There will be no Agriculture Act in time for Brexit and this scares me

[feesh]

So, this is a Brexit problem which I am very aware of due to my work, and I suspect there are other similar issues in other fields which I’m not aware of, which is, quite frankly, terrifying.

So, if we leave the EU we also leave the Common Agricultural Policy. With the Withdrawal Agreement in place, the switchover to the UK’s new agriculture policies would have happened in a controlled and slow way.

Although, exactly what those policies are STILL hasn’t been worked out, because although various policy papers and an Agriculture Bill have been knocking around for a few months now, there has been no work done to flesh out the details.

If we leave without a deal, we crash out of the CAP overnight and there is nothing - NOTHING - in place to replace it.

What should have happened is that Parliament, given the crisis we are in, should have called off the summer recess and worked all goddam summer long to get the Agriculture Bill (and other similar bills such as the Fisheries Bill and Environment Bill) through.

But instead, we are now in the situation where Parliament will be prorogued, which means that not only do MPs have less time to deal with these absolutely vital pieces of legislation, but in fact the Agriculture Bill as it stands now will be completely WIPED because any unfinished parliamentary business is usually dropped when Parliament is prorogued. It could be carried over to the next session, but some MPs are claiming that this is unlikely to happen.

So, they will either have to start again from scratch with the Agriculture Bill or use crude statutory instruments (which are subject to less scrutiny) to manage farming in the event of no-deal Brexit.

Ditto the Fisheries Bill (we are also leaving the Common Fisheries Policy overnight). It’s terrifying.

I suspect the plan is SI's. And you are right to raise this here.

It’s frustrating that instead of sorting these things out in the time since the referendum, those responsible have put their energies into trying to subvert the referendum result. Now they finally seem to be accepting it, they are realising that they have wasted so much time. I very much doubt they will accept responsibility though.

Can you give an example of what the consequences would be of no agriculture bill? Completely unregulated farming, or just something old to fall back on?

Also interested to hear some examples of the impact of what you're describing.

Definitely concerning, so not challenging you just wanting to better understand

That's why I think HS2 should be scrapped immediately if UK leaves EU without a deal. The estimated 98 Billion can be used to ease such issues as raised by the OP.

I just had a look and the Agriculture Bill hasn't seen any action since autumn 2018 - presumably a victim of the government's lack of majority.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was based on the assumption that we would leave the EU with the WA or something similar; so I'm not sure how much use it would be in a no deal scenario?

The agriculture act covers a lot of bases. If you Google agriculture act 2019 it will come up - sorry I can't do a link right now as I'm on mobile.

Currently a lot of farmers get subsidies from the EU and this is really what keeps a lot of farms viable and afloat. If these payments stop overnight (which is the current scenario if we no deal) then a lot of farms would be non viable. A lot of farmers would go under. As well as the individual tragedy of people losing their livelihoods, this is not ideal for a country which is going to need to produce more of its own food!

AFAIK the current subsidy model supports sustainable production and environmentally friendly production.

Most of the rest of the bill is about protecting farmers economically and enabling them to trade under WTO rules.

However there is also some stuff in the bill about standards of production and the labelling of carcasses, I believe as fit for consumption or not.

I very much doubt they will accept responsibility though.

I am not holding my breath waiting for the ERG to accept responsibility.

Feesh, I am on your side, but have you considered the possibility that the lack of replacement is a deliberate policy? As a precursor to selling the UK into US vassalage for the benefit of a handful of individuals.

Definitely agree with this possibility. They can’t have just forgotten about it; Defra staff will have been all over it for months. I have friends at the conservation agencies and they have had loads of staff seconded to Defra to work on it.

There’s something sinister at play.

With regards to the effects; basically what SansaSnark said. Our entire farming model is based on the CAP; to have those payments whipped away overnight will be absolutely devastating.

The CAP has been a massive failure, and actually the introduction of the new Agriculture Bill is the ONLY good thing that I can see about Brexit - it’s actually just what is needed for environmental protection and has the power to do a lot of good and reduce the number of massive corporate farms in favour of smaller, more sustainable ones.

However, while Defra has been working hard on it, it’s hard to see what the politicians have done about it.

It’s absolutely baffling that these bills, which are so essential to a successful no deal (in so far as no deal can be a success....) have been completely left to flounder.

