishing a sector negotiating body to it now, as are the many farmers and crofters who will be responsible for setting on an annual basis benefit from it, after it not being with them for some minimum— years. (i) living standards, I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity over this, but I (ii) pay, want to hear that the funds made available will be at (iii) conditions of employment, and least equivalent to the cash. That includes such things (iv) standards and terms of accommodation for as inflation, and I do not feel that her words are agricultural workers. sufficient to provide that surety. Forgive me, Sir David, (6) ‘Agricultural worker’ shall, for the purposes of this section, but—this is a commonly held view in this place—I do be taken to mean any person engaged in— not have a great deal of faith in the Treasury and what it (a) agriculture, as defined in section 109 of the Agriculture will decide in the future. Act 1947, or I thank the hon. Member for Bristol West for her (b) forestry.”—(Daniel Zeichner.) kind words of support, because this important principle This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the applies not solely to Scotland, but to all the devolved impact of the Act on agricultural workers in England, and to consult on the findings of that report and the merits of establishing a sector Administrations. She is right about that. That surety is negotiating body. vital for all our farmers and crofters, and even being Brought up, and read the First time. able to put that into words in Committee would have been a helpful start. With that in mind, I will press the new clause to a vote. Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move, That the clause be Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. read a Second time. I preface my comments by declaring that I am a The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. member of Unite, the trade union that represents many Division No. 38] agricultural and rural workers. Given that the Bill is on agriculture, and we have been speaking about it for AYES many hours, it is disappointing that we have got so far Brock, Deidre McCarthy, Kerry without talking about the people who work in the Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia industry. In 2017, 474,000 people were working in Jones, Ruth Zeichner, Daniel agriculture across the UK, so the Bill will affect almost half a million people. It is disappointing that we have NOES had so little mention of workers so far,and no consideration Clarke, Theo Kearns, Alicia of the current challenging conditions that many of them face, or of what impact the new provisions may Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Dines, Miss Sarah have on employment conditions—let alone how we will Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James ensure that we have the workforce to keep our farms Jupp, Simon Prentis, Victoria running. Our discussion so far has been in marked contrast to Question accordingly negatived. the excellent report last year by the Food Farming and Countryside Commission of the Royal Society for the 407 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 408

[Daniel Zeichner] Those protections covered the many thousands of workers on which the industry has depended. Indeed, encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. DEFRA’s 2012 impact assessment of the abolition of That report is elegantly and beautifully produced, and the AWB identified that workers would lose more than many of the top-line quotes are about the impact on £140 million in wages, £97.8 million in annual leave, and rural workers. £8.7 million in sick pay. Predictably enough, surveys show that since the abolition of the wages board there Many of those working in the sector face particularly has been a reduction in pay awards and increased challenging mental health issues. I suspect that the working hours. Workers have seen worsening terms and Government will say that the Bill is about agriculture, conditions, including the absence of sick pay. but in my view it must also be about the people who work and live in our countryside. We need an impact The fact is that England is now the only country in assessment for the Bill’s provisions to help to ensure the UK without an effective collective bargaining body that new policies affecting workers will result in making for our agricultural workers to have a voice over their working in farming an attractive prospect for workers pay and working conditions. Wales has an agricultural of all skill levels, from here and from overseas. advisory panel, and both Northern Ireland and Scotland have agricultural wages boards, although their functions That is vital economically, because currently just 0.6% are relatively limited and focus on rates of pay. We of those who harvest the UK’s crops are British. Owing believe that this cannot be right, and it is disappointing to the toxic atmosphere and uncertainty around Brexit, that a Bill on our agricultural sector does not even our farmers are already seeing a significant shortage of propose to look into this. I am afraid it speaks volumes workers from overseas. Last autumn, we saw fruit crops about Conservative attitudes to workers in general. rotting in fields due to farmers not having enough people to pick them. We know that the Government’s 3.15 pm seasonal workers pilot, limiting farmers to hiring up to Had Labour won the general election in December, 10,000 workers this year, will not provide the labour rural workers could have been looking forward to a needed, even if it is increased a little. better future. Sadly, we will have to wait for that time, Our farms require around 80,000 seasonal agricultural but I can assure hon. Members that it will come. In the workers every year. According to the Office for National meantime, new clause 19 would require the Secretary of Statistics, 99% of those workers come from countries State to report on the impact of the Act on agricultural within the EU. The Government have spent a long time workers in England. It would require the Secretary of working out the detail of an Agriculture Bill that may State to open a public consultation on the report and its become rather academic if we do not have the labour to conclusions, and to include in that consultation a work on our farms. We need to look seriously at consideration of employment rights and conditions, because the agricultural “the merits of establishing a sector negotiating body” sector presents some particular challenges for workers. for agricultural workers, which would be responsible for Many jobs in farming are physically hard, seasonal, low setting a minimum basis for their living standards, pay, paid and precarious, with too few of the employment conditions of employment and terms of accommodation. benefits that people working in other sectors take for granted. Victoria Prentis: It is a key priority of the Government to ensure not only a successful and effective agricultural The national minimum wage simply does not cover sector, but one in which workers are treated fairly. In the specific and unique conditions associated with land- recent years there has been enormous change to wider based workers, who are often in isolated rural situations, employment legislation, which protects and benefits face significant mental health challenges, and need specific workers in all sectors of the economy. Given that the