Luke Pollard
MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“As the Member of Parliament for Devonport, where we not only base-port but refit Type 23s, I know that many of those ships that have given decades of service are no longer able to provide the capabilities we need.”
“It is unlike the SNP to be so positive about defence, isn’t it? The Type 83 and Type 32 were PowerPoints—there was no budget attached to them. That is why in the defence investment plan we set out a plan for a common combat vessel and a hybrid Navy to fulfil the opportunities that the retirement of the Type 45 presents for us.”
“If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about a salary of up to £1 billion, he is cosplaying as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), isn’t he? Seriously, we are the third-largest cash spender in NATO. At the spending review next year, we will be setting out an increase in defence spending.”
“My hon. Friend really is the Member of Parliament for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, as she is determined to champion it so frequently. She will have seen in the defence investment plan our commitment to the new generation of fleet solid support ships, and she will have seen the work that this Government have undertaken since 2024 to address…”
“I say seriously to the House that my hon. Friend has been an incredible advocate for Rosyth. I have met him on a large number of occasions, and he has been absolutely determined to talk not just about the potential of Rosyth, but about the professionalism of the men and women who work there and the opportunity for young people to have a c…”
“We inherited a situation where the north-east was the region with the lowest Ministry of Defence spend in the country and we have made it a mission to increase defence spending in the north-east. We have an incredible talent pool in the north-east, with brilliant defence companies both large and small doing brilliant work.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,421 lines we hold for Luke Pollard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 58 of 109.
“Labour stands with our farmers, and we want our food and farming standards kept high after we leave the Brexit transition period. We want to keep high-quality food on our children’s plates, and to ensure that there is a level playing field for British farmers to stop them being undercut by food produced to lower standards from abroad. We were pleased to see concessions from the Minister in relation to the campaign led by Labour and the National Farmers Union to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory basis to allow more scrutiny of trade deals. There is still a long way to go, but many of those trade deals will be enacted by secondary legislation, and it is important that they are properly looked at.”
“The Minister knows that, because she and I have sat in many statutory instrument Committees where I have bemoaned such usage. “No impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things. The lack of an impact assessment for these statutory instruments concerns me, when there is potentially such a difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact”, and especially given that we are looking at these regulations for the second time and are having to correct errors from the first time. I know that the Minister will say that this is a House matter, but I would be grateful if she could confirm that she will be taking up that point with the Leader of the House to ensure that it is addressed for future statutory instruments.”
“In all seriousness, there is a route to ensure that such regulations are correct the first time around. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether any lessons have been learned in relation to that, because a bewildering scale of new secondary legislation is about to come on to the statute books for farmers and for industry. It is important that farmers and the farming community have confidence that when the House passes regulations, they have been passed after detailed scrutiny and are correct. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know, because you have probably sat through me saying this a few times before, that I am concerned that the Government still use the phraseology in its impact assessments of “no impact” and “no significant impact” as similar terms.”
“Indeed, regular watchers of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SIs will recall the debate on the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, from 21 October last year, when the same problem was brought before this House. I stress the importance of ensuring that we get such regulations right the first time around. However, I am grateful to the Government business managers for bringing this draft SI before the House, so that the thousands of people who are clearly watching this debate will know what is going on, rather than hiding it away in a dusty Committee Room, for which the viewing figures on parliamentlive.tv might not be as profound as I am sure they are for this evening’s debate.”
“When we look at the enormous volumes of secondary legislation and new regulations that will come from DEFRA in the next couple of weeks to deal with our exit from the transition period, it is important to issue against any more pollution of our statute books with bad regulation that will subsequently need to be changed. It should concern us all that bad laws have been passed, and I will be grateful if the Minister sets out what lessons have been learned from the first time the SI was considered to ensure that we are not in a similar place again. Having had to present the SI twice, I know she probably shares my frustration. The Minister knows that that is not the first time that this has happened.”
“The Opposition would like to see them in place, but we are here today because the original regulations were not properly transposed and a series of mistakes were made. That is why we are revisiting the regulations. I am of course grateful to the Minister for laying statutory instruments to correct the mistakes and omissions of the previous SIs, but passing bad laws wastes the time of everybody here and is particularly frustrating when brilliant Bills such as the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill struggle to find parliamentary time. We are using a large period on Monday evening that could have been used to pass that important legislation.”
