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.

Draft Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I echo the Minister’s opening comments: I think we are all keen to hear the action going on in the main Chamber. These SIs appear to be largely technical and uncontroversial, although I am always loth to say that when I read through the many pages of changes—and I will come to that in a moment—but the Opposition will not oppose them, because we, too, want to ensure that UK trade remains as robust as we can make it after the end of this period.

However, these are very important issues, and it is hard to overstate the importance of sanitary and phytosanitary controls. There has, of course, been considerable controversy on this around the links between GB and Northern Ireland and, of course, safety issues are in our minds given avian flu and, sadly, the African swine fever in much of the rest of the world. Getting these things right and making sure that our defences are strong are really important, so there are some important questions.

Turning to the official controls SI, paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum outlines our current

“appropriately designated border control points and other points of entry”

and says that controls are

“also carried out at other locations, such as slaughterhouses, to verify the compliance of imported SPS goods with Official Controls Regulations”.

Will the Minister say a little more about where those kinds of places are? I cannot quite imagine exactly how that works, so I would be grateful if she will explain that. There is not much more that I wanted to ask about other than the impact question because—Labour has made this point with other SIs—it seems hard to imagine that there are no impacts.

On detail and the accuracy, I could not help notice that the previous time this matter was discussed—in the pre-no-deal discussions when it was in the form of SI 2019/1488—the then Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted a couple of things that were, in effect, errors or needed clarification. I just wonder how we can be sure, as one looks through the huge array of changes, that it is all entirely correct. I suspect it is not, but that is no criticism of those who are doing the drafting. I do not think that we in this place have the capacity to scrutinise such things closely enough. If someone wanted to slip something through, it really would not be hard to do, and it would be hard for people to spot it. We rely on people elsewhere to draw attention to these things, but there is nothing else on the official controls SI that requires further questioning at the moment.

Moving on to the second SI on the import of and trade in animals and animal products, I have one or two questions around the pre-notification requirement, which appears to be changing. Paragraph 7.5 in the explanatory memorandum—I think the Minister touched on this—recognises that imports into Great Britain using existing health certificates will be maintained

“for a period of time after 31 December 2020”,

without any reference to how long that process will continue. Again, the Minister may not have the answer to hand, but there is always a danger that temporary and interim arrangements can drag on in the future. It would be good to have some clarification and on how long that situation may last.

On the impact side, an impact is actually recognised with the import and trade SI, specifically on the pre-verification procedure and the differing computer systems that will be needed. It is estimated that the change will

“add to the staffing costs of a proportion of the 21,600 firms who are estimated to be involved in”

these import activities. Will the Minister give us some indication of the level of those additional staffing costs? It clearly is not the case that things are going remain exactly the same.

The Opposition do not see anything further to clarify at the moment, and we will not oppose the measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Question 4 has been withdrawn. If the substantive question cannot be answered, do not worry. I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

May I associate those on this side of the House with the Secretary of State’s comments on the appalling loss of the Joanna C?

Twenty-six per cent. of our food comes from the European Union, and it is reported that last week the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ head of food security warned industry reps to expect just 40% flow rates. I am sure the Secretary of State will want to provide reassurance on that, but as we have already heard, his attempts to placate livestock farmers recently led to some pretty dreadful headlines in the farming press. “Laughable” was the comment from the Farmers Guardian. So can he do better today and explain the plans he has in place to keep our food supplies flowing in just 35 days’ time?

[George Eustice]

We have worked with industry to ensure that the capacity is in place to issue export health certificates, and we have been contacting meat processors, fish processors and others in the sector to ensure that they are prepared for the new administration that will be required, and of course we continue to work on plans to ensure that goods flow at the border.

Environment Bill (Twenty Second sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 22nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Just to give the batting averages, we have taken half an hour for two new clauses. At this rate, we will be here until 4.30 pm this afternoon. Speed is of the essence.

New Clause 29

Report on climate and ecology

“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than six months after the day of which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the adequacy of environmental legislation and policy for meeting the climate and ecology challenges faced by the United Kingdom and the world.

(2) That report must include specific assessments relating to—

(a) water quality, availability and abundance;

(b) biodiversity, including, but not limited to, the restoration and regeneration of biodiverse habitats, natural and human modified ecosystems, and their respective soils;

(c) the expansion and enhancement of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems to safeguard their carbon-sink capacity and resilience to global heating; and

(d) resource efficiency, waste reduction and the promotion of the circular economy.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to go beyond setting one target (as in Section 1(2)) to within 6 months, assess, develop plans and outline adequacy of each target. “Circular Economy” is included as the Prime Minister agreed this concept in September 2020 at UN Leaders Pledge for Nature

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

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

I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me yet again. We are such regular correspondents that I am half expecting a Christmas card any time soon. She wrote on the debate we had on new clauses 25 and 27. It is a very detailed reply and it does give some reassurance, but I have to say that it shows why we should have had a discussion about those clauses in an evidence session, rather than have them inserted late in the day. I suspect there will be other lawyers who will take a different view on some of these matters, but I am sure that can be pursued as we go through the later stages of the Bill.

On new clause 29, I very much echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We believe that new clauses 29 and 28 together would strengthen the Bill. New clause 29 would give additional bite; it can stand on its own, so there is still time for the Minister to redeem herself. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, we take issue with the lack of overall clarity in the Bill. It needs a clearer thread running through.

