Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

12. What plans he has for farming policy after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

Our plans for future farming policy are set out in the Agriculture Bill. At the heart of our new policy in England will be a system that pays public money for public goods, rewarding farmers for enhancing animal welfare, improving soil health and creating habitats for wildlife. We are also introducing measures to support investment in farm productivity and to improve fairness in the supply chain.

[Luke Hall]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he update me on what steps the Government are taking, following a very serious case in my constituency, to give the courts the power to grant injunctions to prevent people who are on trial for animal cruelty from acquiring new animals as they go through that legal process?

[George Eustice]

I recall meeting my hon. Friend about a particularly difficult and tragic case in his constituency. His local authority did make a powerful case for there to be a power to have an injunction to prevent the restocking of farms while prosecutions were pending. Such injunctions are usually reserved for civil cases. It is already possible to confiscate animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but I will look again at this issue as we consider future legislation.

[Alex Burghart]

Will the Minister reassure the House that food production will remain central to agricultural policy and that we will continue to encourage farmers to produce food of the very highest standard?

[George Eustice]

Yes, I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that guarantee. It is called the Agriculture Bill and it has provisions to allow market intervention to support that. There are provisions to improve fairness in the supply chain. Every five years, we currently have an assessment of our food security. The Bill is absolutely about producing food sustainably, not ceasing to produce food.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

John Vernam, the chairman of Cherry Valley, the source of the majority of the world’s Pekin duck breed, came to see me recently to talk about his concerns about the effect of a no-deal Brexit. He says it will have a wide-ranging impact on the industry and on animal welfare and food standards. Can the Minister please prove that he is no chicken and reassure the poultry industry that he is actively encouraging the Prime Minister to avoid a no-deal Brexit?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has also raised the case of Cherry Valley, and I have given an undertaking that I will meet it as soon as possible. The company exports live ducklings and imports ducks, and I am happy to look at its concerns. Obviously, on the wider issue, the Prime Minister absolutely wants to avoid no deal. That is why she is encouraging everyone to back the agreement that she has secured.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It would be nice to know when the Agriculture Bill is coming back to this place, given the months that have now fallen by the wayside. I ask the Minister on behalf of his boss, the Secretary of State: how are discussions going with the Chancellor on whether there will be tariffs on food imports?

[George Eustice]

The Government are currently in discussions about a tariff policy in the event of no deal. The options that are open to us are to have tariff rate suspensions, which we are likely to do on goods that we do not produce, and to have autonomous tariff rate quotas or lower applied tariffs. That issue is being considered by the Government and a statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament in due course.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on tackling air pollution around schools and hospitals.

Draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment Etc.) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[George Eustice]

These are two of a number of affirmative statutory instruments to be considered as the UK leaves the European Union, as provided for by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They ensure that pesticide regulations remain operable after 29 March when we leave the European Union.

Plant protection products, commonly called pesticides, are currently regulated by means of EU regulation 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and associated regulation 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. Those two regulatory regimes are closely related and currently rely on centralised EU processes and mechanisms, although much of the business of the regimes is already conducted at national level. Decisions at EU level are taken on the basis of evaluations and assessments undertaken by member states, such as those undertaken by our Health and Safety Executive.

In future, those evaluations will inform a national decision rather than informing UK input to an EU decision. That means that much of the infrastructure and expertise we need is already in place in the UK, which will provide a good degree of continuity when we implement the UK-wide regime. The Chemicals Regulation Directorate, which sits within the HSE, already has around 150 staff working on pesticides, which is a considerable resource. We are known as probably the most advanced and developed country in Europe in terms of technical expertise.

Under the current system, a chemicals company that seeks an authorisation for a new active substance will go to a member state to have its technical information and scientific data evaluated. Those technical evaluations are currently conducted in the UK by the Chemicals Regulation Directorate. UK authorities already do around 30% of all the assessments of new products that take place in the European Union—we are known to be very efficient at doing that work and chemicals companies often choose to come to the UK.

The CRD then produces a draft assessment report, which contains a technical evaluation, looking at issues such as eco-toxicity, human health impacts, the fate of the chemicals in the environment and their efficacy. That draft assessment report is then submitted to the European Food Safety Authority which, in some cases but not all, runs a simple peer review process using a committee of experts. Following that process, EFSA reaches a final conclusion and makes a recommendation to the Commission. That recommendation is ultimately approved as a decision by one of the European Union’s standing committees—in this case the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.

In future, we will still run all that information. Instead of having an EU peer review process, we will use the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides, and rather than the EU running a public consultation, there will be a requirement on the HSE to run the public consultation.

The regulations are designed to achieve a number of things. First, all decision-making functions and powers are repatriated from the EU to national level in the way that I have explained. That includes approval of all active substances and a number of related functions, such as the precise nature and format of the documents required and some of the renewals processes that are currently provided for in EU law.

Secondly, a mechanism is established to give effect to national decisions by listing approved active substances on a new statutory register in the form of a publicly available online database. This replaces the current EU mechanism for giving effect to decisions through a large volume of tertiary legislation that establishes the register.

Thirdly, other EU tertiary legislative powers will be repatriated. These are the powers to set out the principles and decisions and the thresholds and end points that should inform decisions. The powers will be exercised in future through statutory instruments rather than through tertiary legislation from the EU. A few very minor things, such as the precise format of dossiers and of assessment reports, can be dealt with administratively.

As I have explained, EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in a national context. Examples are consideration of specific technical issues specified in the regulations, public consultation on active substance applications, provision for consultation with independent specialists where appropriate, and final decision making.

National arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place. We already have advisory committees of experts and academics—the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food. They are preparing to meet the challenge of any additional advice that they will need to give. They are already looking at the forward pipeline of potential renewals and new product applications that they would need to consider, and reviewing whether they have the right skills balance in their existing committee structures and seeking to recruit additional ones where they deem that necessary.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Under the current regime, the EU produces in the order of 50 additional regulations per year. Once the powers have been repatriated to this country, will there be very close alignment of this country with the new regulations being produced in the EU? If not, how will we be able to maintain our ability to trade with the EU given our need to demonstrate that our pesticide standards are at least as good as the EU’s?

[George Eustice]

It is obviously open to us as an independent country to choose independently to adopt processes and have things similar to those in the EU if we want to. There is nothing to prevent us from doing that, but I believe that, when it comes to pesticides, it is very important to base our decisions on the correct scientific and technical interpretation of the risk to the environment and to health. We have instances where European countries have sometimes done the calculations wrong and authorised products that they should not have authorised. We would not want to follow them if they had made errors in their analysis. The important thing is that, as I have said, the CRD has the best scientific experts on pesticides in the EU definitely and possibly in the world. It is very important that we rely on that to protect the rigour of the process and do not simply slavishly follow decisions that come from elsewhere.

The EU regime’s power to establish a rolling active substance renewals programme will be replaced with a power to establish a national renewals programme to ensure that we are able to take renewal decisions as necessary from day one of exit.

Some elements of the current regime that rely on EU membership will no longer be able to operate. For example, the mutual recognition provisions for fast-tracking product approvals between member states in the same zone will no longer be relevant. However, as I said earlier, the UK will be able to take account of relevant assessments by other countries’ regulators in our own national assessments. Similarly, parallel trade permits for products rely on the sharing of information between member states and will no longer be relevant. Current parallel trade permits at the point of exit will remain valid for a transitional period of two years after exit or until the extant expiry day—whichever comes sooner. Transitional measures have been put in place, ensuring that changeover to the national regime is smooth. For example, we have measures to ensure that all current approvals and authorisations remain valid after the point of exit and measures to make provision for the handling of applications in train at the point of exit.

We are also taking forward a separate instrument, as I mentioned at the start, that was laid on 12 February. The Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make some further minor changes relating to plant protection products and maximum residue levels. Those regulations are being made under the negative procedure. It is essentially a wash-up revocation and miscellaneous amendments SI to deal with changes that have come late in the day from the European Union. As Members will understand, there is a constant torrent of regulation in this space, so it is important that we make any necessary updates at the end of the process.

Those separate regulations also reinstate the original wording of article 46 of regulation 1107/2009 in place of the replacement article 46, which was to be substituted by regulation 5(24) of the draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which we are debating. That reinstatement is because the correction of article 46 made by the original drafting inadvertently altered the grace periods permitted under the article as it operates currently. In the new regulation, we have reverted to the original text.

The main changes in the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are very similar to those in the first instrument. First, the regulations repatriate all decision-making functions and powers, such as the setting of maximum residue levels, from the EU to the national level. Secondly, a mechanism is established to give effect to national maximum residue limit decisions by listing them on a new statutory register in the form of a publicly available online database.

EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in a national context, such as the valuation functions specified in the regulations. National arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place with our two highly respected expert committees. The requirement for reviews of EU maximum residue levels to ensure that they are set appropriately has been replaced by a provision for reviews at the national level. That has been necessary to ensure that it is practical and realistic for the UK to deliver acting alone. More realistic timelines to undertake reviews in a national context have therefore been set. They better match the real time that this work takes in practice in the EU at the moment.

The power to establish an EU residue monitoring programme has been replaced by an equivalent national power to put in place a national monitoring programme. The current EU programme looks three years ahead, so the UK’s obligations under the programme for the next three years are retained. That will ensure that the same standards of protection are maintained after exit. Transitional measures have been put in place to ensure that changeover to the national regime is smooth. For example, all MRLs in place at the point of exit will be carried over.

I make one final point clear to the Committee. There is a constant flow of EU tertiary regulations, typically with several each month giving effect to decisions on active substances and maximum residue levels. Two minor transitional provisions in the regulation on maximum residue levels, which were laid before Christmas and relate to regulation 396/2005, and which convert EU MRLs into our new statutory register, have already become redundant due to amendments made to that regulation by the EU in January. As I mentioned earlier, last week we introduced the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Among other amendments, it will revoke the two transitional provisions that have been overtaken by events in the EU. Both SIs will be made together once the draft instrument laid last week has passed through the necessary parliamentary processes, which will ensure that our regulations link correctly to retained EU law as it is on exit day.

