Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I think I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, say “bearing in mind the time of day” three times. I will say it only once: bearing in mind the time of day, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I spoke briefly on this in Committee. She is quite right not to press this to a vote. Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour or where it is in the Bill, more work needs to be done. I was not present, but I would be very pleased to learn the outcome of the meeting with the Minister. As I said in Committee, while I support the general thrust of both amendments, I could nitpick my way through some of the detail.

My central point, particularly in relation to Amendment 84, is that, like some of the other amendments we have debated today, it sends an incredibly powerful message to perpetrators. At the moment this problem is behind closed doors and not taken seriously among older people, notwithstanding the results of the polling that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, gave—which is pretty bad, of course. I can remember constituency cases in which similar kinds of things happened but it was always difficult to nail down, given the age of the people involved. The fact of the matter is that abuse takes place. Social workers having the power to force entry—they would do it not on their own but only with the police present anyway; and, as the amendment says, it would mean they had already been refused entry—would be a message to the perpetrators.

It would be incredibly powerful if the Government were able to take forward the issue of older people and the abuse they suffer, simply because it is not highlighted. It is not politically sexy; it is a dark and closed area for many people. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is absolutely right to bring the issue back on Report. It will not be the last time we hear of this. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister to be able to give some comfort to those involved and a bit of strategy to send a message so that those perpetrating know that more action can be taken. Of course, the idea is to stop them perpetrating the abuse.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for bringing forward Amendments 83 and 84 on Report. I congratulate her on the progress that appears to have been made, particularly in light of her meeting with the Minister, which is very welcome news indeed.

I say that because, in connection with Amendment 83, I know there was a certain reluctance on the Government’s part to accept that this form of abuse against older people constituted domestic abuse. To a certain extent, I can understand that level of reluctance. I do not know what we would call abuse of an older person. If it is a younger person, the local authority acts in loco parentis in its responsibility for adult social care. This is, if you like, the reverse of “in loco parentis”; it is responsible for the adult social care for an older person. I believe progress has been made by these amendments being brought forward at this stage. It is absolutely essential that the local authority steps in in this way because, where no family members are available, the older person has no one else to turn to but the local authority acting in that capacity.

I also lend my support in principle to Amendment 84 for the reasons I gave in Committee. It is very important that we equalise the law as relating to powers of entry across the four nations of the UK. Subject to what my noble friend says in summing up this small group, I see absolutely no reason why we should be out of line with Scotland and Wales.

Finally, I ask my noble friend to give us a little more meat on the bones, since the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is not pressing these amendments to a vote at this stage. Could we have a few more details of what government action is proposed, the direction of travel and, ideally, a timetable?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

I was attracted to speak to this group of amendments by Amendments 5, 11 and 53, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and, as I have listened to the debate, I have begun to wonder even more why the Bill is required in the first place. At the risk of upsetting my good and noble friend Lord Foulkes—and I certainly do not want to get involved in Scottish internal politics; that is my caveat for what I am about to say—as a Minister in MAFF, Northern Ireland and Defra, and as chair of the Food Standards Agency, I worked very closely with several Ministers in the Scottish Government, and I always found them totally professional and focused on the issue at hand at the time.

Nobody has asked me to make a speech today on this matter, but I am going to raise matters raised by Food Standards Scotland in consultation in August and in the recent letter in October. The very reason the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland exist is to ensure that policy formation, regulation and enforcement in relation to protection of consumers’ interests are clearly separated from those responsible for food industry growth and promotion. Food Standards Scotland says the Bill blurs that distinction, which has been in place since the FSA was formed after the BSE crisis in the 1990s. Both the FSA and the FSS have a legal duty to

“protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food”.

That comes from the Food Standards Act 1999 and the Food Scotland Act 2015.

Only a few weeks ago, the UK Government confirmed in their report on the common frameworks that the powers they have to restrict devolved competence under Section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop—had not been used precisely because

“significant progress is being made across policy areas to establish common frameworks in collaboration with the devolved administrations.”

