Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1312),

laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The technical amendments made by this instrument will ensure that retained EU law remains operable upon leaving. These provisions mainly fall into the category of changes that are needed because EU regulations have changed since the end of March, when previous statutory instruments were laid before Parliament. This new SI is therefore needed to reflect the changes that have taken place in EU policy. However, this SI makes no new policy changes to the effect of the retained EU law, and no change in the way that the fishing industry conducts its activities is expected as a result.

The amendments extend and apply to the United Kingdom. Fisheries management in the UK is largely devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These instruments have been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent. This ensures a common approach that respects the existing devolution settlement and maintains the existing system of fisheries management, providing certainty to the fishing sector and to business.

The regulations amend three pieces of retained EU legislation. First, they make updates to the technical conservation regulation, which outlines technical rules that fishing vessels must adhere to for conservation purposes. That regulation is essential for the management of fisheries in the UK, wherever those vessels may be, and of non-UK vessels in UK waters. The technical conservation regulations were previously made operable in retained EU law through an EU exit statutory instrument made in March 2019. However, in July, the EU introduced revisions to those regulations. The UK was engaged in the process of revising the technical conservation regulations, which make important changes—for instance, to support the implementation of the landing obligation. UK fishermen are already working to those new standards, which are important for the protection of our marine environment.

Secondly, this statutory instrument completes the transfer of the North sea multi-annual plan into retained EU law. This establishes long-term plans for the recovery and sustainable management of mixed fisheries in the North sea. The bulk of the legislation was previously made operable in UK law, but this statutory instrument completes the process by bringing across legislative powers necessary to introduce or amend the details of the plan in future. Those powers were previously conferred upon the European Commission, but will now be exercisable by UK Administrations.

Thirdly, the SI makes necessary changes to ensure that the western waters multi-annual plan is made operable in retained EU law. This establishes a long-term plan for the recovery and sustainable management of mixed fisheries in the western waters, of which the UK forms a part. Just as we did for the North sea multi-annual plan, which was published and implemented earlier, we are making this plan operable now that it has been published and implemented.

As a consequence of changes made to the EU regulations since previous instruments were passed, the instrument also amends previous marine and fisheries EU exit SIs: the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019. Such minor changes include the revocation of certain regulations relating to regional fisheries management organisations and a community fisheries control agency; as those regulations have been revoked at EU level, they will no longer form part of retained EU law. They also include a minor change to the amendments to the North sea discard plan, which has since been amended by the Commission. This ensures that our amendments to retained EU law are up to date with the legislation that, on exit day, will be transferred to the UK statute book via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

There were also a number of errors in the previous instruments that are being corrected by this statutory instrument, such as a typographical error in a reference to “member state”, in the singular form, when it should have been “member states”, in plural. These minor typo- graphical errors would not have stopped the instruments functioning correctly, but given that we now have the luxury of time, as it were, as a result of the extension of exit day from the end of March, we thought it prudent to take this opportunity, since we were bringing forward an SI anyway, to make these minor corrections.

We have also corrected a handful of other small errors in previous amendments made to the annual EU total allowable catch and quota regulation. In particular, we have amended provisions relating to commercial and recreational bass fishing, to ensure that the approach intended by the regulation—namely that the provisions in question continue in force into 2020 until they are replaced with new regulations—is actually implemented, and to ensure that these provisions do not just fall at the end of the year.

Finally, this instrument makes minor changes to the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to amend an EU regulation on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. In particular, it removes an unnecessary power to make regulations about animals not previously covered by the regulations’ annexes, because there was already a power to amend the annexes themselves. Therefore, the power is not necessary. Similarly, a second amendment to a technical rule for transporting horses has been removed, because it duplicated an amendment made by a different instrument.

As I said earlier, these are technical changes to reflect the fact that EU law has changed since the end of March. As I also said earlier, we have consulted with the devolved administrations and secured their consent to make these changes on a UK-wide basis. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I thank the shadow Minister for his kind words on my reappearance in the Department. He followed them with a blizzard of questions, which I shall try my best to address. I also want to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), our only PPS in the Department, is more than capable of doing the work of many, such is his ability. Indeed, he spends most of his time in Committees such as this.

The shadow Minister is aware, as all hon. Members are, that the central principle behind the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is one of continuity. It explicitly is not about changing, making or consolidating policy. It is about simply making the changes necessary to make retained EU law operable. The idea is that on day one after we leave the EU, we should have a statute book that is as close as possible to that of the day before. Only after we have left can we, through primary legislation, debate properly in this House what future policy should be, and what changes we want to make. In the 2018 Act, the emphasis is on continuity. That is why there is no consolidation planned. EU law is what it is—a hotch-potch of all sorts of regulations—and there is a lot of complexity in making those operable. However, I know that the National Archives will be publishing all the SIs that have been tabled. It is working on various products to ensure that those are accessible and available to people. The most important thing that we can do for people in the fishing industry, and any other industry, is give the reassurance that there will be a functioning statute book on day one after we leave that is as close as possible to what came before. Policy change and divergence thereafter is a matter for primary legislation.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

With my colleagues’ permission, I ask a question as Opposition Whip for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Could the Minister enlighten us about said primary legislation? Can he give us a hint, or a raised eyebrow, or perhaps suggest when we might see the Fisheries Bill again? He and the shadow Minister put a lot of work into it, as did officials, and as he says, the fishing industry needs some certainty to work towards.

[George Eustice]

I was just about to come on to the issue of the Fisheries Bill. A little under a year ago, we were debating it and taking it through Committee, perhaps in this very room. I had hoped that we would stick to the plan to leave the European Union at the end of March; that the House would get behind the withdrawal agreement that the previous Prime Minster had put together; and that we would then be able to get the Fisheries Bill through Parliament. We would have had an implementation period, and then the provisions of the Bill would have taken over. In the event, there was not a majority in the House for that. We all know what happened: this House has been in a muddle for a period of six months, unable to agree anything. It has been incapable of saying what it does not want and unable to say what it does want. That has made it very difficult to introduce any other Fisheries Bill.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

No, I shall finish my point. The Fisheries Bill was unable to progress because Parliament failed and refused to progress leaving the European Union, and in fact voted to delay leaving. We now have a new Session, and the Fisheries Bill is in the Queen’s Speech, so there will be a Fisheries Bill in this Session of Parliament. That answers that question.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised a question that had been highlighted by Greener UK, namely why article 21(c) had not been brought across. The reason for that is that article 21(c) includes the concept of member states making joint recommendations for the European Union to consider. Once we are outside the EU, we will not be making joint recommendations to it; we will be controlling and deciding these things for ourselves, so the very concept of a joint recommendation does not make sense. In so far as there were other elements of article 21 that did make sense and did function in a national context, those were brought across.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the point about regional co-operation. To be clear, this statutory instrument brings across the conclusions of the North sea multi-annual plan and the western waters multi-annual plan, but it does not bring across the architecture for that co-operation, because once we cease to be a member state, under EU law, we cannot be a member of those particular groups. At the moment, Norway is not a member of those groups; it sometimes attends as an observer, but it gives its input to the groups on the North sea through different mechanisms.

How we will co-operate with our European neighbours will be an issue for a future partnership. If we can get across the current withdrawal agreement, which the Prime Minister has brought back, and get the deal agreed, the plan is to have a new partnership agreement with the European Union by next July. That can cover all manner of things, including how we would co-operate on a regional basis. The issue of the architecture for regional co-operation is a matter for our future partnership agreement with the EU. However, coming back to my point, the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to ensure that on day one after leaving, we have an operable law book, and that retained EU law is operable. The changes to regulations that the EU has introduced since March are now EU law, and we should therefore make them operable. That is the primary purpose of this SI.

The hon. Gentleman asked about impact assessments, and complained about the use of the phrase,

“no, or no significant, impact”.

I am told that the term has particular relevance to the procedures of the House, and is terminology that it relies on.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about what other types of errors there were. They are all similar. In one case the word “fishing” was used, where it should have been “fisheries”. In another case, the text said “ICCA” when it meant ICCAT—the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. In one case, the Roman numeral “ii” should have been “a(ii)”. In one instance, “must” was used, but it was felt that “shall” was better. I do not want to bore hon. Members any further by going into that, but the hon. Gentleman asked a question that suggested that what we meant by “errors” was suspicious, and I just wanted to clarify the point.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if Parliament got behind the Prime Minister’s deal. He will be aware that all the statutory instruments that we are talking about and taking through should be seen in the context of no-deal preparations—preparations for what would happen if we came out without an agreement. A withdrawal agreement Bill will be published later today and will have its Second Reading tomorrow. A deal will include various saving provisions to ensure that we can have an implementation period. The regulations are predominantly about no-deal preparations. In the event of a deal being done, the provisions of the implementation period come into effect.

The hon. Gentleman asked about pulse trawling. He will recall that this was a matter we discussed in the Fisheries Bill. In a previous SI, we chose to ensure that the scientific exemption could not continue for EU vessels, and that will remain the case if we come out of the EU in a no-deal scenario. The European Union has since made other changes to phase that out by 2021, and has already significantly reduced the number of vessels that are licensed.