I want to make one final point. I appreciate that the SIs are very lengthy—they are longer than many of the other exit SIs. Hon. Members will note that there are large schedules at the back of the regulations that contain a long list of revocations of EU regulations that we no longer need, since those pieces of tertiary legislation were essentially the vehicle that delivered a message that will be recorded on our statutory register in the future. The vehicle itself is no longer needed and is redundant, which is why there are so many revocations at the back of these statutory instruments.

I hope I have explained the process to hon. Members and reassure them that we have a very high degree of technical expertise. Although we operate under an EU regime, in practice most of the technical work is done by our national authorities, which are well equipped to continue to do this task after we leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I want to draw on some of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud. I will return to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby at the end.

The first thing to note is that the current regulation that governs active substances is Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. Our own HSE was largely instrumental in the drafting of it. I have to point out to the hon. Member for Stroud that the then Labour Government voted against that infrastructure despite the fact that we had been involved in drafting it on the basis that they did not agree with the hazard-based principle. Nevertheless, we as a Government are bringing across the existing regime, with all its imperfections, including the hazard-based principle. We are bringing it over exactly as it is and placing it on the UK statute book.

To address the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who is obviously anxious to do things better, yes there are indeed opportunities to do things better and to refine the system, but that is a discussion for another day. We are absolutely crystal clear that the EU (Withdrawal) Act is about bringing across the existing regulatory structure. It seeks to make no policy changes whatever, and the regulations make no changes whatever.

To draw on the point about HSE resources, probably only the eight largest member states of the European Union have any meaningful capacity to do such work on pesticides. The UK is renowned in Europe for being the leader in terms of the scale and scope of our expertise. As the hon. Member for Stroud says, we have 150 experts on pesticides in the chemical regulations directorate. We have identified that there will be an additional workload. Scoping work has suggested that the directorate will probably need another 40 members of staff. The directorate has commenced that work, and we have identified that we will probably need to give it an additional £5 million a year to do it. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the directorate already does the bulk of the work. It is simply fiction to think that the European Union does it. The European Union has an oversight role and owns the regulations, but the actual work—the technical evaluation—is already done by our own Health and Safety Executive.

[Dr Drew]

If we are not doing that work for the EU, the EU will have a huge hole. Obviously, we will have to check food that comes into this country because of the potential that the EU now might not be as effective. Is that not the reality?

[George Eustice]

It is very much the case that I would be open to saying that, as part of any future partnership, we should still have wider European technical working groups, so that the European Union can continue to benefit from British expertise but, at the moment, we are obviously not at the point of being able to advance discussions at that level of detail—as things stand, we are struggling to get a withdrawal agreement agreed by both sides at all.

[Sandy Martin]

Is there not a danger, Minister, that the people with the expertise will find that there is a more ready market for their expertise in the rest of the European Union, and that they will take their expertise back to the European Union rather than remaining in this country?

[George Eustice]

I do not think so because we will still need to comply with the regulations in the UK. The opportunities offered by Brexit to all DEFRA agencies add up to an exciting time. Rather than slavishly following EU law as we have had to do for decades, we have the opportunity to think through from first principles what good policy looks like, and to shape it independently.

Let me give hon. Members a sense of the scale of the renewal programme. Each year, usually around seven new active substances come on to the market, so the workload involved in assessing those is relatively modest, but dozens of active substances need to be reviewed every year. As the shadow Minister pointed out, currently under EU law the maximum residue limits are supposed to be reviewed within a 12-month period, which never happens. The European Union routinely breaks its own rules and typically takes up to three years to do that job.

We have to ask ourselves an important question. Is it better to rush things through in a hurry to hit some 12-month deadline, and to do things in a rather slipshod fashion, or is it better to take the time it takes to do the job thoroughly so that we have an absolutely proper understanding of any changes in the science on MRLs, and ensure that we have available all the necessary data on which to base a decision, and then be realistic about that timescale? The position we have taken, having discussed that with the HSE, is, “If you are going to do the job, do it properly; and if you are going to do it properly, be realistic about the time it takes to gather the raw data.” The HSE believes that a three-year window makes more sense than 12 months, and that in practice the EU works to that deadline anyway regardless of its own rules. We think it is better to have rules that we can abide by and that make sense than to have rules, as the EU does, that are routinely broken.

On peer review of the scientific advice, as I pointed out, we have the Expert Committee on Pesticides. Just as the EU currently puts together a peer review panel to look at the technical assessments done by the CRD, we envisage that the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food will be able to carry out a peer review process on the work done by our CRD officials.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of accountability. It is important to recognise that, under the current system, there really is no political accountability. As I said, the blizzard of tertiary regulations that come from the European Union go to a standing committee, where things are decided. After that, there is no parliamentary process in the European Parliament. As far as our Parliament is concerned, those regulations do not even warrant an explanatory memorandum to tell hon. Members what has been done. This is the simplest of all delegated Acts, of which there is zero political scrutiny at present.

In the future, there will be a maintained register, a national consultation run by the HSE and a peer review process run by the ECP, with its minutes published in the same way they are now for product authorisations. We will have a very open and transparent process that people with technical expertise will be able to probe and challenge, and people who seek to understand why a particular product is on the statutory register will readily be able to find the information they require.

In conclusion, I believe we have the expertise in place to run both regimes effectively. We have also taken on a scoping exercise to recruit additional staff and provide additional resources to the CRD. We have the expertise. The statutory instruments will ensure that we have an operable set of regulations that change nothing and bring across the EU regime. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee had considered the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(George Eustice.)

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

This instrument makes amendments to domestic legislation and retained direct EU legislation that would otherwise not be operable after our exit from the European Union. It makes only those changes required to ensure a smooth exit from the European Union and does not change the definition or compositional requirements of fertilisers.

Fertilisers are essential yearly inputs for the UK agricultural, horticultural and amenity sectors. The UK is a net importer of fertiliser products, with only domestic production of potash, polyhalite, ammonium nitrate and lime contributing to the UK’s total fertiliser requirement. The legislation on fertilisers concerns the manufacturing and marketing of products. It provides for the definition, composition, labelling and packaging requirements for specific categories of fertilisers that are set out in lists. This legislation does not address the application or use of fertilisers. Such issues tend to be dealt with through separate provisions in measures such as the nitrates directive.

In 1975, the EU created its first set of legislation relating to fertilisers. However, the wide disparity in existing fertiliser rules between member states, and the bulky nature of these materials restricting cross-border trade, meant that it was not suitable to fully harmonise rules on all fertilisers throughout the EU. Instead, fertiliser rules were partially harmonised to begin to remove technical barriers to trade within the EU. The UK has therefore kept its existing domestic framework alongside the EU framework. The EU regulation sets out the requirements for so-called EC fertilisers, or previously EEC fertilisers, which can be sold freely across the European Union. Manufacturers can choose which framework to market their products under. This partial harmonisation remains in place today.

The current domestic framework for any material described as a fertiliser is the Fertiliser Regulations 1991. In the EU, the current framework is the EU regulation EC 2003/2003, which applies only to fertilisers labelled “EC fertiliser”. It was implemented in UK law by the EC Fertilisers Regulations 2006. In addition, ammonium nitrate fertilisers are controlled through safety regulations that apply to all ammonium nitrate in Great Britain.

This statutory instrument amends domestic legislation that is out of date and addresses the failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, along with other deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Part 2 of the instrument amends out of date references in the domestic legislation. For example, it omits references to “EC fertilisers” and “EEC fertilisers” to ensure clarity for users of the legislation.

In the case of EU legislation, part 3 of this instrument amends retained EU law to ensure that it will operate effectively after exit day. For example, references to member states and the Commission are amended to refer instead to UK authorities. A requirement on the language to be used on labels is also amended. It replicates the EU framework in UK law, replacing the “EC fertiliser” label with a new equivalent “UK fertiliser” label. The requirements will otherwise remain the same. The instrument also amends the EU framework to include a provision that preserves the ability of relevant bodies in the UK to continue to be able to take certain actions such as prescribing how specified fertilisers should be identified. Part 4 amends domestic legislation as a result of exit, ensuring continuity of supply by recognising the EC fertilisers label for a two-year transitional period after exit day. This will minimise burdens on businesses and authorities and enable suppliers to use up existing stocks, both of fertilisers and packaging. The amendments in the statutory instrument do not change the definition, compositional requirements, or labelling or packaging rules for fertilisers, whether they are marketed under the existing domestic framework—the 1991 regulations—or the EU framework.

Ammonium nitrate fertilisers are additionally covered by domestic safety regulations, since they can be misused as improvised explosives and pose safety risks if mishandled in manufacture, transport or storage. It is worth noting that part 4 of the instrument also amends the regulations surrounding ammonium nitrate fertilisers with high nitrogen content in Great Britain, to treat imports from EU member states the same as imports from other third countries in line with World Trade Organisation obligations.

Under the GB ammonium nitrate regulations, the rules for imports from the EU are different from those for imports from outside the EU. In the light of WTO rules, it would not be possible to retain these differences, so the instrument amends some aspects of the ammonium nitrate regulations, in particular the detonation resistance tests, to apply the more stringent of the two regimes to all imports after the end of the two-year transition period and to uphold current safety standards.

The definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

This is a very important issue for the fertiliser industry. Could the Minister clarify whether this provision would give the opportunity to Ministers and the Department to charge fees to cover the costs of tests needed for official control measures?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why the regulations were referred by the sifting Committee for debate. There is already a power in the existing regulations for authorities to make charges for that testing. All we sought to do in drafting was retain that ability. Broadly speaking, the testing we do here in the UK is run by the Health and Safety Executive at our facility in Buxton and it tends to be a commercial choice for the fertiliser companies whether to use that or to use an alternative at their own cost. There is not really a cost recovery mechanism that is deployed beyond that; it is simply based on research done by the companies. We have clarified and made a change to the drafting of the regulation to be clear that we simply seek to retain the existing abilities to charge rather than to create new ones.

Continuity of supply is ensured by a transitional period for imports from the EU, which provides 99% of imported ammonium nitrate to the UK. That allows the continuation of current rules on the time limit for detonation resistance tests and the ability to recognise EU laboratory test certificates. These arrangements give manufacturers time to prepare for compliance with the import rules post exit and reduce any burdens on UK laboratories immediately after exit.

The definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere. We have taken a view on that regarding when the quantity of material manufactured without alteration of composition or characteristics is longer than 92 days. We will therefore retain the EU definition of “batch”.

The instrument was previously presented to the sifting Committee on 1 November 2018 as one that should be subject to the negative procedure. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), the sifting Committee did not agree. It considered that the effect of one regulation was to allow Ministers to charge fees. In addition, it considered that the instrument conferred powers to legislate. It therefore recommended that this instrument be debated in Parliament. The instrument has been amended since it was presented to the sifting Committee to reflect certain recommendations in the Committee’s report. For example, the provisions that the Committee considered to confer powers to legislate have been redrafted to make it clear that they do not contain new legislative functions.

In general, fertiliser policy, as with other agriculture policy, is devolved. The devolved Administrations were closely engaged in developing these regulations, which apply to the same geographical area as the original legislation that they amend. All Administrations have agreed to maintain a single common framework for fertilisers labelled as UK fertilisers, while continuing their own domestic framework. That will make the marketing of fertilisers much clearer for industry, and is a good example of how well the four Administrations work together towards a common goal.

The instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards, with no significant impacts or new administrative or economic burdens on business or other stakeholders. Although there was no statutory requirement to consult on the instrument, officials have held discussions with key stakeholders, including the fertiliser manufacturers’ representative body, which is the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and the farmers’ representative body—obviously, the National Farmers Union. Their main concerns have been addressed by allowing for a transitional period for existing rules and compliance with the amended rules.

In conclusion, the changes to the rules on ammonium nitrate have been developed in conjunction with the HSE and the Home Office, to ensure that safety and security elements are maintained. This package of measures is essential to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively in the UK once we leave the EU. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I now have even more points to try to address, and I will do so as comprehensively as I can.

First, I turn to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). He raised a general point about the use of fertilisers, which is that we should be trying to encourage more sustainability, perhaps through the use of organic fertilisers. He will be aware from the discussions we have had in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee that we are looking, in clause 1, to be able to incentivise more environmentally sustainable farming, which could include, for instance, supporting the use of organic farmyard manures more than manufactured fertilisers. He should also recognise that increases in fuel costs have anyway had a major knock-on impact on the cost of fertilisers in recent decades, such that in the past 30 years or so fertiliser use in the UK has fallen by about 40% already. He pointed out that at the moment we import most of our ammonium nitrate, predominantly from the European Union; there is one manufacturer of ammonium nitrate here in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on security—in particular, whether there is a risk that the material will get into the hands of terrorists. As I pointed out, we have gone for the more stringent detonating test regime, meaning that any consignment imported to the UK, whether from the European Union or a third country, would have to have had that detonation test within the previous 60 days. We are applying the more stringent set of rules that we have for third countries to all countries.

On the general issue of security, I also point out that in 2006 a fertiliser industry assurance scheme was set up between the Government and the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and it has since successfully created and monitored voluntary standards in the industry supply chain to ensure that ammonium nitrate fertiliser can be traced and does not end up in the wrong hands.

Although we have made changes to the GB regime for detonation testing and the ammonium nitrate regime, as I said in my opening comments Northern Ireland has its own specific rules in this area. The ammonium nitrate safety regulations apply to Great Britain. Owing to the past misuse of ammonium nitrate in making improvised explosive devices, Northern Ireland has its own controls under the Control of Explosives Precursors etc. Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 and, under existing rules, the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Those prevent any import, storage or use of ammonium nitrate fertilisers without a tier 1 explosives precursor licence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland is more thorough still, given the tragic history of which we are all aware.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we have not conducted an impact assessment. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) pointed out, that is because we are not seeking to make any substantive change to policy—indeed, the stated aim of all these EU exit SIs is, as far as we are able, to maintain the status quo from day one after we leave the European Union, to ensure that we have an operable law book. He also made a specific point about the technical note on page 5, which he claimed he could not download. I am reliably informed that, since he mentioned that, my officials have been online to double-check and successfully downloaded it. Perhaps the issue had more to do with the hon. Gentleman’s IT than with our system; nevertheless, I thank him for raising that so that we could at least double-check.

The hon. Gentleman also raised an important point about storage: what happens if material is stored beyond the two-year transition? We arrived at the two-year transition period for sale having consulted the industry. The industry generally thought it an appropriate period both to be able to market its existing stocks and to give it plenty of time to use up any residual fertiliser packaging and order new packaging.

[Julian Sturdy]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest. Would what the Minister has said apply to on-farm stock as well?

[George Eustice]

No. I was about to come to precisely that point, which was also made by the shadow Minister. If during the two-year transition period a farmer has bought products labelled under the previous EU regulations, he can then store them on farm. As I pointed out at the beginning, these are marketing regulations—pertaining to the sale of product, not storage or use after sale.

Finally, the hon. Members for Stroud and for Edinburgh North and Leith asked about the specific issue of tariffs on fertilisers. This is an issue that the Government are currently considering. As hon. Members may be aware, while farming representative groups such as the NFU would like to retain tariffs on some agricultural commodities, they are equally keen to have tariff rate suspensions on some fertiliser products. We are giving that consideration. It is important to note, however, that if we were to set a unilateral autonomous tariff rate quota or suspend tariffs on a unilateral basis, we would have to offer the same terms to all countries in the world, probably including Russia, notwithstanding the approach the European Union is currently taking.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that SNP Members were deliberately scare- mongering when they said that farmers would not be able to import any more after 29 March? Will he confirm that foreign suppliers are not cancelling contracts for after Brexit?

[George Eustice]

I can confirm that we do not envisage any problems at all with the importing of fertiliser, even in a no-deal scenario. That is predominantly because these products—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[George Eustice]

Let me conclude my point first and then the hon. Gentleman can decide whether I have answered the point adequately.

Fertilisers tend to come in bulk, predominantly through Harwich on container vessels where we envisage no issues with capacity. They tend not to come in on roll-on, roll-off ferries on the backs of lorries through Calais. It is right that there are some concerns about the potential impacts on the all-important Dover-Calais crossing, but they do not specifically affect fertilisers. We see no particular problems in ensuring that we can import the fertilisers we need for this year.

The hon. Lady asked why we cannot simply have an indefinite extension of the recognition of the EC fertiliser logo. The reason is that we have to treat all countries equally under WTO rules. Once we have left the European Union and become an independent country again, we will not be able to discriminate and give unfair privileges to the European Union in the way that she advocates.

The hon. Lady asked a specific question about what had changed in relation to detonation testing. The principal change on strengthening detonation testing is that it will apply to each consignment that comes into the European Union. Put simply, all that importers will need to demonstrate is that each consignment has been subject to a detonation test of a suitable standard within the previous 60 days. At the moment under EU derogations it is possible for that to run longer because they simply apply it to individual batches rather than consignments, so there will be a small change. In the longer term, once the transition has ended, those seeking to export their goods to the United Kingdom would need to have that detonation test done, probably by the Health and Safety Executive in Buxton. We have world-beating expertise in this area and that testing would be done effectively.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

In terms of scaremongering, was the Minister’s boss, the Environment Secretary, scaremongering yesterday when he said that in a no-deal situation he could not guarantee exports and imports would continue at our borders and that livestock exports from the UK would be subject to high tariffs? Was that scaremongering as well?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was referring to the export of sheep. We all acknowledge—I acknowledge it, too—that border inspection posts would frustrate that trade and that tariffs imposed on sheepmeat exports would affect that trade. He was explicitly not talking about fertiliser imports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was making a very specific point about whether there would be any threats to the import of fertilisers. As most of that trade comes through Harwich, we do not anticipate any problems at all on those grounds.

In conclusion, we have highlighted a number of important areas in this statutory instrument. We have had a thorough debate, but, as I have been at pains to point out, it does not seek to introduce any new policy. In keeping with the spirit and requirements of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it is simply about ensuring that retained EU law is operable on the day after exit. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Aquaculture)

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

This instrument extends to Northern Ireland only. The island of Ireland has only 10 native species of fish—40 fewer than in Great Britain and 80 fewer than continental Europe. With fewer species, it has fewer aquatic pests and diseases and, consequently, has a higher aquatic health status. We must ensure that that situation is maintained. We also acknowledge the vulnerability of the aquatic environment and the aquaculture industry to the introduction of diseases and alien species.

In Northern Ireland, aquaculture is a small but valuable market. In 2017, aquaculture production accounted for 1,248 tonnes of finfish at a value of over £6.5 million on 36 active licensed sites and 5,831 tonnes of shellfish, mainly mussels and oysters, at a value of over £9 million on 43 active aquaculture sites. The sector employs 93 full- time and 33 part-time staff.

Disease freedom underpins international regulations on the trade in live animals and their products. Northern Ireland enjoys a higher health status than the rest of the UK, as it is free from many of the most serious aquatic animal diseases. The maintenance and protection of Northern Ireland’s aquatic health status safeguards the interest of the aquaculture sector, as well as the public, who derive health and wellbeing benefits from angling and other recreational activities.