issues covered such as accommodation, living standards, national minimum wage has started and the new national sick pay, and even extra tools. Agricultural workers are living wage has been introduced, we continue to believe also among the most vulnerable to being paid below the that there is no justification to have a separate employment minimum wage, as so many workers are from abroad. If regime for agricultural workers. their English skills are not particularly strong or they are unfamiliar with the law, they are unlikely to bring The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority,working claims against employers about underpayment. Yet in with partner organisations, already investigates serious England, agricultural workers now lack any efficient cases of labour market exploitation across the whole of and effective collective sector bargaining body to improve England and Wales. We remain absolutely committed those conditions. to monitoring the impacts of the Agriculture Bill across relevant sectors, including on workers. That will be The agricultural wages board that the Labour achieved through a mixture of Government and third-party Government introduced in 1948 was scrapped by the evaluation. We therefore believe that new clause 19 is coalition Government in 2013. I remember those campaigns unnecessary. very well. I was often there on the marches, and the warnings that the trade unions and others made about Daniel Zeichner: I have to say, I am very disappointed the consequences have been largely borne out. That act by that reply. It is complacent about what is going on in of coalition vandalism—the Liberal Democrats were the countryside, and it does not address the very real entirely complicit; my recollection is that the measures issues that employers will face if we are unable to attract were actually driven through by a Liberal Democrat more people to the industry. It is to everybody’s benefit Minister—broke a career structure with six clear pay that agriculture becomes a higher-paid, higher-skilled grades linked to skills, qualifications and experience, industry. One of the ways we do that is by ensuring that and ended a history of pay and protections with statutory people have proper rights and the confidence to look underpinning. after not only themselves, but their colleagues. 409 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 410

I am also disappointed that we have not found any crops or, more directly, kids may be playing on grass in provision in the Bill to tackle the mental health crisis in a park that has been treated with pesticides or weed-killing the agricultural sector. People are working on their own chemicals. or under pressure, and it is a real issue. We could have Quite rightly, we are now being told every day because addressed it through new clause 19, and I can assure the of coronavirus that we need to wash our hands and not Minister that we will come back to this in the future. I touch our mouths, eyes or nose. In more usual times, we wish to push new clause 19 to a vote. are perhaps a bit more slack about possible transference Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. of dangerous substances into our bodies—and these The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9. substances can be dangerous. A selection of the labels on pesticide products used in the UK contains warnings Division No. 39] such as “Very toxic by inhalation”, “Do not breathe AYES spray/fumes/vapour”, “Risk of serious damage to eyes”, “Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia inhalation”, “May cause cancer by inhalation”, and Jones, Ruth even “May be fatal if inhaled.” Cornell University’s McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel work on pesticides points to the risk of deformities, mutations, cancer and poisoning of the nervous system. NOES These are dangerous chemicals, and we need to keep a Clarke, Theo Kearns, Alicia close eye on their impact. Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Children and pregnant mothers are more exposed to Dines, Miss Sarah Morris, James the potential impact of pesticides than most of us, Goodwill, rh Mr Robert because they have a higher exposure rate. Children Jupp, Simon Prentis, Victoria absorb pesticides more easily through their skin: not only is a child’s skin more permeable than an adult’s, Question accordingly negatived. but their skin surface area is higher relative to their body weight. That makes it easier for them to absorb New Clause 20 higher rates of pesticides; in fact, infants will absorb around three times more pesticides than adults from similar exposure episodes. Children take in more air, MONITORING PESTICIDE USE AND ALTERNATIVES water and food than adults relative to their body weight, ‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of Royal which also increases their exposure. As an example, the Assent being given to this Act, publish proposals— breathing rate of a child in its first 12 years is roughly (a) to monitor the use and effects of pesticides in the double that of an adult, and as a result the amount of management of livestock or land, to conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and to promote airborne contaminants reaching the surface of the lung their take-up, can be much higher. (b) to conduct research into alternative methods of pest Not only is exposure likely to be higher, but that control and to promote their take-up, and child’s ability to cope with pesticide poisoning will (c) to consult on a target to reduce the use of pesticides. differ from that of an adult. The systems in our bodies used to deal with toxins are less well developed in (2) The proposals shall include steps to measure— children, which can make them less able to cope with (a) the effect of pesticides on environmental health, such substances than adults. As they grow, children’s (b) the effect of pesticides on human health, brains and bodies undergo complex changes that affect (c) the frequency with which individual pesticides are tissue growth and organ development. Incidents of exposure applied, that would be tolerated by adults can cause irreversible (d) the areas to which individual pesticides are applied, damage to unborn babies, infants and adolescents. What and is worrying about this Bill is that not only does it (e) the take-up of alternative methods of pest control by completely omit any requirement for the protection of land use and sector. human health and the environment from pesticides, but (3) “Environmental health” in subsection (2)(a) includes the it does not make a single recommendation for simply health of flora, fauna, land, air or any inland water body. monitoring pesticides or their effects. (4) “Human health” in subsection (2)(b) means the health of farmers, farmworkers and their families, operators, bystanders, Mr Goodwill: One of the ways in which farmers can rural residents and the general public.’—(Daniel Zeichner.) reduce their reliance on pesticides is by using new This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish varieties derived though gene editing. Potatoes can be proposals to monitor the impact of pesticides, to conduct research into engineered to be resistant to blight, for example. Do alternative methods of pest control, to promote their take-up, and to consult on proposals to set a target to reduce the use of pesticides. Labour Front Benchers support that innovative technology that will reduce our reliance on pesticides? Brought up, and read the First time. Daniel Zeichner: Aha! As ever, I am grateful to the Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move, That the clause be right hon. Gentleman. He has touched on a subject that read a Second time. is of some interest to me, as I chair the all-party Picture this: it is a lovely sunny day and everyone is parliamentary group for life sciences. I look forward to outside. Kids are playing in the park, with their mums having a detailed conversation with him about CRISPR- and dads looking on. What we do not often think about Cas9 and other exciting techniques. when we picture these happy scenarios, because we do In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we not look for them, are herbicides,fungicides and insecticides. are absolutely interested in looking at ways in which we They may well be blowing in on spores and from nearby can reduce pesticide use. As I indicated earlier, I am well 411 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 412