Finally, we discuss bass provisions every year. They form part of the total allowable catch and quota regulations, which would always stay in place until the new TAC and quota regulations take effect, typically at the end of January. The way the original SI had been drafted meant that they would have ended at the end of December, which meant that there would have been an air gap. The draft regulations simply ensure that the provisions will remain extant until replacement provisions are put in place.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications. In relation to the intricacies of fishing in Northern Ireland and the new border down the Irish sea, would the Minister be prepared to write with further detail, in particular about the paperwork required for a GB boat landing in Northern Ireland, and vice versa, and around the concerns that the industry has regarding red diesel?

[George Eustice]

Rather than write, let me touch on that now. The concerns on red diesel are a separate agenda being pursued at the World Trade Organisation about removing subsidies. We believe that, although we want to remove subsidies from fishing, red diesel is not the type of subsidy that we are referring to, so we very much support the continued use of red diesel for our fishing fleet.

The withdrawal agreement—the Prime Minister’s deal—does not have any implications for the fishing industry per se, because it is more about customs than fishing opportunities and fish being landed. It is already the case that a catch certificate is required when crossing borders, whether a boat is coming from the Irish Republic to the UK or vice versa. Beyond that, there will not be additional changes for the fishing industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1312).

Draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

This is one of a number of statutory instruments relating to our European Union exit that we have had the pleasure of debating. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby took a number of them through Parliament during his tenure of my position, and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has enjoyed the Committees on them so much that he volunteered to sit on more of them.

The instrument that we are debating amends retained EU law and domestic legislation on the common agricultural policy—including the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, also known as the CMO—to ensure their smooth transition into a domestic regime. The technical and operability amendments made in the draft regulations will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of legislation that would otherwise be inoperable following exit from the EU. The regulations will ensure that we continue to operate schemes for important farming sectors, and that we maintain the standards they set; that will support confidence in our farmed goods in domestic and international markets.

The draft regulations are technical in nature and limited in scope. They make changes to ensure that existing standards and processes continue in the UK. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that they will have limited impact on businesses and other stakeholders. The regulations amend CAP and CMO functions in EU legislation that are carried out by the European Commission so that they are instead carried out in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State—or, in one instance in relation to contractual negotiations in the dairy sector, by the Competition and Markets Authority. This will enable those legislative and administrative functions to continue to be used after the UK leaves the European Union.

The EU regulations concerned cover the following areas of the CMO: conversion rates for rice; certification and importation of hops; sugar sector agreements; milk and milk products; import and export of certain proteins derived from egg white or whey; export refunds; adjustments in the common customs tariff; producer organisations and co-operation; and the import of eggs. The EU regulations confer various functions on the Commission, so that it can develop the technical details required to operate a specific regime.

Examples of that include being able to update the legislation when necessary to take account of amendments in so-called CN—combined nomenclature—codes, which are used to identify tariffs in customs; establishing conditions for the fixing of export refunds; specifying certain forms to be used; setting financial limits or prices; defining programme eligibility criteria; setting deadlines; and facilitating producer co-operation and supporting producer organisations. If we were to leave the European Union without making these amendments, the legislative functions in the EU regulations would become inoperable, so this instrument simply uses powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to correct that deficiency to enable the necessary functions currently exercised by the EU to be exercised by the Secretary of State instead.

The draft instrument also makes a minor correction to a domestic EU exit statutory instrument, namely the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to clarify that the power contained therein, concerning contracts in the sugar sector, rests with the Secretary of State, since it is a reserved power.

The draft regulations refer to reserved policy areas, but notwithstanding that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has engaged with the devolved Administrations on its approach to CAP legislation under the 2018 Act, and on this particular instrument, to familiarise them with the legislation ahead of laying it before Parliament. DEFRA has worked collaboratively with the devolved Administrations and has fully involved them in discussions on the regulations. We consulted them extensively to ensure that the legislation that the regulations amend continues to work.

DEFRA has also engaged with stakeholder umbrella organisations and has met regularly with the Rural Payment Agency’s industry partnership group to update the farming and land management sectors on the Government’s plans for the UK’s exit from the European Union, including the approach to retained EU law.

These regulations, in common with many others under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, are really about changing references to EU institutions to references to the UK Secretary of State. Such changes are minor and technical in nature, but they are important to ensure that this body of regulations remains operable. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I shall try first to deal with as many as possible of the issues that are pertinent to the statutory instrument. I shall then touch on some of the broader, connected issues that have been raised.

First, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud, is right. The CMO is a complex body of law, so in the context of this exercise it has in some ways been the gift that has kept on giving. He will, however, be pleased to know that we are reaching the end of the process. There is light at the end of the tunnel. I understand that there are just two more items left relating to the CMO and, I think, 12 more left in total linked to EU exit; so we have a few more to do, but we are nearing the end of this process.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the issues are ones that we had to revisit, or whether they were not dealt with originally. There was one exception, which I alluded to, which was a change of a power that was drafted originally as though it were devolved, when it was actually reserved. The vast majority were secondary and tertiary legislation—implementing acts and delegated acts from the Commission. They were deprioritised as not absolutely essential for March, but they were things that we intended to get to.

The right hon. Member for North Durham and the shadow Minister asked what we mean by “technical” and were suspicious of my intent. Let me give a few examples. The vast majority of the changes are about replacing EU-centric terms such as “the Union” and “the European Union” with “the UK” to make provisions operable. We are also replacing “Commission” with “Secretary of State”, so that there is an authority to go to. It is really a matter of making sure that there are UK bodies that can exercise functions currently exercised by the EU, since the EU will no longer be exercising them.

That links to the point about impact assessments and what

“no, or no significant, impact”

means. The purpose of all the EU exit statutory instruments is to keep everything exactly the same. I know many Members of the House would like to keep things so much the same that we do not even leave the European Union, but these particular regulations ensure that when we do leave, all the same procedures can continue to operate. The real cost to business would be if we left whole functions and bodies of law with which they are familiar to become inoperable and no longer work; that would have consequences. By ensuring that systems are operable, we give businesses the continuity that they seek, and we ensure that we have a functioning statute book from the beginning.

The shadow Minister asked about the position of the Northern Ireland SI and why that had been dropped. I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was unable to clear it in time for today’s debate, which is why it will probably be debated instead on Monday next week.

To return to the technical issues, the types of things dealt with in the instrument are regulations on conversion rates for rice. We are talking about an assumed rate—about x amount of rice flour coming out of x amount of rice milled. An assumption is made about that for the purpose of an import licensing regime. I assure the right hon. Member for North Durham that these things are very technical. In the sugar sector, we have an arrangement at the moment whereby there are some exemptions in competition law to allow the National Farmers Union to corral a collective of sugar beet growers to work with British Sugar, and a collective bargaining system decides the price of sugar for a given year. That enables the Secretary of State to make any changes that they might need to make to keep the sector operable. If the NFU decided that it did not want to do that role anymore, but we decided that we would still like a collective to do that, we would have the option of changing that.

The hon. Member for Rhondda asked about the import of eggs. This relates to article 30 of EU regulation 589/2008. The provision simply confers power on the Secretary of State to make determinations of equivalence on marketing standards as a prerequisite for the import of eggs. We allow eggs to be imported only if they meet our marketing standard, which is currently an EU marketing standard. If in future a third country were to meet that standard, which is set out separately in law, there would need to be a body that attests to the fact. That is a power that the Secretary of State must have in future, as the EU will no longer be able to do that for us.[Official Report, 5 November 2019, Vol. 667, c. 7MC.] Again, that is a very technical thing around determinations of equivalence on marketing standards.

There is a wider issue with eggs: some egg producers are concerned that they might be exposed to competition from other countries, such as Ukraine, under a proposed tariff suspension. Some might also be concerned about their exports. We do not export a huge amount of eggs, but we export poultry meat. Those issues are perhaps for another day; I am sure we will have discussions on tariff rate schedules and so on in the future.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked whether we can improve standards. When we have passed the Agriculture Bill, we will have in place the primary legislation that is needed to change and improve these types of processes, but not until then. He will understand that the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to bring across, warts and all, the existing EU system. It is not about changing things, but about continuity, and the regulations seek to preserve continuity wherever they can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor also asked about the devolved Administrations. When we leave the European Union, there will be huge scope for the devolved Administrations to have new powers over their agriculture policy. Agriculture is generally devolved policy, so they will have a new, additional set of powers that they do not have now, as those powers are now exercised by the EU. This statutory instrument is specifically about reserved powers relating to competition law, international trading standards and the like. All the powers set out in the regulations are reserved, and would remain reserved under our devolution settlement, even after we have left the European Union.

I hope that I have addressed as many of the problems and issues raised as possible, and I hope that the Committee will support the statutory instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.

This statutory instrument amends retained EU law and domestic legislation on the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products—also known as the common market organisation, or CMO—to ensure a smooth transition to a domestic regime. It also makes minor amendments to retained EU law relating to support for rural development and the maritime and fisheries fund.

