Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions and Simplifications) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 Draft Agricultural (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, for what I think is the first time, and, of course, a pleasure to continue the ongoing dialogue with the Minister. As ever, she has laid out the measures clearly. As she would expect, I have a critique of them, although I can assure her that we will not be opposing the SIs, because we have no desire to bring an unnecessary number of people into the Committee Room. However, we do have some concerns. We are, as she rightly said, a year on from the discussions on the 2020 Act. We now finally have the tables of reductions that we were considering over a year ago in the legislation, which is a start.

I am interested in the fact that both measures relate to England—paragraphs 3.2 to 3.5 of the explanatory memorandums for these regulations make that clear. I think the wording is quite interesting: it almost lays down a challenge for devolved institutions to follow. Of course, different strategies are being adopted in different parts of the United Kingdom, and English farmers might well feel that they are immediately put at a disadvantage and might wonder why, especially in a week in which Sainsbury’s has followed Tesco in demanding lower prices from suppliers. With all the problems facing people at the moment, some might feel that they are not so much being squeezed as strangled.

However, perhaps the key point in the Minister’s opening comments, as is now clear from the documents, is that this is the 2021 scheme year—that is, one year only. The Minister will remember discussing what I used to describe as my favourite document. I still have a dog-eared copy here, from a day I will never forget: the rushed-out photocopied versions to give the Secretary of State cover at the Oxford farming conference, as I recall.

In that document, we had the implications for, or what would happen in, subsequent years, and, as the Minister has rightly said, late last year we saw the figures for subsequent years. I wonder why we are doing this one year at a time. The EU used to have a seven-year budgeting period. It seems to me that we are in danger of regressing to annual short-termism, which I do not think is welcome, so I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that—other issues permitting—we will be back here this time next year discussing the 2022 figures, and I suspect in subsequent years, too.

However, that is only half the story, because this is about the reductions. What many people want to know is where the money is going, and how it is to be used. Will all the money being saved go to farmers? I note that the Minister’s words were, as ever, carefully chosen, in that it would be used within this Parliament. That is an interesting point, because she is probably much more expert than me on how departmental budgets are managed, but is there a roll-over facility, and if so, where is it? Can we see it? Can we question it? How much do we expect to be spent this year, and how much to be carried over into following years? That matters, because if the money is not spent, I fear that in the current financial climate there may be eyes in the Treasury looking to recoup some of it. The Minister shakes her head knowingly, but I suspect that there are.

Part of the reason I am concerned is that when the SFI was announced last week—I think that was the latest announcement—a few hundred pilots were suggested. A few hundred is very different from the 80,000-plus who receive basic payments. The Country Land and Business Association tells us that, using DEFRA’s own figures, 75% of farming enterprises are unprofitable without direct payments. The problem seems pretty clear to me: there is a major mismatch.

What was also disappointing about last week’s announcement is the fact that those on stewardship schemes at the moment do not seem to be eligible to apply for the pilots. While that is perhaps not a departure from a specific promise—clearly, they will be able to transition at some point—people could rightly feel disadvantaged. I worry about where the money might be.

I want to be clear that we want the environmental land management scheme to work. We understand the need to do pilots, and to learn, but it seems very slow and I must remind the Minister that I asked many of the questions I am asking today a year ago. A certain amount of vagueness at that point might have been reasonable, but we need to move on. I hardly need tell her that farmers have to make decisions. The cycle is long, and people need to look ahead, but it is hard to make business decisions when they are uncertain about levels of support.

The Minister might remember that on one or two occasions I was quite cross about some of the language used in my favourite document. I thought that we had got past that, but on the policy background, paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum to the direct payments regulations contains this assertion:

“Direct payments are untargeted, can inflate land rent prices and can stand in the way of new entrants.”

All that is true, but it could also be said that they are universal, relatively simple to administer and a vital lifeline for tens of thousands of farmers, with key knock-on benefits for many rural communities. Would it really be so difficult for those who draft such points to acknowledge, when other things are also true, that the issues are complicated?

The document also says, revealingly:

“Phasing out Direct Payments will free up money to support agriculture in different ways, including paying farmers to improve the environment.”

Why “including” when the word could have been “by”? It is reasonable to suggest that there are questions to be answered. Has there been a casual oversight in the wording, or does the document, as I suspect, suggest that money will leach out, away from farmers? Quite possibly it will be well spent, but farmers deserve to know.

May I query why the 5% reduction with respect to payments over £150,000 is being omitted? How much money will that save, where will it go and what will it be spent on? The suggestion is that it is complicated to do the calculation, but I am sure that the Department has a spreadsheet somewhere that could do it. I wonder whether there will be an effect on the overall amount that others receive, because my recollection is that calculations start and work back from the overall financial ceiling. That may have an impact.

Wales and Scotland used capping to divert funds to environmental and rural development measures. We have had that discussion before, and I gently remind the Government that when they were criticising the EU scheme for failing on environmental grounds there was the opportunity to use those mechanisms, but they chose not to do so.

The Minister frequently accuses me of being too gloomy, so I should say that there are some positive things. Clearly, simplifying the overpayments system and doing calculations in sterling make sense, as does changing the percentage to calculate young farmer payments to reflect the changes already made with respect to the removal of the greening payment. However, I must draw attention to the phrase

“no…significant…impact on business”

at paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum. Really—when money is being taken away? Maybe that is now the Conservative line. I look forward to the Conservatives taking the same view when Labour redistributes resources in future. I suspect that there is an impact, and we all know it.

The second SI is, I think, more straightforward. It concerns measures to ensure that there is proper oversight of financial assistance. I have to say that this is interesting: where is the environmental equivalent? Perhaps the Minister will tell us, because it looks as though the integrated administration and control system and cross-compliance system are being gradually dismantled. It is telling that it is the money, not the environmental concerns, that seems to be the priority. Yet again, this measure is England-only. We really are becoming a very disunited kingdom.

Four schemes are outlined. I quite understand that, but it seems that we may have different rules applying to different schemes. This seems to be only for the environmental land management scheme pilots, so presumably it will have to be revisited at the various stages of ELMS, and we will probably have a countryside stewardship system running alongside the current EU countryside stewardship system. So, there is quite a lot of complexity. I am sure farmers will welcome advance notice being given on some of those checks, but where is the assessment of potential downsides? We all hope there is not abuse out there, but are we sure? This is quite a lenient approach. Given that enforcement is already an issue, is there some naivety here?

The virtual inspections sound intriguing and could be a good model for the future. It would be interesting to hear a little more from the Minister about how they will work.

I have a query about paragraph 10.5 of the explanatory memorandum, which says:

“Land Management Plans… will not be published.”

I recognise that that might be a response to representations made, but as I asked during consideration of the Act, where is the public voice in that? I think taxpayers and local residents have a role. I am disappointed and would like to hear the reasoning behind that.

Finally, the plan outlined remains through to 2027. Frankly, when we were discussing it in this room a year ago, no one could have anticipated the year we were about to have, and there is a question whether we plough on regardless or move at a pace that reflects the difficulties of the past year.

The schemes were all supposed to be about simplification. I was talking to someone the other day who pointed out that CAP effectively had three schemes, but, by their reckoning, we are already up to 14 and counting. We might well need a new dictionary for our conversations as we sort our ELMSs from our SFIs and our ATPs. It is all getting very complicated.

I reflect on the fact that this country has many virtues, but self-knowledge is useful, and we sometimes tend to over-complicate and over-bureaucratise. In the past, we blamed that on Brussels. It is now down to us, so my plea is, can we ensure that these schemes are simple enough to deliver the outcomes we all want? In particular, we do not want funding being taken from farmers and going not to the environment—we do want funding there—but ending up in a sea of bureaucracy.

[Victoria Prentis]

I, too, enjoy our ongoing dialogue on the future of agriculture, and I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being too gloomy. As I listened to him, I wondered whether he would like to visit one of the tests and trials. There are some near his home.

There is a good wildlife trust test and trial in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire that demonstrates well the significant environmental benefits that we think will come from our future agricultural policies. From memory, the trial involves farmers working together, and it is a good model of our mid-tier schemes. That is not precisely what we are discussing, but I think it would give the hon. Gentleman an idea of the iterative and careful process that we are going through in creating our new policies.

We have about 3,000 farmers involved in our tests and trials. The pilots we launched last week for the sustainable farming incentive are slightly different from the tests and trials in that they look to pilot the whole process, whereas the tests and trials are there to deal with specific issues and questions that we have asked farmers to test for us.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would dearly like to come to see one of those—that is part of the problem of the past year—but, while I understand that those engaged in the process are probably positive about it, my worry is not for them, but for the huge number who are not engaged. That is where my concern lies.

[Victoria Prentis]

We are undertaking policy as we go; we are testing and trialling it as we develop it. That is innovative and not usual for Government, but I remain convinced that it is the right way to go about making these significant changes to our agricultural policy, which will affect not only how our food is produced, but what our environment looks like, is, and produces over, I hope, many years to come. It is important that we do this slowly and carefully, which is why we are testing everything so carefully as we go along.

The pilots we launched last week are there to test how the administrative aspects of the process work, whereas the tests and trials are there more to test individual aspects of the land management. With the enormous amount of outreach done by DEFRA—oh boy, have we embraced technology to do that over the past year—and the vast number of meetings and Zooms we have had with farmers, much more widely than those involved in our trials, we hope for and see all the signs that the industry is coming on board with these new policies. This is an exciting time for farming, and the more people outside the industry we can get to understand the value of that, the better, in my view.

Yes, the SI deals with payments for one year only. We did that with our eyes open, in order to retain flexibility. We know the overall envelope, and we set in November last year the direction of travel and the reductions farmers could expect. That gave them the ability to plan, but there will be further opportunities—many further opportunities—for Parliament to debate future reductions. I accept that we will be back here repeatedly as the policies develop, and I do not apologise for that, because it is right that this is an iterative, piloted process and it is right that we develop it carefully.

All the money saved will be going to farmers. The Treasury has demonstrated again and again that it is keen to support farmers in this, and I am convinced of its backing for these new schemes. The environmental element is the priority in what we are doing. We want farmers to produce food, but we want them to do so in a way that is more environmentally friendly than has been encouraged under CAP.

It is true that a large number of farmers—probably about 30%, who own about 60% of land—are already engaged in extra environmental schemes. I for one am keen always to conflate the idea of a farmer with that of an environmentalist in many cases. All we are doing is enabling, encouraging and training farmers who want to help the environment to continue to do so.

I do not think this is the place to rehearse the shape of our new agricultural policies. We are here today to talk about the financial aspects and some of the more enforcement-like aspects of the policies, but we have a clear structure, set out in many different documents. We will continue to inform both the public and the industry, slowly and carefully, as we learn from our tests and trials and our pilots.

Countryside stewardship is a critical part of what we do at the moment. We have simplified it drastically over the past year to make it a much more attractive offer for farmers to get involved in. I would say to farmers who are considering an environmental scheme but are sadly not able to be in the pilot, as not everybody can be, that they should join up to a countryside stewardship scheme. I undertake that the transfer for anybody who joins up with a countryside stewardship scheme into the new policies will be as painless and automatic as possible.