No party has ever expressed the need for, or provided evidence in support of, a statutory framework to regulate the UK internal market in the way that this Bill tries to do.

It is worth pointing out that the current internal market makes provision to allow the devolved Governments to impose conditions such as labelling and composition requirements or price mechanisms on food business operators in order to meet a public health objective, provided that the proposal meets an overriding public interest test. The Bill makes no equivalent provision and, indeed, makes clear that business cost is the primary driver, with no consideration of either public health costs or non-financial consumer interests and protection. The Bill does not advance the protection of consumers, other than in cost reduction. If consumer interest is defined solely by cost, it is inevitable that it will drive down standards, because lower standards are less costly.

I will briefly deploy three examples of existing responsible policy-making that is fully in line with current UK market issues and industry pressures. They are all evidence based, taking account of industry impacts as well as consumer interests. These three examples of why the present arrangements work were all given in August to the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, by Food Standards Scotland—to which he has never responded.

The first is the fortification of flour with folic acid to improve pregnancies affected by neural tube defects. This policy has been advocated for some time by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and I have raised it in your Lordships’ House on several occasions since November 2013. In the absence of UK Government action, Food Standards Scotland was asked by the Government there to carry out an assessment for Scottish Ministers. It did, and concluded that the nature of the UK market was such that all flour would require fortification and differentiation in product lines was not possible. Food Standards Scotland concluded that a separate Scottish solution should not be followed. UK-wide action is currently under consideration, of course.

The second example is the prohibition of the sale of raw drinking milk in Scotland. The original wide ban has been continued in Scotland, based on illness and deaths and the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. Controls in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are less restrictive than in Scotland, so different rules apply. The current system works, and Food Standards Scotland is at a complete loss to understand why the Bill appears to save the existing unique provisions; it is clear that future provisions introduced on public health grounds are not protected. In other words, what will be saved now would not be protected if further provisions were introduced. The Government are making assertions that, without legislative underpinning, unnecessary regulatory barriers could emerge between different parts of the UK. The Government have given not a shred of evidence to support this assertion.

The third example concerns allergen information for consumers on “prepacked for direct sale” foods—that is a unique type of food. Working with Defra, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland developed proposals to improve information following the tragic death of a teenager eating a baguette containing undeclared sesame seeds. Four options were considered as part of a UK-wide consultation. In short, option 4 was recommended as in the best interests of consumers, even though option 1 was the cheapest for industry. Under the Bill, if, for example, one of the bodies had opted for option 3—slightly less than option 4—the body that had chosen option 4 would have to go for option 3. Worse still, using the Competition and Markets Authority, it is likely that option 1, which was simply aimed at raising consumer confidence without regulation, would be chosen. It would be the cheapest for industry but the most unsafe for the consumer. These three examples of responsible policy-making show that the current common frameworks system should be used, and be shown to fail, before we move to the mutual recognition system outlined in Clause 2.

Finally, as was referred to earlier, diet conditions might in future require labelling of, for example, high fat and high sugar on public health grounds. This can work perfectly well under the current arrangements. Under the Bill, however, one part of the UK could be lobbied to reduce information on packaging which other parts would be required to follow. I cannot support the lowest common denominator; it is unsafe for consumers. I hope that, in due course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will press his solution.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to and support the amendments in this group. The debate demonstrates that it is not just Part 5 of the Bill that has created concern. In particular, I support Amendments 5, 11 and 53 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and Amendment 170 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

The House owes a great debt of service to the two noble and learned Lords for so clearly identifying the problems with the Bill and its complete oversight and omission of the common frameworks. In particular, they identify the problem of future common frameworks and their relationship to the Bill. But my concern is that, as there has not yet been agreement on the 18 common frameworks that may require legislative decisions, there may be some uncertainty. I note in passing that, of the 18, a large majority relate to issues being dealt with by Defra. They primarily concern agriculture, food and, to a certain extent, the environment, and that is a source of concern.