This statutory instrument will provide the necessary technical corrections to the Aquatic Animal Health Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009, which are the principal regulations, and the Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to ensure operability when the UK leaves the EU. The instrument does not introduce any policy changes.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I fully support what my hon. Friend is trying to do for continuity, but can we expect further legislation shortly after leaving—if we leave without signing a withdrawal agreement—because we would presumably want our own policy then?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that once we leave the EU, whether without an agreement or after the conclusion of the implementation period, the UK will be free to legislate independently in such areas, rather than having to do so in accordance with EU directives.

The UK Government remain committed to restoring devolution in Northern Ireland. However, in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, UK Ministers have decided that, in the interest of legal certainty for Northern Ireland, the Government will take through the necessary secondary legislation at Westminster for Northern Ireland in close consultation with the relevant Northern Ireland Department.

The proposed amendments fall into three main categories. First, cross-references to EU instruments are amended so that they are operable after EU exit. The amendments modify cross-references to the 2006 directive contained in the principal regulations. The modifications are essential to ensure the operability of the principal regulations following the UK’s exit from the EU. They are common amendments that appear throughout Northern Ireland, England and Wales and Scotland EU exit statutory instruments. For example, the amendments substitute references to “Member State” or “Member States” with “Northern Ireland”, the “Competent Authority” or the “UK or a constituent UK territory”, and references to the EU are changed to the UK. The amendments also include the substitution of references to articles in the directive with references to provisions in the domestic Northern Ireland regulations that transposed the directive to ensure a reference point in the regulation itself, rather than to an EU directive. Some cross-references contain further cross-references to the directive and, in these cases, the cross-references have been followed through to modify all the necessary provisions.

Secondly, a group of provisions will be redundant or inoperable in Northern Ireland law after EU exit. This instrument makes an amendment to the Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to remove the reference to a representative of the European Commission being able to accompany an inspector of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, because it will no longer be appropriate for such an official to attend after we leave the EU.

Finally, there are cross-references to directly applicable EU instruments to reflect technical amendments made to such instruments by other UK-wide SIs. Part 2 of annex 4 to directive 2006/88 contains listed diseases. It was replaced with a new annex 1A inserted into regulation 1251/2008 by the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to enable the UK to amend the list of diseases in retained EU law following exit from the EU. The amendments are made to replace references to annex 4 of the directive to annex 1A to the regulation, which will ensure correct references to retained EU law in the domestic Northern Ireland regulations.

Given the unique biodiversity of the island of Ireland, DAERA officials work closely with their Irish counterparts on a range of fish health issues, especially with regard to contingency planning, trade matters, disease issues and biosecurity. Co-operation on such matters was in place long before we joined the EU and will continue when the UK leaves the EU. There is a close working relationship across the island of Ireland on fish health and aquaculture.

For example, the Bottom Grown Mussel Consultative Forum facilitates the management of the seed mussel fishery on an all-island basis. It consists of officials from Departments, scientists, enforcement agents, Inland Fisheries Ireland and the aquaculture industry. The group has been instrumental in securing the Marine Stewardship Council certification for Irish bottom-grown mussels. This prestigious status ensures premium market access for Ireland’s top-quality mussels, and it demonstrates that the sector is vigilant on disease prevention and control, maintains high biosecurity standards and is environmentally aware.

The intention of the regulations is to maintain the status quo and keep the aquatic animal health and alien species in aquaculture regimes functioning much as they do now. The regulations do not create new policy or change existing policy. As a result, no significant impacts are expected to arise from them. In moving this statutory instrument, a workable legal framework underpinning business as usual in the aquatic animal health and alien and locally absent species in aquaculture regimes will be preserved after exit.

[John Redwood]

I seek to clarify my earlier question, which did not seem to get through. Is the Department working on a better regime for fishing in general, and for fish health in particular, for once we have left? This is a great opportunity, and fishing is an area that has been very badly damaged by EU membership.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that we have an operable law book on day one after leaving the European Union, but he will also be aware that, separately, the Fisheries Bill is going through the House—it has completed its Committee stage and will return shortly on Report. I can confirm that the Bill has a dedicated provision that gives the Government power to legislate in the area of fish health in particular so we can improve on the current regime and make any necessary changes. These regulations are simply about ensuring we make retained EU law operable, and I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

First, let me address the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). This is an important issue and I take exception to the suggestion that a transport issue could be more important than aquaculture. As I said at the beginning, it is an important industry in Northern Ireland, but it is also an important industry in Scotland. He will be aware that the Scottish Government have brought forward their own regulations to ensure that these EU regulations are operable in UK law and that Scottish authorities can continue to regulate the aquaculture sector in a way that is important.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important issue about the sifting Committee, which had indeed recommended that this SI be debated on the Floor of the House and is an affirmative resolution, rather than a negative resolution, as was the initial proposal. As he said, the Committee picked up on the reference to the ability to establish buffer zones. It raised a concern that this was a new power, but I can confirm that it is not a new power. This power already exists and it was probably a misunderstanding of the way the provision is phrased that led the Committee to consider that this was a new power being taken. In fact, DAERA, on behalf of Northern Ireland, has always been able to exercise this power. That said, given the importance of this issue, we chose not to challenge the sifting Committee recommendation that it should be debated, even though we believe it may have been based on a misunderstanding. I am happy to clarify here on the Floor of the House that the power to establish appropriate buffer zones is not a new power, but one that already exists.

Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can confirm that his understanding is exactly right: officials in DAERA will continue to be responsible for the licensing of aquaculture activities. The whole purpose of all these Brexit SIs is that they maintain the status quo and that there will be no change. Indeed, without them, there would be some doubt about whether DAERA would be able to exercise the full suite of powers available to it, because elements of the retained EU law that it will rely upon would become inoperable. This SI corrects any of those said deficiencies.

Finally, let me address the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin). He asked what we will do when we do not have the EU to give us the science in these areas, to make regulations and to tell us what we ought to be doing. I simply say that as we leave the EU it will be for us to decide these things and we have some of the best fisheries science in the world. Across the UK, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is our lead fisheries science agency. It is a world-leading agency and other Governments right across the globe seek input and expertise from our British fisheries science agencies.

Northern Ireland has its own CEFAS equivalent—its own Northern Ireland-based fisheries science capability, hosted within the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute. The AFBI is a multidisciplinary organisation, with 650 staff involved in all sorts of high-technology research and development. It leads on fisheries science. This morning, I met Mark McCaughan who is a chief scientific officer on fisheries. The AFBI has a fisheries science base in Stormont and it leads on all the key technical work that needs to be done on issues such as fish health and preventing invasive species.

As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government have had long-standing co-operation on building joint management plans for sectors such as mussels that predates the EU. These arrangements will continue; they do not need the EU to stand behind them. The island of Ireland is a single epidemiological area, and there has always been close co-operation on these matters.

There is a tendency for all these debates to cover lots of technical detail, as the hon. Gentleman said. However, it is important to remember that all we are doing with these SIs is substituting the words “United Kingdom Government” for “the European Commission” and making other such amendments. We are not making substantive changes. Members need to bear in mind that probably the most pernicious so-called Henry VIII power of all was the European Communities Act, because section 2(2) of that Act meant that with negative instruments all over the place the European Commission was in effect able to rampage through our domestic law book. The irony is that when any of these regulations were introduced in the House via a negative SI, sometimes to implement delegated Acts from the European Union, there would have been little or no parliamentary scrutiny. It is only now, as we seek to make those regulations that have been in place for some time operable, that Members seem to be concerned.

[Jim Shannon]

To reiterate and strengthen the opinion the Minister has just rehearsed, it is important to note that the local fish producers organisations that I referred to endorse what the Minister is putting forward today. If they have faith in the Minister and what he is putting forward, we in the House should have the same faith.

[George Eustice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation. There was indeed consultation, but it was led by DAERA. It is important to recognise that we are doing this on DAERA’s behalf and at its request. DAERA has co-operated and consulted widely with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the regulations have their support. In conclusion—

[Sandy Martin]

The Minister has not fully answered my question about the way in which directive 2006/88 is being replaced by regulation 2016/249. He mentioned something about an automatic carry-over, but I do not really understand how that works. The statutory instrument says:

“After regulation 21(6), insert—

‘(7) For the purposes of paragraph (1), regulations 19(3)(c) and 21(1) and paragraphs (1)(c)(iii) and 4(d) of Schedule 1A, Part A of Annex 3 to Directive 2006/88’”

and so on. It is almost impossible for anybody to work out what is actually happening. Will the Minister describe how we are going to take on regulation 2016 rather than directive 2006, as a result of this statutory instrument?

[George Eustice]

The point that hon. Gentleman describes in some detail is a point that I explained in my opening speech when I talked about cross-references. If the retained EU law retained a reference to an EU directive, that would no longer be operable, because EU directives would no longer apply in the UK. The only way to make such provisions operable is to have a reference point in UK law. The 2006 regulations will become retained EU law on a UK legal basis. All we are saying is that we will change references to the original directive that gave rise to the regulation and make them references contained within the regulations themselves, so that they will remain operable. It is quite complicated, but essentially it boils down to this: EU directives will cease to have effect in the UK after we leave, but retained EU law will continue to have effect, so if there are provisions in directives that we wish to retain, we must bring them over in the retained EU law. In this case, we do that with the regulation concerned.