House of Commons Library;
15 AUG No deal Brexit:What happens to farm payments?

"The UK Government has said that if the UK leaves the EU on 31 October 2019 with no agreement in place, eligible beneficiaries will continue to receive payments under the terms of the UK government’s funding guarantee until the end of this Parliament, expected in 2022. Beneficiaries will be required to conform to the same standards as they do currently to receive payments."

researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8644

For farm payments to continue, that has to be somehow passed into UK law- they won't just magically happen, that's not how our system of government works in the UK. For farm payments to continue, this act needs to become law- and it hasn't yet.

Many of our farmers have been absolutely screwed over by this country, in my opinion. Many of them rely on their payments to make ends meet and to continue to make farming viable- I agree it's a poor system, but to take it away and replace it with nothing will cause a crash.

I believe the average income of a farmer without subsidy payments is £13,000 a year. Many farms are also heavily in debt. Many farmers will suffer if they can't export to the EU easily. Farms regularly go out of business every year in the UK, but Brexit could tip a lot of them over the edge- and once a farm is gone it's not that easy just to restart it.

Brexiteers keep saying we need to eat British and local produce, but if our farmers are left high and dry, where will this British produce come from?

until the end of this Parliament, expected in 2022

Or it could be this year if there's an election. Farmers need to plan.

The CAP has been a massive failure, and actually the introduction of the new Agriculture Bill is the ONLY good thing that I can see about Brexit - it’s actually just what is needed for environmental protection and has the power to do a lot of good and reduce the number of massive corporate farms in favour of smaller, more sustainable ones.

I was under the impression that the massive, crappy dairy and pig farms didn't get subsidies and that the smaller, environmentally sound sheep farms (for example) did. And that environmental choices like maintaining hedgerows and so on got extra EU money. I have no actual experience BTW!

It’s frustrating that instead of sorting these things out in the time since the referendum, those responsible have put their energies into trying to subvert the referendum result. There has been a huge amount of work done to try to sort these things out since the referendum result but the pieces that need to be in place (people, processes, it systems, training, etc) for them to work can't be until it is agreed what it actually means.

This solicitor's blog (April 2019) suggests that the statutory instruments are already in place to make the payments under a 'no-deal' Brexit;

"what happens to UK farmers’ right to direct payments under the CAP if we leave the EU without a deal"

"A raft of statutory instruments has recently been introduced making the necessary technical changes to the EU ‘retained’ regulations to ensure that direct payments can be delivered by UK authorities. Farmers will complete the same form and be under the same cross-compliance and greening rules as they would have been had we stayed in the EU.The difference is that those rules are now derived from UK rather than EU law."

"That is the position for 2019; everything is in place to cover a no-deal exit.From 2020 we may see some minor technical changes to BPS rules, although nothing drastic is on the cards."

www.roythorne.co.uk/site/blog/agricultural-blog/leaving-the-eu-with-no-deal-will-i-still-get-my-2019-bps-payment

(until the end of this Parliament, expected in 2022)
Or it could be this year if there's an election.

You are correct, the blog says;
"If a new government is in place by 2020 funding levels may not be maintained; that will be in the gift of the new government"

• but there's no reason to suggest that a new government would reduce the payments in the short term.

As I said in the second post on this, Clavinova I imagine they will use SIs. That means Statutory Instruments. Which are a deeply unsatisfactory way of legislating on significant issues.
I deal with that sort of legislation in my job. It is the "tidy up" after the important legislation has been properly scrutinised by Parliament.

As I said in the second post on this, Clavinova I imagine they will use SIs.
So you did - I missed that.

That means Statutory Instruments
Yes, I know.

Which are a deeply unsatisfactory way of legislating on significant issues.
Not if the same terms and conditions are carried over - until a new UK Agricultural Policy can be devised.

What's wrong with the stat instruments, I don't understand what they are, tbh.

This is a scarey time for everyone, but I really, really don't think we will leave with no deal. Boris doesn't want it any more than you or I. He has left enough time when parliament sits again to delay it. He is trying to force the eu to give further back stop concessions to get a deal through an permit us to leave with a deal. To get those concessions he must make the eu believe there is a real risk we will leave with no deal and not pay the 39 billion.

He's trying to stop parliament taking it off the table before he gets those concessions. Because parliament will absolutely take it off the table and when they do, our negotiating power is lost, and it's no different to when Teresa May was in power, he will seek an exception and parliament won't agree on any option.