I express a concern over Schedule 1 and the impact on movements of animals and farm goods, in the event of threats to human, animal or plant health. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to the default position appearing to be mutual recognition. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 refers to the “first condition” that would form an exclusion:

“the aim of the legislation is to prevent or reduce the movement of unsafe food or feed into the part of the United Kingdom in which the legislation applies … from another part of the United Kingdom”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, set out in some detail—I entirely endorse what he said—it is all very well when the Food Standards Agency in England and Food Standards Scotland take a similar view. I put to the Minister, for his reply when summing up the debate, my view that Schedule 1 indicates the need for common standards of human, animal and plant health to ensure free movement between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I thought that was the whole purpose of the Bill.

What will happen in future if the Food Standards Agency in England and Food Standards Scotland take different views on food, animal feed or a product from either state? Will Scottish produce be blocked from entering other parts of the United Kingdom, under Schedule 1 and other parts of the Bill? That would cause me great concern.

Finally, I endorse and support Amendment 170, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. He has identified the problem that there is simply no statutory basis for common frameworks. If so, would it not be better to have a common frameworks statutory basis to deal with all the problems that have been addressed during the debate?

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, for introducing their respective amendments. These two amendments refer back to comments that I made earlier about the status of the common framework agreements. It is very clear at this time that this is a fuzzy area and it is not quite clear what the status of the common framework agreements is—and yet, in the very specific circumstances that both noble Lords speaking to Amendments 68 and 68A referred to, time is pressing on and we need to know how the different Administrations across the United Kingdom will administer this part of the Bill.

My question to the Minister is: what is the status of the common frameworks at this time? I understand that they have been reduced to 21, but obviously the process is ongoing. It would be helpful to know whether this level of detail has been reached in the current negotiations and how circumstances referred to in Amendments 68 and 68A can be avoided if at all possible.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I avoided devolved issues in Committee and was seeking to avoid them on Report, but I want to come in to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.

I have a couple of points to make. One is a general one, and it is no reflection whatever on the Ministers on the Front Bench: the Government do not do devolution. My experience of that comes from 2010 to 2013, some years ago now, when I was chair of the Food Standards Agency and the coalition Government came in. It was quite clear that there was a major problem with their attitude towards devolution, and I think that has carried on. I realise that there are relations between Ministers and they talk to each other, but the government machine does not do devolution.

My more specific point is that I plead guilty on two issues, really. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board was one of my babies when I went back to MAFF, or Defra, in 2006. The merger of the six levy boards was done under my watch. Of course, I realised at the time that I was the English farming Minister, not the Great Britain farming Minister, and the issue applied only to England. Furthermore, before that—this shows, I freely admit, that as the years go by I get a bit out of date, and I have had a year when I have not been on the ball, as it were—the cattle tracing service for passports and birth information, located in Workington at the time, was a UK-wide body; indeed, we recruited Welsh speakers. It could be that that has been taken apart and is no longer there, but the fundamental issue behind all this is traceability.

One reason we do it is self-interest, but the reason we were forced to do it by the European Union, as it does elsewhere, is so that we know what animal has been where if a disease breaks out. The issue should not be one of a dispute between devolved Administrations not being able to access the information; it is absolutely fundamental that the traceability of animals, their movements, the feed they have had and other matters is available if an animal disease breaks out—I hope that it does not happen but we have to prepare for the worst—particularly where there is a transfer to humans, or indeed if it is widely spread to other animals because they move around the country, as has just been said, east, west, north and south, and that leads to real problems.

So, first, I fundamentally doubt that the Government really do devolution. Secondly, in an area like this, Clause 32 is quite specific that the Government are in fact taking on board UK-wide information; indeed, relating to Scotland as well. The Minister is going to have to explain exactly what the detail is in terms of the devolved Administrations and how traceability—and the way we need it to operate in an emergency, because it is always an emergency when you actually need it—will actually function.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and those noble Lords who have added their names to this amendment, on bringing it forward again.