We have explored some of the key areas of this statutory instrument. I hope I have been able to reassure Members not only that this instrument is essential to ensure that we have an operable rulebook in this area on day one of exit, but that we are not creating any policy changes or new policy through this statutory instrument. We are simply ensuring that the arrangements that pertain today can continue. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on bringing this important Bill to Parliament. He spoke eloquently about the devastation that flooding can cause. Sadly, like many hon. Members in this House, he has first-hand experience of dealing with the matter in his own constituency; indeed, his constituency was at the centre of controversy during the floods in the winter of 2013-14. Five years ago, in January 2014—shortly after I became a DEFRA Minister in 2013, and shortly before he was elected to this House—he invited me to meet a group of his constituents at Long Sutton golf club, which had suffered repeated flooding as a result of the problems on the rivers. I recall that I was stopping off on my way back from Cornwall but I was late, because one of the bridges—I think it was the Long Load bridge—had been cut off by the flooding, and I had to go on quite a long diversion to get to the venue.

At the heart of the problems experienced in Somerset were issues about how best to manage river systems in flood plains. In my hon. Friend’s case, the river in question was the River Parrett, if I remember correctly. Many hon. Members will have had to help constituents deal with the consequences of floods. In my own constituency, there have been issues not only with coastal surge flooding but fluvial floods caused by heavy rainfall, which we are prone to get in Cornwall. To tackle this natural hazard, the Government continue to invest record amounts in protecting communities across England with new flood defence schemes and the maintenance of existing ones.

Alongside this, the Government are keen to empower communities to take further action at a local level. In our 25-year environment plan, we have committed to bringing the public, private and third sectors together to work with communities and individuals to reduce the risk of harm from all environmental hazards. Later in 2019, the Government will publish a policy statement on flooding and coastal erosion in England, and the Environment Agency will publish an updated national flooding and coastal erosion strategy.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, following the devastating floods in 2013 and 2014, there was a strong political desire for co-ordination across Somerset to devise a bespoke new local initiative. In January 2014, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), the then Secretary of State, asked Somerset County Council and the Environment Agency to work with the local community to come up with a flood action plan. As my hon. Friend is aware, this plan led to the concept of a new body—a rivers authority. The plan recommended the creation of a such a body in Somerset. The aim was to establish a new way of bringing together the different bodies that have a responsibility for, or interest in, flood risk management. By raising additional local funding, and through co-ordinating and utilising the expertise of individual partners, the Somerset Rivers Authority is able to provide a better level of protection than may otherwise have been possible, but it does not seek to replace existing flood risk management authorities or their funding mechanisms.

The Government fully understand how important this issue is for the people of Somerset and fully support the work of the Somerset Rivers Authority. The Government showed their support for the Somerset Rivers Authority with a £1.9 million funding package to help with its start-up costs. A review of the long-term funding options was commissioned that recommended precepting powers. Incorporating river authorities and securing the Somerset Rivers Authority’s future requires new legislation. I am pleased that this is provided for in clause 1 of my hon. Friend’s Bill.

While there is widespread support for the decision on the Somerset Rivers Authority, that decision is not taken lightly. The Government are aware that any precept will be funded by local taxpayers, as is already the case under the existing shadow precept used in Somerset. Putting this legislation into statute will make the Somerset Rivers Authority an autonomous precepting authority, making it more transparent, ensuring that safeguards are in place to protect local council tax payers and ensuring that its funding is ring-fenced solely for this important work. It will also secure its future and enable it to deliver more. The Bill also sets out how, through regulations, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise further the creation and governance arrangements of a rivers authority.

My hon. Friend also mentioned internal drainage boards, which are dealt with in the second part of the Bill. As he pointed out, three of those are based in Somerset, and there are a further 109 across England. Internal drainage boards have been in existence for many years. Their main focus originally was on the drainage of agricultural land in low-lying areas, but they have since moved on and now play a much wider role as a key partner in local flood risk management. This model has worked well, but, as he said, not everywhere has such a body. There is interest in other parts of England and Wales in creating new internal drainage boards, and many of those that already exist would like to expand. However, a combination of issues has stopped the creation of new, or the expansion of existing, internal drainage boards. As he said, there have been issues with the ratings tables, which date right back to 1991 and, in many areas, no longer exist. A change in legislation is therefore required. I am pleased that this is provided for in clauses 2, 3 and 4 of his Bill, establishing a power to introduce new regulations relating to charging methodologies. We can therefore have both the creation of new internal drainage boards and expansion of existing ones.

I want to turn to some of the points made by hon. Members. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) raised an important point about Wales. I should point out to hon. Members that these matters are devolved. We asked the Welsh Government which elements they would like to be involved with. While they do not at this point want to see the introduction of rivers authorities in Wales, they did want the ability to expand internal drainage boards in Wales and the power to establish different charging mechanisms through regulations. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to clauses 2(7) and (8), which create powers for the Welsh Government to do just that through regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) gave a passionate speech, and it was interesting to hear the comments of her grandfather—I think everybody who has experienced flooding can agree that nothing beats the sound of a good, functioning drain. She also made an important point about the impact of this problem on some of our farmland.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) gave a very supportive, important speech about how certain businesses can be affected. He alluded to the question of how we will know whether local council tax payers do indeed support such precepts. I draw his attention to proposed new schedule A1, on page 20. Paragraph 2 sets out specific requirements and a duty to consult, so the Government would not even consider bringing forward regulations unless and until a local authority had carried out a consultation. An authority must consult other relevant risk management authorities and Natural England, but also

“persons liable to pay council tax”,

so those people would be fully involved in any consultation process.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), while showing a distinct lack of west country solidarity, nevertheless made some important points. In particular, he raised the local issues he faces on Braunton Marsh. He also made an important point about the role and value of local knowledge in delivering solutions to some of these problems.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who has finally got through a Bill that addresses similar issues. I am pleased to hear that the Bill, which I have seen on the annunciator many times, has now completed its passage.

Finally, I want to touch briefly on some of the issues raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). He raised a specific issue about the composition of the authority and who would be on it. It is open to us, through regulations under proposed new section 21C, to stipulate what provision should be put in place for that, so the issue can be dealt with through regulations by the Government of the day.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the “polluter pays” principle. I can reassure him that, while the focus of these measures is very much on flood risk management, the “polluter pays” principle is at the heart of much of what we do, and it is an approach taken by Natural England and the Environment Agency in all their work.

In conclusion, this is an important Bill. We have made good progress today, and we have had some interesting contributions. The Government fully support the Bill going to the next stage.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill promoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and to follow the able contributions of so many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Each and every one of them made a great contribution, often citing specific issues in their constituencies.

I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire for championing the cause of our much-loved service animals and promoting this important Bill in recognition of the strong support among the public for Finn’s law. In particular, I congratulate him on his persistence. The original draft of the Bill would have created a completely new offence, and he will be aware that at the time—I think that I first discussed this issue with him about a year ago—the view of lawyers was that a new offence was unnecessary. However, I had tremendous sympathy for the cause that he advocated, and I was delighted to ensure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs engaged with him to consider how his Bill could address this challenge. Together we came up with a sensible solution that is built on a model used elsewhere in the world, particularly in western Australia. It effectively removes an assailant’s ability to claim self-defence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in circumstances involving a service animal.

The Government recognise that service animals do invaluable work that can take them into dangerous situations, and the highest level of protection for such animals should be made clear in law. That is why the Government are supporting the Bill, which introduces what has become known as Finn’s law. I might add that it shows their characteristic commitment that both PC Wardell and Finn have followed each and every stage of the Bill’s passage through Parliament from the Public Gallery, and we are delighted to see them here today as well.

When the Bill becomes law, animals such as Finn will have more protection from unprovoked, callous attacks. That is because the Bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as it applies in England and Wales, to make it clear that someone’s ability to claim that they were acting in self-defence when they attacked a service animal shall be disregarded. No longer will someone be able to inflict suffering on our much-loved service animals—police dogs like Finn, police horses, or animals that support the prison service—and say that they were simply protecting themselves.

In supporting the Bill, we agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that using offences under section 4 of the 2006 Act to prosecute attacks on police and other support animals that cause unnecessary suffering could be made more difficult due to fact that the court must consider whether the defendant was acting in fear of harm. The Bill will make it easier successfully to prosecute people for causing animal cruelty by attacking a service animal. We are also taking separate steps to help to protect all animals under our care and protection—including our heroic service animals—by increasing the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) asked when that measure will be introduced; it will be brought forward as soon as possible. As he noted, the House is often preoccupied with other issues at the moment, but the matter remains at the top of the Government’s agenda. It is a clear commitment, and we will bring forward that legislation as soon as possible.

[John Spellar]

The Minister is pleading absence of parliamentary time, but did we not finish at about half-past two in the afternoon on Wednesday?

[George Eustice]

The parliamentary agenda and timetable are somewhat unpredictable at the moment, but the point remains that we are committed to raising the maximum penalty for animal cruelty to five years’ imprisonment. Specifically, we will amend the maximum penalties set out in section 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That will cover cruelty caused by attacks on service animals, which is the second limb of the Finn’s law campaign.

As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, Finn was stabbed by an assailant in 2016 when he assisted his handler, PC Dave Wardell, in the apprehension of a suspected offender. Finn received serious injuries, but we are all thankful that he survived and was even able to return to duty, before later retiring and attending debates such as this. In August 2018, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of meeting Finn and PC Wardell at DEFRA’s offices. The Secretary of State stated clearly that

“every day service animals dedicate their lives to keeping us safe, and they deserve strong protections in law.”

That was why he undertook to continue working with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire in developing this law.

The Bill is concerned with the offences under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which relate to animal cruelty or, as the Act states, causing

“unnecessary suffering to an animal”.

When considering a prosecution for cruelty, the court must currently consider whether the defendant was acting in fear of harm. Relevant here is the list of considerations in section 4(3) that the court must consider, which include whether the suffering was caused for

“a legitimate purpose, such as....the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal”.

In other words, the perpetrator of an attack on a service animal could use that provision to claim that they were acting to protect themselves. The Bill amends section 4 so that that consideration shall be disregarded with respect to incidents that involved unnecessary suffering inflicted on a service animal that was supporting an officer in the course of their duties. It will therefore be easier successfully to prosecute people for causing animal cruelty by attacking a service animal.