“As we are dealing with the inspection of agricultural products, which can cross the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland a number of times in the lifespan of a food product being made, will the Minister address some of the issues that Lord Gardiner may have omitted in his response to questions in the other place about whether the planned locations of those border posts have all been identified and published, and whether staff have been fully trained and will be operational by the end of the transition period, in particular in relation to the inspection of agricultural products, which the regulations deal with? The Minister mentioned the need to have fully operable regulations by the end of the Brexit transition period.”
“The Minister was correct that a great deal of the amendments in the draft regulations seek to change the designation of “United Kingdom” to “Great Britain”. Will she reassure us that all conversations with counterparts in Northern Ireland have been successful in respect of that, and that no issues are outstanding? Looking at the debate in the other place when that point was made, Lord Goldsmith had previously stated that there are now 72 planned border posts for inspections.”
“Does that mean that if poultry meat and other products were imported from a third country, they could still be described as free range or organic and that would not be checked? Is that what enforcement of those standards means? I would be grateful if the Minister reassured us that that will not be the case. She knows my concern—I do not want to see any back doors for chlorine-washed chicken being marketed as anything else—so will she set out clearly that that is not one of those back doors? Could unregulated poultry meat be mixed with other products and given a misleading description? I do not believe that that is the case here, but will the Minister set that out? Also, the explanatory memorandum refers to the organic certifiers group having been consulted. I would be grateful if she set out whether it is now content with the regulations.”
“Lord Gardiner also told Members in the other place that the Government are working closely with the Animal and Plant Health Agency “to ensure that we have the right calibre of inspectors.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC712.] I thought that was a curious turn of phrase, so I will be grateful if the Minister sets out whether we have the right numbers of inspectors and, perhaps as hinted at by the Minister in the other place, whether they have all received the right level of training in order to be operational as well as present. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also drew our attention to the fact that the UK does not currently enforce poultry meat marketing standards.”
“—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC706.] I will be grateful if the Minister mentions that clarification briefly when she gets to her feet to conclude the debate. Will she also set out the reason for the two-year delay in the implementation of those systems, and the difference between the fruit and veg and the poultry systems? I suspect that the IT system will not be ready for 1 January 2021, but I will be grateful if she confirms that. We have been told that the Government have been engaging with businesses on a sector-by-sector basis. I am grateful for that, but may I ask what conversations the Department has had with businesses affected by these particular regulations and how they feel about them?”
“It is important that we have operable systems so that the whole framework of regulation works and people know what information is required and when it is required. As the Minister will know, her Department told the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that it has retained a two-year transition period for fruit and vegetables “in order to allow policy teams to deliver the necessary IT system changes and recruit additional HMI inspectors”, but for poultry meat the period is 12 months, “as we do not currently enforce poultrymeat marketing standards, so will need sufficient time to operationalise the regime before being in a position to conduct the associated checks.” When these SIs were debated in the House of Lords, the Minister, Lord Gardiner, apologised, saying that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs “did not provide sufficient context on checks relating to poultry meat marketing standards and this may have caused concern, but it has since been clarified”.”
“As we are discussing agriculture, let me place on the record my traditional declaration of interest: my little sister is a farmer in Cornwall. As these SIs appear to be technical and uncontroversial, we will not oppose them, but I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister is able to help with. I gave her advance notice of some of the most difficult ones, so I hope she has some good answers. British farmers and British farming matter, which is why Labour has consistently been vocal on issues relating to agriculture and food standards, and I will continue to be so today. These new regulations deal with technical matters relating to how food is sold, distributed and marketed, so forgive me for jumping into the detail right away. May I ask the Minister about the periods for bringing the systems contained in the regulations online?”
“I welcome that the Government will require a report to assess any trade deals against the standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and plant health, but this is extra scrutiny; it is not a vote on this matter. That is what we agreed and I think what should happen. The amendment the Minister has tabled only proposes that the report will be laid before parliamentary Committees, not the House itself. It will not be subject to an automatic vote; only to a circuitous and fragile route. The House will know that, for a vote to happen, the CRaG process requires that the Government, in their generosity, would award the Opposition an Opposition day to challenge the trade deal if that trade deal fell below the standards we expect, regardless of what the TAC report may say.”
“I know that there is a proposal for trade unions to sit on a small union sub-committee, but having unions—a voice of the workers in our food sector—as part of that main body would be important. The second concession that the Minister accepted was to enhance the scrutiny of trade deals, in recognition that the proposals put forward previously were inadequate. Strengthening that is supported on both sides of the House. There is more that can be done here. That is an argument that the shadow International Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and I have been making consistently, but I feel that we can go a wee bit further.”