Indeed, one of the changes we are making is that there will no longer be any penalty for coming out of a countryside stewardship scheme early. We will ensure that those who are in an existing environmental scheme are not penalised, and we will make the transfer as smooth as we can.

On land management plans, one of the learnings we took from last year’s consultation was that, while they are a very useful tool, we and those we consulted with did not feel the need for them to be published. We will find many different ways to ensure that the general public are aware of what is happening on farms and where their taxpayer money is being spent. Access is a critical part of our new policies.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT AGRICULTURE (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) REGULATIONS 2021

Resolved, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021.—(Victoria Prentis.) 

Draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to continue our discussions once again, Mr Robertson; I am sure you enjoy them as much as we do. I thank the Minister for her introduction, although I am not sure I am quite as optimistic about this as she is. I will explain why.

We will not oppose the draft statutory instrument today. We consulted the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and I am grateful for its advice and reassurance. It tells me that it is in the interests of fertiliser suppliers and UK farmers for the SI to be approved as it will allow detonation resistance test, or DRT, certificates to be accepted if they originate in the EU for EU-sourced products, meaning that imported fertilisers will not have to be detained and re-tested in the UK, incurring additional costs to importers and suppliers. The AIC also points out that that is significant because there is currently only one laboratory in the UK that can undertake these tests—HSL Buxton, which it tells me has at times been subject to closure due to covid-19—and that this lack of UK capacity underlines the urgent need for the SI to be passed.

The AIC also says there has been concern in the industry that the Government were seeking to use only UK laboratories to pass ammonium nitrate DRTs. The SI changes that position, which the AIC welcomes, as being unable to use EU laboratories would represent a major impediment to importing ammonium nitrate fertilisers, the predominant nitrogen fertiliser used in the UK, which would of course have a knock-on effect on farmers. The SI will extend the use of EU-sourced DRTs until the end of 2022.

The AIC also asks the Government to look at the entire regulatory strategy for fertilisers now that we are outside the EU, which it says would be welcome as it will allow a new look at DRTs and their position in primary legislation. It also asks that any new legislation should permit any International Organisation for Standardisation laboratory to conduct DRTs, rather than limit that to one UK lab or a limited selection of EU labs. It also wants to look at ways in which the industry can be less reliant on a handful of laboratories. I am interested in the Minister’s views on that.

Effectively, the SI allows for the continued application in Northern Ireland of the European regulation on the EC fertiliser regime. Since under EU law there can be a dual regime for fertilisers, as the Minister explained, UK fertilisers, so labelled, are able to be marketed in Northern Ireland, which means that there will be a UK-wide regulatory regime for the marketing of UK fertilisers, and that manufacturers in Great Britain can market their products across the UK, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. EC fertilisers can still be marketed in Northern Ireland alongside them.

We are basically producing yet another tweak to the Northern Ireland protocol. I have to say that it seems to me increasingly obvious that, given that we seem to be having endless discussions on further amending legislation to meet the NI protocol, there are some fundamental problems with it. That was highlighted in the excellent discussion in the House of Lords two weeks ago. As ever, full answers were given by Lord Gardiner of Kimble, the Minister in the Lords, but only where possible; it seems to me that, given the fundamental and fatal internal contradictions, some answers were not forthcoming. I do not blame the Minister for that, because in some cases there are no answers to be given, but it is my duty to put the questions again, to expose some of these problems.

One example followed some probing questions from my colleague, the shadow Minister in the Lords, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, on how we might deal with divergence in the future, given that EU rules will still apply in Northern Ireland. She said:

“We accept that it is important that UK manufacturers can trade products across GB and Northern Ireland using the same label. Can the Minister clarify that the existing regulatory standards will remain the same in GB and Northern Ireland?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2021; Vol. 809, c. 161GC.]

She also said:

“The Minister has explained that we are in a period of transition regarding controls over future fertiliser policy and that a consultation is being drawn up. Although it goes beyond the scope of this SI, we would welcome such a review and an opportunity to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords have said, there is clearly potential for modernisation, based on the best science available, together with a greater understanding of the need to protect and enhance our soils. Can the Minister reassure us that any new proposals will maintain our commitment to the precautionary principle and to our high environmental standards?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, Tuesday 26 January; Vol. 809, c. 161 GC- 162GC.]

In the elegant reply given by the Minister in the Lords, he avoided dealing with the first conundrum. Of course, if EU standards change in future, we will not automatically follow them. Or will we? Perhaps the Minister can explain. Baroness Jones also asked about the precautionary principle being applied. I am afraid there was no answer to that either. Again, there was an elegant answer outlining a move to a risk-based approach, which I see as being the laxer American approach, as opposed to the more cautious European approach. Can the Minister tell us which one we will be adopting in future?

There are also questions about paragraph 7.3 in the explanatory memorandum. A number of noble Lords highlighted it, and I spotted it too. It says:

“Manufacturers who market EC fertilisers will need to be Manufacturers who currently market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland will need to be established in the EU to continue to market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Northern Ireland after the end of the Transition Period.”

I studied closely the exchange between Baroness McIntosh and the Minister in the Lords, but I am not sure I am any the wiser afterwards. Again, it was a very skilful response, but it seems to me that there will inevitably be some duplication, which must lead to additional cost. To market EC fertilisers, a base will be needed in the EU to continue to market EC fertilisers in Northern Ireland. The “UK fertiliser” designation helps, but it still means there will be duplication. Ultimately, that must lead to extra cost. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister can provide clarification.

In conclusion, we do not oppose the regulations, but I echo many of the concerns raised in the other place, particularly around ongoing problems faced by importers into Northern Ireland in general. I can anticipate the Minister’s response. I am sure she will tell us that the Government are doing all that they can, but I would point out that it is a mess entirely of the Government’s own making. It did not have to be like this—there were other options—and the Government bear a heavy responsibility for the problems facing both Northern Ireland and the Union.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with the Agricultural Industries Confederation, which is of course the body that is most involved in this area. We work with it very closely as a Department. I will deal first with the detonation resistance test issue. We have passed legislation that allows the DRTs to be accepted, if they originate in the EU, until December 2022. That should give us time to conduct our reviews, and I will briefly set out a bit about where we intend policy to go.

We feel that the existing domestic regulatory regime for fertilisers in both GB and NI is outdated and in need of some modernisation. Leaving the EU and the current modernisation of regulation that the EU is conducting at the moment, which I think is due to be published in July 2022, gives us an opportunity to undertake a full review of our domestic framework. I would enjoy talking further to the hon. Gentleman about that outside the Committee.

Although I do not speak with the elegance of the Minister in the Lords, I do not think we will necessarily be following the American model or the EU model. We will go for the UK model in future. As I said in my opening speech, fertiliser regulation is quite unusual, because there has always been both a domestic set of regulations and an EU set of regulations. In many ways, perhaps it can provide a model for other types of regulations that are open to us in the future, so I do not think there is any need to take either one path. What is important is that we work with the Agricultural Industries Confederation, farmers and growers, and that we make the best regime for us in the future.

New powers relating to fertilisers in the Agriculture Act 2020 mean that we are now well placed to take forward the new work. We are starting the process of engagement with growers at the moment. We will of course undertake a public consultation to inform our views of where the legislation should go.

We began the process of review by considering how to use the provisions of the fertilising products regulation that became retained EU law to put in place a conformity assessment framework for fertiliser manufacture in the UK going forward. New policy will be informed by the findings of the nutrient management expert group, which has been tasked with identifying evidence-based options for reducing diffuse pollution by fertilisers, for example. We aim to have done a full consultation on the options by the end of this year. The final framework should become fully operational in the next few years.

I was asked about divergence specifically. I have dealt with that partially, but I will say that we will work with growers and other stakeholders and then consult on our new regulations. That will take into account any potential risks and impacts of divergence from EU rules. Any potential divergence is likely to be connected to some of the very detailed and technical requirements around fertiliser content and guidance on usage. As I said right at the beginning, there has always been a level of what I call divergence, for want of a better of word—a level of difference—in the regulatory regimes in this area.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I accept that point, but surely the difference will be that, should we end up with a different set of rules in future, that will create a different regime for Northern Ireland, inevitably. Will that not inevitably lead to additional cost—not immediately, but after 2022?

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not feel that our trade and future relationship with the EU should be affected by the extension of the “UK fertiliser” terminology to Northern Ireland. The EU fertilisers regulation will continue to apply directly to Northern Ireland by virtue of the NIP, so trade in EC fertilisers will continue in Northern Ireland. I think that is without prejudice to the EU’s fertilisers regime.

We will look at all such matters closely. Fertilisers are quite special in the way that they have been regulated in the past. It is important that we work with the industry to make our new regulatory framework, and I have no doubt that we will be able to do that in a perfectly satisfactory way.

With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Public Bill Committees

I want Baby’s law to be passed, and I want it to send a strong message to people who not only abuse animals, but choose to film that and post the images online. Sharing the abuse encourages greater abuse and seeks, by having more people witness it, to desensitise. That makes it worth amending the Bill to provide for an extra consideration in sentencing. I encourage Members to support the amendment, although we shall not press it to a vote, for the reasons I gave. I hope to revisit the matter on Report.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela, particularly given your long record of fighting for animal welfare.

I want briefly to echo many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Labour entirely supports the Bill and would like it to have reached the statute book years ago, when the previous Member for Redcar introduced its first iteration to the House in 2016. It is disappointing and frustrating that it has taken so long to get to this stage, and that the Bill is the second of its nature to be considered in Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset on his perseverance and wish him luck in getting the Bill on the statute book. We are concerned about time running out and, as my hon. Friend has said, we are looking for guidance from the Minister and want to hear that the Government will get behind the measure. We urge her to be clear about the timetable.

We fully back the Bill. It is imperative that those who perpetrate cruelty against animals should be subject to a penalty that matches the seriousness of their crime. It is clear that the maximum penalty in England and Wales of six months in prison, an unlimited fine and being banned from keeping animals is inadequate. Many of us were present on Second Reading and heard numerous examples of sentences whose severity simply did not match awfulness of the crimes.

There is already a five-year maximum sentence in Northern Ireland, and Scotland matched that in July. It seems to us that we need parity of sentencing across the UK and an end to the bewildering state of affairs whereby England and Wales are left with some of the lowest maximum sentences in the world.

As my hon. Friend has said, there are concerns that we want briefly to explore through our amendments. We very much agree with the previous MP for Redcar, who introduced the first Bill, that the filming of cruelty against animals should be considered an aggravating factor by courts in considering the offence. It is already listed as one in the sentencing guidelines to the 2006 Act, but we think it is important that that should be in the Bill.

We have heard that one of the overwhelming issues in the deeply distressing case of Baby the bulldog was the fact that those involved filmed themselves. People not only abusing animals, but recording it and, nowadays, sharing it on social media, with the intention of glorifying and amplifying the abuse, should be taken into account.

We are in a changing world. The Internet Watch Foundation is close to the Cambridge and frequently tells me about its work, which is an ongoing struggle in the online world. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, I hope the Minister will have a word with her colleagues in DCMS about making sure that that aspect of the matter is taken into account in any future legislation.

