This has been an interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will understand my point when I say that, as a former Assembly Member for Cardiff Central, I did not think I would be leading on a debate on agriculture—at one point I still had a farm in my constituency, but they built on it.
I learned a lot about agriculture as a Minister in two Governments. I learned about the concept, which comes up time and again, that farming is a way of life. It is a way of life wherever you are a farmer. I have lived in East Anglia and it even applies there where you have the grain barons, because if your farm fails, you lose your home. That is what makes things different from most other occupations. All speakers, with the exception of the Minister, have echoed my concerns.
I want to pick up a couple of points very briefly. Clause 41 refers to a specific amount of money for subsidy below which you will not have transparency. That amount of money is astronomical in relation to subsidies for farming and totally inappropriate. If those figures are used, there will be no transparency even for subsidies of the largest order for the largest farms. That cannot be right.
This is, of course, a probing amendment and I am specifically seeking information on how the special circumstances of agriculture will be dealt with. I hope the Minister will send us some very long letters to explain the situation because there are so many complexities and contradictions in the Government’s position. The EU treated subsidy as exceptional, in general, and something that must be justified, but it treated agricultural subsidy as normalised within a strict policy structure. The WTO treats agricultural subsidy as normalised, but the Government are now apparently applying the approach where subsidy is exceptional for agriculture. That is the basis of the seven principles. You cannot apply those seven principles in the same way that you do to other industries and businesses. Agriculture is not subsidised because of market failures; it is subsidised to ensure supply of a basic requirement of life at a reasonable price. The complexity of the Government’s situation is made worse because of the uncertainties already being felt within the market from the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand which provide additional hurdles.
6.45 pm
The Minister has emphasised the importance of consistency, but you cannot apply consistency across very different agricultural landscapes and climates. Can she please write to us and provide information on whether the consultation responses were broken down by the Government across geographical location? I am not just talking about the percentage of responses
from Wales or Scotland; I think it should also be broken down across England, because hilly and mountainous areas in the north of England face the same issues.
The Minister spoke about legacy schemes. That reassurance is helpful in the short term but not in the long term, because farming develops and schemes will have to change. How will it be regarded by the Government if a devolved Government decide to base a new scheme entirely on a legacy scheme? If you do not do that, of course you will get allegations that you are applying unfair sets of rules—one set of rules to one and another set of rules to the other. But if you do that, you are immediately lapsing into a system where subsidy of agriculture is to be the norm.
Can the Minister also write to me to explain whether the processing of agricultural products—which is of course an essential part of developing an agricultural market—will be included and given the same rules as the rest of agriculture?
Will the Minister please now accept that, as written, this Bill just does not fit agriculture? I can see she wishes to respond.