[Daniel Zeichner] The approach set out in the 25-year environment plan is the right one and we hope that it will minimise aware that farmers do not use pesticides without due pesticide use, help to reduce risks and strongly encourage caution, or without bearing in mind the current safety the uptake of alternatives to pesticides. Alongside the regulations and the costs involved. Having said that, we maintenance and development of effective monitoring, believe there should be additional measures in this Bill. this approach will deliver the main outcomes sought by We fully accept that pesticides are needed in some the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. situations, but other new technologies might be available, including drones and satellite images that have the Daniel Zeichner: I listened closely to the Minister and potential to make the application of these chemicals there was much that I probably agree with. However, I much more targeted and less damaging. I am told that would have predicted that we would return to the vexed those techniques are already being used in other countries, question of which piece of legislation this proposal but if we are not monitoring pesticides and their impact, would sit in, and we believe that it would be inappropriate there is no way that we will be able to encourage or to have a piece of major agricultural legislation without assist farmers to adopt more selective and less damaging reference to it. On that basis, I will push the new clause techniques. to a vote. All Members present have been repeatedly promised Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. by Ministers that when we left Europe, we would bring in stronger human and environmental protections, or at The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9. least equivalence. The Labour party believes that that is Division No. 40] an absolute minimum, we should monitor what impact pesticides are having; where that impact is concentrated; AYES and whether children, mothers and babies have been Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia affected, especially in rural communities where exposure Jones, Ruth is likely to be higher. This amendment does not ban McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel anything. It does not stop any farmer who needs to use safe pesticides on their crops, or to use them to increase NOES their yields, from doing so. It simply states that we are not averting our gaze, but keeping our eyes open to the Clarke, Theo Kearns, Alicia known risks; that we look to reduce those risks; and Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Dines, Miss Sarah that we will particularly protect women and children in Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James rural communities. On that basis, I ask that the clause Jupp, Simon Prentis, Victoria be read a Second time. Victoria Prentis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Question accordingly negatived. our eyes are very open when it comes to ensuring that the use of pesticides is minimised, and that pesticide New Clause 21 usage and its effects are carefully monitored. Current policies address these points already. Strict regulation LICENCES TO CULL BADGERS FOR CONTROL OF only allows pesticide use when scientific risk assessments TUBERCULOSIS: REPEAL predict that there will be no harm to people and no unacceptable effects on the environment. Existing ‘(1) No licence may be granted to kill or take badgers, or to interfere with a badger sett, for the purpose of preventing the monitoring schemes cover each of the points proposed spread of bovine tuberculosis. in the amendment. They report on the level of usage of each pesticide and on residue levels in food. They also (2) Sub-paragraph (1)(g) of section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 is accordingly amended by omitting “disease” collect and consider reports about possible harm to and substituting “any disease other than bovine tuberculosis.”’— people or the environment. (Daniel Zeichner.) The Government support good work to research, This new clause would end the provision under which a licence can be develop and promote means to move away from pesticides, granted to kill badgers for the purpose of preventing the spread of which I am sure is our collective aim. These include: bovine tuberculosis. plant breeding for pest-resistant varieties; the use of Brought up, and read the First time. natural predators; the development of biopesticides; and the use of a variety of cultural methods to reduce Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move, That the clause be pest pressures. read a Second time. The Government intend to continue to develop and Thank you, Sir David—[Interruption.] There is some refine our approach to pesticides. The 25-year environment confusion on this side; I apologise. I blame the late plan is where the hon. Gentleman will find most of publication of the 109-page document. these details. The plan emphasises the importance of integrated pest management. That means not only that pesticides are used well, but that the approach to farming Victoria Prentis: In fact, why don’t the Government minimises the need for pesticides and that alternative just stop? [Laughter.] methods are used wherever possible. Where these practices are shown to help to deliver public goods, they may well Daniel Zeichner: Why does it take the Government so be funded under the new environmental land management long—since 2018—to respond, and why do they finally schemes. We will determine in more detail which respond on the day that we discuss this issue in Committee? ELMS will pay for what as we develop the schemes in We probably all know the politics behind these things, the future. but it is disappointing when it involves such an important 413 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 414 subject, discussion of which has been so eagerly awaited year. Tackling it is important. It imposes a tremendous by so many people, because it is a highly controversial pressure on the wellbeing of our cattle farmers and their subject. The science involved is complicated. families.ManyCommitteemembers,includingme,represent In the spirit of sharing the responsibilities across the constituencies that are exposed to the misery of bovine shadow team, I will pass over to my hon. Friend the TB on a daily basis. Left