The regulations are among those that were deprioritised prior to our planned exit at the end of March, because the bulk of the CMO rules that govern the existing schemes, and the vast majority of the details of them, were fixed and addressed in previous instruments. These regulations address the finer details of the schemes, in particular their administration. It was judged that it was not critical to deliver them by March, but the luxury of time, due to the delay in leaving the European Union to 31 October, means that we have the chance to get the job done and return to some of those issues.

The instrument is therefore technical in nature and limited in scope, as it amends the technical details of the schemes in the CMO, rather than the framework itself. We are upholding standards and maintaining processes; it makes appropriate corrections to ensure that those standards and processes continue to operate in a UK context. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that they will have a limited impact on business and other stakeholders.

We have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on the instrument to ensure that the legislation that it amends continues to work while, obviously, respecting the devolution agreements. Most areas covered by the instrument are devolved, with powers transferring to the devolved Ministers. In many cases, the Secretary of State can act on behalf of the devolved Administrations should they give their consent. In one or two areas relating to enforcement, Wales has chosen to introduce its own statutory instruments, for example in relation to the administration of an apiculture —beekeeping—scheme and some of the design elements of a school milk scheme.[Official Report, 4 November 2019, Vol. 667, c. 6MC.]

Some of the functions amended by the instrument that are currently carried out by the European Commission could be exercised in ways that are reserved, such as where they affect trade, or devolved, so we have worked with the devolved Administrations in those cases. We have agreed an approach that respects the devolution settlements but ensures that those functions can be carried out by the appropriate public authorities in the UK after exit, whether that is the UK Government or the devolved Administrations.

The CMO sits in pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy and was set up as a means of meeting its objectives, particularly to stabilise markets, ensure a fair standard of living for agricultural producers and increase agricultural productivity. The main CMO policy areas covered by the regulations can be broadly categorised as aid schemes for fruit and vegetables, and for milk in schools; apiculture aid schemes; marketing standards for olive oil, eggs, poultry, meat and wine; import and export licensing; and the provision of information and notifications.

The changes made by the instrument will ensure the continued operability of existing regulations, largely by replacing references to “the EU” or “member states” with alternative references to “the UK” or “the relevant authority”. The approach when amending retained EU law has been to keep the effect of that legislation as close to the current system where possible.

The instrument also contains provisions relating to rural development and maritime and fisheries legislation, which governs the operational programmes through which payments are made. These programmes were prepared either by the United Kingdom as a whole or by the devolved Administrations and then agreed with the Commission. There are currently four development programmes and one maritime and fisheries programme operating in the UK, providing support to the sectors for the 2014 to 2020 programme.

The instrument makes six minor amendments to the rural development legislation, four of which also concern funding for maritime and fisheries. It omits two references to member states and amends references to Union legislation, and it omits two powers that the Commission has to make secondary legislation where these are now redundant. It transfers from the Commission to appropriate authorities in the UK a power to make secondary legislation concerning the models to be used when reporting on financial instruments. Finally, this instrument also revokes two pieces of retained EU legislation relating to support for the olive oil and table olive sectors, as this legislation will no longer be needed in the UK after EU exit since we do not produce those particular crops.

We consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on preparing this statutory instrument and have their consent to lay it. I should say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also undertook targeted stakeholder engagement from November 2018 onwards on the amendments contained in the EU exit statutory instruments so far as they relate to food, as required under article 9 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament.

In conclusion, these regulations make changes to ensure an operable legal framework for the CMO and rural development and maritime and fisheries programmes, which support the work of farmers and deliver continuity. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will be brief, Mr Gapes, and I will try to address all of the points in turn.

The shadow Minister bemoans the fact that, yet again, we are having to discuss another complex and technical statutory instrument relating to the CMO. I hope to get to the end of the process too. I cannot guarantee that there will not be more of these SIs coming down the line; I am sure there will be more. Whatever our views on Brexit, we are all condemned to relive the groundhog day of Brexit debate until we finally get Brexit done and resolve the situation.

Many of the SIs that the shadow Minister has debated in recent weeks, although not this one, will have to be debated again because things have moved on, the EU has changed something over the summer or the dates referred to in the original SI are no longer valid. A lot of the current wave of SIs are a consequence of the dither and delay that Parliament demonstrated in deciding not to proceed with our exit from the EU at the end of March.

The shadow Minister asks about pillar 2 expenditure. We have agreed to keep funding on agriculture, including the pillar 2 schemes, at exactly the same level until the end of this Parliament; as he will know, that will be in 2022. In addition, the Treasury has guaranteed that the current schemes will continue to operate and to accept bids up until 2020, and the agreements entered into will be honoured for their full lifetime. For example, a five-year or 10-year scheme under the agri-environment schemes would be supported for the duration, even though we will have been outside the European Union for some years.

The shadow Minister asks about Scotland, which does not get a mention. That is because Scotland has been happy with these regulations. The body of regulations was made in co-operation with all the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked why Wales has chosen a couple of areas in which to have its own SIs. That comes down to an element of its devolved settlement; there are some areas that it prefers to do itself and that is its choice. In Scotland’s case, it was content to know that the powers are appropriate for Scotland to act through this SI. To save the hassle of having to draft the same types of SIs over and over again, it made sense for the UK Government, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, to do this on behalf of everyone.

Finally, the shadow Minister asked about olives. The CMO is a complex body of law that has to be written for the whole EU; it is a one-size-fits-all body of law. That means that we end up with lots of provisions that are not relevant to the UK. We have changed the reference about producer organisations for people who produce olives or table olives; we do not produce or grow olives or table olives in this country, so that reference is redundant. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the provisions relating to the marketing standards around olives have been brought across and made operable in the way he would expect.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked how we might diverge over time. I have to say to her that that will be for the Scottish Government to decide. The Scottish Government will no longer have to sit on their hands, awaiting orders from Brussels about what they can and cannot do. They will have power—the power to act and the power to design schemes that they think are right for Scotland.

Having wrestled with some of these schemes over a number of years, I can say that the EU schemes are far from perfect. In so far as we may—all of us—choose over time to diverge from the EU schemes, it will be to make them better, to make them more effective and to make them deliver for farmers and fishermen. I can give the hon. Lady the example of the fruit and vegetable regime, which is an EU regime that is poorly drafted and often ends up with litigation, both in Scotland and in England, and a complete muddle. We could improve on it over time.

We have examples of some of the local area groups— the LEADER groups—that are bound in completely unnecessary bureaucracy, having to keep all sorts of records, and the EU taking issue with the way we have checked whether they are VAT-registered or not. There is lots and lots of bureaucratic nonsense that can stand in the way of these schemes and really everybody accepts that it is unnecessary. If we talk to the people who have to try to administer these schemes, I think they would welcome a breath of fresh air and more of a common-sense approach. However, it will be for Scotland to decide whether it wants to do that, or whether it wants to stick slavishly to what has been inherited from the European Union.

Finally, I will address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. He is right that the purpose of this SI and all similar SIs introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to provide continuity. This is not an area where we are trying to change policies in any dramatic way, apart from omitting things that are not relevant to the UK. It is all about continuity, and the power to change and to diverge from these measures will be set out in the agriculture Bill; we have had a dry run of that already, as the shadow Minister pointed out.

[Deidre Brock]

There were a couple of questions that perhaps the Minister has not had a chance to answer yet. I wondered about the support schemes for fishers and farmers diverging from the EU schemes. I asked whether those currently receiving that support will all continue to receive it, at a level that is at least equal to what they currently receive. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an intimation of the Government’s intentions there.

[George Eustice]

We have set out that we will not change the budget at all until 2022. Within that, however, and again this would be an issue that Scotland would be able to take a different view on, the UK Government—the English Government for English farmers—have already set out our intention to start diverging from the so-called basic payments scheme, probably from around 2021, and to gradually phase it down and replace it with a new type of support system built around agri-environment payments and support for different approaches to livestock husbandry, for instance. So we have set out our approach there, but the funding guarantees that exist are the Government guarantees to keep the budget the same until 2022.

[Deidre Brock]

Could we have a wee bit of clarity on that, because quite often people say “until 2022”, but of course that is currently the date for the next election? We do not know the future; we do not know what the next few weeks will bring. I have also heard it said by various Ministers that it might be until 2022 or the next general election. Can the Minister clarify which of those it is, or say if it is actually both?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady is very experienced, so she will know that a manifesto commitment lasts for the duration of the Parliament in question. That may be until 2022, or it may be earlier. She will appreciate that this is not an appropriate place for me to start talking about the next Conservative manifesto; there are other and brighter brains than mine working on those issues. It will be for all parties to decide what level of support they want to indicate they will give to these schemes in their next manifesto, if indeed they want to give any sort of indicative figure at all; that will be a choice that every party has.

I return to the final points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. As I said, the power to change this measure will be contained in the agriculture Bill. It will have specific clauses to give us the power to modify retained EU law, which would include modifications to improve any of the pillar 2 schemes that we choose to improve. The moment that the agriculture Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have the power through secondary legislation to start the business of improving the common agricultural policy that we have inherited.