Clause 1 amends section 4 to allow the self-defence provision relating to animal cruelty to be disregarded if it concerns a service animal under the control of, and being used by, a relevant officer in the course of his or her duties in a way that was reasonable, and if the defendant was not the relevant officer in control of the service animal.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

May I just say how delighted I am to be here this morning? I was the shadow Policing Minister during the first debate on Finn’s law, and I am so pleased that we are today passing this Bill, and that I am in the Chamber as well.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. I think that we are all delighted to be here today to pass such feel-good legislation, which we all support.

The provisions will apply to dogs and horses used by the police and to dogs used by prison officers—they tend not to use horses, unsurprisingly. Service animals are defined in the Bill by reference to the person who is in control of them. The Bill applies only to animals that are under the control of a relevant officer at the time of the attack. The definition of “relevant officer” covers a police constable, a person who has the powers of a police constable and a prison custody officer. The type of animal is not restricted either; it can include dogs and horses, or indeed any other animal in the service of a relevant officer.

Clause 1 also provides the Secretary of State with a power to amend by regulations under the affirmative procedure the definition of relevant officer, provided that the additional persons are in the public service of the Crown. That provides the flexibility to add additional officers in the public service of the Crown who might not have been considered at this stage.

The Bill also provides for situations in which a police or prison officer may be required to use restraint against their own service animal, for example, to protect themselves or a member of the public. It provides that new subsection (3A) will not apply in a section 4 prosecution where the defendant is a relevant officer.

Clause 2 provides for the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill, and sets out that the Act will come into force two months after it is passed, which is the normal time for the commencement of Bills following Royal Assent. It sets out that the Act will extend only to England and Wales, as does the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which it amends. The shadow Minister noted that Northern Ireland is not covered. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that is because the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the Bill amends, extends only to England and Wales. I should point out that Scotland has its own animal welfare legislation, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and Northern Ireland has the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, so they have the powers to make their own equivalent legislation, although I take the point about the absence of an Administration in Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, the Government have put animal welfare at the very top of our agenda. We are increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. We have made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses. We propose to ban the use of electronic shock collars on pets, and third-party sales of puppies and kittens. We have also modernised animal welfare standards for dog breeding, pet sales and other licensed activities involving animals.

It was noted at the start of the debate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire has been particularly dogged and persistent in championing this cause. I was very pleased to be able, as a DEFRA Minister, to bring forward the regulations that changed the licensing regime for puppy breeding, which is something I have championed since I was first elected in 2010. Today, let me underline the fact that attacks on service animals such as brave Finn will not be tolerated. That is why we support the Bill, which will provide additional protection for our service animals. We hope that it will now make a swift passage through the other place without amendment.

January Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

The Agriculture and Fisheries Council took place in Brussels on 28 January. The UK was represented by Lord Gardiner of Kimble, Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity, and Lords Minister.

The lead issue on the agriculture-focused agenda was the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform post-2020, divided into two table rounds. The first round focused on strategic plans and horizontal regulations, detailing the changes to streamline the new delivery model, as well as the agricultural reserve. Member states broadly supported the call for the pillar two budget to be maintained, including a proposal which will allow a 35% deviation from annual milestones, among other things.

In the second debate, the Commission’s proposal to lift the ban on vitis labrusca and six forbidden grape varieties was debated. The majority of wine producing member states rejected the proposal on quality and reputational grounds. Commissioner Hogan then gave a presentation on green architecture which focused on member states’ objectives to achieve high-level climate ambitions.

Commissioner Hogan also introduced the non-legislative debate on supporting the growth of plant protein in the EU, setting out a wide range of proposed measures from the Commission’s plan. A declaration, calling for measures to be brought together in an EU-wide action plan was supported by a number of member states.

A number of other items were discussed under “any other business”:

Commissioner Andriukaitis provided an update from the ministerial conference on African swine fever (ASF) held in December 2018.

Slovakia presented their request for an update on the dual quality food issue.

Denmark informed Council about their new international centre for antimicrobial resistance solutions (ICARS). The UK expressed its support, highlighting the new five-year national AMR action plan and the chief medical officer’s recent visit to Copenhagen.

[HCWS1308]

Draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

I am pleased to open this debate on an important set of regulations, and I am grateful to hon. Members for being here when, obviously, another debate is taking place in the main Chamber. The regulations give effect to, and enable enforcement of, certain common fisheries policy and marine management measures, as part of the legislation needed for exiting the European Union. The regulations are one piece of a jigsaw that will ensure we have a functioning legislative framework when we leave the European Union. This statutory instrument is one of two that work together to amend fisheries legislation to make it operable for EU exit. A separate statutory instrument—the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—has been laid in draft and will be debated at a later date. It amends the vast majority of directly applicable EU regulations, for example those concerning illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries.

The SI under consideration today makes consequential amendments to various pieces of domestic legislation that are used to enforce and enable the implementation of those directly applicable EU regulations. The primary legislation amended is the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The amendments predominantly relate to enforcement powers. The secondary legislation amended is the Merchant Shipping Regulations 1993, the Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, the Tope (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 2008, the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009, the Fish Labelling Regulations 2013, the Sea Fishing (Points for Masters of Fishing Boats) Regulations 2014, the Sea Fishing (Enforcement and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2015, the Grants for Fishing and Aquaculture Industries Regulations 2015, and the Sea Fishing (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.

These lucky 13 pieces of legislation are simple and technical, to ensure that they operate correctly after EU exit. There are no changes to policy contained in the instrument. The instrument was considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and no concerns with the regulations were raised by either Committee. The former asked that we provide further explanation about the nature of the amendments. That has now been published in annex B of the revised explanatory memorandum.

The instrument is affirmative, as it amends existing powers to legislate, in particular in section 30(2) of the Fisheries Act 1981, and in the Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. The statutory instrument has therefore not been examined by the withdrawal Act sifting Committees.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I rise to raise two issues with regard to section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981, because of the effect it has on England and Wales, and on Scotland. Regulation 3(4)(b) under part 2, “Amendment of primary legislation”, mentions

“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”.

My understanding is that the Fisheries Act also refers to “enforceable EU restrictions”, so I wonder whether the intention is to leave in “enforceable EU restrictions” or to remove that part and replace it with something else. I rise as a new member of the Committee, unsure about how we go about amending a statutory instrument once it passes through here.

The same question arises with regard to regulation 3(4)(c), which states, in relation to section 30(2) of the Act,

“for ‘enforceable Community restriction or other’ substitute ‘retained EU restriction or retained EU’”.

It seems to be silent with regard to the enforceable EU restriction contained in the Act.

[George Eustice]

If there are any different answers, I will consider them before coming to my closing remarks, but I think the answer is that in all these cases our intention is to bring across retained EU law, the enforcement of which would then be done domestically. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to retain anything in our domestic statute that could in future be enforceable by the EU itself. The purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and indeed of these statutory instruments, is to ensure that we have an operable law book on day one, without leaving open the idea that the European Union could enforce anything under those.

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for that explanation. It is therefore my understanding that the reference to EU restrictions would also have to be removed from the 1981 Act.

[George Eustice]

My view is that they should be retained EU restrictions, but I will have a specific look at that before the end of this debate. Those restrictions would be retained EU restrictions rather than EU restrictions per se.

The amendments made by this statutory instrument fall into four main categories. First, where there are references to “an enforceable EU obligation” or “enforceable EU restrictions”, these are amended to “a retained EU obligation” or “retained EU restrictions”, to ensure that they remain operable as part of retained EU law. For example, section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981, which we have just discussed at some length, concerns the enforcement of EU rules relating to sea fishing. Amendments to section 30 change references to enforceable Community or EU obligations and restrictions to retained EU obligations and restrictions, to ensure continued operability of those enforcement provisions on EU exit. I hope that point reinforces what I have just explained to the hon. Member for East Lothian.

Secondly, there are some provisions that will be redundant or inoperable in UK law after EU exit. For example, paragraph 5 of schedule 4 to the merchant shipping regulations refers to an “EC number” in the list of details to be recorded on the register of British fishing vessels. That has been removed. Likewise, a reference to euros has been converted to pound sterling in the fish labelling regulations.

Thirdly, references to “member state or third country” are replaced in future simply with “third country”, because in this context existing EU member states will be categorised as third countries after we leave the European Union. For example, in article 3 of the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009, the definition of a third-country fishing vessel, which was

“a fishing vessel which is not a Community fishing vessel”,

has been amended to,

“a fishing vessel which is not a United Kingdom fishing vessel”.

Finally, cross-references to EU regulations are amended to bring them into line with technical amendments made to those regulations in the main Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. For example, in the fish labelling regulations, the designation of the Secretary of State to draw up a list of commercial designations of species has been deleted, because that is now provided for in Council Regulation (EC) 1379/2013, as amended by the main common fisheries policy SI. This is a consequential amendment arising from the amendments made by that SI.

This SI and the other UK-wide fisheries SIs have been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, reflecting the devolution settlements. The amendments made by this instrument mainly extend and apply to the United Kingdom, with some exceptions, so each of the devolved Administrations were heavily involved in developing the approach. A targeted engagement was carried out for the fisheries SIs, involving key stakeholders from the fisheries sector, the food industry and environmental non-governmental organisations. Additionally, a 10-week consultation was conducted through the fisheries White Paper, which described future fisheries policy as well as the legislative approach taken by these statutory instruments. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the approach.

This legislation is complemented by the Fisheries Bill, which will deliver our promise to take back control of our waters and decide who may fish in them and on what terms. It creates the powers to allow us, over time, to build a sustainable and profitable fishing industry. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments went somewhat outside scope towards the end. I will first address those pertinent to this particular order and then touch on some of the points he made at the end, although obviously they are also for discussion at a later date.