I would be interested to know from my noble friend the Minister what share of the workforce agricultural workers make up. My impression is that their numbers have declined quite steeply in recent times. If that is the case, there is a strong argument for hoping to maintain a sustainable agricultural industry workforce. Clearly, many smaller farms are relying expressly on family members, but we are hoping to rely on SAWS—the seasonal agricultural workers scheme—to help farmers and growers. I believe that the numbers are increasing, and they will make a big contribution.

I have a question that I would like to put to my noble friend, which I think was raised in Committee, although I do not recall the answer. Subsection 1(c) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 70 refers to ensuring that

“agricultural workers have sufficient access to … financial advice”.

The number of providers of such advice is quite large already; I do not know whether the noble Baroness is thinking of a new source. In our earlier debates on the Bill’s provisions, we discussed the proposal that financial advice be provided to those applying for the scheme. Under the new scheme, what financial advice will be available to ensure a sustainable workforce? Am I right in thinking that agricultural societies and charities might have a role to play in this regard, in guiding farmers to sources of income and providing advice for the workforce in this sector?

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is an absolutely first-class proposed new clause. It is completely rounded in many ways.

I want to deal with the first part of the amendment, which relates to seasonal workers. Again, I plead guilty because I have some history here. I realise that it means seasonal workers, and not overseas workers, some of whom are permanent—indeed, in many of our meat plants and abattoirs, their occupations are permanent. Returning to seasonal workers, we have a problem. I plead guilty to the fact that when I was the Home Office immigration and nationality Minister in 2001-02, it crossed my desk that we had to abandon the seasonal workers scheme because we were getting ready for the accession of eight new EU members in 2004, where we would recruit openly, and it was always known that Romania and Bulgaria would be ready-made sources of agricultural workers.

The one thing about the previous scheme that was almost unique was that it was based, in a way, on higher education around the world. We had, I think, workers from over 100 countries who came to the UK on a seasonal basis. I was told at the Home Office, “The thing is, they all went back home.” That was the whole point. It was very much based on higher education—they had courses to go back to, but Britain probably benefited economically for much of their time here.

Now, we are leaving the EU and we have not done anything. It is no good the Home Office simply saying that we have to recruit British people. That has not worked this year, notwithstanding the problem with the virus, and it will not work next year either. Therefore, it is not about turning the clock back, but we need a professional, strategic seasonal workers scheme. In many ways, we are unique in the things that we grow, in our climate and in the difficulty of recruiting our own people on a seasonal basis. It used to be easy to do in my younger days, as I know—as an engineering apprentice, I picked fruit in Scotland.

The fact of the matter is that we had a scheme that worked. As I say, the only reason we abandoned it was in getting ready for the accession of eight new countries to the EU—but we are leaving the EU, are we not? The point is that it was not that seasonal with the eight new countries.

It is not easy, I know, having been at the Home Office in the years I mentioned. When I turned up at Defra in 2006-08, I was on the receiving end, and thought, “Oh dear me, I made a mistake there.” Even though we were recruiting lots, we were still in trouble with the flexibility on our farms. We have now reached a point where we ought to have such a scheme. The Home Office should not be concerned or worried about it. All the evidence shows that it was based on higher education. The students were flexible; they were in different academic years and came from around the world, so they fitted in quite well. As I say, they came from more than 100 countries—and they went back home. The Home Office seems to be obsessed with people coming to this country and staying here. That is not what the scheme was for.