I hope that I have been able to address many of the Committee’s concerns, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Agriculture and Fisheries Council takes place in Luxembourg on 14 and15 October.

As the provisional agenda stands, the main item for fisheries will be fixing the fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea for 2020. Member states will also discuss the regulation on the European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF) for which a preliminary agreement on the proposal, a partial general approach (PGA), is sought in Council. Ministers will also exchange views on the annual EU-Norway consultation for 2020 and on the 22nd annual meeting of the international commission for the conservation of Atlantic tunas (ICCAT), which will be held in Palma de Mallorca on 18-25 November 2019.

In the field of agriculture the main focus will be the state of play on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package. Member States will also exchange views on the EU Forest Strategy post-2020 followed by a presentation by the commission and an exchange of views on stepping up EU action to protect and restore the world’s forests. The Commission will also brief member states on the market situation.

There are currently five items scheduled under “any other business”:

The presidency will brief Ministers on the outcome of the European bioeconomy scene 2019, which was held in Helsinki on 8-10 July;

The Slovenian delegation will brief on the outcome of the Ministerial conference “Strengthening the Generation and Transfer of Knowledge for the Progress of Agriculture and the Rural Areas", which took place in Ptuj, Slovenia on 23 August 2019;

The Italian delegation will provide information on the serious damages caused by the Asian stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) to the fruit and vegetables sector;

The commission will give a state of play on African swine fever; and

The commission will provide a state of play on the major issues within food safety.

[HCWS1851]

Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1229).

This statutory instrument was made under the urgent made affirmative procedure. That is because it supports the UK’s application to the European Commission for third-country listed status for animal health purposes. That application will be considered at a meeting of the EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, or SCoPAFF, due to take place on 11 October.

While we are working hard to secure a deal with the EU, we should prepare for all scenarios, including that the EU would not accept any request for an extension or that the terms of any extension would be unacceptable to the UK. The European Commission considered the UK’s third-country listing application at a meeting of the relevant SCoPAFF committee on 9 April, based on the relevant animal health legislation in place on that date. The UK was able to assure the Commission that all relevant legislation had been made, and member states voted unanimously to list the UK as a third country.

Following the article 50 extension, another vote must now be held; as I said, that will be this Friday, 11 October. To ensure that we are fully prepared for that listing, this SI should be on the statute book to provide the EU with the necessary reassurances that they have said they want in order to expedite the process of listing the UK as a third country. The Government have taken care to rely on the urgency procedure contained in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in as few situations as possible, but we considered use of that procedure to be appropriate in this instance, for the reasons I have described.

The instrument makes a number of technical operability changes to existing instruments on animal by-products, or ABPs; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs; and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs—I hope members of the Committee will forgive me for relying on the abbreviations of all those terms. Those changes ensure that the laws in these policy areas will operate correctly after the UK has left the European Union. The instrument takes into account three recent, highly technical changes to the EU’s ABP and TSE legislation that were published in the EU’s official journal too late to be included in earlier EU exit SIs.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does this instrument have any bearing on the issue of carcass splitting and the specified risk material, namely spinal cord, that needs to be removed from certain lambs? I think both the Government and many sheep farmers wish to move from a system of aging the sheep through their dentition to one of using a date in the calendar.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend mentions a request that, as a former incumbent of my post, he will know the industry has been making for some time. It is under consideration, and is something that we progressed with the European Union during my previous time as Minister. I do not think that this particular change addresses that topic; it is much more about the use of certain animal by-products, which are not category 1, in fertilisers or soil improvers. This amendment covers a much narrower issue.

The instrument amends the provisions regarding harmonisation of the lists of approved or registered establishments, plants and operators and the traceability of certain animal by-products and derived products. The Commission introduced new legislation to create a transition period for those to come into force, and those lists were due to be altered by the Trade Control and Expert System—TRACES—an IT system run by the EU. This instrument simply changes those provisions to give us the flexibility to use either TRACES or our own, new import system, depending on the scenario we end up in.

The second change amends provisions to permit the export of products containing processed animal protein derived from ruminants and non-ruminants. In June 2018, the European Food Safety Authority updated the quantitative assessment of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy risk posed by processed animal proteins, and concluded that the total BSE infectivity posed by processed animal protein was a quarter of that estimated in 2011. Following the opinion delivered by EFSA related to processed animal protein, it was felt appropriate to include organic fertilisers or soil improvers containing processed animal proteins derived from ruminants in the derogation laid down to permit export, and the EU regulation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies was amended accordingly.

The third change makes technical changes to the provisions as regards the imports of gelatine, flavouring innards and rendered fats. The amendment adds Egypt to the list of third countries from which gelatine may be imported into the European Union; aligns the list of third countries eligible for the import of flavouring innards with a reference to the list of third countries authorised for the import of wild game meat for human consumption; and allows imports of rendered fats to be used for the production of renewable fuels using a method that has been assessed by EFSA.

In addition, regulation 5 of the instrument corrects minor inconsistencies in the language used in an earlier EU exit instrument, the Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as identified in 50th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. To exemplify the change in language recommended by that Committee, where the word “countries” was used in some references, it has been amended to “constituent nations”, and where the word “notification” was used, it has been amended to “consent”.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am glad to see the Minister back in his place. With regard to the minor errors contained in those earlier regulations, is he assured that there are no minor errors in these regulations?

[George Eustice]

As I have made clear many times, this is a complex set of regulations. Some 80% of all the Department’s legislation comes from the European Union, so it has been a huge task for officials to bring it all across into retained EU law. I pay tribute to them for the huge amount of work that has gone into that. It is inevitable that, in such a complex operation, there will be occasional errors, oversights or changes. That is why the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided for the ability, in the event of drafting errors being made, for them to be corrected for a period of time after we leave the European Union.

I have answered that as honestly as I can; I hope this is the final word. I did many of these statutory instruments the first time round and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby did many more after I left the post, so we are returning to familiar issues to update the legislation.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

With regard to GMOs, may I confirm that the regulations as amended will make sure that only truly safe GMOs are released and that the UK will still have the right to stop them being used in this country if we, this Parliament and the British Government, will that to be the case?

[George Eustice]

Yes, the changes in relation to GMOs are a few minor changes in language, following the recommendation of the Joint Committee.

The regulations mean that we are bringing across the EU regulatory system exactly as it is; the processes will be exactly the same. The EU system is sometimes criticised, not necessarily because of the thoroughness of the process that people go through, but because politics often gets in the way, so some applications have been left in limbo for up to 20 years. That has been criticised, but the procedures, the methodology, the thresholds and the evidence required will be exactly the same as before, after we leave the European Union.

This instrument applies to the whole UK, and the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in its development and have given their consent for it to be laid. I therefore commend this regulation to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will try to address some of those points as best I can. I completely share the view of the shadow Minister that we must never again take the sorts of risks in livestock husbandry that led to the BSE crisis. That crisis cast a long shadow over our beef industry. Indeed, even today, after all these years, when we are trying to open and negotiate access to markets such as the United States, China or Japan, the issue of BSE is still key and we have to give assurances.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no prospect of this Government weakening our regulations in this area. Even when, in some instances, the science suggests that an approach in certain areas might be more precautionary than is necessary, there is an issue of confidence in international markets. That is why in my time in this post I have always been cautious about departures from the flagship TSE regulations. I am sure that any future incumbents would take the same approach.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed out, the area of EU law relating to animal health and feed restrictions has been under the EU’s remit for some time, including during the BSE crisis. As the hon. Member for Ipswich says, it is a matter for historians, but when the Government of the day were confronted with that terrible crisis, they moved quickly to impose necessary restrictions.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this change has been recommended by the European Food Safety Authority; I hope that reassures him. In previous debates he has had a tendency to trust things that the European Union has said and to be sceptical of things that our own technical advisers say. Others, like me, value our own technical advisers as well. Our TSE experts—the group of technical experts we have in the Animal and Plant Health Agency—have peer-reviewed and assessed the work that EFSA did. They are content with the assessment and that it has reached the right conclusion.

The hon. Gentleman asked about TRACES. If we become a third country, the European Union’s approach is that we would not have access to TRACES. Over the last 18 months we have been developing our own import system. We have designed it so that it looks like TRACES and feels familiar to the relatively small number of importers who have to use it. The system has been running in a beta format for some time and a number of key importers who will need to use it have been familiarising themselves with it. We will have our own replacement system, but it is not impossible that in a negotiated settlement, with a withdrawal agreement, there will be information sharing provisions between our system and the EU’s, or some kind of ongoing access to TRACES, in order to ensure that all of us are doing everything we can to protect the food system.

Finally, on GMOs, the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of exports to the EU and asks if we would still be able to export to the EU were there to be a change. These regulations envisage no change at all. The EU regulatory requirement, as it stands, would come across. A small number of GM crops are authorised for cultivation in the European Union, including a variety of maize cultivated in Spain already.

More to the point, there are many crops that are not authorised for cultivation in the EU but that the EU is happy to import from other countries. The majority of animal feeds that are imported to the European Union from third countries are GM feeds already. The European Union allows those feeds to come in because to ban them would put a huge cost on livestock producers in the EU. That being the case, the decision that we might take as a country—or as a constituent part of the UK in England, for example—to grant an authorisation for a particular crop, given that it would have been done in the same way as the EU authorisation process sets out, is highly unlikely to have any impact on trade, when put in the context of other imports that the European Union makes.

