B961 - Agriculture and Fisheries Bill 2016 Watch

This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B961 - Agriculture and Fisheries Bill 2016, TSR Conservative and Unionist Party
A

B I L L

TO


Provide greater incentives and future success for the agriculture and fishing industries.


BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Corporation Tax abolition
Businesses in the Agriculture, Forestry and fishing sector are hereby exempt from paying corporation tax.

2 Common Fisheries and Agricultural Policy withdrawal
(1) From 1st January 2020 the UK will withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy
(2) From 1st April 2019 the UK will withdraw from the Common Agricultural Policy
(3) From April 1st 2019 the UK will deduct it’s contribution to CAP from it’s wider commitment to the EU budget

3 Fish farming
(1) From 1st January 2020 fishing for commercial purposes will be prohibited within English waters
(2) From 1st January 2020 only fish produced in licensed fish farms will be available for commercial purposes

4 Society of land development and rural settlement (SLDRS)
(1) The SLDRS will regulate the protection, sale and purchase of agricultural land in addition to overseeing a subsidiary named the Young Farmers Instillation (YFL)
(2) The Young Farmers Instillation will provide loans to young farmers with the goal of aiding start-ups for the first three years of trading
(i) Government will guarantee £0.1bn of loans which will be distributed in co-ordination with the SLDRS and participating banks
(ii) The purpose of theses loans are to provide aid for agricultural start-ups for the first three years of trading and to allow existing farmers to purchase more agricultural land
(iii) The YFI will oversee the creation of 1000 aggriculture based apprentiships
(3) The SLDRS will be overseen by the department of Energy, Environment, Food, Rural Affairs and Climate Change

5 Society of English fisheries (SEF)
(1) The SEF will regulate the protection, sale and purchase of fish farms in addition to overseeing a subsidiary named the Young Fisheries Instillation (YFI)
(2) The Young Fisheries Instillation will provide loans to young fishermen with the goal of aiding start-ups for the first three years of trading
(i) Government will guarantee £0.1bn of loans which will be distributed in co-ordination with the SEF and participating banks
(ii) The purpose of theses loans are to provide aid for Fishery start-ups for the first three years of trading and to allow existing fishermen to purchase more coastal waters suitable for fish farms
(iii) The YFI will oversee the creation of 1000 fishing based apprenticeships
(3) The SEF will be overseen by the department of Energy, Environment, Food, Rural Affairs and Climate Change
(4) SEF will ensure that fish farms adhere to all existing regulation surrounding the ethical treatment and standards of fish within the aforementioned fish farms

6 Devolution
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing policy is hereby devolved to the Scottish and Northern Irish Assemblies

7 Commencement, Extent and Short Title
(1) This Act may be cited as the Agriculture and Fishing Act 2016.
(2) This Act extends to England and Wales.
(3) This Act comes into force on 1st April 2019.

Notes
Spoiler:
Show

Withdrawal from Common Fisheries Policy

As a result of abiding by the Common Fisheries Policy the UK fishing industry has been decimated due to other EU nations being able to fish on an industrial scale within UK waters. This act returns control of UK waters back to it's constituent nations. Doing so will better protect jobs in the UK fishing industry.

Withdrawal from Common Agricultural Policy
As a result of abiding by the Common Agricultural Policy the UK makes a direct contribution of around £3.3bn to the CAP budget each year. This policy has several harmful effects in terms of distorting market prices by means of subsidy, encouraging surplus production, providing disincentives to take measures to improve efficiency, high levels of wastage and inefficient capital allocation (farmers contribute less than 2% of GDP but receive several billion in subsidies). CAP is one of the largest subsidy programmes on the planet.

http://cep.rhul.ac.uk/cep-blog/2013/...-common-a.html
http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/a.../#.VvFtnfmLSUl

Fish Farming
As a result of industrial trawling post war UK fish stocks have declined by a significant amount despite the issue being known for decades. The University of York and the Marine Conservation Society has found that the availability of bottom-living fish has since fallen by 94%. For some species the drop has been all the more remarkable as evidenced by this extract from a Guardian Article below..

"The crash has been huge for some species. From 1889 to 2007, the LPUP declined 500 times for halibut, more than 100 times for haddock, and more than 20 times for plaice, wolffish, hake and ling. Cod had declined by 87%, the study, published by the online science journal Nature Communications, found."

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...cks-uk-decline

That the peak of UK fishing hauls was in 1938 despite the advances in technology allowing larger range and potential catches tells us that the UK must restrict fishing in its waters, this bill will do that and generate jobs in the UK fishing industry.

Society of Land Development and Rural Settlement (SLDRS)
A new governing body for the protection of agricultural land, purchase and sale of agricultural land, informing people on how to get into the business, will run the Young Farmers Installation (see below). They will also offer grants and loans at low rates to those wishing to purchase more agricultural land or for those wishing to get into the industry

It's remit will ensure that the most fertile agricultural land is not spoiled or sold for non-agricultural needs.