unchecked, bovine TB also poses Member for Nottingham East in a moment—I hope a threat to public health although that is, to a large extent, that she will be called to speak. However, the Labour mitigated today by milk pasteurisation. My grandfather Front Bench welcomes the Government’sbelated response. died of tuberculosis, so I have always taken a close personal We also find some things in the response helpful, and interest in the subject. It is a peculiar and complicated we think the Government are changing direction, but disease that it is important for us to take seriously. not quickly enough. We will make a more considered No single measure will achieve eradication by our and detailed response when we have had time to consider target date of 2038, which is why we are committed to it in detail, but our belief is that far too many badgers pursuing a wide range of interventions, including culling have been unnecessarily killed. The science is not clear and vaccination, to deal with the risk from wildlife. Of and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is as course culling is a controversial policy, but we have much transmission from cattle to cattle. It is not a scientific evidence to show that, to a certain extent, it is simple issue. Wefully recognise the huge damage, economic working. The new review is clear that the evidence cost and distress that bovine TB causes in many areas. indicates that the presence of infected badgers poses a As I say, we welcome the direction of travel, but we threat to local cattle herds. The review considers that believe that it should be much swifter. moving from lethal to non-lethal control of disease in badgers is desirable. Of course, we would all go along 3.30 pm with that. We have reached a point where intensive Nadia Whittome: The Government’s much-delayed culling will soon have been enabled in most of the areas response to the Godfray report, published this morning, where it has served the greatest impact. As announced finally concedes to implement more effective methods in the Government response today, we will be able to of containing bovine TB, such as cattle and badger develop measures to make badger vaccination, combined vaccinations. Of course, scientists, activists and politicians with biosecurity, the focus of addressing risks from have been saying that for years. Can the Minister explain wildlife as an exit strategy from intensive culling. Our whyit has taken the culling of an estimated 130,000 badgers aim is to allow future badger culls only where the for the Government to come to the same conclusion epidemiological evidence points to a reservoir of disease that most of us came to years ago? Will she provide an in badgers. estimate of the number of badgers that will be killed Nobody wants to cull badgers inappropriately, but before the switch to vaccinations and other non-lethal nor can we allow our farmers, their families and our preventive measures? wider dairy and beef industries to continue to suffer the The Government’sU-turn on the badger cull is welcome. misery and costs caused by the disease. That is why it is I would like to think that it is because the Prime right that we take strong and decisive action to tackle Minister knew that my hon. Friend the Member for the problem effectively, while always looking to evolve Cambridge and I were going to speak to the issue, but I towards non-lethal options in future. I therefore do not suspect there is someone else he listens to more. It is think the new clause is appropriate. simply inexcusable, however,that further inhumane killing of this iconic species will continue for several years, especially as the Government have conceded that that Daniel Zeichner: I listened closely to the Minister’s is not the most effective strategy for containing bovine TB. comments. I suspect we will come back to this issue. We The former Government adviser Professor Ranald have been discussing it for the past 10 or 20 years. I fully Munro recently said that a large number of badgers are appreciate what a serious issue it is and how it directly likely to have suffered “immense pain” during culls. It is affects both her family and many others. However, at evident that the correct thing for the Government to do the general election we stood on a clear pledge to end the would be to bring forward the ban and start implementing badger cull. We stand by that and the new clause would non-lethal alternatives without delay. put it into law. The direction of travel of the Godfray report today reflects that the Government, on the basis Mr Goodwill: Is the hon. Lady not aware that we do of scientific evidence, are beginning to move in that not yet have a vaccine that allows us to identify the direction. I suspect it is still partly about costs, because difference between a vaccinated animal and an infected culling is more expensive. The vaccination question that animal? Until we have that type of vaccine, it will not be the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby possible to make the switch. mentioned is important, but it is important that we follow the science as it develops. We want to eradicate and Nadia Whittome: I thank the right hon. Gentleman defend and protect. The issue is of considerable public for that intervention, but the state of the science does interest, so I will press the new clause to a Division. not prevent the new clause from being made. New Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. clause 21 provides the Government with an opportunity, on the day that they released their long-awaited response The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9. to the Godfray review, to urgently put an end to the Division No. 41] inhumane and ineffective badger cull, rather than allowing it to continue for another five years. AYES Victoria Prentis: Bovine TB is one of our most difficult Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia animal health challenges. It costs the Government about Jones, Ruth £100 million a year and industry around £50 million a McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel 415 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 416

NOES The new clause is not meant to be confusing; it is very Clarke, Theo Kearns, Alicia clearly about charting a realistic way forward that has the support of those who will be seeking support and Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Dines, Miss Sarah funding from Her Majesty’s Government in the years Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James ahead. We would welcome it if the Minister stood up Jupp, Simon Prentis, Victoria and announced a strong and empowered agency, but if she cannot do that today, we want the new clause to Question accordingly negatived. stand part of the Bill. Weare entering uncharted waters—as the shadow Minister with responsibility for water, I New Clause 25 know all about that—and we have the chance to take stock, reflect and start anew. CONSULTATION ON ADMINISTRATION Much has been made of the future and the new way ‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within one calendar month of of doing things. The Government have made a great this Act being given Royal Assent, open a consultation on what many promises to our farmers and agricultural workers. body should administer— If we take the Bill and the Government press lines as (a) any payment of financial assistance under section 1, they stand, we