I hope I have managed to cover many or all of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1225).

This statutory instrument serves three purposes. First, it makes a number of technical changes to existing statutory instruments, to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU. Secondly, it ensures that our statute book is closely aligned with the EU initially, to support our application for third-country listing for live animals and products of animal origin. Thirdly, it makes a minor correction to an earlier EU exit SI.

The SI was made under the urgency procedure, as it will be required to support the UK’s application to the European Commission for third-country listed status for animal health purposes, which is currently being considered by the EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed—SCoPAFF. As the Government have made clear, we seek a negotiated withdrawal from the EU, but we are also taking all responsible steps to prepare for all scenarios, including a no-deal exit.

The European Commission considered the UK’s request for third-country listing at the SCoPAFF meeting on 9 April, and based on guarantees and the relevant animal health and hygiene legislation being in place on that date, it agreed to expedite that third-country listing so that it was available from day one. However, another vote is now required, on 11 October, and this SI must be ready and on the statute book to provide the EU with the necessary assurances to be able to expedite that third-country listing. We are making an offer to the European Union, which it has agreed to previously and, we hope, will again, to align certain sanitary and phytosanitary regulations for a period of nine months, in return for its expediting that third-country listing so that it will be available from day one.

This statutory instrument, as with all such instruments, has a rather long title. I will refer to it simply as the animal imports SI, which I think will be easier for everyone. The animal imports SI transfers legislative powers that give the Secretary of State, with the consent of Ministers from the devolved Administrations, the power to amend, vary or add to the list of third countries that can export animals and animal products into the United Kingdom—a function previously carried out by the European Commission.

The SI also gives the UK the power to align with the EU by being able to add new countries to the list for commodities permitted to be imported once the relevant veterinary and scientific risk assessments have been made. Previously, this power was not considered urgent, since we have many alternative powers in other legislation to prevent trade from countries where there is deemed to be either an animal health or a food safety risk. However, this additional power makes it easier to align directly with the EU during that nine-month transition period, in accordance with the undertaking that we have given in order to expedite that third-country listing.

The SI also amends previously made EU exit SIs regarding animal and animal product imports. This is linked to that first power and will simply allow the Secretary of State, again with the consent of the devolved Administrations where appropriate, to publish lists of animals and products that require or are exempted from border veterinary checks outside of the legislation. This will mean that we can vary both the countries on that register and the products that each of those countries are able to export to the UK.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain why he is amending regulations that had already been made under the EU exit procedures in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 before we had even got to exiting? Was a mistake made the first time round or has there been a development? Why does he have to amend statutory instruments that were supposed to prepare us for a no-deal exit?

[George Eustice]

There are two reasons: first, as I said, the EU SCoPAFF’s April agreement has expired and it is considering the matter again on 11 October. Although the ability to amend and update the list in a quick and expeditious way was not considered essential the first time round, given more time we believed it would be helpful to put it in there to place beyond any doubt the fact that the EU would have all the assurances it needed to expedite third country status.

There was also an error, which I was coming on to. The statutory instrument amends the Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 by correcting a reference to the Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to enable certain EU, EEA and Swiss veterinary surgeons to register with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The error was simply that the previous SI referred to paragraph 43 of a regulation regarding professional qualifications that had been laid before the House by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The relevant paragraph in its final iteration became paragraph 44, so there was an error in cross-referencing to the wrong paragraph, and this SI simply corrects it.

Part 1 of this statutory instrument contains relevant definitions used in the instrument. The legislative powers to amend the list are transferred from the Commission in parts 2 and 3 of this instrument. In parts 4 and 5, amendments are made to a previously made EU exit statutory instrument, and to domestic regulations in England and Northern Ireland relating to the trade in animals and animal products. No policy changes were made by those amendments; they are simply technical.

The final purpose of this SI is to correct a genuine but minor error in referencing a paragraph that turned out to be wrong in the final iteration of the regulations that I have mentioned. The devolved Administrations were fully engaged in the development of this statutory instrument, and it applies to the whole of the UK. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I shall try to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible. Starting in reverse order with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, it is indeed the case that these powers, having been brought across, give the UK Government the power and the ability to change the list should, for instance, the European Union have a more lax state of affairs than us. Should it take unnecessary risks with food safety or public health, we would have the option to change the list to have a more stringent approach should it be necessary.

The purpose of amending the regulations now is, in the initial instance, to give the European Union the reassurance that we have all of the powers that we need dynamically to align our regulations on some of these SPS issues with the EU so that it can be reassured that we are not going to depart during that transitional period from the inspection regime that it currently has.

The hon. Member for Ipswich, the shadow Minister, raised the issue of goods from third countries. He is concerned that they may not be checked or inspected at all, but that is not the case. Currently, goods that come into the European Union will be checked in accordance with European standards. Goods that come into the UK on the day after we leave the European Union will also be checked, as they are now, on behalf of the European Union, in exactly the same way that they are now. Where we have transit goods—goods that are landed in another EU country but are destined for the UK market—they will be checked in exactly the same way as they are now when they come into the UK.

So it is already the case that goods in transit are inspected in the UK when they arrive, not at the port of entry. In so far as they are not coming through as goods in transit, but are simply landed in another EU port and then re-exported to the UK, they would undergo the same checks as they do today through the EU’s own system.

The other point I want to make is about rapid alert systems. The EU system is called RASFF: ports in member states can alert one another to problems that they have encountered at the border. The UK contributes the vast majority of the data to that, far more than any of the other countries. I think that for some items, as much as 75% of the intelligence on the system comes from the UK. We have to understand that the EU does not have its own inspection taskforce; it relies on member states. Currently, this task is performed at border inspection posts by the Animal and Plant Health Agency on our behalf, which does a very thorough job. That is where the expertise comes from; it does not come specifically from the European Union.

It may be the case that more goods have to go through the transit route to get to the UK. We anticipate an increase in the number of transit goods, which could mean up to around 8,000 extra checks at UK border inspection posts compared with now. However, we believe that we already have the resources to manage what is a small increase, based on the number of checks that we already do.

The hon. Member for Ipswich asked why we need to use the urgent procedure for this regulation. A European Union SCoPAFF meeting is taking place on 11 October, a few days away; that is not long. It has been a rather moving date: at one point it was going to be earlier in October, then at another point it was going to be 18 October, and it now seems to be moving again to 11 October. Given the importance of getting that third-country listing, we believed it was important to ensure we had done everything possible to provide the EU with the reassurance it wanted to be able to expedite that listing. That is why we made this regulation under the urgent procedure.

The hon. Gentleman ventured into a number of other areas, including the so-called Benn Act—the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. However, when challenged on some of those points, he also pointed out that they were outside the scope of what we are discussing today, so I will not be drawn into those issues save to say that this Government are working very hard and energetically to get an agreement, and have come forward with a sensible proposal to replace the so-called Irish backstop.

[Sandy Martin]

Why is it necessary to bring this SI forward now if there is no chance of our leaving without a deal on 31 October, and if there is a chance of our leaving without a deal on 31 October, how does that square with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act? That was the point I was making about that Act.

[George Eustice]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act does not say there cannot be a no-deal Brexit. It requires the Prime Minister to send a certain letter on a certain date. We do not yet know whether the European Union would agree to extend; we do not know what terms it would demand or extract; and we do not know whether those terms, and any counter-offer it made, would be acceptable to the Government, Parliament or anybody else. There are still many uncertainties here, and we are clear that we will leave, with or without a deal, at the end of October. That remains the Government’s position, and it is therefore prudent to prepare for all eventualities, which is why this SI is necessary.

Finally, I will deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk about vets and veterinary capacity. This particular regulation is more about the inspections that APHA would conduct on behalf of the Government on imports from third countries, and less about the export health certificate. No veterinary capacity is really relevant to those inspections, other than the APHA port inspections that we already carry out. As I said, I believe we have sufficient capacity to manage that small increase in load.

However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a point about export health certificates, where goods going the other way would need some veterinary attestation to say that the goods are what they said they were. We have been offering free training for official vets to sign EHCs. Some 736 have registered with APHA, and 564 are already enrolled on that course. I am told that 152 have qualified, and the number of official veterinarians who can sign EHCs for food products has increased by 200 since 8 February, to 835. We are also looking at additional approaches, such as having certification support officers so that this work can be done by people other than fully qualified vets. We are conscious that there will be an increase in burden when it comes to export health certificates, and we have been working to build capacity in that area.

I hope that I have managed to address most of the issues that have been raised, and therefore commend the regulation to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Pesticides)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.

Plant protection products, or “pesticides” as they are commonly called, are currently regulated by means of two European Union regulations: Regulation (EC) 1107/2009, which concerns the placing of plant protection products on the market, including the approval of active substances, authorisation of pesticide products and management of associated risks; and Regulation (EC) 396/2005, which sets maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin, and measures to ensure compliance with those limits.