Young Farmers Installation (YFI)
This will be about bringing more young people into the world of farming, it will make provision for vocational routes. The YFI will not just try and bring in more young people but when it does it will give grants and loans to them at low rates to help them get off the ground.

Society of English Fisheries (SEF)
A new governing body for the protection, purchase and sale of of coastline suitable for fish farms, informing people on how to get into the business, will run the Young Fisheries Installation (see below). They will also offer grants and loans at low rates to those wishing to purchase more coastline for fish farming or for those wishing to get into the industry.
It's remit will ensure that the best locations suitable for industrial fish farming are not spoiled or sold for non-fishing needs.

Young Fisheries Installation (YFI)
This will be about bringing more young people into the world of fishing, it will make provision for vocational routes. The YFI will not just try and bring in more young people but when it does it will give grants and loans to them at low rates to help them get off the ground.

Corporation Tax
A combination of the low rate of corporation tax and deductables means that revenue from corporation tax receipts in the Aggriculture, Forestry and Fishing industries amounts to just £0.3bn. It is a needless hindrance.

Costing

Abolition of UK contribution to CAP: +£3.3bn

Corporation Tax abolition: -£0.3bn
Unfunded liabilities in the form of loans: -£0.2bn

Cost to treasury: +£3bn

*This bill is an amended and combined version of two bills set before the second Great Repeal. Their primary authors were Conservative in both instances and thus approval was not sought by other parties however some credit must be given to both TSR Ukip and the TSR Liberal parties.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2573703
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2825045
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Nay.

I do wonder whether the Canon Amendment is incompatible with the Referendums section of the GD, given this essentially goes against the result of a referendum.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Nay.

I do wonder whether the Canon Amendment is incompatible with the Referendums section of the GD, given this essentially goes against the result of a referendum.
If going against EU policy explicitly is going against a referendum then we may as well remove that part of the canon amendment.
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Abstain. I don't want to vote Nay because of taking us out of the common agriculture policy, but I don't want to vote Aye either because I don't see why agricultural, forestry and fishing businesses shouldn't pay their fair share of tax.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Nay. First, I'm opposed to the policy of sections 1 and 2 in particular.

Secondly, canon indicates that MHoC CAN legislate contrary to EU law, but it does not indicate that we are free to ignore political implications of EU law. Thus, we should consider the implications this has for our EU membership, and the likelihood of pissing off powerful economies within the EU.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Undecided

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
We had a referendum on membership of the EU and voted to remain. This vote means that we accepted these policies remain in force until either we succeed in getting reform of these within the EU, or an opt out, or hold another referendum and vote to leave. As none of these apply at present, it's a Nay from me.

An appropriate motion about the Government going to the EU for modified policies, subject to details, would have my support. I would like to see these policies modified so that at the very least there is no dumping or waste of fish or other food.
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
I am all for keeping UK industries in the country (e.g. steel) but I do not see why these particular industries require extra help. Furthermore, in the scope of the entire economy, they do not actually contribute that much. I think instead, we should concentrate money on improving our tertiary sector, which is a much more important area of the UK economy.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
Abstain. I don't want to vote Nay because of taking us out of the common agriculture policy, but I don't want to vote Aye either because I don't see why agricultural, forestry and fishing businesses shouldn't pay their fair share of tax.
You have a load of exemptions already existing to get rid of then in your last few hours of submitting items because the effective corporation tax rate is already only about 10% of the normal rate.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Nay.

I do wonder whether the Canon Amendment is incompatible with the Referendums section of the GD, given this essentially goes against the result of a referendum.
Not at all. Even when not engaged in official negotiations there are a plethora of agreements reached to create/remove certain laws. This bill does not withdraw the UK from the EU, it simply assumes that we came to mutual agreement in the same way that the Ireland referendum bill a few weeks ago assumed that the Irish referendums occurred.

(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
Abstain. I don't want to vote Nay because of taking us out of the common agriculture policy, but I don't want to vote Aye either because I don't see why agricultural, forestry and fishing businesses shouldn't pay their fair share of tax.
This bill performs a significant restructuring of these sectors and the corporation tax receipts are already quite low. There is little reason to burden these people with taxation when we want more fish and food production domestically.

(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nay. First, I'm opposed to the policy of sections 1 and 2 in particular.

Secondly, canon indicates that MHoC CAN legislate contrary to EU law, but it does not indicate that we are free to ignore political implications of EU law. Thus, we should consider the implications this has for our EU membership, and the likelihood of pissing off powerful economies within the EU.
Oh the irony. I'm remembering in the 16th parliament that you Socialists essentially stole from Australian and Canadian pension funds when you nationalised without compensation. The same arguments were heard then but largely ignored.

At any rate, we are still in the EU and the Germans probably agreed with us. The French capitulated in negotiations.