So I wouldn't overly worry. His plan is not to take us out with no deal. T was never his plan. He's ensured parliament has enough time to take it off the table if they need to. But right now he's trying to get further concessions to take us out with a deal on the 31 Oct.

I wondered if BJ planned proroguing to try to provoke VoNC.

BJ always wanted to lead Tories in opposition. VoNC would make that happen.

imho, UK keeping "No Deal" prominently on table is like threatening that we'll take a poison pill if we don't get our own way (with threat that our corpse will defecate on the other guy's carpet when we die). It just makes us look unhinged in negotiations. "No Deal" gives UK zero or maybe even negative leverage in the negotiations.

I think he's going to be disappointed then. What he might have planned (if a lazy arse like him does ever plan) and what happens can be two different things. "Events, dear boy, events."

What's wrong with the stat instruments, I don't understand what they are, tbh.

Nothing wrong with them - they are documents drafted by a government department to make changes to the law. Known as secondary legislation - they create legally enforceable regulations and procedures - they are passed by committee or debated in Parliament. I suppose the criticism is that the 'no-deal' statutory instruments may have been rushed through with less scrutiny than usual;

www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/

An Act of Parliament is primary legislation.

(someone will probably come along and say I haven't explained this correctly - but I'm off to bed).

So secondary or delegated legislation (statutory instruments) are "business as usual" just like proroguing parliament is business as usual. In usual circumstances. But the present situation isn't usual circumstances.

Think of SIs' job as fleshing out the detail of Acts of Parliament. Before an SI can be made, an Act of Parliament (primary legislation) must delegate to the relevant Minister the power to make law via SIs, on specific matters identified in the Act. The Minister can then make law on those matters (nothing else). SIs are not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as primary legislation but the parent Act will usually give Parliament some degree of basic control; normally that the SI has to be "laid before Parliament", and MPs have 40 days (not including time when Parliament is prorogued) to pass a resolution disapproving/annulling it, failing which it becomes law/comes into force. Most SI's can't change primary legislation ie laws which Parliament has made. However, some SIs are made under provisions of Acts which DO allow the Minister to change either the parent Act itself, or other primary legislation Parliament has passed. These are called Henry VIII powers and they are controversial. (As Lord Judge said in 2010, when he was Lord Chief Justice, "Henry VIII was a dangerous tyrant... You can be sure that when these Henry VIII clauses are introduced they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. "Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty: it is the argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves".")

So that's normal circumstances, business-as-usual SIs. This article has a good summary of why using SIs in the present situation - ie if the Agriculture, Trade, Financial Services, Fisheries, Environment and Immigration bills don't pass before 31 October and the government turns to SIs to plug the gap - is a problem.

"If the government uses existing statutes to create statutory instruments that were not of the kind contemplated by parliament when it passed those Acts, ministers may find themselves open to legal challenges on some major policies. Additionally, the government may find it necessary to bring forward emergency legislation in the coming weeks or months.

Even if the government does all this, public bodies will find themselves making decisions based on a highly imperfect statutory landscape.

Finally, but by no means least, using SIs in this way means that major
policy changes will elude effective parliamentary scrutiny. That would undermine the sovereignty of parliament and run against the grain of some significant constitutional conventions."

www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/brexit-bills-must-be-passed-in-time/5101225.article

Proper planning for 31 October would involve getting our statute book into shape by passing those 6 bills, with proper scrutiny first, and in time for businesses and ordinary people to digest the new laws, plan and adjust. That clearly isn't going to be happening between now and 31 October.... So what if government then has to rush out a whole bunch of hastily written and unscrutinised SIs, testing an straining the limits of their powers to make secondary legislation, to try to plug the gaps? The legal uncertainty will make work and money for lawyers, but will be an utter nightmare for business, and for people trying to plan and get on with their normal lives. It's irresponsible and it undermines the rule of law.

Even Cummings wrote in one of his 57 million word essays on his blog, way back when, that any kind of Brexit requires the infrastructure to be in place before we leave. Infrastructure has to include the legal landscape. Shame he seems to have conveniently forgotten these words of wisdom...

If Farm payments continue ‘until the end of this Parliament’ then what happens if there is a general election, ie ‘this Parliament’ ends?