Having made that point earlier, I do not wish to say anything else except that I agree very much with what my noble friend said about the work of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I absolutely 100% support the thrust of this rounded amendment.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I have every sympathy for the sentiments behind Amendment 220, but I query the basis on which it is drafted. I experienced early on the concerns that people rightly have about the trade of live animals for export. It first came home to me when I was an MEP back in the mid-1990s and represented the port of Brightlingsea in north-east Essex. The trade was closed over Dover and moved to Brightlingsea so, mindful of the concern, I boarded the ferry and saw the movement of the animals from the truck on to the ferry. I must say, they were transported in much more comfort than any North Sea passenger, from my experience of ferries at the time.

I urge the authors of the amendment to go back to the RSPCA and, I am sure, Compassion in World Farming, to check the veracity of the allegations. It is true that 20, 30 or 40 years ago—I pay tribute to the work that my noble friend Lady Fookes has done in this regard —there were horrendous tales of the live trade in animals but, when you got to the basis of them, many were not in this country or even on this continent. I was appalled at that time to see that videos were being made and shown in schools in north Essex and south Suffolk to try to drum up support for banning the live trade.

As the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, just said, you have to be very careful to differentiate between animals that are being exported for fattening and slaughter and those that are being exported for breeding, showing and other purposes; as he rightly said, it is difficult to differentiate between the two.

I would like to see the live trade as it currently exists, certainly between here and mainland Europe, which I understand most of it is—that is, for every live animal that is exported, only six or seven are carried in carcass form. It is a very limited trade, it is highly regulated, and no farmer in their right mind would like to see an animal stressed by transport because the meat would be worthless and there would be no market for it at all.

There is a scenario that we seem to have lost sight of in this amendment: new subsection (6) cannot possibly apply to Northern Ireland because of the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope my noble friend will set out that it is simply not going to happen there.

I also hope my noble friend will take the opportunity to say—and I take great comfort from this fact—that if it is true that we are leaving the European Union and the transition period will end at the end of this year, the rules of the World Trade Organization will apply. I think the RSPCA is well aware of that fact. Under the “most favoured nation” clause and non-discrimination treatment, the likelihood is that the WTO would rule to prevent any such ban on the import or export of live animals under that principle.

With these few remarks, I hope my noble friend will continue to reassure us that this minimum, highly regulated level of trade can continue, but there are implications from the protocol and the WTO that I am sure he would wish to have regard to.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, 20-odd years ago, when we formed the Government in 1997, this was new to me and not something that I had not given any thought to. I was responsible for animal health and Elliot Morley was responsible for animal welfare. We toughened up the regulations and we thought they were working, but over the years I have come to share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, so I wholeheartedly support the view that she has put forward today.

There are some caveats that need to be dealt with, which I will raise, but I cannot see any excuse for the export of live animals for slaughter or for fattening. Frankly, I am not an expert, but I well understand how I could distinguish between the export of animals for breeding and the export of those for fattening and slaughter; I do not think it is that difficult. We have—or, probably, had—quite a big export trade in pigs with China. They wanted to vastly improve their stock, and it was done with breeding expertise from the UK.

It is a fact that we have far fewer live exports than we used to. If memory serves me correctly, 20 or 25 years ago the figures were probably nearer to 250,000 or 300,000. I remember the rows at Brightlingsea that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just referred to. I also remember the tragedy there of at least one person being killed under the wheels of a lorry while campaigning to try to stop the export of live animals.

We have to be careful of certain things. There is a Northern Ireland route to France. Slipping animals across the land border and then on into France is certainly a method that would have to stop. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and someone else raised the issue of France. As I understand it, the reason why the French want our sheep is that if they are slaughtered in France, they can legitimately put “French lamb” on the menu. It is as simple as that. They do not have to declare it as British. It is slaughtered in France and therefore it is French lamb, so it is a selling point in French restaurants. That is what I have always understood the position to be.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 6th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

The reality is that this is private Member’s business and the Government Front Bench is on strike again, as I said at the end of yesterday’s sitting. It is as simple as that. That is what it is all about.

The noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, made a very important speech, which we listened to with care and attention. He raised a lot of serious and important points, but I turn to the nub of his amendment, which is what we are here to deal with. I think we can be guaranteed that almost any potential Prime Minister will seek to ensure that the sovereignty of the UK is preserved, as it has been all along. Therefore, the noble Lord’s amendment would not really add to the Bill and, with respect, I ask him to withdraw it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to speak, because my noble friend Lord Hailsham brought up a very pertinent point that I raised at the end of what I realise was quite a long speech yesterday. If our Front Bench is not to reply, I cannot comment, but I find it very unsatisfactory that we could be in a position where my own Government apply for an extension and then, in the course of that process, vote against it. I would like a categoric assurance from our Front Bench today that that will not happen.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have an opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who made an interesting contribution. This is my first opportunity to contribute to the Bill. I ought to declare my interests at the outset: I chair the board of PASSCo, the proof of age scheme.

I echo the comments of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has read closely the terms of Amendment 2, moved by his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It puts enormous obligations on local authorities to raise this levy and,

“provide financial assistance equivalent to the proceeds of the levy, after costs of administration, to the Organising Committee for the purpose of delivering the Games”.

The real reason I counsel my noble friend the Minister against accepting this first-ever imposition of a hotel tax in England is that it would be the thin of the wedge. It would put down a marker for others, as we have seen in Edinburgh, who may wish to go down the same path.

At Question Time, the Liberal Democrat Benches in particular—I think it is the noble Lord, Lord Lee—often raise the spectre of the concerns that the tourism sector currently faces. One of these—I imagine that both hotel rooms and dinner tables face it; this has been one of the tourism sector’s persistent, as-yet-unsuccessful campaigns—is that we impose a 20% VAT rate, which already makes us uncompetitive in the face of our nearest competitors in the European Union and beyond. The States would not dream of putting such a high tax on their own business, particularly as they want to put America first, as we keep hearing.

We know that hotels and restaurants will face particular challenges as we leave the European Union at the end of October, in the sense that these businesses and the tourism sector generally—are heavily dependent on non-British EU citizens. We do not yet know what the supply of labour from EU countries will be, as we do not know whether there will be a transition phase or whether there will be the complete frictionless trade and free movement that we currently enjoy.

I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments that others have made, other than to say that I am convinced that a tourism tax—even on the level of a pilot scheme, as proposed here—could have a huge negative impact on businesses that rely on the tourism economy by potentially reducing visitor spending right across the industry. We are talking about hotel rooms today, but it could be restaurants and other businesses tomorrow. I urge my noble friend to look carefully at Amendment 2 and Amendment 7, particularly subsection (2), and advise him against accepting these measures.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, without repeating anything I have said previously, I support my noble friend. We are in a pretty unique situation at the moment, at 5.30 pm today: the country does not have a Chancellor of the Exchequer, so we can actually crack along. I realise that that is impractical, but the thought did occur to me.

Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these two sets of regulations, one of which is clearly more substantive than the other. I would note that the value of exports of animals and animal products is currently running at £6.7 billion, so this is not an insignificant trade. I have some questions for my noble friend.

Concern has been expressed by the British Veterinary Association and others—this is also mentioned by Sub-Committee B of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—that there could be a hurdle. My first question is this: if we pass this statutory instrument today, will it take immediate effect, thus ensuring that there will not be any form of hiccup? I have read that it could take six months for Britain to be listed as a third country. Does this statutory instrument prevent any hiatus occurring? I hope that my noble friend can reassure the Committee today that our exports will continue. It has been put in terms that the UK may not be permitted to make the application to become a third country until after 11 pm on 29 March—if that deadline is upheld. The briefing from the BVA goes on to state that the process can take several months, while according to the National Farmers’ Union, Defra itself has indicated that the process could take up to six months. It would be reassuring to know that that is not the case.