(Original post by Andy98)
Undecided

Posted from TSR Mobile
The leader of the Green Party is undecided on what is the most environmentally progressive act for UK waters in Mhoc history?

(Original post by barnetlad)
We had a referendum on membership of the EU and voted to remain. This vote means that we accepted these policies remain in force until either we succeed in getting reform of these within the EU, or an opt out, or hold another referendum and vote to leave. As none of these apply at present, it's a Nay from me.

An appropriate motion about the Government going to the EU for modified policies, subject to details, would have my support. I would like to see these policies modified so that at the very least there is no dumping or waste of fish or other food.
I see your point with the second paragraph but the canon amendment does somewhat negate the need. The Mhoc is sovereign.

(Original post by Quamquam123)
I am all for keeping UK industries in the country (e.g. steel) but I do not see why these particular industries require extra help. Furthermore, in the scope of the entire economy, they do not actually contribute that much. I think instead, we should concentrate money on improving our tertiary sector, which is a much more important area of the UK economy.
It costs little and achieves a lot. You should vote Aye.
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Rakas21)
It costs little and achieves a lot. You should vote Aye.
I still not sure what it achieves though. If you inform me of some positive contributions it makes to our economy, I may be tempted to change my stance on this bill.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Quamquam123)
I still not sure what it achieves though. If you inform me of some positive contributions it makes to our economy, I may be tempted to change my stance on this bill.
Read the notes.
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Aye
0
balanced
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
aye
0
EricAteYou
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
Nay.

Many farms depends on CAP subsidies. Even with new incentives money still isn't a sure thing which could provide more disincentives and hardships.

A significant amount of policy relating to CAP is formulated in the UK and with the NFU who represent around 70% of UK farms - from this I think CAP should try to reformed from within to help benifit fisheries.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by EricAteYou)
Nay.

Many farms depends on CAP subsidies. Even with new incentives money still isn't a sure thing which could provide more disincentives and hardships.

A significant amount of policy relating to CAP is formulated in the UK and with the NFU who represent around 70% of UK farms - from this I think CAP should try to reformed from within to help benifit fisheries.
Should the European taxpayer really be burdened keeping some farms alive. Lets allow the most profitable and efficient farms to take over the weak ones.

I certainly can't agree with that notion. Infact, i believe this sums up your attitude in this post..

0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
Nay - as an MP from an agricultural background I must point out that this only encourages corporations to expand in the agribusiness and further pressurise small farmers.
The CAP is essential for not just the UK's but the EU's agribusiness to thrive, and although it has its faults it is the EU's best policy - as well as its worst, for reasons of subsidy.
This would only serve to exacerbate the problems we in the agribusiness sector are already plagued with.

So you're going to make it worse by giving young farmers LOANS which they will then struggle to pay off since they will not be able to compete with foreign farmers who will produce at a far lower price because there have been NO SUBSIDIES committed to the industry.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by EricAteYou)
Nay.

Many farms depends on CAP subsidies. Even with new incentives money still isn't a sure thing which could provide more disincentives and hardships.

A significant amount of policy relating to CAP is formulated in the UK and with the NFU who represent around 70% of UK farms - from this I think CAP should try to reformed from within to help benifit fisheries.
If a business is not competitive without substantial and growing continuing subsidies, note that our CAP payments represent over a 30% subsidy to farmers, then they should not be in business. CAP just drives up both taxes and food prices anyway. And Rakas beat me to the Reagan quote.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
Absolutely, this is a great move forward for UK businesses in these sectors.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by DMcGovern)
Nay - as an MP from an agricultural background I must point out that this only encourages corporations to expand in the agribusiness and further pressurise small farmers.
The CAP is essential for not just the UK's but the EU's agribusiness to thrive, and although it has its faults it is the EU's best policy - as well as its worst, for reasons of subsidy.
This would only serve to exacerbate the problems we in the agribusiness sector are already plagued with.

So you're going to make it worse by giving young farmers LOANS which they will then struggle to pay off since they will not be able to compete with foreign farmers who will produce at a far lower price because there have been NO SUBSIDIES committed to the industry.
While i'm a fan of small business and have made some allowances for them in this bill, what your saying is that this bill will encourage larger corporations to use their economies of scale to lower consumer prices (since the food market is very competitive with low margins). That's not a bad thing since we have the competition commission to prevent anything extreme happening.

Subsidies in the US and Australia are 50-75% lower than the EU (the only place comparable in subsidy levels to the EU is China) and yet they are net exporters of food while the UK has been a net importer for decades. There seems little evidence that subsidy has greatly increased our ability to feed ourselves.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

- Have you considered distance learning for any of your qualifications?

Yes! I'm on a distance learning course right now (12)
8.51%
Yes, I've thought about it but haven't signed up yet (16)
11.35%
No, but maybe I will look into it (39)
27.66%
No and I wouldn't consider it (74)
52.48%

Watched Threads

View All