The first point to make, which is important, is that it is great that Parliament has—for the first time—the opportunity to debate these issues at all. Let us not forget that, as an EU member, our Parliament scarcely debated these technical issues: they came down through delegated Acts from the European Commission, and there was no parliamentary scrutiny or involvement at all.

Indeed, in the context of the so-called Henry VIII powers, it is important to recognise that probably the largest Henry VIII power used in recent times was the European Communities Act 1972 itself, which used to change our primary legislation willy-nilly. Many of the changes we are making to primary legislation here are simply changing a reference from EU law to retained EU law, when the power itself was initially created by that 1972 Act. Let us recognise that, in bringing forward these statutory instruments, we are re-establishing parliamentary scrutiny to this area for the first time in almost half a century. I welcome that.

The hon. Gentleman asks how many of these statutory instruments the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has; he mentioned that there were over 300 in total. As he may know, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has 98 statutory instruments to get through. He asks when we will get those passed. We will do that by exit day on 29 March. We all recognise—and it has been speculated about—that, if necessary, Parliament may have to sit longer hours to ensure that we get this job done on time. But it is absolutely our plan and intention to lay all those 98 regulations, and to pass them in time for exit day on 29 March.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the grouping. There is a large number of these SIs, so it makes sense to group them. The methodology we are applying is simply to do with the similarity of subjects. I will explain this in the context of these SIs: had we laid the second SI that deals with directly applicable EU law in time, I probably would have advised that we group the two together. But in the event, that one was not laid before this one had a debating slot, so I said we should press ahead with this one anyway. The two go reasonably well together, however, and that is why I alluded to it in the first instance. One deals with directly applicable EU law and the other deals with consequential amendments to domestic EU law, particularly around enforcement. In all other areas, where they cover similar subjects but where—for good legal order—it makes sense to have them on separate orders, we are seeking to group those.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the term “retained EU obligation” and wanted me to explain what that means. That meaning is set out clearly in schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. On page 92, it defines a “retained EU obligation” as meaning an obligation that, first,

“was created or arose by or under the EU Treaties before exit day”

and, secondly,

“forms part of retained EU law”

as modified from that time. That interpretation was set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and that amendment made consequential changes to the Interpretation Act 1978. The legal understanding of a “retained EU obligation” is clear and already in statute, and therefore does not need to be addressed in this order.

The hon. Gentleman asks what we mean by “no impact”, and how we can possibly know that there is no impact, or no meaningful impact. I simply say this: it is because, right across the board, these statutory instruments are—by definition—about simply continuing, as far as we are able to, the legislative book that we have, so that on day one of leaving the European Union our legal book is exactly the same as it was on day one before we left, save that there will be different institutions and Government Ministers responsible for enforcing those.

The reason why we can confidently say that there will be no impact is that we seek to make no change with the regulations. On whether there will be any meaningful impact in some cases, one could argue that if someone was changing currency from euro to sterling, there might be some familiarisation issues. If one was changing the precise nature of what needs to be recorded on a particular piece of paper, there might be some mild familiarisation issues. We think that those will be negligible, but they are why we include the term “no significant impact”.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our scientific expertise. We will be re-joining the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and will play a full part, as an independent coastal state, to develop science for our fisheries. It is also important to recognise that, although the European Union has a role in interpreting some of the science and making recommendations based on it, the collection of the science is done largely by CEFAS—our own fisheries science agency—through its survey vessels, such as the Endeavour, and through some of the other data that it captures. The collection of the raw data of the science is currently done by CEFAS, which is a world-leading agency. Indeed, it is probably the most important contributor to the EU understanding of fisheries science, and we will continue to have access to that after we leave.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of other points. He asked me to comment on coked-up eels in the Thames. Obviously, that is some way outside the scope of the regulations, but I am sure that we will be able to address the issue should it become a problem once we are an independent coastal state and can tackle such issues. Obviously, the report was a matter of some concern. He also asked specifically about the eel regulations and, in particular, why regulation 11 had been omitted. I am told that that was a time-limited provision applicable only in 2010, so it was therefore a redundant provision that it would have made no sense to keep in the SI.

[Luke Pollard]

Coked-up eels are an important issue, although I did seek to make light of it. There are two paragraphs in regulation 11 of the 2009 regulations, which was omitted. Paragraph (2) is the time-limited element and came to an end in 2010. Paragraph (1), however, did not. I would be grateful if the Minister asked his officials to look at the difference between paragraphs (1) and (2).

[George Eustice]

I will seek clarification and may get an update on the difference between paragraphs (1) and (2) before I conclude my comments.

The hon. Gentleman also made some comments about the replacement for the EMFF. As he will know, the Fisheries Bill, which we debated in Committee, creates the powers for us to issue grants to coastal communities and to fishermen to help them invest in more selective gear. It is absolutely our plan to replace the EMFF funds with future fisheries funds to support selective fishing and our coastal communities.

On pulse fishing, nothing has changed. Our intention is absolutely to bring a statutory instrument forward. Hon. Members will have noticed that these days, the House has a just-in-time delivery approach to legislation and agreements, but I absolutely stand by the undertaking that I gave.

Our intention is to lay the instrument during the month of January, but I will share it with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who tabled an amendment to the Bill on the matter, before the Bill reaches Report. I repeat that undertaking, which I gave to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that we will lay that particular instrument before the end of the month. If we do not, because we are unable to achieve those best endeavours as we had hoped in December, we will nevertheless not move to Report until we have done so and the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have had an opportunity to debate it.

In conclusion, these amendments are simple but necessary to ensure that certain CFP and marine management measures continue to operate effectively and can be enforced after the UK leaves the EU. The technical connections to domestic legislation are important to enable the continued enforcement and maintenance of sustainable fisheries management in the UK. The instrument marks an important step towards having a cohesive statute book for exit day and provides us with a solid foundation.

[Martin Whitfield]

I hope the Minister can satisfy two problems in one. To return to my earlier intervention, is he satisfied that the drafting in the statutory instrument gets over the problem of its miswording as compared with the Act? Does it achieve what he wants to achieve—to transfer the EU regulations and make them enforceable, albeit with a different title?

[George Eustice]

Yes, I am satisfied, based on the point I raised with the hon. Gentleman earlier. Replacing

“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”

with

“retained EU restrictions and retained EU obligations”

covers all those things. It is very clear that the provision is in the context of retained EU obligations and restrictions, rather than EU obligations and restrictions themselves.

[Martin Whitfield]

For my own satisfaction as much as anything else, the 1981 Act talks about

“enforceable Community restrictions, enforceable EU restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”,

yet the quote that has been lifted—the quote that will be replaced—discusses only

“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”.

It therefore omits four crucial words. The SI then repeats the four words by putting them back in. The thing that concerns me is that when people come to reconcile the 1981 Act with the statutory instrument, there may be a duplication or error, in which case people will have to go back to statutory interpretation. They may need to have to look at the notes to decide what we meant.

[George Eustice]

What I will do is check the hon. Gentleman’s point and write to him. This is a point he has persisted with. I feel I have answered him, and from the notes I have seen, I am satisfied that the regulations address the two things and catch all the possibilities. I will double-check the specific point he makes just to ensure there are no omissions in the language.

I turn to the point that the shadow Minister raised about the all-important eels regulations. Regulation 11(1) states that it

“applies where the Agency determines that a reduction in the fishing effort for eels is required in order to comply with Article 5(4)”.

Article 5(4) is being deleted, because it relates to the setting up of eel management plans. That has already been completed. The two provisions are linked, in that one was effectively a requirement on the Environment Agency to determine those reductions, but that was in the context of the bit we deleted. Both become redundant, since they relate to one another.

In conclusion, we have had a comprehensive discussion on the regulations. I am grateful to Members for raising points of detail on them, which are important. The shadow Minister is right that we need to get it right. We have embarked on a huge endeavour.

[Luke Pollard]

Before the Minister sits down, will he address the point about parliamentarians having access to the pre-lay reading room? If he cannot answer that immediately, will he endeavour to write to us? An element of additional scrutiny is needed, especially considering the volume of SIs and the speed with which the Government intend to bring them forward. There is a lack of an opportunity to scrutinise. Scrutiny of SIs would normally happen every now and again, but in this time there is a risk of it happening every single day, and we may miss out on the opportunity. It should be made easier. Will the Minister endeavour to write to me?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point, but it goes beyond something I am able to agree here, since the Government across the board are looking at the issues and different Departments are approaching them in different ways. I will take away his suggestion.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about stakeholders. We are fairly open to allowing them to come in and discuss any concerns they have with us. We have a comprehensive list of fisheries stakeholders, notably the green NGOs, which already attend a number of the events we have. All the fishing representative organisations are invited as well. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council: January 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

The Agriculture and Fisheries Council takes place in Brussels on 28 January.

As the provisional agenda stands, the primary focus for agriculture will be on the post-2020 common agriculture policy (CAP) reform package. There will be an exchange of views on the new delivery model for the regulation on CAP strategic plans, followed by a presentation from the Commission on green architecture. The Council will then discuss the proposed regulation on common market organisation (CMO) of agricultural products.

The presidency will also give a presentation on its work programme, and there will be a presentation by the Commission on a protein plan, which the Council will then debate.

There is currently one item scheduled for discussion under “any other business”:

information from the Danish delegation on the establishment of an international centre for antimicrobial resistance solutions (ICARS) to strengthen the fight against AMR internationally and especially in low and middle-income countries.

An additional item is also expected to be added to the agenda under “any other business”:

information from the Commission on the outcome of the ministerial conference on “Eradication of African swine fever in the EU and the long-term management of wild boar populations”.