My noble friend will be aware of my concern especially about racehorses. He mentioned that the statutory instruments before the Committee relate to imports. That begs the question: what is the position as regards exports? We have the tripartite agreement which relates to racehorses, presumably covering racing, breeding and so on. What is the position as regards exports under this instrument? Are we going to have a separate SI to cover that aspect, or have I missed something here? Can my noble friend assure me that our racehorses will be able to go to Ireland and France to compete in races on 30 March and beyond?

I turn to passports for pets. What reciprocal arrangements are in place? Again, my noble friend has reassured the Committee adequately on the position of dogs and other animals coming into this country, but if someone wishes to take their pet to an EU country on 30 March, will that still be the case? Where are we as regards reciprocal arrangements for pet passports?

I would like to put down a marker. I know that my noble friend and the department are coming under great pressure to ban the trade in live animals. I would like to be first out of the stalls—to use a racing analogy—that we do not want to see an end to the trade in live animals. I presume that these two statutory instruments should put my mind at rest in that regard.

In introducing the two sets of regulations, in particular as regards the plethora of regulations that they are amending, my noble friend has said that we want to ensure the safety of food and animal products coming into this country. What progress has been made on our remaining within the European Food Safety Authority and signing up to the rapid alert system for food and feed scheme? My noble friend will be aware of my interest since I followed the “horsegate” scenario in 2013 very closely. Obviously, we want to make sure that there is no possibility of that arising again after March this year.

With those comments, I thank my noble friend once again for introducing these two important sets of regulations.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to visit the Grand Committee on these SIs today because, as the Minister said, there are no major policy changes. I declare an interest—it is not an interest, really—because I am a member of sifting committee B, helping the world go by with statutory instruments.

We published a brief note on these two SIs in our 15th report and I wish to raise a couple of points which I did not know about until earlier this morning. It is not without significance that the medicine SI we debated earlier and this SI started life as negative instruments from Defra, which did not want them debated. That was the view and that is what it is all about. These two SIs were upgraded following the sifting process.

Defra has about 10% of the instruments we have seen and recommended for sifting. It has agreed all the recommendations—I am not complaining about that—but I wish to address a point which was raised with me this morning by Friends of the Earth. While I have been sitting in the Room, I have realised that exchanges have taken place between Defra and Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee officials. I want to put on record that Friends of the Earth have sent a note about several matters, including incoherent amendments and drafting errors.

In relation to the Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Friends of the Earth note states:

“Regulation 50 … amends the Commission Regulation 2018/659. Regulation 50(13) of the 2019 Regulations omits Article 12(2) of the 2018 Commission Regulation which requires that when checks on live horses coming into the UK return inconclusive, they should be subject to a definitive testing for African Horse Sickness and a list of other diseases listed in Article 11(1) which is retained”.


To cut a long story short, Article 12(2) is omitted and not replaced and there is no mention of it in the Explanatory Memorandum. Is this the case?

While the lawyers from Defra were not available earlier today, I understand that the policy lead believes it has fully copied across into the SI the provision from the EU regulation that requires that when checks on live horses coming into the UK return inconclusive they need to be retested. That is the point I want the Minister put on the record. There should be no weakening of testing arrangements, but if Defra has not copied across something then it will be somewhere else. I found this enormously complicated instrument as I tried to go through the aspects raised by Friends of the Earth.

I shall not go through the details of what Friends of the Earth has said—I am quite happy—and I presume it has sent a copy of the note to the Minister. However, there are references to changes in regulations which do not exist. Regulations 7, 26 and 32 all refer to amendments and points which do not exist; they modify something which does not exist. I am quite happy to leave the note for the Minister and his officials. I do not want to go over issues that would not be suitable here.

The central issue is that some people have looked at this and thought, “Hang on a minute, we have not fully copied across but policy lead thinks we have”. I thought it worth while to raise the point because, if it gets out there, you cannot pull it back if it is wrong. If it can be satisfactorily dealt with here, it would be for everyone’s convenience.