Earlier this year, two EU exit statutory instruments were laid before this House to convert those EU regulations into operable national law: the Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019; and the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Those two EU exit statutory instruments, in common with many others, made the EU regulations operable in a national context by, for example, transferring functions from EU institutions to national authorities.

This further instrument, which we are considering today, is comparatively minor and simply takes forward some additional amendments that are required to ensure that the regime can continue to operate effectively. First, in common with two of the other SIs that we have considered today, the change in exit day from 29 March to 31 October necessitates that we amend certain dates in the retained law that were based on the original date for EU exit. Secondly, further new EU legislation has come into force during the extension period, after the plant protection products and the maximum residue levels EU exit SIs were finalised. The new EU legislation needs to be corrected following the same approach as in the other SIs. Finally, this instrument fixes some errors within those earlier EU exit instruments, which I will cover later.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

For the avoidance of any doubt, will the Minister confirm that there is no measurable impact on business as a result of the regulations?

[George Eustice]

Yes, I can confirm that, in the sense that all the draft regulations are about continuity—an approach to ensure simply that where authorisations are carried out and decisions made by the European Commission, they will in future be made by the Secretary of State or the relevant authority.

Some amendments are required as a consequence of the change in our departure date. The plant protection products EU exit SI in particular contains a number of transitional measures that apply until specified dates. Those dates have been updated in common with the approach in other SIs. Given that exit day is now 31 October, those transitional provisions would allow much less time to adjust than was originally intended. This instrument therefore replaces dates that were calculated from the original exit date with a specified period of time after exit.

The draft regulations also deal with new EU legislation that has come into force since the original EU exit SIs were produced. The plant protection products and the maximum residue levels EU exit SIs converted active substance and MRL regulations into a new national register to give effect to the provisions in a national context. The EU regulations themselves were no longer required and therefore revoked. This instrument deals with new EU regulations that have come into force since then, and we have taken the same approach. Some outdated EU regulations have also been superseded or replaced, and those have now been identified as redundant, so they can be revoked.

This instrument also contains transitional provisions relating to grace periods for the withdrawal of active substances under EU regulations, so that they are carried across unchanged into our national law. Finally, this instrument also fixes a number of technical errors that were made in the earlier EU exit instruments. The vast majority of those were very minor in nature. However, I should draw attention to the fact that it came to light that the earlier plant protection products EU exit SI erroneously removed some provisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals. That omission was purely unintentional and this instrument therefore corrects that error.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Minister has admitted that this error took place, but the Department has had to bring forward about 80 or so SIs over the summer. Has it conducted a review to ensure that similar errors have not been made in other legislation or are we are going to see a repeat of this situation, with other last-minute amendments?

[George Eustice]

Well, a point was made earlier that this has been an extraordinarily huge task of converting a highly complex body of EU law across into national law. When the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was passed, it was even envisaged that there may be circumstances where there were errors, omissions or oversights. The hon. Lady will be aware that that Act makes provision for SIs to continue to be made in the event of errors occurring. I deal closely with the team of civil servants who have been working on this legislation, so I know that they have a huge amount of technical knowledge and have drafted the instruments we have been discussing today to the best of their ability to ensure that they have covered everything. But there can be difficulties if a last-minute update contained in particular EU document that is needed to make a particular element of EU law operable is not noticed; sometimes these things will come to light. The important thing is that we are clear about what we are trying to achieve, which is continuity, and that we put things right when they arise.

This instrument was originally submitted under the negative resolution procedure. We subsequently accepted a recommendation from the House of Commons sifting Committee that it be upgraded to the affirmative procedure and debated in the Chamber today on the basis that it includes a provision that relates to the charging of fees. In practice, this measure simply removes a redundant EU provision that clarified that member states could charge. The instrument does not change the existing fees and charges relating to the pesticides regulatory regime, nor does it have any effect whatever on the UK’s future ability to charge fees or make changes to the current fees. That relates to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who I know is very concerned about these issues, but I hope that I have assured him that this changes nothing about the existing charging regime.

We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations —as we have on all the other measures we have discussed today—to develop this instrument, and they have consented to it being made on a UK-wide basis. I therefore commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

On the final point raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), I addressed the issue of errors previously. Bringing across these statutory instruments is a vast undertaking; it is inevitable that there will be a few errors, and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 made provision to deal with those even after exit. I explained very clearly that there was a simple oversight in the case of endocrine disruptors in that particular statutory instrument.

I want predominantly to address the issue of oversight, which was the principal concern raised by both the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). It is important to recognise that the UK has always been recognised as the leading country in the European Union for chemicals and pesticides expertise. The chemicals regulation division within HSE is the driving force behind most of the EU working groups that consider issues with pesticides. Through those working groups, we provide our technical expertise to the European Union; it benefits from our technical input. Yes, there is a role as well for the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency, but we should not underestimate the incredible technological and technical expertise we have in this field.

In addition to the CRD, which sits within the Health and Safety Executive, we benefit from advice from the expert committee on pesticides, which is a panel of leading academics with knowledge in this area. We also have an expert committee on pesticide residues, which assesses all the evidence on both imported and home-grown foods to look for trends in breaches of maximum residue limits. When we leave the European Union, all the existing methodologies for assessing pesticides at a European level will be brought across, including the so-called end points—that is, the thresholds that are applied—and the precautionary approach. Indeed, the key regulation, 1107/2009, was largely drafted by British officials based in the CRD. So we will be bringing all that across in the first instance.

The idea that there will no longer be technical or scientific assessments is a misunderstanding. I am told that, in the vast majority of cases, where “shall” is specified in the EU regulations in the context of requiring scientific input, it remains as “shall” in the UK ones. I think there are one or two minor areas that do not relate to the requirement for scientific input but relate more, as I understand it, to the methodology and the requirements on particular organisations or bodies. There, it is not appropriate to convert “shall” in the same way, as we do not have to have exactly the same institutions and organisational structure that the European Union has to carry out those effective scientific assessments. However, I reassure hon. Members that we will continue to have scientific assessments, that science will continue to lead all our decisions on pesticides in future and that we have some of the best technical expertise in this field. I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on that point. Obviously, the main purpose of this particular statutory instrument is to change the dates for the transition.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Transitional Arrangements etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 24 July, be approved.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), and a number of other Members may, in the case of this statutory instrument and two others that we will consider this afternoon, have a sense of déjà vu, not for the first time in issues relating to EU exit. I will explain why these further statutory instruments are necessary, but I do not envisage that we will need to take up the full time allocated for them, unless the shadow Minister feels that he did not rehearse these issues in the detail he would have liked to last time. This particular instrument concerns the common organisation of the agricultural markets, more commonly referred to as the CMO in EU parlance. The CMO sits in pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy alongside direct payments, and it was set up as a means of meeting the objectives of the CAP, in particular with regard to stabilising markets, ensuring a fair standard of living for agricultural producers and increasing agricultural productivity.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

How does that impact subsidies to farmers, which must affect the markets? Where are we in terms of the continuation of subsidies to stabilise those markets?

[George Eustice]

Retained EU law means that the existing basic payment scheme will continue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Agriculture Bill, which has been before the House, outlines a plan to evolve that policy over a period of seven years, but that is not the issue before us today. This particular instrument relates to the CMO regulations.

In March this year, six EU exit operability SIs concerning the CMO were debated in the House, approved and made. Those SIs sought to make retained EU law operable in the domestic UK context. The instrument under debate amends one of those existing EU exit SIs: the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The existing SI, which was passed in March, ensured the operability of certain provisions relating to the reserved policy areas of regulation of anti-competitive practices, international trade, imports and exports and intellectual property law. Among other things, it establishes transitional periods for the import documentation for hops, certificates of conformity for fruit and vegetables and imports of veal.

The original statutory instrument obviously envisaged a departure date of the end of March, but, as Members are fully aware, a decision was taken to delay our departure to 31 October. The primary aim of this statutory instrument is to make simple corrections to the existing EU exit SI, to ensure that, where provisions refer to a transitional period, those periods are realised as was intended.

Current EU legislation requires hops imported from third countries to be accompanied by an attestation certifying compliance with EU marketing standards. For fruit and vegetables, EU legislation permits the inspection authorities of specified third countries to certify that imports originating from that country comply with EU marketing standards, so that they may benefit from lower inspection burdens in the EU. That legislation will be rolled over into UK law, and we are providing for a transitional period of two years for forms and certificates that we accept from third countries attesting that a product meets marketing standard requirements, during which both the new UK forms and certificates and their equivalent EU versions shall be accepted, provided that the EU standards remain at least as high as the UK standards. That will allow importers time to transition to using the new forms of documentation.

This instrument also concerns imports of veal. Under EU law, third countries wishing to import bovine meat into the EU must maintain an identification and registration system of the bovine animals they intend to import, starting from the day of birth of the animals. This is to ensure that imported meat has traceable origins and meets the EU’s standards and that the age of animals whose meat is marketed as veal can be verified. The name and address of the body in charge of the system, with a list of operators for whom the body is carrying out checks, must be notified to the Commission before the first consignment of veal is imported.