[HCWS1273]

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

5. What plans he has for farming policy after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

The Agriculture Bill is a central part of the Government’s programme of legislation to deliver a smooth departure from the European Union. It is the most significant reform of agricultural legislation in more than 70 years. The Bill creates powers to build a new environmental land management system; to incentivise higher animal welfare; to support technology and investment on farms; and to improve fairness and transparency in the supply chain.

[Craig Tracey]

I welcome the Agriculture Bill, because for nearly 50 years our farmers have been tied to a fundamentally flawed common agricultural policy where payments are skewed towards the largest landowners. Can the Minister provide further detail on the public goods that will be rewarded under the new scheme?

[George Eustice]

I thank my hon. Friend for the sterling work he did on the Agriculture Bill Committee and as a member of the DEFRA team until recently. As he says, we are completely changing the focus of our agricultural support for the delivery of public goods. That could include improving habitats, water quality and soil health, promoting biodiversity, advancing animal welfare and allowing public access.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Minister will have received the letter sent to every single Member of this House from all of the farming leaders asking the Government to take no deal off the table. That would also unlock meaningful cross-party talks on how we get out of this total mess, so why will the Government not do that?

[George Eustice]

The way to get no deal off the table is to agree a deal and to engage in a discussion about it. I simply say to hon. Members: what kind of deal do they think they would get from the European Union if they are unwilling to countenance no deal? It is nonsense.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I welcome this Government’s commitment to, and Ministers’ earlier responses on, the issues of public goods, the environment and animal welfare. Will my hon. Friend confirm that future agricultural policy will also include a commitment to high-quality food and food safety?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government have been absolutely clear that we will not compromise our animal welfare and food safety standards in pursuit of a trade deal.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Hill farmers are essential to our landscape, food production, biodiversity and water management. Does the Minister realise that 91% of hill farm incomes come from the basic payment scheme, which his Government are planning to phase out over the next seven years? Will he therefore commit to a bespoke scheme or set of schemes to support upland farmers and other upland businesses?

[George Eustice]

Upland farmers, including sheep farmers, will be able to readily access many of the public goods listed in clause 1 of the Bill. Organisations such as the Uplands Alliance are very excited about the potential for a new scheme based on payment for the delivery of public goods.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

The Bew review is looking into the mechanisms for allocating farm funding across the UK post Brexit, but do the Government intend to launch reviews of the legislative and governance frameworks that may be necessary to maintain a level playing field for Welsh farmers in the UK’s future internal market?

[George Eustice]

There are two ways in which a UK framework can be delivered. First, it is important to recognise that agriculture is devolved. Although the Welsh Government have asked us to add a schedule to our Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, they also intend to introduce their own future legislation. There are provisions relating to compliance with WTO rules, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will also provide an approach to state aid rules.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Tuesday, I met members of the Irish Farmers’ Association—there were other things going on as well as the debate—and they made it very clear to me how vital it is to get a long-term customs arrangement in place as soon as possible. They say that that view is shared by farmers in Northern Ireland. What is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs doing to make sure that that happens?

[George Eustice]

As was made clear at the very start of this session, the Secretary of State is, as we speak, in dialogue with Members of this House to establish a consensus, so that we can indeed have a customs arrangement after March.

[Dr Drew]

The Minister has been quite sanguine in saying that he now supports the Norway option. Is that view shared by the rest of the DEFRA team?

[George Eustice]

The DEFRA team, which includes me, supported the Prime Minister’s deal, because the deal that she brought forward was the way to most closely deliver the outcome of the referendum. That deal has now been rejected by this House, so of course we must consider all alternatives.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to protect bees and other pollinators.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

Protecting pollinators and the habitat is a priority for this Government, and our 2017 review of England’s 10-year national pollinator strategy highlights some positive progress. We have also simplified countryside stewardship and introduced new messages to help farmers put pollinators back into our landscapes through our pollinator package.

[Matt Warman]

Three thousand sugar beet farmers will drill their crop this year, 100 of whom will be in my constituency. Many of them rely on neonicotinoids, but it is vital that we rely on scientific evidence. Eleven EU countries have granted emergency authorisation. What are the Government doing to support sugar beet farmers?

[George Eustice]

I am sympathetic to the issue raised by sugar beet growers. Of course, sugar beet is a non-flowering crop, and it does have a particular issue with the peach potato aphid and the virus that goes with it. The growers did put forward an emergency application. The advice from our expert committee on pesticides was that it did not satisfy the criteria, but we invited them to make a subsequent application.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

8. How many reports he has received of foxes being killed by hunts in England in 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

10. What steps he is taking to maintain food and drink standards after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

As we leave the EU under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, retained EU law will ensure that we maintain our existing food and drinks standards.

[Hannah Bardell]

The Secretary of State has previously been reported as promising a genetic food revolution in the new year. In a statement, the National Farmers Union warned in the strongest possible terms against any lowering of food standards post Brexit. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister now put an end to this uncertainty, which the Secretary of State created? Will he accept an amendment to the Agriculture Bill to ensure that the standards of our high-quality produce are never lowered or diluted?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I see that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is now scampering into the Chamber. He will have to catch his breath. The fella’s missed his question—dear oh dear! Anyway, it is better later than never. It is good to see the chappie, and I am glad that he is in good health.

[George Eustice]

We have been absolutely clear that we will not water down or dilute our approach to food standards, food safety or animal welfare in pursuit of a trade deal. Any future treaty establishing a trade deal would of course come back to this House under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and would be subject to a ratification process by this House.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Is the Department considering improving and increasing standards post Brexit?

[George Eustice]

As we leave the European Union and establish national control in these areas, of course it is possible that we can improve our legislation in a number of areas where EU regulations do not quite work.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Codex Alimentarius sets the standards used by the World Trade Organisation. Reportedly, the UK hardly ever speaks up in defence of strong food safety labelling and marketing safeguards at those meetings. What confidence can we have that the UK Government will do so post Brexit?

[George Eustice]

I do not accept that caricature. Indeed, we worked very hard last year to ensure that a British official took the chairmanship of one of the important Codex committees dealing with food standards, and internationally we are always promoting animal welfare and food standards through organisations such as the OIE and Codex.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to progress plans for our departure from the EU, including preparing a comprehensive set of statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure we have a functioning statute book on day one. We are also progressing the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill, which have cleared Committee stage recently.

[Diana Johnson]

May I just say to the Minister that it is such a shame that his Government are not willing to rule out a no-deal scenario?

The EU pet travel scheme currently allows pet owners to travel between EU countries with their animals with minimal forward planning. That is especially important for guide dog owners. But the Government are now saying that, under a no-deal Brexit, guide dog owners will have to plan their travel at least four months in advance. This is totally unacceptable, so what are the Government doing to ensure that assistance dog owners do not see inferior travel arrangements in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

[George Eustice]

The guidance that the hon. Lady cites is obviously for a worst-case scenario, but the reality on pet travel schemes is that we would have the freedom to adopt a risk-based approach, and we would anticipate that the EU would do the same. We already have provisions with Norway, for instance, that enable a pet travel scheme to operate even though Norway is outside the European Union. We are in discussion with guide dog charities to address the issue.

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

T2. I recently spent a day with Sussex police and the Environment Agency checking permits on vans and lorries carrying toxic waste. Although these efforts are a step in the right direction, fly-tipping incidents in Chichester almost doubled in 2018 compared with the previous five years, and they cause considerable cost to local landowners and the council. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to tackle serious and organised waste crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

T6. May I thank the Minister for meeting me and a delegation of farmers from North Devon before Christmas? I am meeting those farmers again tomorrow evening. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are considering their concerns—indeed, our concerns—about the Rural Payments Agency and the Agriculture Bill in particular?

[George Eustice]

It was a real pleasure to meet my hon. Friend and a number of his constituents. We will give careful consideration to the amendments tabled to the Bill on Report and also to representations from organisations such as the NFU. The Rural Payments Agency has made significant improvement this year to the delivery of payments under the basic payment scheme, with 94% being paid by the end of December.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

T7. Unlike others, I was pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), in his place, because he too represents a Cheshire constituency. I am sure he shares my concern and that of local people who have been getting in touch with me that current legislation appears to be doing little to prevent foxhunting from taking place in Cheshire. Will the Government do the right thing and strengthen the Hunting Act by adding a recklessness clause, to end the ridiculous situation where a hunt can avoid prosecution simply by claiming that the chasing and killing of a fox by their dog was an accident?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Yet another report has been published this morning—this time in The Lancet—highlighting the damage that our food systems are doing to not only public health, with 11 million avoidable deaths, but the climate. I have been banging on about this for more than 10 years in this place. Is there any chance that the Government will ever listen to these reports?

[George Eustice]

It was a pleasure to have the hon. Lady on the Agriculture Bill Committee, where she raised some of those issues. In particular, we discussed the impact of imported soya on our environment and the steps we are taking to reduce that.

[Mr Speaker]

“Banging on” in this place tends to be a prerequisite of achieving anything. It is the colloquial version of my “persistence pays” principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The Minister has talked about amendments to the Agriculture Bill. Will he and the Secretary of State really look at those amendments, and especially those that maintain high standards for imported foods, so that we do not put our own farmers out of business?

[George Eustice]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have already looked closely at some of the interesting amendments he has tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

At the last EFRA questions, the Secretary of State was in his place and he was typically effusive in his praise for the glorious north-eastern countryside that so many of my constituents enjoy. However, he refused to say how he would protect small-scale farmers, on whom the beauty and variety of our landscape depend, from the massive American agro-industrial machine. Will the Minister now set out his red lines to protect our landscape post Brexit?

[George Eustice]

Clause 1 of the Agriculture Bill makes explicit provision to support and incentivise our landscapes and countryside to help some of those smaller farmers. The modelling that has been done suggests that the issue is not actually all about size: some of our smaller family farms are technically the most proficient.

The right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—