are entering a new and glorious world, (b) any check, enforcement, monitoring or investigation in but I caution those on the Treasury Bench to make connection with the giving of financial assistance, good on their pledges and promises to our farmers and under subsection (1) of section 3, all those working in the agricultural sector. The demands (c) any payment under the basic payment scheme, within on those people and workers are great, and the potential the meaning of section 7, to increase support is huge, so let us take it. (d) any delinked payment within the meaning of section 12, (e) any other form of financial assistance which may be The new clause will ensure that things are done given under this Act, and properly when it comes to the many financial provisions (f) any environmental land management scheme established in the Bill and the passing on of vital payments, that the in connection with the provisions of this Act. powers and resources are exercised effectively, and that (2) The consultation shall seek views on whether an existing we do our best for our farmers going forward. I hope body should administer the functions under subsection (1) or that the Minister will listen carefully and respond whether a new body should be created for that purpose. accordingly. (3) The Secretary of State must, in any consultation under subsection (1), consult with persons or bodies representing persons who he or she considers are affected by the functions of Victoria Prentis: I hope that I have reassured hon. the proposed administrative body, or who— Members in all parts of the Committee that we will (a) are engaged in production of any product falling consult extensively on the use of the various powers in within an agricultural sector under Schedule 1, or the Bill. We know that the delivery of the previous CAP (b) manage land for a purpose other than production of scheme was not as good as we wanted it to be, or as any product falling within an agricultural sector good as farmers deserved. Therefore, we will design new under Schedule 1. arrangements that will make it as simple as possible for (4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of people to apply for funding. We want to ensure that Parliament— payments are prompt and accurate. (a) in summary form, the views expressed in the In the short term, the Rural Payments Agency will consultation held under subsection (1), and continue to administer direct payments and countryside (b) a statement of how the Secretary of State intends to proceed, with his or her reasons for doing so.” stewardship payments, and considerable progress has This new clause would require the Secretary of State to hold a been made in their delivery and achievement in recent consultation on whether an existing agency (such as the Rural years. We have seen a significant increase in performance Payments Agency) or a new body should administer payments and and are putting in place further improvements to delivery. other functions delivered under the Bill’s provisions.—(Ruth Jones.) As discussed last week, there will be a public consultation Brought up, and read the First time. on ELM. Stakeholders will be able to provide us with feedback across all elements of the schemes. We use Ruth Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a such feedback to inform decisions on who will be best Second time. placed to provide the service for the ELM and other The new clause would require the Secretary of State financial schemes going forward. Before consulting on to hold a consultation on whether an existing agency, how we deliver future schemes, we will want to refine such as the Rural Payments Agency, or a new body our policies further. Once we have established who is should administer payments and other functions delivered best placed to deliver the reform, we can take views on under the Bill. This is an important juncture in our how to roll it out. I hope that I have reassured the hon. consideration of the Bill. This will probably be, in the Lady. words of our former colleague David Drew, “the most popular part”, as we are giving the opportunity to those who wish to be consulted to get rid of the Rural Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her comments Payments Agency. But, as is always the case, things do and for her honesty in accepting that there have been not have to be that way. The Government could ensure flaws and deficiencies in the previous system. We all that we have a strengthened and effective payments share the same aim: we want payments to be made agency, but that agency will likely have to be a new body accurately and promptly.Welook forward to the promised with a strong and effective mandate to do its work. We improvements at the RPA and will therefore not press cannot rely on an existing agency that has a reputation the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw for wrong payments, late payments and no payments the motion. at all. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. 417 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 418

New Clause 27 such as agricultural support spending, crisis measures, publicintervention,privatestorageaid,marketingstandards, AGRICULTURE CO-ORDINATION COUNCIL cross-border farms and data collection and sharing. “(1) There shall be an Agricultural Co-ordination Council composed of— 3.45 pm (a) the Secretary of State, or representatives of the Our aim is to have the framework in place by the end Secretary of State, of the transition period this year. The shared view of (b) Scottish Ministers, or representatives of Scottish DEFRA and the devolved Administrations is that such Ministers, a framework does not need to be set out in legislation, (c) Welsh Ministers, or representatives of Welsh Ministers, but can be suitably managed through non-legislative and intragovernmental co-ordination, which could be codified (d) DAERA. in a concordat. In addition, DEFRA Ministers already (2) The Council shall establish a common framework to meet our devolved Administration counterparts on an monitor any disparities within the United Kingdom— almost monthly basis, as part of the inter-ministerial (a) in standards of food production; group. A new agricultural co-ordination council would (b) arising from the exercise of powers to give financial therefore be an unnecessary addition, as that existing assistance for any purpose which may be specified; group provides a successful forum for discussion and (c) arising from the power to make payments under the co-ordination between each part of the UK. basic payment scheme or to make delinked payments; and Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Minister for responding (d) in marketing standards. to our probing amendment with more information, as I (3) The Council shall review any framework established under had hoped she would. I reserve judgment on her assertion subsection (2) at least once in each calendar year, and may that what she described all works very well, because that amend a framework.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.) is a matter for the devolved Administrations to comment Brought up, and read the First time. on, and I expect that they will in due course, possibly in the final stages. I am happy not to press the new clause Thangam Debbonaire: I beg to move, That the clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. be read a Second time. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. On behalf of the Labour Front Bench—both the shadow DEFRA and European affairs teams—this is an offer. The new clause is probing, as I am sure the New Clause 28 Minister will have noticed. We seem to have got a bit stuck in Committee on the question of how, as we leave AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVES the EU, we resolve tensions between devolved powers “(1) The Secretary of State must promote agricultural and duties in agriculture and the reserved powers and co-operatives by— duties on WTO compliance. (a) offering financial assistance for the creation or As we said on WTO compliance, it is a sad state of development of agricultural co-operatives, and affairs that we have got to, but none the less we have. (b) establishing bodies to provide practical support and The new clause makes the modest suggestion of creating guidance for the development of new co-operatives. a route to assist in resolving that tension. Establishing (2) The Secretary of State shall examine any proposal for an agriculture co-ordination council does not undermine primary or secondary legislation to assess— either UK sovereignty or devolution, but it attempts to (a) its impact upon agricultural co-operatives, and provide a forum for discussing and addressing any (b) whether that impact is disproportionate in relation to possible differences that might affect compliance,undermine its impact upon other producer organisations or the consistency of standards, or involve various other interbranch organisations. matters listed in the new clause. (3) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may be given by way of grant, loan or guarantee, or in any other form. We are not being particularly prescriptive. We have (4) An organisation shall be recognised as an agricultural suggested elected Government Ministers or their co-operative if it meets the conditions in subsections (5) and (6). representatives, so that the council is democratically (5) Condition 1 is that the organisation— accountable, but we have left open the timetable and the (a) is registered with the Financial Conduct Authority as a process. The new clause is a suggestion—not one that co-operative, or we will press to a vote, but one that gives the Minister (b) is constituted under the Co-operatives and Community the opportunity to tell us what she believes the alternatives Benefit Societies Act 2014. to be. If not this, then what? (6) Condition 2 is that the organisation— (a) operates in a sector which is listed in Schedule 1 to this Victoria Prentis: I am reminded that the Government Act, and Whip and I both read English at university,and “AModest (b) includes at least one member which is an agricultural Proposal” can mean something quite different. However, or horticultural producer. I thank the hon. Lady for her new clause seeking to (7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision establish an agriculture co-ordination council. I accept specifying the criteria under which financial assistance under that she is asking me generally to explain our plans. subsection (1)(a) may be offered. The UK Government have been collaborating closely (8) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to the negative with all devolved Administrations on a UK-wide framework resolution procedure.” for agricultural support based on Joint Ministerial This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote Committee principles over the past two and a half agricultural co-operatives.—(Daniel Zeichner.) years. The framework is planned to cover policy areas Brought up, and read the First time. 419 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 420

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move, That the clause be By working together, farmers can share knowledge and read a Second time. best practice and support each other to improve productivity We believe it important that the Bill properly supports and spread innovation. co-operative models of farming, as they contribute Clause 1(2) already allows us to provide financial greatly to a fairer and more resilient agricultural sector. assistance to help farmers to improve productivity. We By working together, farmers can benefit from mutual would like to be able to help farmers to invest in protection, access to new markets, cost savings and equipment and infrastructure that will help them to efficiency, and a louder collective voice for the industry, benefit from working together. Furthermore, there are all of which will be particularly important in the light of provisions elsewhere in the Bill that allow us to create a the uncertainty caused by our withdrawal from the bespoke UK producer organisations regime, which we European Union. will tailor to the needs of UK producers who are As our countryside is likely to become increasingly interested in collaborating further together. commercialised with, I fear, bigger farms and possibly I hope that that provides some reassurance that we bigger profits, co-operative approaches also provide a are already supporting, and will continue to support, counterbalance to the growing consolidation of ownership farmers who want to come together to share knowledge, of farms and food manufacturing in the hands of a few reduce costs, and strengthen their position in the supply big agribusinesses or international conglomerates. Many chain. players in our agricultural sector already belong to co-operatives. They may not be as strong as in other Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister, and I countries, but more than 140,000 British farmers are think I have had sufficient reassurance on that. On that members and co-owners of more than 400 agriculture basis, I am happy not to proceed and I beg to ask leave and farmer co-operatives that work across many levels to withdraw the motion. in the supply chain, from milk marketing and processing Clause, by leave, withdrawn. to arable crop storage, produce marketing and retail supplies. The Bill is missing clear provisions to make it easier New Clause 29 for current and new co-operatives to succeed in farming by providing practical support, funding and protection CARBON EMISSIONS: NET-ZERO from the inadvertent impact of future legislation or 29‘(1) When considering the provision of financial assistance regulation. The new clause would therefore lock into under sections 1(1) and 1(2) of this Act, the Secretary of State the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to shall ensure that the likely impact of that funding is compatible promote agriculture co-operatives by offering financial with the achievement of any emissions reduction target set out in assistance for their creation and development and to subsection (2). establish bodies to provide practical support and guidance (2) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to— for their development. That support could come in the (a) within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, form of grant or loan funding and through the creation publish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets of organisations similar to the Scottish Agricultural for agricultural soil, livestock, peatland and Organisation Society,which I understand provides practical machinery, for the year 2030, which are consistent support such as advice, networking, shared services and with an emissions reduction trajectory that would eliminate the substantial majority of the UK’s total linking agriculture co-operatives to potential opportunities. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and The clause would also guarantee that the impact of (b) ensure that the targets are met. proposed legislation on agriculture co-operatives is (3) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of this considered. That would ensure that future legislation Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish a statement of the policies to does not inadvertently make it harder to be a co-operative be delivered in order to meet the emissions reduction targets than any other form of business. That is particularly published under subsection (2). important in the short to medium term, as much of the (4) In this section “soil”, “livestock”, “peatland”and “machinery” detail of the post-Brexit settlement for farmers will shall all relate to that used, owned, or operated in the process of come in secondary legislation, to which I am sure we are farming or any other agricultural activity.”’—(Daniel Zeichner.) all hugely looking forward. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish The Bill is short on detail, and it is important that greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the agricultural sector. any undue impact on co-operatives is mitigated against Brought up, and read the First time. as the detail is fleshed out. That would also help to future-proof the sector against inadvertent undue harm Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move, That the clause be as policy develops over the long term. We hope that the read a Second time. Government will recognise the contribution of co-operatives I think everyone will be pleased that we are getting and the merits of our proposals. It is important that we towards the finishing straight, but, in the meantime, we properly safeguard that sector within farming and that believe that the Bill needs to have far stronger net zero co-operatives are properly supported and encouraged. commitments. As I have said, it is essential that the climate crisis should be front and centre of the Bill, Victoria Prentis: I absolutely agree that farmers can which will be one of the most important pieces of benefit in many ways by co-operating and working legislation we have had in the past decade to help to together. Co-operation provides opportunities to cut meet the climate emergency. Yes, the Government have costs and achieve economies of scale, whether through said that they are committed to reaching net zero by purchasing resources or processing and marketing produce. 2050, but the National Farmers Union has demonstrated Co-operatives can gain control and hold a stronger muchmoreambitiousleadershipbysettingaclosertarget— position in the supply chain than people who work alone. for the agriculture sector to reach net zero by 2040. 421 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 422

Sadly, we know that the Government are currently New clause 29 would align agriculture with the emissions not on track to meet their carbon emission goals in the reduction trajectory that would eliminate the substantial 2030s, let alone to reach net zero by 2050, and the 2040 majority of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by target remains a voluntary one for the agriculture sector. 2030. It would require the Secretary of State, within six The fact is that the Committee on Climate Change’s months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to publish 2019 progress report has shown that UK agriculture is emission reductions targets for agricultural soil, livestock, not on track with any of its indicators, and there has peatland and machinery for the year 2030 that are been little progress in reducing emissions from agriculture consistent with this aim, to publish a statement within since 2008. As only 30% of direct payments are currently 12 months of the Bill becoming an Act of the policies to secured through meeting greening requirements—an be delivered in order to meet the emissions reduction improvement on the previous system, but still not good targets, and to ensure those targets are met. The new enough and way short of what is needed—we can see clause would also ensure that, in providing financial that a lack of financial incentives or legal requirements assistance for the clause 1 purposes, the impact of that for farmers to adapt their practices to reduce emissions funding is compatible with the achievement of the is part of the problem. That is why it is so important target of reducing the substantial majority of the UK’s that the Bill should set out clear targets and a proper greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. plan for how agriculture will be expected to reduce its There can be no more important point on which to emissions and by what date. conclude our deliberations today. It is a simple test for As things stand, all that the Bill does, effectively, is the Government: are they up to tackling the climate stipulate that the Secretary of State may—not even crisis or not? I fear we are about to hear a lot of noes. “must”, to go back to where we started—provide financial assistance under clause 1 for the purposes of climate Victoria Prentis: Yes, the Government are up to dealing change and adaptation, as well as other public goods with the climate crisis and are determined to do so, and that will have positive impacts on carbon storage, such yes, we agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no as good soil management. We have no assurances about more important thing that we should be doing as a how much priority those clause 1 elements that could Government. deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be I am really proud that the UK became the first major given by the Government when funding the measures in economy in the world to set a legally binding target to the Bill. There are no guarantees that farmers will even achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across take up the new environmental land management schemes the UK economy by 2050. We already have a strong in the first place to deliver those vital agricultural foundation of action and leadership to build from, adaptations to reduce carbon emissions, and there is no having cut our emissions by 42% since 1990 while plan for how agriculture is expected to meet any net growing the economy by 72%. That does not mean that zero target, be that by 2050, 2040 or earlier. we are complacent or that we do not recognise that there is a great deal more to do, urgently. For the Government to say that they are truly committed to transforming our agricultural and land management Kerry McCarthy: Will the Minister give way? systems in order to reduce emissions and avert climate catastrophe, the Bill needs to be much strengthened with a coherent, joined-up approach. That has been the Victoria Prentis: I am going to make some progress. purpose of many of our amendments, which we have Climate change is a global challenge, requiring action discussed over the past few weeks. I think I am correct across the whole economy.We do not have sector-specific in saying that, sadly, they have been rejected in their targets. That is to ensure that we meet our climate entirety by the Government—so far: there is always change commitments at the lowest possible net cost to hope, right to the end. [Laughter.] I do not think there UK taxpayers,consumers