As the available technology changes, the law must keep up. To abuse innocent animals and, not only that, to record the abuse for entertainment shows, I am afraid, a malicious intent that should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela.

The very unfortunate delay in the passage of the Bill was caused, as hon. Members across the House will understand, by the need to find an appropriate parliamentary slot in what has been a stretched timetable in the past few years. We have had to deal with Brexit and then, of course, we were hit, just as every workplace has been, by the covid pandemic. That naturally reduced the number of hours we could sit, and severely curtailed what we could do, but I reassure Members that the Government are absolutely committed to increasing custodial penalties in sentencing for animal cruelty. We will do all we can to support the Bill’s swift passage through both the Commons and the other place.

Perhaps I may have a useful conversation with Opposition Members about how we all work together to manage that. This morning, I had a very useful conversation with Mr Speaker about the Bill, and he is a big supporter of animal welfare. We all wish the Bill—and its champion, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset—well during the next stages of consideration. The more we can do to work together, the better.

Both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken mentioned the great deal of consensus across the House on the passage of the Bill. Sadly, we have also heard once again about Baby the bulldog. That tale gets no easier in the retelling. I thank both hon. Gentlemen, who set the scene well. I am, I am afraid, going to resist the amendment, not because I do not agree with their sentiments, but because I am not sure that it is the best way in which to deal with the issue.

Aggravating factors are most often dealt with in the sentencing guidelines for an offence, not within the statute. A select number of offences relating to terrorism and domestic violence are exempt from that general rule. For most offences, normal practice is for other aggravating factors to be included in the sentencing guidelines. Those are not unimportant documents. From my experience as a lawyer, I know that the courts are required to follow those guidelines when determining the appropriate sentence in any particular case.

The sentencing guidelines on animal cruelty were drawn up by the Sentencing Council and were last reviewed in April 2017, following public consultation. Those include guidelines on

“the use of technology to publicise or promote cruelty”,

which is already considered an aggravating factor. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been in contact with the Sentencing Council about the Bill and, if we park the Bill, the council will need to reassess its guidelines. It will conduct another review. It will also consult publicly on the new guidelines.

I have been looking at other examples of guidelines relating to filming. Perhaps the best, and the one that I suspect I would suggest to the Sentencing Council, is found in the sentencing guidelines for robbery when sentencing children and young people, which includes the aggravating factor of

“the filming of the offence… or circulating details/photos/videos etc of the offence on social media or within peer groups”.

That is to be considered specifically by the court when sentencing the offender.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As a not-so-new Member of Parliament, let us get on with the proceedings.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Report on effects

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the effects of the provisions of this Act.

(2) The report must include assessments of—

(a) trends in sentencing practice;

(b) the effects of this Act on animal welfare;

(c) the extent to which this Act has had a deterrent effect on animal welfare offences;

(d) the coherence and adequacy of animal welfare legislation in aggregate in the light of the operation of this Act.

(3) The assessment under subsection (2)(d) must include consideration of—

(a) the welfare of animals that are not “protected animals” under section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006;

(b) sentencing for offences under—

(i) all sections of the Animal Welfare Act 2006;

(ii) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;

(iii) the Deer Act 1991;

(iv) the Protection of Badgers Act 1992;

(v) the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996; and

(vi) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I.2017/1012).

(4) The report must be laid before Parliament within two years of this Act coming into force.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within two years of the Bill coming into force, a report on its effectiveness, including specific assessments of its effect on animal welfare, the overall coherence of animal welfare legislation, and other matters.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause relates to a discussion that we had on Second Reading about the relationship between this Bill and protections for wild animals. Although we will not be pressing it to a Division, we think this is an important issue.

Our new clause would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on the Bill’s effectiveness within two years of it coming into force. That would include providing specific assessments of its effects on animal welfare and the overall coherence of UK animal welfare legislation in its entirety, including sentencing under specified Acts relating to wildlife, which are listed in the new clause.

The new clause is important, because as it stands the proposals in the Bill apply only to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and therefore not to wild animals, in the way that they apply to domestic animals. The Bill of course improves the deterrence impact of penalties for cruelties that come under the Animal Welfare Act, but maximum penalties for cruelty offences under the legislation listed in new clause 1 remain at six months. Our concern is that that creates a two-tier system for penalties for cruelly against domestic and wild animals, even if by oversight as opposed to intention. That seems to lead to the possible situation in which torturing a pet cat and torturing a feral cat, or kicking to death a wild rabbit and a domesticated rabbit, could lead to different penalties. It is clear that offenders do not discriminate between wild and domestic animals in inflicting cruelty. We sadly heard in previous debates on various iterations of this legislation about a wild rabbit hit with a log and stabbed with a pen, a squirrel set on fire, and a driver putting down chips in a road to attract wild birds so that he could run them over.

The RSPCA’s most recent annual prosecution report from 2019 specifically lists notable cases it has seen against wildlife, including two men captured on a fly-tipping surveillance camera taking a live pheasant out of their boot and violently attacking it for several minutes, while a third man filmed the abuse on his phone. That reflects our earlier discussions. In November 2020, the RSPCA saw the horrific case of a man who tortured a hedgehog by cutting off its limbs and burning its head and eyes with candle wax. These things are so horrible that they are barely repeatable.

Our view is that those animals have the same welfare needs. Any attack on them has the same impact on their welfare, regardless of whether they are an animal in human care or in the wild. They all feel pain and suffer, and the people who harm them should feel the full force of the law.

When the Government’s 2019 version of this Bill was in Committee, Members heard evidence from solicitor Mike Schwarz, who expressed his concerns that a two-tier approach to domestic and wild animals could end in confusion for the judiciary and prosecutors. He warned:

“the danger of disparities and distortions, and even confusion, caused by the ramping up—that is not a critical comment—of maximum sentencing in one area, which is the domesticated and under-control-of-man area, while leaving well behind the maximum sentence in other areas. As you know, the disparity is between six months in most other areas—in the Hunting Act 2004, it is even less—and five years under the Bill. That may cause problems when it comes to sentencing.”

He also noted the very pertinent point that, when it comes to animal cruelty in this country,

“different sectors of the same activity—animal welfare, animal care, animal husbandry—are treated differently. I cannot think of an area, although I am happy to be corrected and I might be wrong, where there is that difference in sentencing when it comes to the same offence.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Public Bill Committee, 23 July 2019; c. 12-13, Q18.]

We believe that after the passing of this Bill, a review is necessary to examine the level of penalties available to courts for cruelty offences across animal welfare legislation as a whole. As I say, we do not want to delay the Bill. We want it on the statute book quickly, which is why we are asking for a review afterwards. The Opposition are quite clear that all animals are equal and deserve to be treated with respect and kindness, and we believe that that should be reflected properly in the law.

I also note that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), pointed out in Committee in 2019 that a review of wildlife legislation had recently been undertaken, with the Law Commission publishing proposals for a simpler and more flexible framework in 2015. I understand that the Government’s response to that report made it clear that they had no intention of implementing those recommendations in the immediate future, yet the Minister seemed to stress at the previous Committee that, with the UK’s exit from the EU, the Government may re-examine those proposals. I encourage this Minister to outline any intentions that the Government have so to do.

To conclude, I want to make a few comments about hare coursing. Although serious and organised cases of animal cruelty in the form of dog fighting will, we think, be prosecuted under this Bill, the equally serious and equally organised crime involved in hare coursing will likely not. Such instances currently fall under the Hunting Act 2004, and Crown Prosecution Service guidance suggests that the police in fact prosecute hare coursing offenders under the Game Act 1831.

It is a widely held view in the countryside, from farmers to rural police officers, that penalties for that crime are woefully inadequate as form of deterrent. Ministry of Justice data shows that from 2014 to 2018, average fines under the Game Act were just £227, yet this is a hugely disruptive crime, focused on animal cruelty, that is continuing to blight the lives of many farmers. In December only last year, a hare courser put a gun to a farmer’s head and threatened to shoot him at point-blank range during a confrontation in Wiltshire. It is a cause of persistent problems in Cambridgeshire, and regular representations to Government are made by Cambridgeshire MPs on a cross-party basis.

Frankly, the legislation is almost 200 years out of date. It was designed in a very different time, for a very different problem—certainly not for the brutal, international gambling-driven thugs that our long-suffering police officers have to deal with. Any indication from the Minister on what steps the Government intend to take to strengthen penalties for hare coursing would be very much welcomed—but, to put it simply, can we just get on with it?

[Luke Pollard]

I rise in support of my hon. Friend’s remarks on extending the provisions to include wild animals. I take this from a simple perspective: how would we explain to a member of the public, or to a child, that one rabbit will be treated differently from another rabbit, depending on whether it is in a cage or in a field? How do we instil the same sense of value for both those animals if one is treated differently by the law from the other? There is a case here for including wild animals; I appreciate that the opportunity to include them in this Bill may not be immediately forthcoming, but I believe that is a clear and important part of ensuring that wild animals do matter—that all animals matter.

The second part of the new clause, which is worthy of being adopted by the Minister, is the two-year review of this legislation to see how it is working. One area in particular that needs to be looked at is the effects of the restrictions around coronavirus and covid-19 on animal cruelty. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that we have seen an increase in the number of cases of animal cruelty during these restrictions. It would be useful to policy makers and to those seeking to enforce this legislation if there was an assessment about its impacts on animal cruelty, at a time when we know animal cruelty is increasing, to see whether the deterrent effect is working.

In particular, it would be useful to assess how the provisions of the Bill can be better communicated to people, to ensure that they make better decisions before committing cruelty to an animal, recognising that there are now stronger and tougher penalties that equally are being used by the courts as a form of deterrence as well as a form of punishment. That is an element that could also be looked at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Minister for her helpful comments. I suspect this matter will go on to be debated in future, but on the basis that we do not want to delay the Bill’s progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. As ever, I thank the Minister for a full and comprehensive account of the latest pair of statutory instruments that we are discussing, which cover geographical indicators, wine and organics.

Let me start with the SI on agricultural products, which, as the Minister said, is already in effect. We understand why it is in effect: by the end of last year, urgent action was needed. The Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy, based on brinkmanship, determined that, and this weekend’s newspapers were full of the consequences. He said that there would be “no non-tariff barriers”, and the Minister will remember my fury on the day she briefed MPs, just after Christmas, at what I consider to be an outrageous misrepresentation. Everywhere we turn, we see businesses struggling with new rules and complexities. Although it is hard to imagine how much worse it could have been, it could have been even worse, so we understand why the legislation was needed urgently. In many cases, however, these are interim or bridging arrangements, as described in the explanatory memorandum. My fear is that there will be a lot of bridging in the months and years ahead, but we will deal with that as it comes.