“We know that the International Trade Secretary and the Environment Secretary have not always agreed on food standards. The truth is that I do not trust the Department for International Trade not to break any promises once this Bill is passed. It is clear that despite having one Government, we sometimes have two competing food agendas. Will the Minister confirm that discussions about the wording of the amendment will take place with the Opposition and will involve DEFRA and DIT Ministers? Will the Minister also give a commitment on the membership of the Trade and Agriculture Commission? Although it is broad at the moment, we feel it could be strengthened by an enhanced consumer voice, and by trade unions being part of it.”
“I encourage Ministers to look at such amendments the next time we introduce them, rather than arguing against them simply because of where they came from. It is important that farmers are paid. Working side by side with our nation’s farmers, we have helped to secure two key concessions from Ministers. The first is that the Trade and Agriculture Commission should be put on a statutory basis, renewable every three years. That will happen in the form of an amendment to the Trade Bill. That amendment has not yet been published, so we cannot see the words, the meaning and the effect that it will have. When will we see the Government’s Trade Bill amendment on strengthening the Trade and Agriculture Commission so that we can understand how it will work legally with the new clause in this Bill?”
“In particular, I thank Lord Grantchester, Baroness Jones and the Lords Minister, Lord Gardiner, for what has taken place. It has been a team effort, and it has included the work of the National Farmers Union and Minette Batters. The Minister was up against a hard deadline to pass this Bill because of the Government’s decision to oppose an extension of the powers in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which Labour proposed when we discussed this on 21 January. We suggested that Ministers take an extra 12 months of power so that they would not be up against a deadline, and I recall Ministers saying that that would not be necessary. It turns out that a bit of forward planning is a good thing.”
“I want Britain to be a country of high standards that respects the welfare of animals and ensures that environmental protection is baked into our food chain. We therefore continue to press Ministers to put our high food and farming standards into law. I turn to the Government’s concessions and the amendment in the Minister’s name, which puts them into action. I am glad that, after voting against attempts to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission a short time ago, the Government have changed their mind and listened to farmers, the National Farmers Union and Labour, in particular, on strengthening it. I thank Ministers for their efforts, and in particular the Farming Minister for her personal effort in trying to reach a compromise on that. I am grateful for all the work she has done.”
“I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 16B. Like the Minister, I declare an interest: my little sister is a sheep farmer in Cornwall. I thank all farmers for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic and the work they will be undertaking during the second lockdown. We have been here before, and we may yet be here again. I welcome the Government’s adoption of large parts of Labour policy since the last time we spoke about the Agriculture Bill. I have to say to the Minister that we are not quite there yet, but we are nearly there. The vote on food standards today is being followed by people in all our communities. It is a decision about what type of country we want Britain to be.”
“The duty in the Government’s new clause is to report to Parliament on the extent to which commitments in new free trade agreements relating to agriculture products are consistent with maintaining UK standards. Will that allow deals to let in imports of those products, provided that it is merely reported to Parliament, or will it enable goods produced to lower standards to be stopped from entering the UK?”
“I would be grateful if the Minister could set out where that has the same legal meaning as “equivalent to”. Many Lords had a similar concern about that and I would be grateful if she could set out the difference around what that means. I also think there is a logic to using production standards as one of the areas. I know the Government can ask the Trade and Agriculture Commission to look at things beyond what is in primary legislation, so I would be grateful if the Minister could look at whether production standards could also be used in relation to that. Will the plans for parliamentary scrutiny include deciding negotiation objectives, consultation, access to texts during negotiations, and a statutory role for the relevant Select Committees as well as the TAC?”
“I will carry on for just one moment, if I may. The Minister says that a deal can be prayed against, but what we need is a proper system of parliamentary scrutiny, not a reliance on the benevolence of any Government Minister to afford the Opposition an Opposition day. To avoid any further ping-pong, I would be grateful if the Minister could guarantee now, and furthermore say in a published ministerial statement, that the Government will not unreasonably refuse an Opposition day for that purpose, in particular when it comes to a vote on any food standards in any future trade deals. I want to press the Minister on the wording in Government amendment (a). We have spoken about this and I hope she will be able to give some clarity. The wording “consistent with” is used in relation to our own standards.”