and businesses,while maximising is—but anyway. the social and economic benefits to the UK of the transition. The Bill needs binding emission targets for all the key We have set out a range of specific commitments, in areas of agricultural emissions—soil, livestock, peatland the 25-year environment plan and under the clean growth and machinery—for a given date, with clear direction strategy, to reduce emissions from agriculture. That from the Secretary of State on how it is intended to includes strengthening biosecurity and control of endemic reach them. The NFU suggests 2040. We believe that diseases in livestock, and encouraging use of low-emission the target should be in line with that, but that it has got fertilisers. However, we know that, to achieve net zero, to be even more ambitious if we are to properly address more is needed from the sector. We are looking to the climate emergency. We propose setting targets that reduce agricultural emissions controlled directly within are in line with eliminating the substantial majority of the farm boundary with a broad range of cost-effective the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. measures, primarily through improvements to on-farm We heard of the need for proper targets in the Bill efficiency and land use change. from numerous witnesses in the evidence sessions. That The new ELM scheme will help us to contribute to would be the best way to give the legislation some teeth our net zero commitment by providing farmers with an and proper direction and ensure that the Government’s opportunity to receive financial reward for delivering a proposed aims for the Bill of reducing agricultural range of public goods. We already report on climate carbon emissions are actually delivered to a timescale change performance under the Climate Change Act that will make those emission reductions effective for 2008 and the convention on biological diversity.Additional averting the climate catastrophe. The urgency of the reporting as required by the new clause would place an climate crisis is too real and too important for any less unnecessary burden on the Government without delivering than that. significant new information to Parliament. 423 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Agricuture Bill 424

Daniel Zeichner: So, we come full circle, back to of the Bill. I very much thank the Committee members where we started. I listened closely to the Minister and I and the Government and Opposition Whips, who have end up being disappointed, sadly. I point out that the steered the Bill so seamlessly and with a certain amount Government were dragged unwillingly to the 2050 target. of agreement and jollity around the edges. It was the Leader of the Opposition who led on that, and it will be Labour in the future that will deliver us Daniel Zeichner: On a point of order, Sir David. I from the climate emergency. I did hear a “yes” at one expect that I will say something remarkably similar. I point in the Minister’s speech, and I hope she might just particularly thank you and Mr Stringer for your excellent be able to say yes in a moment, when we come to the chairmanship.I thank the Whips for making the Committee vote. run so smoothly and efficiently. As we approach This all comes back to the balance between cost and International Women’s Day, I look around the room possibility. I kept hearing the words “lowest possible and notice that all my team appear to be women, and cost”. This is not something that can be done at low there appears to a majority of women on the Government cost. The climate emergency is absolutely real, immediate side, too. I think that reflects an important step forward and urgent. There is a fundamental difference between in this place. I suspect that this has been a more gentle the two sides here on how we approach it. The Minister and consensual discussion than one might have had mentioned environmental land management schemes. otherwise, although I have been chided from my own We talked much about that last week. There are no side for being insufficiently dressed on occasion. guarantees in the Bill that they will achieve the uptake I thank the Clerks, who have been extraordinarily or the outcomes that we are looking for. helpful in translating not always clear instructions into There has been a clear division of opinion throughout workable amendments. I thank all the staff working the discussions on the Bill. It does too little. It is not across the shadow teams; it has been a particularly strong enough. It does not guarantee the way forward difficult time. I particularly thank the adviser Rob Wakely that we need. Agriculture is still a major contributor to and my assistant Rafaelle Robin. We probably expected the climate crisis. We need to find a way of taking the far too much from them in a short period of time, and I sector to a much better place. This new clause would am eternally grateful. All the mistakes are my responsibility. help us to do that. Deidre Brock: On a point of order, Sir David. Briefly, 4 pm I thank you and Mr Stringer for your good-humoured Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. chairmanship of the proceedings, and the Clerks, who have been tremendously helpful to my colleague and The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9. me. I thank Hansard, who sit there patiently recording Division No. 42] our every word, and the Officers, who have had to get up and down frequently to close the doors and open AYES them again. My thanks to all the Committee members Debbonaire, Thangam Whittome, Nadia for interesting proceedings. I look forward to the Bill Jones, Ruth reaching Report and to further discussion on many McCarthy, Kerry Zeichner, Daniel important points.

NOES The Chair: Mr Stringer and I would like to thank all Clarke, Theo Kearns, Alicia hon. Members for their generous remarks. We thank Crosbie, Virginia Kruger, Danny Hansard and officials for all their support. Weparticularly Dines, Miss Sarah wish to commend the Doorkeepers. One had to cope Goodwill, rh Mr Robert Morris, James with a key breaking in the door while he was locking it; Jupp, Simon Prentis, Victoria another was opening the windows at the same time as closing the doors—there is an example of multitasking. Question accordingly negatived. Most of all, I thank our Clerks. Without them and their Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, wise counsel, the Committee would not have run so as amended, to the House. smoothly. I congratulate hon. Members on the way that they dealt with the proceedings, in spite of my many stumblings. Victoria Prentis: On a point of order, Sir David. I understand that now is the right point to thank you Question put and agreed to. very much for your chairmanship. I also thank the Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported. other Chair who has helped us with the proceedings, all the Clerks and the civil servants, who have helped us 4.5 pm enormously with the production and the taking through Committee rose. 425 Public Bill Committee 5 MARCH 2020 Agricuture Bill 426

Written evidence reported to the House AB67 Mayor of London AB63 British Poultry Council AB68 Robert Evans, Visiting Fellow, Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University AB64 Paul Gingell AB69 Key stakeholders on Dartmoor (Dartmoor AB65 British Veterinary Association Hill Pony) further submission AB66 WWF-UK AB70 Mayor’s Fund for London