The SIs relate to two areas where the Government published specific annexes in the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU: wine and organics. Some of my comments will relate to the interaction between those annexes and these SIs—not least the range of timescales in which things may happen, and the degree of uncertainty that that brings to everyone involved. In some cases there will be changes in a few months, as the Minister mentioned, but in the longest case it will be three years. Of course, there is always change in the world, but it is fair to say that in the last few decades, most businesses have operated in a fairly stable environment, which is what they tend to like. That is no longer the case. That is why it is so important that even if there is no certainty, there is transparency and clarity from the Government so that people have some idea of what to expect.

Geographical indicators are hugely important to our food businesses, and they are much prized. Indeed, reports suggest that they were one of the key areas in the negotiations with the EU. The Minister may wish to comment on whether the UK’s negotiating objectives were achieved. The lack of transparency throughout this entire process is illustrated by the fact that we rely on leaks and speculation, but today is an opportunity. Can we be told what the UK sought, and whether this is it? Personally, I rather doubt it.

Paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum suggests that the way out of the problem of running out of time and the complexity of ratification procedures in different countries is what would, in other walks of life, be described as “holding it together with some bits of string”. It is euphemistically described here as a “political commitment”. The Minister, as I have observed previously, knows the law well. I would be interested to get her view on what legal standing such political commitments confer, how any challenges might be dealt with and how long such bridging arrangements, supported by political commitments, will be in place. We may not get a clear answer, because I suspect no one knows.

Importantly, the instrument also deals with the rules on wine imports. I am sure the Minister has seen some of the stories in the media in recent days concerning the problems encountered by wine importers. There is a six-month transitional period before the rules in this instrument apply, so one could say that the troubles have only just begun. I am sure she will have seen the coverage of the problems faced by Daniel Lambert, which have been widely reported. He has speculated about the extra costs and what they might translate into. An extra £1 a bottle on a bottle of wine may not slip down well with some Government Members’ constituents, so there may be some explaining to do.

In my constituency, Hal Wilson, who runs the excellent Cambridge Wine Merchants, tells me that it has 19,000 bottles of red wine from Spain currently stuck in the system. I fear from past experience that the Secretary of State will tell us that this is an excellent opportunity for English wine growers, but I would gently say to the Government that it might be worth their while getting this sorted out. Like most people, I want my red wine in a glass, not a warehouse.

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association argues that 99.5% of the wine consumed in the UK is imported, and it therefore makes little sense to roll over EU-based legislation—in the WSTA’s view, the legislation was designed to act as a non-tariff barrier to protect EU wine producers—now that the transition period has ended. The WSTA makes a serious point, and I wonder whether the Minister could comment on it. It says that, even with the new simplified approach to wine import documentation for EU wine imports in the TCA, the requirement is still burdensome for producers and importers alike, while the requirement for the costly VI-1 form for non-EU wine remains.

The WSTA suggests removing the requirement completely. It also says that although the form offers self-certification, it still requires a customs stamp. If that were to be introduced electronically, it would need to be linked to the customs declaration service, and that would take a number of years to implement. Given that there were previously no certification requirements for EU wines coming into the UK, the WSTA argues that it makes no sense to introduce the requirement for a paper-based system when the ultimate goal is to replace it with an electronic system as soon as is practicable. The WSTA therefore recommends deferring the requirement to provide wine import documentation from the EU until the electronic system foreseen in “Trade in Wine”, article 3 of annex TBT-5 to the TCA, can be introduced.

That annex also says that within three years, there will be further discussion between the parties to facilitate trade in wine. In other words, there is absolutely no certainty for the future. Can the Minister tell us what the Government seek to achieve in those discussions? I would welcome her comments, because there is a theme emerging in all our discussions of these detailed statutory instruments. Here we are discussing the law, but in the real world, the practical implementation and the systems are causing the problems. As the Executive, the Government are particularly responsible for the latter.

The interim nature of the arrangements for wine is mirrored in the provisions for organics in the statutory instruments that we are debating. Welcome as they are, many of the timeframes are short. It is just six months before certificates of inspection for imports will be required. The second instrument, on organics, raises a number of questions. Paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum refers to rules for a UK organic logo “when developed”. As the Minister said, we have looked at the designs previously, but perhaps we can be told when that is likely to happen, and why there are delays.

OF&G Organic certifies more than half the UK organic land, and Roger Kerr, its chief executive officer, tells me that the securing of an organic equivalence within the free trade agreement was welcome. However, this is only for a limited period of time, and unless both the EU and UK recognise the other party as equivalent at the end of the current arrangement, it will fall away, leaving UK operators denied access to the European market. He says:

“This is only 36 months away and leaves UK organic businesses in a position that they will be unable to secure long term supply contracts due to the on-going uncertainty. The delays around securing the FTA and the uncertainty with whether there would be an organic equivalency agreement within that, has already had a negative impact on UK operators through the loss of hard won markets.”

The Minister will remember we discussed that point in an SI debate before Christmas, when that recognition was still in doubt.

I am afraid the problems go further still, as Roger explains. He says:

“The FTA also does not make provision for the ‘selling on’ of unprocessed products that are imported into the UK. For example at the moment organic soya imported into Hull cannot be subsequently shipped to NI under the current terms of the FTA, leaving NI organic livestock producers potentially without the correct balanced rations for their animals. Import/export businesses which currently import products from Europe and then consolidate loads for export again are no longer able to do this. Specialist food manufacturers who have their products packed by specialist packers in Europe and then import the finished product back into the UK for distribution to their customers cannot export these products to their European customers. This will have significant impacts across the UK organic supply chain and needs to be resolved as soon as possible.”

We recognise the importance of having arrangements in place on GIs, on wine and on organics, so we will not oppose these statutory instruments. However, we believe that in too many cases, they are just bridging measures. With so many businesses struggling at the moment, there are many questions to be answered, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some answers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Yesterday, we announced that we would offer one-to-one support for individual enterprises in the fishing sector that are struggling to get used to the new paperwork; that could be from HMRC or the Animal and Plant Health Agency. In addition, we work very closely with customs officials and Border Force officials in France to help improve the understanding at that level. We also announced a £23 million fund yesterday to help those fishing businesses that have struggled in these initial weeks.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]]

I fear the Secretary of State is living in a parallel universe. He must have seen the headlines: “Pig Heads Are Rotting In Rotterdam As Brexit Delays Hit The British Meat Industry”. Nick Allen of the British Meat Processors Association understands that these problems are not teething problems; they are structural. He warns that the meat industry’s trade with the EU is in jeopardy. Is he right about that? What is the Secretary of State going to do about it—just suggest that farmers do something else?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Actually, goods are flowing, particularly lamb, which is our principal meat export. Dairy goods are also flowing. Yes, there are occasionally delays at the border, as border officials in France and the Netherlands get used to the new processes, but we are intervening in all such instances to help the businesses concerned.

Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 Draft Plant Health (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Sir David. It brings back happy memories of considering the Bill that became the Agriculture Act 2020. Of course, we are returning to the ongoing dialogue about the changes to checks and controls on food and plant movements that we were enjoying last year.

I note that the first of the statutory instruments has a similar title—with the helpful addition of a bracketed No. 2 for clarification—to the one that we discussed at the end of November, to which the Minister has made reference. On that occasion our exchanges were brief, and lasted no more than 10 minutes. Once again I assure the Minister that the Opposition will not oppose the measures, because we want the systems to work. However, I cannot promise to be quite so brief today.

The fact that we are not opposing the measures and that once again the discussion is likely to be relatively short raises the question of why Members have been brought to London, which in my view puts staff and Members at risk. Ministers can do Zoom calls with 250 participants. I am not sure whether they always do them very well, although perhaps I am being unkind. However, I wonder why on earth seven or eight of us must be physically in this room at a time of maximum danger. Perhaps that point could be relayed to the authorities that make such decisions. I understand that we shall be doing the same on Monday.

Having got those matters off my chest, I will turn to the statutory instruments. As the Minister said, the issues are important and complicated, with a panoply of controls being transposed into UK law. Now we are in the possibly more advantageous position of having some experience of how things are going. Sadly, I am afraid that we see on a daily basis that the promises about many of the systems—that they would be ready and working—were just that: promises. The reality has been rather different, and the extraordinary assertion by the Prime Minister that there were to be no non-tariff barriers has been shown to be completely inaccurate, as we said at the time.

In the explanatory memorandum to the first of the statutory instruments, on official controls, we begin to get an explanation of what was happening in December as the UK sought essential third-country status. I remember questioning the Minister at the time, and as always she was helpful, if discreet. Paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 explain the time constraints and the fact that effectively a two-stage process was needed, with more than 30 regulations intended for inclusion in the first statutory instrument being held over. As is outlined in paragraph 7.6, the regulations were implemented first, and are now being debated. So much for taking back control.

My first question is relatively simple. If there was to be a two-stage process, why were we not told that in November? I have no recollection of that being explained. Clearly the Government knew what they were doing, but why could not the British public or, indeed, Parliament, be trusted with the information about what was going on, given that it has such a direct impact on us? Why the secrecy? Of course, it raises the question of what we are not being told now.

It is always interesting to scrutinise statutory instruments when they have already been discussed in the other place. Not only does one get to hear the Government speech twice, which is of course a great pleasure, but the Minister in the other place is particularly diligent and exhaustive in his replies, and his inquisitors are often highly experienced former occupants of the role. I therefore watched yesterday’s exchanges closely and noted that there were so many pressing questions from the noble Lords that the Minister promised to answer in what he described as a “substantial letter”. Today, officials have had a further day to mull over some of the points that were raised, and I hope that we can have some more direct answers immediately.

Lord Rooker as ever asked incisive questions on reference laboratories, and others, including my colleague the shadow Minister, Baroness Hayman, joined him in pressing on that issue. The answer seemed to me to be somewhat vague, so I ask directly again about the reintroduction of European Union reference laboratories into this instrument. DEFRA’s answer to the questions—some of which were posed by Friends of the Earth in response to the points raised by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—implies we do not currently have a reference laboratory that uses the standard operating procedures. Could the Minister elaborate on that? In my view, saying that the intention is that it will be done does not seem good enough.

We also learned about the staged implementation of measures, with pre-notification requirements from April and full controls from July. Yet, when responding to Baroness Hayman, the Minister told of 29 applications to build new border control posts, and 14 in Scotland—applications to build. Could the Minister tell us how long will that take? Will they be in place and operating in 24 weeks’ time? On staffing, as Lord Rooker asked, how many of the staff needed for April will be in place? It is mid-January now. They need to be recruited and trained.

When it comes to the computer systems, as a former IT person myself, I rather enjoyed the naive optimism of the Minister, as he gamely admitted computers were not really his thing and that systems were “under development”—for July! In my experience, I do not think that is likely. We have already seen the myriad problems being faced by businesses with systems that do not work. It looks as if it is going to get a whole lot worse yet. I ask the Minister to explain to us today, or maybe add to her colleague’s “substantial letter”, which systems are under development and what stage that development has reached.

Let me pick up some of the further points raised by Friends of the Earth. I am grateful for its detailed reading of these instruments, which helpfully highlight the reduction in oversight and transparency of import conditions under regulation 2 of the lead SI. I have complained to the Minister before about the negative SI procedure. I gently remind her that the relaxation of competition rules in the grocery sector, which were prayed against last summer, have still not been heard. Indeed, in that time they have lapsed, so competition was restored, and then they were relaxed again through, I imagine, a further negative instrument. Yet there has been no discussion and no scrutiny. I have no objection to prompt action, but I do object to a lack of transparency.