“It showed that the arguments the Government whipped their MPs to support could be further improved, an argument made by Conservative Back Benchers, as well as Labour. I believe there are further concessions that could help to undo the final concerns on this matter. I want to see farmers paid. I want to see the Agriculture Bill put into law. I expect that many of these issues will return to us when the Trade Bill comes back to this House.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. I think that is a point the Minister should address in her remarks as well. We should be a beacon for high standards. As the Minister herself moved an amendment to the Fisheries Bill on seal protection precisely to enable our trade with the United States, which had higher legislative standards on seal protection—not on other things, perhaps—we need to make sure that that works on both sides of the Atlantic. That is a good principle that I hope the Minister will adopt. I am mindful of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so will quickly run through this. We need to put our food and farming standards into law. Farmers have a genuine and widespread concern about that, and I think it is still missing from where the Government have moved to. The movement from the Government is welcome.”
“That is a market that criminals will prey on, and I encourage the Minister to ensure that that is taken into account. Plymouth is no different from many of the places that have been mentioned so far in the debate, and there is enormous public concern that we should not find ourselves here again in six months’ time. When the Minister addresses hon. Members’ valid and well-put concerns, I encourage her to offer reassurance that all the hundreds of thousands of people who signed the petition, including 500 people in Plymouth, will not need to sign the same petition again to get another debate in order to put pressure on a Minister to enact what is a very clear and obvious instruction from the public—indeed, from the House—that we want to see pet theft taken more seriously.”
“I say to the Minister that wrapping them together in a comprehensive animal welfare law is one way to do that, and I encourage her to include puppy smuggling as part of that. When we talk about puppy smuggling, we frequently talk about animals smuggled into the United Kingdom, but there is also the reverse trend. That is especially being used at the moment to satisfy the demand of people seeking to buy an animal during the lockdown. We have heard a number of times during the debate about how pets offer such important companionship—they are part of the family. We know there has been a real increase in the value of animals during the lockdown, particularly dachshunds, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, pugs and chow chows—prices have been shooting up. The price of a dachshund has shot up by a whopping 80% since the start of the lockdown.”
“I hope that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill that has, like this debate, been seen many times before will get proper attention on Friday as a private Member’s Bill. Indeed, I have called on the Government to adopt it as a Government Bill to ensure that it has enough time, and I encourage the Minister to make sure that is the case. My neighbour, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) spoke passionately about the need to microchip cats. Indeed, just before the last general election some of us, in this same Chamber, debated the need to microchip cats. That was a compelling case then, and it remains a compelling case now. With the world in crisis, a jobs crisis looming and covid-19 taking up much of the Government’s bandwidth, how can we get animal welfare issues properly on the agenda?”
“Labour are sympathetic to the need to do more to tackle pet theft, including considering the possible changes in the law that have been spoken about so passionately across the Chamber today. There is an opportunity for Ministers to work with campaigners, because despite the reasons that have been discussed for the Government refusing to act so far—that sentences already exist and that there are criminal and sentencing guidelines—those measures are not working. This is a moment to look again at not just the words on the page of the guidelines, but how they are being implemented. They are not being implemented in a way that, I believe, carries public confidence in the measures. There is an opportunity to change that.”
“They worry about whether the animal is trapped somewhere: “Can’t they get out? Are they okay? Is there something I can do to safeguard and protect the animal?” The worry and concern eats away. The Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Lisa Cameron), spoke about the psychological torture at the moment of loss. That is what is so cruel about this crime, because it is torturous. It is a form of torture when we lose an animal along the way, and that needs to be properly reflected. These petitions are good petitions. There is an enormous opportunity to do something about the situation. We know that pets are not simply possessions.”
“Is it not covid-19?” Then there is the realisation that people love animals more than they love people sometimes. It is no surprise to me that animal welfare is at the top of our agenda, and that demands that the action follows it. As a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have hinted, when we talk about the theft of an animal we need to look at it not just in the moment of its being stolen, not just as regards the use of sophisticated machinery—as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich in reference to the theft of a number of animals—and not just as being about opportunism. We also need to think about what happens to the animal afterwards. I know that when someone loses an animal, they do not think about the economic cost; they worry about what is happening to that animal at that point.”