These rules are being retained in our own EU exit SIs, with a requirement for third countries—including EU member states, which will become third countries when we exit—to notify this information to the Secretary of State. To safeguard the continuity of veal imports from the EU into the UK after EU exit, we have allowed a three-month transitional period, to allow the EU time to gather and submit the required information to the UK. The end dates for these transitional periods were explicitly stated as 29 March 2021 for hops and fruit and vegetables and 30 June 2019 for veal.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is important that the standards are maintained as we head towards 31 October, and many of my constituents will be concerned about not only the maintenance of those standards but also pricing. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s policy on what tariffs the UK would place on EU agricultural goods coming into the UK if, in the event of no deal, the EU placed tariffs on UK agricultural goods?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point that is somewhat outside the scope of these regulations—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For clarity, it is totally outwith the scope, and we must remain within the scope.

[George Eustice]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, the end dates of these transitional periods were explicitly stated as 29 March 2021 for hops and fruit and vegetables and 30 June 2019 for veal. However, the extension of article 50 to 31 October would render those transitional periods significantly shorter, or in the case of imports of veal, completely redundant. This statutory instrument preserves the original transition period that was intended.

The instrument makes further amendments to the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 in order to correct inconsistencies in the drafting and minor inoperabilities. The instrument under debate relates to reserved policy areas. However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has engaged the devolved Administrations on its approach to CAP legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, including on this instrument, to familiarise them with the legislation ahead of laying it. I commend these regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) seemed to criticise the fact that we have these four SIs before us this afternoon and indicated she felt it might be a way of filling time. But I thought she and all the Opposition parties wanted to be here to scrutinise issues relating to EU exit and that is exactly what we are doing this afternoon. However, I share her commendation to our civil servants. The teams who have been working on this and all other SIs have worked incredibly hard over many months.

I want to address the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I think that he and I are not as far apart as he suggested in his contribution. He will probably recall that I resigned from the last Government on 28 February precisely because I did not believe it was right to extend article 50 and delay—I believed that that would lead to a sequence of events culminating in something of a muddle and the need to do exactly the types of things we are doing now.

My right hon. Friend must not confuse the transitional arrangements that we have discussed in relation to this SI with the rather oddly named implementation period in the withdrawal agreement that he will be familiar with. I will give him one example of the type of thing the SI provides for. Currently, it is possible, under EU law, for the EU to recognise certification authorities in New Zealand, so that people can certify that apples they are exporting from New Zealand to the UK meet our standards. That reduces the need for us to carry out automatic checks on those apples when they arrive at a UK port. All the SI does is enable those existing certifications to carry on for that period of two years, giving people time to continue to trade—I know he is a great supporter of free trade, particularly with our Commonwealth friends—in that two-year period without having to apply for a new UK certificate.

I turn now to the points made by the shadow Ministers. On those made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), in general, the primary purpose of the SI is to extend the transitional periods to reflect the fact that the departure date has moved from the end of March to 31 October. That is the primary purpose, but as I said there are one or two other areas where there were very minor mistakes. He asked for some examples. In one case, the term “appropriate authority” was used, when it is clear it is a reserved matter, so we should have used the term “Secretary of State”. It is a minor error. The legislation as drafted probably would have worked but, given that we were revisiting this anyway to change the transitional periods, it seemed a good opportunity to put that other error right.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of olives, olive oil, silk worms and tobacco. It would not have been the end of the world if that had remained in the SI but, again, given that we needed to return to change the transitional periods, it seemed a matter of good housekeeping to remove those references where they were not appropriate. We would never have to recognise a producer organisation for the purposes of those sectors since we do not produce olives, olive oil, silk worms or tobacco, and as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) pointed out, there is very little prospect of us doing so. In earlier SIs, we deleted similar provisions for home-grown UK bananas, because on a similar analysis we decided that was unlikely in the foreseeable future. This simply follows the same logic in those additional areas.

The hon. Member for Stroud raised several other issues about the Agriculture Bill and pointed out that I had tabled many amendments. Indeed, I made great use of my freedom as a Back Bencher to table some amendments. He will be aware, however, that now I am back at the Dispatch Box, I agree with collective Government and support a collective Government position. That is why those amendments have mysteriously disappeared.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of marketing standards and asked whether we have the enforcement capabilities for that. I can confirm that we have. We have Her Majesty’s marketing inspectorate, which sits within the Rural Payments Agency and which already does all the work involving marketing standards on behalf of the European Union, and the UK had its own horticultural marketing inspectorate well before we even joined the European Union.

On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich, a number of statutory instruments that are currently before the House have undergone a sifting process to correct minor errors but in general to ensure that the SIs that were laid before March remain relevant for a 31 October departure date. He is, of course, aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act provides for subsequent SIs after we have left, if it is simply a question of correcting minor errors of the sort that I have mentioned today. He will also be aware that there is provision for an emergency procedure should that be necessary.

I hope that I have managed to address most of the points that have been raised. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Transitional Arrangements etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 24 July, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Import and Export Licences (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 23 July, be approved.

The purpose of this statutory instrument is to make changes to EU regulations governing the agricultural import and export licensing regime to ensure that they remain operable on our departure from the European Union. The instrument also revokes some obsolete and redundant regulations relating to the payment of export refunds in the dairy sector and on the administration of EU third country export quotas for cheese and skimmed milk powder.

I should point out that this instrument is rather different from the other three we are considering this afternoon, in that it does not relate to changes that are necessary due to transitional arrangements or dates. This is one of a small number of very minor SIs that were deprioritised in the run-up to the end of March, given that their applicability to the UK is quite limited and they were not judged to be sufficiently important to merit passing in time for the end of March. However, now that we have the luxury of time, it is possible to bring them forward.

This instrument seeks to make EU regulations governing the agricultural import and export licensing regime operable. In particular, the regulations make operability fixes to technical EU Commission regulations, providing for the issue of import and export licences for certain agricultural products; update EU regulatory cross-references to equivalent provisions in domestic legislation made under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018; and convert licence securities from euro values into sterling using the average annual exchange rate for 2018.

EU Commission regulations 2016/1237 and 2016/1239 provide for a licence system for the import and export of certain agricultural products and specific provisions for the import of hemp. Under those regulations, it is required that any import of husked, milled or broken rice, raw hemp and hemp seed or ethyl alcohol be subject to an import licence. Likewise, any export of husked or milled rice is subject to an export licence. The regulations also provide for specific provisions in relation to hemp seed imports other than for sowing, including the pre-registration of importers and requirements to prove the destination of goods.

The purpose of those common agricultural policy licences is primarily to provide a means of monitoring agricultural markets by having advance notice of goods entering and leaving the EU. However, given improvements in data collection at the border, the Commission has increasingly relied on real-time customs data as a means of monitoring markets, which has negated the need for licences. They are now limited to just a handful of products, for specific reason. That is why these measures are of declining importance and were not prioritised for passing by the end of March.

For example, rice import licences really serve only as a means of applying the EU’s variable import duty system, and hemp licences have been retained at the request of the directorate-general for migration and home affairs, apparently to support EU drug policy, even though the information provided does not really contribute to that effort. This statutory instrument specifically amends Commission delegated regulation EU 2016/1237 and Commission implementing regulation EU 2016/1239, both passed on 18 May 2016, by replacing references to the EU with references to the UK and references to the EU Commission with references to the relevant UK authority. It replaces EU regulatory cross-references with references to equivalent provisions in domestic legislation already made under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and converts licence securities from euro values into sterling using the average annual exchange rate for 2018.

EU Commission regulation 1187/2009 sets out detailed rules for the provision of export licences and export refunds in the dairy sector.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm whether the cost of administering these licences is counterbalanced by the licence fees that are paid?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that we have always had a clear principle in this country of aiming for full cost recovery on licences, and these licences tend to be focused on very large traders and importers.

The provisions relating to the payment of export refunds are now obsolete, as they relate to rules that existed before the entry into force of the current common market organisation regulation. Under current rules, export refunds can be paid only in the context of crisis measures. The provisions covering export licences relate to the management of EU-World Trade Organisation third country export quotas of cheese to the United States of America and Canada, and of skimmed milk powder to the Dominican Republic, under the economic partnership with the CARIFORUM states. UK access to those export quotas once we leave the EU is obviously uncertain, since we will no longer be an EU member, although negotiations with those countries over future tariff rate quotas are ongoing. The Government will bring forward new legislation to manage any future UK access to third country quotas should that be necessary in the future. As the regulations in question are effectively obsolete or redundant in a UK context, this statutory instrument revokes Commission regulation 1187/2009, of 27 November 2009.

This statutory instrument concerns only reserved areas of competence regarding import and export controls, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has engaged with the devolved Administrations on its approach to CAP legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, including this instrument, to familiarise them with the legislation ahead of its being laid. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Let me turn first to the points made by the shadow Minister. He highlighted the use in the explanatory memorandum of the term “fixes”, which he even put in quotes marks. In DEFRA, we like to fix things that are broken, and the truth is that in this case, as in many other cases, it was always recognised that simply to bring across retained EU law would require changes for the purposes of operability. The types of fixes that are commonplace throughout this instrument and all the others simply replace the words “European Union” with “UK” or replace the European Commission as the competent authority with the relevant authority in the UK or with the Secretary of State.