I must conclude that the system does not work, and Friends of the Earth is right to question the cumulative potential impact. The Minister will be aware that following the votes on the Trade Bill last night, critics are pointing to examples where Government can now make changes, lowering standards out of sight. I am afraid that we are now seeing many examples of exactly that happening.

The answer to Friends of the Earth’s questions includes the extraordinary assertion by DEFRA that the exercise of the power referenced by one of the questions was,

“unlikely to be sufficiently serious or contentious to justify using the affirmative resolution procedure”.

Of course, DEFRA would say that, but it is not for Government to decide whether their actions are contentious; that is for Parliament.

Could the Minister clarify the meaning of regulation 13 and the minimum specific requirements for vets? I really do not like the sound of it. It is pretty clear that we do not have enough vets. Does this give Ministers the powers to solve the problem by reducing the veterinary oversight? I hope not, but hidden in the labyrinthine details of these regulations are too many opportunities for what many would see as deregulation by stealth.

Friends of the Earth also queries the pest risk emergency lists. The answer given was again, essentially, “We have an expert group, the UK Plant Health Risk Group, so trust us.” Well, we broadly do, but yet again, it looks to me that there is again a reduction in transparency. I hope the Minister can persuade me that I am wrong.

Let me move to the draft regulations on plant health. Again, we will not oppose it, because we want the system to work, and we are reassured that the Horticultural Trades Association is happy with this. It tells me:

“The key SI for us is the Plant Health Regulation which sets out the requirement for Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods to enter GB under an EU Plant Passport and sets out how these EU Plant Passported goods should be treated once in GB. However, a key point we would make here is that this SI exempts goods traveling from within the EU plant health area traveling NI to GB, whereas the EU has not made the same exemptions for goods traveling from GB to NI.”

This is, of course, a recurrent theme. Could the Minister update us on any representations being made, and whether she thinks this is an advantageous arrangement for us? I suspect, like me, she does not.

The Horticultural Trades Association has also helpfully developed a seven-point plan to improve the phytosanitary and border control process with a series of detailed recommendations around developing better relationships and protocols, simplifying data entry and so on, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I would welcome an update on progress on those points.

I will conclude by giving a practical example of why all this matters so much. It is a case passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) involving a harrowing account from a business located in Hampshire. The company says—I am paraphrasing—that a system that worked perfectly well for over 20 years is now in chaos. It details extra costs of between £130 and £150 for inspection of each consignment coming from Europe, which it estimates will add an extra £30,000 per annum to its costs. The business says there are only two inspectors in northern Holland to check thousands of consignments, leading to huge delays. According to the company, “it’s insanity.”

Particularly relevant to this SI is what the company says about the UK plant passport, which I will quote in full:

“It is now required for plants to have the U.K. plant passport printed or displayed on them either on the pot or on the label or sleeve. What that means is that a sticker has to be attached to each item/carton/case with this new U.K. plant passport printed on it. So for imported food for the U.K. the EU growers EU plant passport is no longer enough (which has been perfectly acceptable for 40 years) now the U.K. plant passport has to be added. Each U.K. importer has a different U.K. plant passport number so it is impossible to have a generic or multi user solution. The extra work and cost involved in printing and attaching this U.K. plant passport is quite simply astonishing. Typically a truckload with plants can contain in excess of 20,000 plants. That is 20,000 stickers that need to be attached to each and every plant for just 1 truckload. It’s total madness!! I currently have 150 truckloads coming to UK. That is roughly 500,000 plants. All need to have new labels stuck on them!!”

Discussions of statutory instruments often seem dry, but they have an impact on the real world—on our constituents. It might be that there have been some misunderstandings here, and I hope the Minister or her officials can provide clarification. I will pass the details of this case to the Minister in the hope that some help can be offered. In the experience of those who need them, the systems currently in place are quite clearly not working.

The Prime Minister initially said there were no non-tariff barriers, but now the line is that there are “teething problems”. Frankly, they are not teething problems, but structural problems. I understand the Minister said as much during a Westminster Forum event this morning, although I would be grateful if she told me I am wrong about that. The first step in tackling a problem is to recognise and understand it, and not deny it. These are difficult issues that are not going away, and we need to resolve them quickly.

[Victoria Prentis]

I will, as ever, try to answer all of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. If I miss one, it is inadvertent. I know that the Lords Minister will be writing a substantial letter, so I will ensure that reaches the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble will pick up on some of the points that have been made in both Houses in the last two days.

On the general point, I will not get involved in the discussion about whether we should be here, but I heard what the hon. Gentleman said to you, Sir David. Negative SIs are published and are fully available for parliamentary scrutiny and debate, so I will not get involved in that debate either.

On why this SI was not debated at the time of the first official controls instrument, we laid that at the start of November and debated and published it by mid-December, because that was a condition of the Commission for us to be listed as a third country, which was critical for the movement of some goods that are imported into the UK. Given the complexity of the legislative amendments made to the whole body of retained EU legislation, we decided to deliver the amendments through two separate statutory instruments. There was no secrecy or peculiarity about that; it was merely a practical step and it is why we are here today. Both SIs were laid before the House in December—one on 9 December, and the other on 22 December—so they have been available to be scrutinised openly. That was what they were there for and the explanatory note makes that clear, so I do not think there has been any secrecy about the position.

I have read the Friends of the Earth queries, which are technical. The Minister in the other place made it clear that they required a detailed response, so I will leave those for the substantive letter from the Department. On border control posts and infrastructure, I have not read the Lords debate, but I suspect the other place was told that DEFRA had approved expressions of interests for 29 new BCPs from providers in England and Wales. The Animal and Plant Health Agency tells us that the building is progressing and it is confident that they can be ready by July. Two further applications are under consideration and further expressions of interest are expected in Scotland. That work is under way, and the teams working on it are hopeful—indeed, they expect—that it will be completed in time.

DEFRA is working with port health authorities, APHA and the Food Standards Agency to recruit and train the additional staff required for each stage of the import regime. We have recruited 176 plant health and seed inspectors who are in post now, and we expect their number to increase to up to 300 by July. For animals and animal products, we expect to employ 200 inspectors by April and a further 80 by July, together with 360 administrative staff. Recruitment has been ongoing since at least November and training is happening. A great deal of work is being done to get ready for our sensible, pragmatic and phased approach to bringing in the border checks. The EU reference laboratories are not covered in the official controls regulations, but I will write separately to the hon. Gentleman on that matter.

Continuing to try answer the questions in order, we are confident that we have enough trained vets. We made surge capacity of vets available over this period but not much has been used, so there is still spare surge capacity. I would never say that the situation is not challenging for exporters; I know it is, but we are confident that there is enough capacity at the moment and surge capacity is there if individuals need it.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer specific cases to me and my officials, who are working hand in hand to support companies that are trying to export. We will willingly take them up. I also encourage anybody trying to export to make full use of our training programmes, webinars and individual support. There is a great deal of support to get businesses ready for the new checks.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That was not quite the question I was asking, although we are all concerned about the availability of vets. The suggestion from Friends of the Earth is that within these changes Minsters may have given themselves the ability to reduce veterinary oversight, which is another way of dealing with the problem but not one that many would be happy with.

[Victoria Prentis]

Certainly, the intention behind the statutory instruments is to have a robust system in place for protecting our biosecurity. I remember debating last year with the hon. Gentleman how to tailor our approach so that biosecurity in this country could be done better than over an entire continent. I will make sure that the my noble Friend Lord Gardiner answers the point made by Friends of the Earth, because I am not absolutely certain what point it is worried about, but I will look into it and make sure that the hon. Gentleman is copied into that letter.

Even though the second SI is clearly about NI to GB, a question was posed about what progress has been made on equivalence, and although that issue is not specifically in scope, I think it is only fair that I answer it briefly. If I may summarise, the question is what progress has been made in UK-EU equivalence negotiations. DEFRA submitted applications for third-country equivalence on a number of occasions, as I outlined many times last year. In late December, the EU formally confirmed that it would grant equivalence for seed and other propagating material and would lift prohibitions on ware potatoes, for example. The EU has published an equivalence decision for fruit and vegetable propagating material, which also included lifting the prohibition on ware potatoes, and we are currently waiting for it to reach a Council decision on forest reproductive material and agricultural seed. We are pushing the EU very hard for a timeline for that decision. We continue to push on a regular basis for the lifting of the prohibition, and we are pursuing an application under article 44 of the plant health regulation on the equivalence of plant health measures generally.

I hope that that deals with the substance of the questions, and I commend these two instruments to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT PLANT HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Victoria Prentis.)

Waste Incineration and Recycling Rates

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and to speak for the Opposition this afternoon.

I should say at the outset that I am a mere stand-in for my departmental colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is the shadow Minister for waste. Because of the travel restrictions, she has to be in Wales and, until we have the motion on Westminster Hall debates later today, there is a requirement for these debates to be held in person. I must say, it is quite extraordinary that we are all being put at risk, including the staff in this place, because—to use the jargon—it was not possible to “flex” the rules sufficiently. I hope it can be fed back how unhappy some of us are about being put in that situation.

More positively, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for calling the debate. I listened with great interest to his account of the difficulties around the Beddington incinerator, approved by the Lib Deb-run London Borough of Sutton and clearly causing a range of problems for him and his constituents.

However, the collective task of tackling waste, improving recycling rates and taking the steps needed to protect our environment and preserve our planet is one that we need to do together. I am afraid it is no secret that the Opposition side of the House have concerns about what we see as a lack of ambition on the Treasury Bench when it comes to these issues. The Minister will recognise this familiar refrain from our many hours spent on the Environment Bill; we tried to make constructive and effective suggestions for improvement but, as these things go, they were sadly voted down.

As we have heard, incinerators emit large quantities of CO₂, with roughly 1 tonne released for each tonne of waste incinerated. About half of that is derived from fossil sources such as plastic, meaning that England’s incinerators rely on fossil fuels for feedstock, as most plastics are derived from crude oil or natural gas. I am told that incineration capacity in England is currently around 17.2 million tonnes—some 14.6 million of built capacity and 2.6 million under construction—and the waste industry is proposing a further 20 million tonnes of capacity for England.

As we have also heard, however, existing capacity already exceeds the quantity of genuinely residual combustible waste. Allowing even more incinerators would exacerbate that overcapacity, giving rise to avoidable pollution and expense while harming waste reduction and recycling efforts.

In short, we should now acknowledge that the time for incineration is over and that the age of incinerators should come to an end. Once, one might have said that incineration was an improvement on the previous practice of landfill, but I no longer feel that that is the case. I note that across England, incineration has increased in inverse proportion to the reduction in landfill in recent years.

I say to the Minister that an over-reliance on incineration as a means of tackling waste will, in the end, serve no one. That over-reliance will prevent us from moving up the waste hierarchy in dealing with waste generally and will stop us looking at waste as a resource that can be recycled and reused, its value unlocked rather than buried or contributing to toxic air.