“A bigger change in animal welfare legislation is a theme we have seen in the past decade or so: we are recognising not just animals as little furry creatures, but their role within our families and within our society, and the values we want to attach to those animals should be reflected in the legislation that governs them. There has been a gap there, and there are opportunities to close that gap. I say to the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) that we all wish the village of Wherwell the best of luck with their endeavours in relation to finding Cleo. It is good to see so many people feeling strongly about the issue. Animal welfare has been mentioned as a topic at the top of our inboxes. When I explain that to people, there is an element of shock and surprise in their first instant reaction, “Is it not Brexit?”
“They might sit at home desperately worried about their animal, but will not want to make an appeal or burden the police with it. I say to all those people who have lost or are worried about an animal to report it. Animals in animal shelters up and down the country are waiting to be reunited with people. It is important that we encourage that so that we can get the data, as mentioned by the hon. Member, to make sure that the work is being done properly. The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) said that pets are priceless, and indeed a number of Members have spoken today about the economic value of their own animals in this regard. A law based simply on an animal’s economic value will always discount and disregard the emotional value of that animal.”
“That is a cross-party concern that was echoed right across the Chamber. The reality of it, mentioned by the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), is that only one in five animals are returned, meaning that enormous amounts of families are without their pets each and every year. That figure is important. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Kieran Mullan) talked about the importance of the data. I agree with him on that: the stretched police resource and the real pressure on the police mean that in many cases these crimes are not being properly recorded as pet theft. They are recorded as animals going missing, or simply not at all. That is especially true of certain age groups who do not want to be a burden or to bother the authorities.”
“I encourage the Minister to look at whether animal sentience and animal welfare sentencing—assuming that there is not enough time for the Bill that was spoken about; it is due to be debated on Friday, and I hope that there will be—as well as cat microchipping and the other issues can be wrapped up together in a flagship animal welfare Bill that could be in the Queen’s Speech. I think that there would be enormous public support not just on this issue but for a whole host of other animal welfare concerns if that were the case. A number of hon. Members spoke passionately and it is only appropriate that I mention some of them, because it does tell a story about what is going on. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is no longer in his place, talked about the law being suboptimal and not working.”
“One of the opportunities, which has not been spoken about in the debate so far, is that of bringing together those bits of outstanding welfare legislation for which we are still waiting. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) hinted in her remarks, there is enormous cross-party support for many of those items sitting in Ministers’ to-do trays. I think that the approach that Ministers have adopted, especially since 2015, of parcelling up animal welfare into smaller and smaller Bills, smaller issues, and dealing with them one by one is a fantastic way of gaining headlines, but it does not deal with the comprehensive nature of some of those challenges.”
“We have all heard this stated before, but it is true that the theft of a pet is not a simple matter of theft of an item, nor should it be treated as such by the law. It is the callous and criminal removal of a family member. It is kidnapping. It is something that strikes at the very heart of the family unit. Pet theft is a tragedy that should be measured more in emotional distress than in economic loss. The debate has touched on not just pet theft but a number of parallel issues relating to animal welfare and protection of animals: microchipping, animal cruelty, criminal breeding, puppy farming and the import and export of animals. I think that we should not just take one item, as a line item, to look at what can be done, but recognise that pet theft plays into a much bigger concern about the future and the welfare of our animals.”
“I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for introducing the debate with such verve. The Member whom he replaced had a similar verve when it came to animals, so there is clearly something in the way Ipswich elects people that ensures that they are animal friendly. Like others, I place on the record my thanks to the researchers and other people who have been fighting so hard on this issue for so long. That is an aspect to which I would like to return. As the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) so ably and politely put it when mentioning it to the Minister, we have been here before. No matter how good the debate has been—this has been a very good debate—it is not the quality of the debate but the pressure on the Minister to act that we need to look at.”
“Can the Secretary of State confirm that he has a plan to let food produced to lower standards into Britain if a few extra pence are charged on tariffs, meaning that our farmers will still be undercut if tariff protection is introduced as an excuse for allowing lower-quality food into our country?”
“If the Government are serious about keeping their manifesto promise to safeguard standards, they should put that guarantee into law. If that promise was good enough for the Conservative manifesto, why is it not good enough for the Agriculture Bill, this Government’s flagship piece of legislation on food and farming? I say to the Minister that refusing to put that piece of the manifesto into law raises the question as to whether thar part of the manifesto was truly meant and whether that promise can be believed.”