The shadow Minister mentioned the issue of export refunds for dairy, which links to a point that was made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Let me say that, when it comes to these export refunds, we are simply deleting provisions that have already disappeared from EU law, so we are revoking something that became redundant and obsolete anyway under EU law in—I think—2007.

EU thinking on export refunds has evolved in recent years. There is a general consensus that they can be used only in extreme circumstances—when there is a particular crisis—and there are other provisions in law to enable that to happen. Therefore, they would not be able to be used anyway, because the other associated legislation that would enable us to do that does not exist, so this measure is really little more than a good housekeeping measure.

The point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford goes somewhat beyond the scope of the measure, but I will touch on it briefly. Let me reassure him that the Government are absolutely fully aware of the problems that the Northern Ireland dairy industry in particular could experience in a no-deal scenario. It is the case that it exports around 30% of its liquid milk to be processed in Ireland. That would be a problem if there were a requirement for export health certificates, or, indeed, if full tariffs were applied. It would also be a problem for those cheese processers in the Irish Republic, who would no longer have their supply of milk. Obviously, we hope that this is something that can be resolved through negotiation, but I can reassure him that we are working very closely with DAERA in Northern Ireland to identify all sorts of contingency arrangements and interventions that we would instigate if they were required.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that explanation and for all the hard work that he does in his Department. It is good to see him in his place doing things that he did in the past and doing them well. It is important that the Republic of Ireland is aware very clearly of the benefits of having a good working relationship with Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It is for the mutual benefit of everyone: for the mutual benefit of the other producers; for the mutual benefit of the factories; and for the mutual benefit of the workers.

[George Eustice]

I could not agree more. There is a mutual interest for all EU members and the UK to reach a sensible resolution to the current discussions. That is why the Government are redoubling their efforts to try to get a sensible withdrawal agreement with that backstop deleted and alternative arrangements put in place instead.

I turn now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), which also links to a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight). I am aware that my right hon. Friend has raised with me this issue of cost recovery and charges in a different context, which I am looking into. However, in this particular context, I can confirm that it is licence security that is offered, and it is returned once a licence is utilised within the specified criteria. There are no costs to operators if they use the licence as specified and therefore no economic implications. The hon. Lady should be aware that the impact assessment highlights the fact that any costs would be well below the threshold of £5 million, but I hope that, in this additional information, we are talking here about a licence security that is returned. She must also bear in mind that we are doing nothing that is not already currently done. As I know that she and others would ideally like us to remain in the European Union, she would face those costs anyway. We would be forced to have those costs and would never have the chance to be able to repeal them should she want to. We, at least, as a country about to become a properly independent, self-governing country again, would have the opportunity, at a future date, if we felt it necessary, to repeal these particular provisions and save everybody the bother.

I hope that I have been able to address the points that have been raised, and I commend these regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Common Agricultural Policy and Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 24 July, be approved.

This statutory instrument concerns the common organisation of the agriculture markets, more commonly referred to as the CMO. As I said earlier, in March this year six EU exit operability SIs concerning the CMO were debated in the House, approved and made. They applied operability amendments to retained EU regulations which set out the overarching framework for the CMO and the detailed rules contained therein. This instrument amends some of the existing SIs to make simple corrections ensuring that when provisions refer to a transitional period, in common with the previous SI, it can be realised as intended, notwithstanding the delaying of EU exit until 31 October.

Five different transitional periods are set out in the existing EU exit SIs. The first and second concern special provisions for the import of wine and the labelling of imported wine. Under EU law, third countries wishing to import wine into the EU must produce it in accordance with specified oenological practices, and are required to provide key information on the content of the shipment, including a certificate evidencing compliance with EU rules and an analysis report. Those rules are being retained through retained EU law, but we are only retaining oenological practices that relate to domestic wine production.

We are also amending wine labelling rules to make them more appropriate for the UK market. For example, we are requiring certain information to be written in English whether or not it also appears in another language. However, we are providing for a transitional period of 21 months, consistent with that in other labelling provisions, during which wine that is labelled in accordance with current rules and produced in accordance with oenological practices authorised under EU law may be imported into the UK for marketing to ensure that there is no disruption to the import of wine from the EU. During that period, we will also accept EU forms and certificates from third countries alongside the new UK certificates.

The third and fourth transitional periods concern labelling for packages of fruit and vegetables, and for beef and veal. To ensure that consumers are not misled, for some products labelling changes are required primarily as a result of our no longer being a member of the EU. The terms “EU” and “non-EU” will be removed as options for describing the origin of the products, and pre-packaged fruit and vegetables will need to be labelled with the name and address of a UK seller after we leave the EU, rather than the information about an EU seller. We have introduced a transitional period of 21 months to mitigate the effects of these labelling changes on business.

The final transition period concerns import documentation for hops. Current EU legislation requires hops imported from third countries to be accompanied by an attestation certifying compliance with EU marketing standards. We are rolling over this legislation into UK law and providing for a transitional period of two years for documents that we accept from third countries, including the EU—which is about to become a third country—attesting that imported hops meet marketing standards requirements. During those two years both the new UK forms and certificates and the EU versions can be accepted, provided that the EU’s standards remain at least as high as those in the UK. This will allow importers time to transition to using the new forms of documentation, while ensuring that we accept only produce that is assured to meet UK standards.

In the original SIs, in common with the previous one we debated, the end dates of the transitional periods are explicitly stated as a specific date. For example, a transitional period lasting two years is expressed as a

“transitional period ending 29th March 2021”.

However, the extension of article 50 to 31 October means that we need to change the legislation to ensure that the intended period of transition remains in place. Therefore, the instrument under debate now makes a simple amendment to the existing EU Exit operability SIs so that the transitional periods apply for the duration intended.

The instrument also makes minor amendments to a series of other domestic EU exit SIs relating to marketing standards, the horizontal CAP legislation and the rural development programmes in order to remove ambiguity and inconsistencies, or to simply correct typographical errors. This instrument relates to areas of devolved competence. I can assure the House that we have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on its content and have received their consent to lay the SI. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We rehearsed plenty of issues when we debated the previous statutory instrument, so I can be briefer, and I appreciate that both hon. Members who spoke have done so briefly.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), the Labour shadow Minister, asked who would do this work. The office for environmental protection, which will obviously be a matter for the new environmental Bill, would not do any such work. We are talking here, probably, about marketing standards and labelling standards, and the Rural Payments Agency has an inspectorate that leads on that work; it always has done, and has done so incredibly well.

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the European Union does not have a directly employed army of inspectors in UK ports; the EU has a body of law, but UK agencies already do all such work. As he said, not only does the RPA monitor marketing standards, but there are other organisations as well. We have organisations that monitor pesticide residues; we have the FSA, which deals with food safety issues; we have organisations such as the Food and Environment Research Agency, which deals with plant health, and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which deals with animal health. The technical expertise is already here in the UK, in our agencies; indeed, that technical expertise is often relied upon by the EU, not the other way round.

[Dr Drew]

I accept that; many of our good people currently work for the EU. But is the Minister seriously suggesting that those people have carried out proper contingency planning on how they will do this monitoring in a month’s time? How would FERA—how would the RPA, which I have significant doubts about; I do not know how many scientists it actually employs—sit down and do the work to see whether what has been imported is what it says on the label?

[George Eustice]

The regulations provide for a transitional period, precisely to give people time to adjust. We will be saying to European wine exporters that they do not, on day one, have to apply for a UK certificate, or get UK certification. We are saying, very generously—it is not being reciprocated particularly yet—to the European Union that because we want to prioritise continuity in the short term while people adjust to this new situation, we will recognise their existing certification.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, there are no risks and nothing new is going to happen that has not already been happening under EU law for a number of years. This simply creates that transitional space to avoid UK authorities having to do unnecessary administration in the short term, and to avoid exporters having to go through unnecessary administration in order to continue to trade.

[Dr Drew]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. What then is to stop people labelling their cheap plonk as burgundy and sending it in the form in which they send their good stuff? How will we be able to tell that what we are getting is what it says on the label? I am really intrigued by this.

[George Eustice]

Well, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is nothing to stop that happening now, apart from EU law. For 45 years we have relied on EU law being enforced in member states. We are simply saying that in the transitional period we anticipate that the EU will continue to abide by and enforce its own laws. If it becomes apparent that it no longer enforces its own laws, we have the powers in these measures to cease to recognise them, because we will maintain our standards.

In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), I can confirm that there are two slightly separate provisions on wine. First, we are bringing across only those provisions that relate specifically to wines that we produce in the UK, in relation to the production side. We have a growing and very successful wine industry, particularly in sparkling wines. We will not be bringing across those provisions for wines that we do not produce in this country and that are made in other countries. Secondly, we are making those labelling transitional provisions available to all EU producers so that there will be no short-term interruption in the administration procedures that they have to follow.

I hope that I have addressed the points raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.