I also know that a number of my hon. Friends around the country have raised concerns about incineration in their communities in recent months. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who wanted to speak in this debate but could not be here today, has asked me to emphasise a point he has made about the urgent need for clarity from the Minister on waste movements around the UK, including between England and Wales. In previous debates, he has made clear his opposition to the incinerator planned by an English company for the east of his constituency, which is currently with the Welsh planning inspectors and which likely plans to burn commercial waste shipped across the border.

I will also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who has a particular interest in the impact of incineration on the health and wellbeing of her constituents in north London, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who chairs the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and who I remember expressing concerns in this very Chamber about the planning decisions that he feels do not consider the cumulative impact of multiple sites in close proximity. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has an incineration facility at Hillthorn Park in her constituency. I know she is watching the debate this afternoon.

My hon. Friends’ passion crosses regional and national borders within the UK. As we grasp the challenge of reducing our reliance on incinerators, our response needs to be an all-nation response. Will the Minister outline what specific discussions she has had with Environment Ministers in the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and with the Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government on tackling the over-reliance on incineration?

Over the past two decades, the household waste recycling rate in England has increased significantly, from just 11.2% to almost 50%. I am pleased that for half of that time a Labour Government ambitiously pushed for a change of behaviour and real action on the green agenda. However, I must point out that England still falls short of the EU target of recycling a minimum of 50% of household waste by 2020. Our departure from the EU does not mean we should shift gear or slow down. We need to go further and faster.

As of 2018, Wales is the only nation in the UK to reach the target, and in 2017 it recorded a recycling rate of 64%. I pay tribute to the Welsh Labour Government, particularly the First Minister and the Environment Minister, Lesley Griffiths MS. I also endorse the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who not only pointed out those successes in Wales, but made important comments about food waste.

The Minister knows that England is responsible for the overwhelming majority of waste in UK households. It is vital that England and therefore this Government show leadership and act. If we need further evidence of the need for swift action, we need look no further than DEFRA’s own resources and waste strategy monitoring report from August last year. It tells us:

“The large amount of avoidable residual waste and avoidable residual plastic waste generated by household sources each year suggests there remains substantial opportunity for increased recycling.”

The message from that assessment is that a substantial quantity of material appears to be going into the residual waste stream, where it could at least have been recycled or dealt with higher up the waste hierarchy. So there it is. We have to take this seriously now.

The issue is not just about waste here at home, but about the fact that English waste, for want of a better description, has an international impact, too. In a written parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West asked the Secretary of State

“what discussions he has had with his Sri Lankan counterpart on the 21 containers of waste returned to the UK from that country in September 2020.”

The answer she received from the Minister, who is here today, was revealing. She said:

“The Environment Agency…as the competent authority for waste shipments for England, is proactively engaging with the authorities in Sri Lanka on these containers and is leading the response on this matter. The 21 containers arrived back in England on Wednesday 28 October. The containers, which were shipped to Sri Lanka in 2017, were found by Sri Lankan authorities to contain illegal materials described as mattresses and carpets which had been exported for recycling. With the shipment now back on English soil, EA enforcement officers will seek to confirm the types of waste shipped, who exported it and the producer of the waste. Those responsible could face a custodial sentence of up to two years, an unlimited fine, and the recovery of money and assets gained through the course of their criminal activity.”

That answer is telling, because we cannot rely on incineration, nor should we think we can simply ship our worries and our waste overseas. The ship that left Britain in 2017 with our waste came back to bite us in September 2020. We simply need to resolve these issues.

This subject is topical. Did the Minister and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington have the opportunity to read a piece in The Guardian over their porridge? If not, I want to let them know that the UK has been accused of failing to honour its promise to

“curb shipments of plastic waste to developing countries, after it emerged Britain’s new post-Brexit regulations are less stringent than those imposed by the EU.”

The article notes:

“From 1 January, shipments of unsorted plastic waste from the EU to non-OECD countries were banned. But Britain will continue to allow plastic waste to be exported to developing countries”,

despite a Conservative party manifesto commitment to banning the practice. That is important, because we are one of the biggest producers of plastic waste in the world, and we export about two thirds of it. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has put it well:

“The government has made big promises to match environmental standards from Europe and to ban plastic waste exports. There can be no dither or delay. The British people expect to see these exports banned, more recycling of materials at home and faster action on the climate crisis. It is up to ministers to deliver on their promises and fast, but this does not look good.”

In conclusion, I urge the Minister to think about the social cost of the issues we are discussing, as well as the environmental costs. It is important to remember the role of local authorities here too. They are on the frontline of waste collection and recycling. I urge the Minister to make the strongest representations to Treasury Ministers to ensure that councils have the resources they need. The Minister will recall that until the end of last year we were covered by the EU waste directive, among other pieces of waste-related legislation. Can she update the House on what she is doing to ensure no lowering of the standards in that directive now that the transition has come to an end? Can she also confirm that the UK will maintain the EU definition of waste?

Labour is committed to increasing recycling rates and improving the processes around doing so. We recognise the importance of taking people with us and argue that if we do not have buy-in from the public, we are unlikely to achieve the sort of change and progress that our planet desperately needs. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for calling this debate and optimistically encourage him to support our amendments to the Environment Bill when they are debated on Report, because that is how we will seize the opportunity to put incineration behind us and move forward to a new world of ambitious and effective recycling, one that recognises and unlocks the value in what was once seen as waste.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind her that Elliot will need a few minutes to wind up.

Draft Animal Welfare and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. Last week I commented on the eclectic grouping of statutory instruments and today we have an eclectic group of things within a statutory instrument—never let it be said we do not have variety in our lives.

The regulations have already been discussed in the Lords, so let me echo some of the points made by my colleague, Baroness Hayman. It is clear that the SI makes necessary changes in three areas: to secure the continuity of an effective regime for animal welfare in transport, slaughter and other areas; to continue the ban on leghold traps and the import of pelts obtained by that method; and to ensure that the strict protections placed against invasive non-native species are maintained. It also, importantly, provides continuity to business in those areas after the end of the transition period.

Much in the SI is about the reciprocal arrangements being discussed with the Republic of Ireland. Last week, Baroness Hayman inquired about progress and, of course, there was a statement in the Chamber earlier today, but will the Minister say whether those arrangements have any impact on the areas under consideration? This is perhaps a bit mischievous, given that the Prime Minister seemed unwilling or unable to answer a direct question earlier, but can she perhaps tell us how many of the 50,000 promised customs agents are in place? I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs follow that closely.

To return to the detail, as the Minister explained the SI will end the recognition in Great Britain of a number of documents that relate to animal welfare maintenance, including transport authorisations, driver and attendant certificates of competence, vehicle approvals and journey logs. EU transporters will need to apply for those documents to be issued by a competent authority in Great Britain if they wish to continue to transport animals in Great Britain after the end of the transition period. According to the explanatory memorandum:

“Doing so will cause these individuals to incur a small cost.”

However, it seems that no impact assessment has been prepared for the provisions relating to the changes in documentation. Why is that? What might the impact be? How many such EU transporters are there? Are they expected to continue to operate? If not, what effect would that have? How have the new procedures been communicated to them?

The regulations are about ensuring that welfare in transport is respected. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at them and the Government responded to its questions by saying:

“Although EU and GB standards will remain aligned at the end of the transition period, we have ambitions to strengthen welfare in transport standards in the near future.”

Of course, that was a prescient observation on the Government’s part, because last week DEFRA announced its welcome consultation on how to improve animal welfare during transport. Of course, that was intended partly to trumpet the great triumph of Brexit that we can now end the live export of animals; for some of us, that is one of the few tangible benefits that has been discernible, which is doubtless why it is cited so frequently. But let us be grateful, because although live exports may have declined considerably over the years to some 35,000 animals a year—although I am told that the figure varies—that is 35,000 too many, and we want to see an end to it.

I will point out a couple of issues on which the Minister might be able to provide clarity. Compassion in World Farming has long campaigned for an end to live exports. CIWF is puzzled and disappointed, as we are, by the proposed length of maximum journey times within the UK, which in our view are far too long. It is proposed that pigs could be transported for 18 hours or sheep and cattle for 21 hours, and for even longer with permission from the Animal and Plant Health Agency. CIWF says that in its view that is ridiculous. There are few journeys within the UK of that length. It argues that the maximum for each species should be eight hours, with a maximum of six hours for unweaned calves. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

CIWF also says:

“The underlying principle should be that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm of rearing and fattened on or near the farm of birth.”

I suspect that, like me, the Minister would largely agree with that principle, but, as was raised in the Lords, that hinges on the availability of local abattoirs, and I wonder if the Minister could therefore comment on both the journey times, and the Government’s policy on the availability of local abattoirs, for which I think a powerful case has been made by campaigners in recent times.

To return to the detail of the SI and the transport arrangements, it seems likely, as with any new system when it is introduced, that there will be teething problems. Is there any form of discretion that can be exercised if a transporter arrives at a port without the relevant paperwork? If not, have the Government considered what kind of delay this is likely to cause and at what potential cost? What plans are in place to deal with such potential problems?

Turning to leg traps, I think we will all agree that we want to ensure that there are strong provisions against these barbaric traps and that we exclude products associated with them. In paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum there is a fairly standard claim about our wonderfully high welfare standards. I do not entirely agree with the Government’s view. In some aspects of animal welfare, we frankly are not world leading.

I am told that we are only one of five countries in Europe that do not prohibit the use of snares, which, in the words of the League Against Cruel Sports are “cruel and indiscriminate”. In the league’s view, they are

“used extensively for the extermination of native animals simply to produce as many birds as possible to be short for sport”.

The league has calculated, based on the Government’s own research, that 1.7 million animals a year are killed in these traps. Although the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states that they should be set only for rabbits and foxes, many other animals are regularly caught in them, and, as Baroness Bennett noted in the Lords debate on this SI, there is particularly horrific film footage of badgers being entrapped, and frequent reports about domestic pets being caught in, injured by and sometimes even killed by snares. Will the Government take the opportunity, when reconsidering animal welfare, to look at the whole issue of snares and to consider joining most of the countries of Europe in banning them?

On the invasive non-native species element of the SI, the Government say that an impact assessment has not been prepared for the provisions on invasive non-native species, because this instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards. However, they also say in paragraph 2.24 of the explanatory memorandum that they are making improvements to the domestic enforcement legislation relating to invasive non-native species. In that case, why has no assessment been carried out of the impact of these changes?

We recognise the need to ensure that retained EU legislation in these important areas remains operable, and therefore will not oppose the draft regulations, but we would like clarification on the points raised.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. I will do my best to answer the many questions he raised. On the impact assessment on live animal exports, we have not done a formal public consultation, but we have engaged directly with industry representatives on the issue. The SI relates to the maintenance of an existing regulation. We would not anticipate an enormous amount of impact as a result. There are, as the hon. Gentleman said, limited impacts on European business, but there is no effect on GB public services, for example. The EU has made it quite clear that the provision is reciprocal. We are quite clear that we have extra staff in APHA to process any new EU business applications, so we feel that we have done what is necessary there.