“In calling for food standards to be put unequivocally in law, I wish to speak not only for Labour but on behalf of the 1 million people who signed the NFU’s petition on food standards and, of course, on behalf of British farmers from Cornwall, Plymouth and Devon to the east of England, to Wales and to Scotland when I say: put high food and farming standards into law. Do it now—do it today. It may seem a long time ago, but less than a year ago the Conservatives made a pledge on food standards in their manifesto. This is how it started: “In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.” This is how it is going: our farmers risk being undercut by cheap imports from abroad within months.”
“I do not want to see Britain be the kind of country where our farmers are forced out of business, decimating our proud rural tradition. I do not think anyone in this House wants lower-quality food on our plates, but unless the Government show some leadership and back British farmers, there is a real risk that that could happen. Labour has been clear that the Bill must include legal guarantees that our high UK food and farming standards will not be undercut in post-Brexit trade deals, whether with the USA, Australia or any other country. That is because Labour backs British farmers.”
“I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 1, 11, 16 and 17, and on amendment 18 I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery. I declare an interest: my little sister is a farmer in Cornwall. I thank all farmers for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic. This is a crucial moment for British agriculture. Today, Members on both sides of the Chamber are given a choice about what kind of country we want Britain to be. Do we want to be a nation that shines as a beacon around the world, standing up for our farmers, for the welfare of our animals and for the environment? Or do we want to throw all that away, just for the vague promise of a trade deal, so that poor-quality food is served to our children, standards are undercut and carbon and animalwelfare responsibilities are exported?”
“I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me a chance to say that we back our British farmers. Tonight, they will be looking at the votes cast in this place to see whether Members of Parliament that represent farming communities, be they red or blue—these communities are represented on both sides of this House—support British farmers or choose not to do so. That will be a decision for each and every Member, but let me be clear: farmers are watching what happens in this debate tonight and what votes are cast, and their votes are not secured for the next election. Their votes are to be played for. I look forward to that competition.”
“Amendment 16, on strengthening the trade commission, and amendment 18, on food standards, are a one-two—they are a classic British double act. I do not believe that the temporary and fragile Trade and Agriculture Commission would be able to stop the International Trade Secretary, Dominic Cummings and the Prime Minister signing a trade deal with America that would include imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef. That is why we need that one-two—strengthened scrutiny of trade deals and protection for our farmers—in law.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The important thing I have taken away from my discussions with farmers in Devon and on visits to farms up and down the country is that their votes are not guaranteed. The votes of rural communities are not guaranteed and are there to be won, but they need to be won through a strong vision and through delivery. Taking votes for granted is not a good electoral strategy anywhere. We need to look at what farmers will benefit from and what will they not benefit from. I worry that leaving a back door to their being undercut in trade deals is neither a good economic strategy for our country, nor a good political strategy for those people advocating it. I expect the amendment to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission to be redrafted in the Lords, and I hope it will come back to us soon.”
“Our farmers feed the nation. The least they should expect is that their elected representatives have the opportunity to vote on whether to accept a trade deal that could devastate the economy. The Minister is right that a Bill is not required to set that up, but that means that the only thing required is a choice—and that is a choice that the Government have chosen not to make.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I agree with those concerns. British consumers have spent decades arguing for increased animal welfare in our agriculture production, and putting their faith in those brands, supermarkets and products that have higher levels of animal welfare than others. That concern exists. I want a trade deal with America, but it is really important that we do not pay for that trade deal with the livelihoods of our farmers. That is why the commission needs to be strengthened, providing extra scrutiny of standards, and we will need an amendment that locks those standards into law. I want the commission, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) hinted at in his intervention, to be put on a permanent statutory basis and to produce a report on every trade deal so that this House can vote on it.”
“We cannot take any votes for granted, and I warn Conservative Members against doing so. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition and I visited the farm of the NFU president, Minette Batters, in Wiltshire. That was our second meeting with the NFU president in a month, but the Prime Minister still refuses to meet her. I would be grateful if the Minister could pull a few strings to get the PM to meet farmers to talk about this issue.”
“I fear that, in seeking to disagree with these amendments tonight, the Government might be trying to hint at the Salisbury convention, which is that the other place should not interfere with manifesto commitments. However, the Lords are doing something different from that: they are doing a reverse Salisbury. They are asking the Government to stick to their manifesto commitments. In such circumstances, the Salisbury principle does not apply, and the Lords should ask the Commons to reconsider these amendments on food safety and on the Trade and Agriculture Commission again—and again, if necessary. Every time this House votes on these amendments, more and more farmers will be looking at the voting list to see which Members support the farmers and which have chosen not to.”