On the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s statement, I was pleased to be in the Chamber and hear what he had to say. He announced a really useful grace period for supermarkets and those in their supply chains. We have not yet got all the details of what the Joint Committee has agreed, but I look forward to engaging with them fully in the coming days as they become available. It is a welcome statement and I am pleased that we came to that level of agreement.

On live animal exports, I heard what the Member had to say on the consultation. It is an eight-week consultation and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining in with it. We will also be consulting on transport for animals more generally, for example on maximum journey times, the amount of space available for animals while they are being transported, stricter temperature controls and the specific rules for sea transport. It is important that we view this as about not just live animal exports, but the whole conglomeration of issues about animals being moved. On that note, on small and local abattoirs, I noticed that the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare has produced a useful report on the role of the small abattoir, which is something that I personally have long been interested in, and indeed the role of the mobile slaughterer.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I, too, was very impressed by that report. Going back to those journey times, there is genuine puzzlement—it was not simply a criticism—as to why those long times have been proposed. It might help some of the people responding to understand the thinking behind that.

[Victoria Prentis]

I will not go into the ins and outs of the consultation, but I encourage those responding to be forthright and frank and to make their views clearly felt, and the evidence behind them. Of course, the Government acknowledge the important role of small abattoirs. The decline in their numbers is due to a combination of factors including, for example, consolidation in the retail sector and the drive for greater efficiency, which has led to consolidation in a small number of large abattoirs. Officials in DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency are working with the Sustainable Food Trust to understand why that has happened and to see whether steps can be taken to reduce regulatory burdens, which might help small abattoirs to survive.

I come to the INNS part of this SI, on non-native species. The policy change, which is not related to EU exit, relates to a sensible provision that means that enforcement officers in Scotland and Northern Ireland who seize a cargo of live animals that should not be there will not have to transport them a long distance to England or Wales to be processed. This is not something that will be often used, we very much hope, but it is a completely sensible and practical provision to reduce the stress and burden on those live animals. That is why we feel an impact assessment is not necessary. The whole point is to improve animal welfare and prevent the associated costs and bureaucracy caused by sending the animals on a long journey to where they have to go at the moment to be correctly processed—that is the purpose of that.

I reiterate that these regulations will not amend any current animal welfare standards. They make operability changes to ensure that existing EU law works appropriately at the end of the transition period. With that in mind, I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Agriculture

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here and to speak to these statutory instruments, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, they are an eclectic mix of instruments, and I say at the outset that we will not be opposing them. May I say something positive about the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board? I know it is not always supported throughout the sector, but my experience has been very positive, and it does very valuable work.

On livestock movement, we know how critical a tracing system is. We need only look back to some of the awful experiences with foot and mouth back in 1967 and 2001 and, indeed, to the lessons learned by 2007, and we have only to think about bovine TB and, I fear, African swine fever, which is currently moving across Europe. There are worrying developments around avian flu, which is a different issue, and the Opposition will do everything we can to work with the Government to tackle that.

May I also make reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting patiently? There was a suggestion from the Secretary of State as to what should be done in these circumstances, which I think rather unhelpfully was a suggestion to switch to beef. I suspect that will not satisfy my hon. Friend. He may wish to intervene.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to be enticed. Yes, the Secretary of State suggested to me that those affected should all move over to beef. The truth, as far as I can see, is that first, that is difficult to achieve on most Welsh mountains and, secondly, it is not exactly an environmentally friendly direction of travel. More importantly, did my hon. Friend catch the intimation from the Minister that if this produce is not going to be able to be sold, because of tariffs within the European Union, basically all that additional produce will just be burnt?

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is possibly not the place to have this debate, but my hon. Friend is right to raise it and the Minister will have the opportunity to respond later. Of course, we are seeing problems with wool, as well, so it is a troubled time for people. Obviously we hope that we end up without tariffs, because that will be a much better outcome.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Clearly the rules, as the Minister set out, are specific to England, but the shadow Minister referred to the movement of cattle and sheep in the United Kingdom mainland. He will know, as we do, that that movement of traffic is to and fro from Northern Ireland to the mainland. When it comes to the movement of any animals, does he think we need continuity with the payment scheme and the flexibility to be able to move cattle and sheep not only north and south from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, but from Northern Ireland to Scotland and to England and Wales?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member tempts me further and further away from the instrument. I can assure him I will be coming to some of those points, because it is obviously key that we resolve these issues of movement within the island of Ireland. They are complicated and pressing for many, many people.

We are told that this instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union, which is a welcome relief, I suspect, given the number of instruments we have been discussing in recent weeks. Indeed, it comes from the newly passed Agriculture Act 2020. It makes provisions for better traceability. It was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the Minister has outlined many of the proposals, so I will not repeat all of that.

The proposals set out by the AHDB for a new livestock information service system are important. It will provide a multi-species traceability system, and DEFRA tells us that it will enable the Department and the Animal and Plant Health Agency to trace all livestock movements through a single, more efficient system, which would be welcome, because livestock are currently identified through three separate livestock traceability systems: one for cattle, one covering sheep and goats and one for pigs. The service was introduced over the past two decades as various pieces of EU legislation came into force. As the Minister said, the existing systems are species-specific, so keepers with more than one species of livestock need to switch between databases. The existing systems are also designed to collect, rather than share data and, extraordinarily, are paper-based.

I am told that the AHDB will also run a unique number identification service on behalf of England and Wales, which will control the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. The Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland have noted that they will pursue their own systems for issuing identification numbers to animals. The service will operate in England but because, as has been said, animals can and do move across borders, the instrument applies across the UK so that AHDB may handle data on animal movements and traceability systems outside England where necessary to allow a complete picture of animal traceability. Further collective work involving all four Administrations is aimed at agreeing a UK view of key data to support traceability.

As I said, AHDB has established a subsidiary company, Livestock Information Ltd, to carry out the services on behalf of AHDB and DEFRA. We are told that the estimated cost is £32 million over three years, and the projected monetised net benefit using a 10-year appraisal method is conservatively placed at £30 million. AHDB says that improved traceability data will enable a range of other benefits, including reducing the impact of endemic diseases, increasing our ability to act quickly and proportionately in the event of an exotic disease outbreak, and improving livestock business productivity.

Some questions follow from that, however. Under the provisions of the instrument, each devolved Administration will have their own database. How will we be able to trace animals as they move across borders? On the implementation of the system, will there be an instant switchover, or a transition period in which both old and new systems operate alongside one another? What is the timeframe for getting the new traceability system up and running?

Farmers currently pay a levy for the use of AHDB services. In bringing the new traceability system under the remit of AHDB, DEFRA says there are no plans for a new levy to fund any of the services the regulations bring in. “No plans” is a term that is regularly used, often euphemistically. Can the Minister give a guarantee that there will not be a levy? It appears that Livestock Information Ltd will cost £32 million of taxpayer money that is immediately handed to a subsidiary in which DEFRA has a minority stake. Will the Minister explain why that is?

Looking at the direct payments instrument, we have been here before. The draft regulations are laid under the new Agriculture Act 2020 and need to come into force on 1 January 2021 to ensure that direct payment support will be available for farmers in England for the 2021 claim year. The Government have confirmed the continuation of direct payments for 2020 in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which we discussed back in January, but as we heard earlier this week, some of the payments will be phased out in England under the new Agriculture Act from next year over the following seven years, beginning with a 5% to 25% cut in farmers’ income next year.

This statutory instrument has been noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. According to DEFRA, the instrument aims to maintain the status quo as far as possible for farmers next year. The instrument sets rules about the financial ceilings used to calculate farmers’ direct payments, giving the Secretary of State time to determine the ceilings for the 2021 claim year before the start of that year, as the current financial ceilings extend only to the 2020 claim year. It also removes from 2021 elements of direct payments that have not previously been implemented in England, some of which have been used in the rest of the UK. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes that separate legislation will be required for the Government’s planned reforms to phase out direct payments from 2021.

Back in January, when we discussed the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act, Labour pressed the Government on the need for a legislative mechanism for direct payments to farmers to be continued beyond 2020. We predicted that we would be back later in the year—and here we are, with the Government using the Agriculture Act as that mechanism to use this SI for 2021.

We welcome the shift from supporting land ownership to helping farmers restore land and improve our natural environment, but farmers are rightly concerned about how they are going to survive during the transition the Government propose. On Monday, it was revealed that direct payments will start to be cut next year, and will be cut by 50% by 2024, yet the new environmental land management schemes will not fully up and running until 2024. What was once envisaged as a bridging sustainable farming incentive payment will not be available for farmers until 2022, and in the view of many, including Labour Members, there is still too little detail of the schemes to help farmers to plan for uncertain times ahead. Based on DEFRA’s own statistics, 75% of farming enterprises are currently unprofitable without direct payments. We fear that many farms will be left financially unviable under the Government’s proposals.

A recent survey of landowners and farmers by the Country Landowners Association found high levels of concern about the implementation of the new ELM schemes, with 76% of respondents fearing that the payments would not be sufficient and 57% thinking that administration would be poor. The Rural Payments Agency will be administering new payment schemes—we all know that it has had a troubled history, although it has improved in recent times—and there remain real doubts about the capacity to deliver new systems alongside administering legacy payments.

The high-risk approach to our farmers’ future security is, I am sorry to say, of a piece with the highly ideological approach that the Government have taken to farming post Brexit. The Government still refuse to back British farmers with a legal guarantee that they will not be undercut by cheaper, lower-standard food allowed in through trade deals that, despite the claims, will still lack proper parliamentary scrutiny.

I will not go over familiar ground again, the Minister will be glad to hear, but let me put some specific questions on this instrument. The draft regulations that she has come forward with today provide farmers with direct payments for just 2021. Will regulations need to be laid every year for the seven years of the agricultural transition period to continue direct payments in their current form prior to phasing out? When are the Government going to come forward with regulations for phasing out direct payments?

These provisions remove a number of elements of direct payments that have not been applied in England but have been elsewhere in the UK. These include the redistributive payment and voluntary coupled support schemes that have been used in Wales and Scotland. They also take out the active farmer provision and basic payment scheme agri-environment transfer. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing here that will restrict devolved Administrations from making their own choices? While we understand the concerns about the active farmer provision, we still believe that measures are needed to ensure that money goes to farmers, not just landholders.

This is a continuation of direct payments to farmers for next year, which is welcome, but we know that the Government are planning to cut direct payments for next year. What support are they going to give farmers facing a 5% cut in their income next year? Has DEFRA undertaken an impact assessment on what direct payment cuts would look like to farmers in different sectors and farm sizes, and will they release that impact assessment?

We know that different parts of the UK will now be pursuing different payment support schemes for farmers, as agriculture is a devolved area. How will the Government ensure that we do not see market distortions emerging across the UK? Given its past performance failures, can the Minister guarantee that the Rural Payments Agency is competent to administer the many changes and parallel systems emerging over the next few years?

In conclusion, let me turn to perhaps the most complicated of the three SIs before us, on WTO compliance. This instrument has been made under the Agriculture Act but relates to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. It introduces a legal framework to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO commitments on the use of domestic support for agriculture. I understand that this is a largely technical change following our withdrawal, so this SI was not reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

While a member of the EU, UK interests at the WTO were represented by the European Commission, which was responsible for ensuring that the UK complied with WTO agreements. That included the WTO agreement on agriculture, which sets out a number of general rules and commitments that signatory nations must follow on agricultural trade practices, including disciplines on domestic support, market access and export subsidies. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the UK will now represent its own interests at the WTO, and the UK Government will be responsible for ensuring that the UK complies with its obligations and commitments as an independent WTO member. These include obligations relating to the classification and notification of domestic support and the UK’s commitment to reduce its aggregate measurement of support.

As the Minister said, this instrument specifies the amount of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the United Kingdom—amber box payments being those that have trade-distorting effects, which are limited under the WTO agreement on agriculture. This instrument also outlines the procedure for classifying such schemes and permits the Secretary of State to request information where this is needed to enable the United Kingdom to satisfy its obligations. The explanatory memorandum says that it

“allows for each UK administration to design and implement their own agricultural support schemes within an amber box spending envelope.”

These provisions stem from part 6 of the Agriculture Act, and they were criticised at the Committee stage by the devolved Administrations. There were concerns that, despite agriculture being a devolved area, the Act gave the Secretary of State the centralised power to decide how farm support payments everywhere in the UK will be classified in relation to international trade rules, and to set limits on how much can be paid out by each Administration. At the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill, Labour sought to amend the Bill by requiring Ministers to consult with each devolved authority on a draft of the relevant regulations. This was rejected by the Government, but the Minister committed to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under part 6.

The Government have outlined in their explanatory memorandum for this SI:

“These regulations were drafted in consultation with policy officials from the devolved administrations, who were given the opportunity to comment at each drafting stage. It was possible to accommodate the majority of their comments and suggested changes whilst recognising that UK Government’s position is that ensuring compliance with international obligations remains a reserved issue.”

I have to say that, from speaking to some of my Scottish colleagues, I am not entirely convinced they completely agree with that characterisation of the discussion. So can the Minister explain what consultations have been had with the devolved authorities on the content of these regulations, how the majority of their comments and suggested changes were accommodated, and what suggestions, if any, were not accommodated?

In conclusion, these are indeed an eclectic group of instruments, but they are all important to make sure our farmers are paid, to ensure that we use the latest technology to best effect to maintain the health of our livestock and to ensure that agricultural support systems are WTO-compliant. We are not opposing them, but there are questions I have posed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.

Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I echo the Minister’s points about just how important these measures are. At first sight, they perhaps seem slightly impenetrable and very lengthy. The two instruments run to some 272 pages and 76 pages, and I doubt whether any of us has the energy or the expertise to be absolutely certain that everything is correct. As we have said in many other statutory instrument debates, it is probably only the people who are drafting them who really know that for sure. So there is always some cause for concern. On a personal level, I remember visiting the fantastic Sainsbury laboratory in the University of Cambridge a few years ago to be briefed on ash dieback. It is striking to see not only the excellent work that is being done to tackle these issues but the constant threats that we are facing. That is why it is so important that these controls are in place and that they are transposed in the correct way.

We are told that these two SIs have been laid using powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and that their stated aim is to protect biosecurity and support trade by ensuring that effective phytosanitary controls continue to operate within GB and between GB and the EU at the end the transition period. We are also told that they establish the future plant health regime for Great Britain by ensuring that EU legislation related to phytosanitary controls is retained—and corrected as necessary, as the Minister has explained—to maintain the existing risk-based approach. The Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission will be delivering the measures in these regulations, and we are told that they are developing an implementation plan and that associated guidance will be published on gov.uk. We are also told that separate legislative arrangements will be needed for Northern Ireland in order to maintain alignment with sanitary and phytosanitary-related EU regulations and to specify requirements for GB goods entering Northern Ireland. Well, that is probably an understatement. I would echo some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will return to that later.

The Government say that the amendments introduced are technical operability amendments and do not include any policy changes. That is what is said, of course, of many statutory instruments and we may beg to differ at some point. It appears that no impact assessments have been carried out, and that the regulations were not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and had not been raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As we have heard, the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make operability amendments to the retained EU plant health regulations, as well as consequential amendments to domestic law. The draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 defines at some length, as I have said, the list of regulated products and pests, and prescribes the requirements for entry and movement of regulated items into GB and within GB to reduce the risks in connection with those pests to an acceptable level.

Since the result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that the UK leaves the EU single market, the operability amendments contained in this instrument create a single market covering GB and the crown dependencies. The EU will thus become a third country and, as a result, will be subject to third country import controls. The Government tell us that the current policy of risk-based plant health controls applied under EU legislation will continue, and that the GB risk assessment process will follow the same internationally accepted principles and approach used in previous pest risk analysis under the EU regime. Internal controls will also continue to apply to the movement of goods within the GB internal market.

We are also told that the revised approach for EU imports will be phased in over six months from 1 January next year, in the Government’s words, to

“stagger the operational implementation of controls on EU products to allow trade to continue to flow whilst businesses adapt to the application of third country import controls. This will be a temporary and risk-based transitional arrangement, with the aim of ensuring consistent and technically justified import controls which apply to all countries exporting to GB.”

The instruments also include a requirement to use UK rather than EU plant passports for intra-GB movements of plant-passported commodities. This will require businesses that move plant-passported commodities within GB to modify the reference code they use when issuing plant passports, replacing EU with UK. The process for authorising businesses with plant passporting, we are told, will not change. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tells us that

“businesses who will need to use the system from 1 January 2021 are likely to already be registered. Therefore, we expect no extra impact on business from this change.”

Some questions follow from all of that. In 7.2 of the explanatory notes for the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, it says that under these regulations our risk-based plant health controls will now

“focus on risks to GB, rather than risks to the EU”.

I was going to ask the Minister to explain what that means in practice. I think she has made reference to that already, but to repeat my question from previous debates around report and review, can she tell us when these policies will be reviewed and where that sits in relation to reviews already promised to be undertaken by the EU? Should the EU tighten their standards, would we be doing likewise and vice versa?

As I have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are very, very lengthy, detailed instruments. I am eternally grateful to Greener UK, which has found the time to look at them in some detail. It raises some points, as it often does, that I suspect the Minister may wish to write to me on, because they are detailed and I would not expect her necessarily to have an answer to hand. She may do—she may surprise me. Greener UK tells me that regulation 28(24)(c) changes the requirement in article 25(4) of EU regulation 2016/2031. This is in the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—the first one, I think. Deep in that regulation there is a change for the UK to establish priority pest plans for all listed pests within four years of the 2019 EU regulation, to instead set a deadline of 1 January 2023. This is in line with the previous timescale. However, the clause also adds a line, 4A, disapplying that requirement to any priority pest removed from that list before the same date. While the intent behind that may be simply to clarify, it would be superfluous to create a plan for a pest that is no longer considered a threat. In the view of Greener UK, this explicit reference appears to potentially incentivise the late development contingency plans. It may well be that that is covered by some of the points that the Minister has already made about the differing threats that we face. However, will she outline the UK’s progress in developing such plans to date, clarify whether the Government still intend to produce such plans for further priority pests currently listed in the EU level, and provide any details on intended timescales? Will she also tell us whether the Government have any plans to change the current list after the end of the transition period and whether any changes will be subject to the same risk assessment process used currently by the EU?

On equivalence investigations, regulation 30(7) amends paragraph 2 of article 44 of regulation 2016/2031, and removes a reference to the Commission’s ability to carry out investigations in third countries to determine whether equivalence is being properly achieved. It does this without replacing it with a reference to an appropriate UK body. Determinations of equivalence in biosecurity and control measures will be vital to protect the UK’s natural ecosystems in future. This reference therefore appears unhelpful, and the reason for deletion is unclear. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could explain the reasoning and outline how the Government propose to ensure the legitimacy of claims of equivalence from third countries, and whether investigations will form a part of this approach. That seems to me to be a rather important point. As I say, I do not necessarily expect an answer today, but it would be helpful to have one at some point.

The third point raised by Greener UK is on amending regulations. In a number of places, references in EU regulation 2016/2031 via article 107(2) to a specific examination procedure for scrutinising and adopting amendments to regulations, as contained in article 5 of reg 182/2011, are removed. The examination procedure was designed to provide an additional level of scrutiny to implementing decisions relating to specific areas of concern, including the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants. These references to the examination procedure are replaced now with a power to amend regulations that does not feature an opportunity for scrutiny. For example, reg 30(17) replaces a requirement to follow the examination procedure with:

“The appropriate authority may by regulations amend Annex 9 to the Phytosanitary Conditions Regulation where the amendment is appropriate in the light of a risk assessment in relation to a plant, plant product or other object.”

Removing a defined process for strong committee-level scrutiny—that is, us—and decision making and replacing that with a standard reference to the right of the appropriate authority to make regulations represents, in the view of Greener UK, an unhelpful weakening of oversight, and I rather agree. This will be particularly pertinent if the Government choose to pass future regulations via the negative procedure. Will the Minister explain why the EU examination procedure could not be replicated within the UK context to provide clear democratic oversight of amendments? Will she outline how the Government propose to ensure that levels of scrutiny for secondary legislation pertaining to

“the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety, of humans, animals or plants”

will not be weakened as a result of these changes?

I am grateful to Greener UK for finding these detailed points. As I said, I do not necessarily require a reply today. I will conclude with some more basic questions. At paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory notes for the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 we are told:

“This will be a temporary and risk-based transitional arrangement for plant health controls”.

How long is temporary, and how much risk, because I am not entirely sure that I like the sound of that? It sounds like an excuse to me.

There has been no impact assessment of these regulations on businesses, yet there are clear indications that businesses will be impacted. Under these regulations, the revised approach for EU imports will be phased in over six months from January 2021 to

“stagger the operational implementation of controls on EU products to allow trade to continue to flow whilst businesses adapt to the application of third country import controls.”

Businesses moving plant-passported commodities within GB will need to modify the reference code that they use when issuing plant passports from EU to UK, so why has there not been an impact assessment of these regulations? Is it really presumed that there will be no impact on businesses at all?

The logic of paragraph 12.4 of the explanatory notes for the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 is, frankly, “Alice in Wonderland” stuff. It outlines the extra checks that will be done, which I applaud, but goes on to say that because they are a result of the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and therefore do not reflect a change in policy, there is no need for an impact assessment. Can the Minister explain whether there has been an impact statement somewhere else? If so, where?

Finally, as I suggested at the outset, the bald statement that

“For Northern Ireland, separate legislative arrangements will be needed in order to maintain alignment with Sanitary and Phytosanitary related EU regulations and specify requirements for GB goods entering Northern Ireland”

is an understatement. Could the Minister outline what those separate legislative arrangements will look like and when they will be ready?

As ever, there are many questions. Ensuring plant health really matters. We are an island, but sadly, we need to be careful, and that is why we have a body of established law. It should not be weakened in any way, and while there is no desire for unnecessary extra checks, we all benefit when we stay safe.