The new clause, which would require the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill becoming law to report on the adequacy of current environmental law and policy in meeting the climate and ecological challenges the UK faces, would be tremendously helpful, not least because—as we saw yesterday—it seems the Government do one thing one day, and completely different things another day. They fail to face the challenges when they make big policy announcements. The new clause would make it much tougher for the Government to crawl out of their obligations.

We think the report should specifically be required to address issues of water, biodiversity, the capacity of natural and agroecosystems to mitigate global warming, resource efficiency, waste reduction and the promotion of the circular economy. That should be helpful to Government. As my hon. Friend said, we support the Prime Minister’s signing up to the UN leaders’ pledge for nature, and this includes the circular economy in our thinking.

We have taken a number of these ideas from the climate and ecological emergency Bill, which we believe is right to place emphasis on the importance of expanding and enhancing natural ecosystems and agroecosystems to safeguard their capacity as carbon sinks, as well as on the need to restore biodiverse habits and their soils. Out there in the world, which is sadly not following proceedings on the Bill as closely as some of us would hope, there is an appetite for this more ambitious approach.

After the Secretary of State has made the report, we would then very much hope that he or she would act on it and ensure that the environmental targets and environmental improvement plans were appropriately ambitious and would set out not just one long-term target in each area as required in clause 1, but set and outline the adequacy of those targets and lay out adequate plans to address each of those major issues within six months.

If it is an emergency, it needs addressing urgently. We do not believe the Bill does that at the moment. New clause 29 would help.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Much of the Bill is concerned with English-only environmental issues, as I have mentioned in the past, because environment is a devolved area under the Scotland Act 1998 and legislative consent motions have been agreed.

In connection to new clauses 29 and 29, I point out for those who are keen to hear what is happening in Scotland that the Scottish Government are developing their own environmental strategy. “The Environmental Strategy for Scotland: vision and outcomes” was published earlier this year. As the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform indicated just yesterday at her appearance in front of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, she will soon be publishing a monitoring framework for the strategy, which will bring together existing statutory targets, elements of the national performance framework and indicators from other strategies. That is after considerable consultation with stakeholders.

The strategy has attracted a broad range of cross-party support. The Cabinet Secretary just yesterday suggested working with Opposition Members to design amendments that will set out an obligation on Ministers to continue the work on an environmental strategy. It is an example of cross-party working that I think this place would do rather well to emulate. The Scottish Government and Parliament are leading the way in many environmental areas. I encourage Members from this place to lift their eyes from here and look to some of the great progress in this area that is being made in the devolved nations of the UK. I think it really would be worth their while.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for moving this new clause. He is always very passionate about what he says. I am pleased that my letter was able to give a bit of clarity on the subjects he raised in the Committee.

I reassure the Committee that the new clause is not needed. It will not surprise anyone to hear me say that. There are already measures in the Bill to help assess the adequacy of environmental legislation. Under clause 26, the OEP will proactively assess how our environmental laws work in practice and advise the Government on the most effective and efficient way of implementing those laws.

The OEP’s reports must be published and laid before Parliament and the Government are required to respond to the OEP and publish that response, which must also be laid before Parliament. Given that climate and ecology challenges are key environmental issues affecting us, we would expect that the OEP would want to address such matters in its clause 26 reports. That is basically its raison d’être and the raison d’être of the Bill. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is seeing what is in there, which covers what he is asking for. We also report annually on our progress in improving the environment through the 25-year environment plan.

The Bill as drafted already introduces a number of reporting requirements in the areas specified. Clause 94, for example, requires designated public authorities, including local planning authorities, to produce five-yearly biodiversity reports. The reports will provide transparency and accountability, and help local authorities to share best practice. Over time, they will become a very valuable source of data to support nature’s recovery. Clause 75 concerns improving water companies’ water resources management plans. This planning occurs every five years, taking into account the next 25-year period. Companies must review their plans annually.

The reporting requirements introduced by the Bill will complement the Government’s existing and proposed reporting and monitoring of the natural environment. There is only so much reporting people can cope with. I honestly think more reporting would cause people to groan under the weight of it all. What we want is action, and that is what this Bill is going to set in motion, which is why we need to get through it.

Last month, the Government published their response to the 2020 recommendations from the Committee on Climate Change. The response sets out the Government’s intention to publish a comprehensive net zero strategy in the lead up to COP26. The strategy will set out the Government’s vision for transitioning to net zero and reducing emissions across the economy. We have already set out our plans for a nationwide natural capital and ecosystem assessment. That is a big data-gathering census and a new large-scale surveying initiative, which will provide us with the all-important data to drive better decision making. That is something I have absolutely wished for as the Minister, as has the whole Department. It will be crucial in our future—we have talked about data before, and it is absolutely essential to know what we have now, what we will have tomorrow and what we would potentially like in the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her comments. We obviously work closely with the devolved Administrations, and we will be sharing a lot of the measures in the Bill. We always like to learn best practice from others—I mentioned that in the main Chamber only this morning, when the hon. Member for Putney and I spoke about air quality.

Although I welcome the intent behind the proposed new clause, I do not believe it is necessary, for the reasons I have outlined. Wide-ranging reporting assessment measures are already in place in the Bill and will be able to drive the sort of action that I think the hon. Member for Cambridge is after. I honestly do not believe we need the new clause, so I ask him to withdraw it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful, as ever, but disappointed by the Minister’s response. I do not think we need to divide the Committee, but I doubt whether even the Office for Environmental Protection will be established in the next months. Let us hope that it will go more quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Smoking related waste

“(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations introduce a producer responsibility scheme in England to tackle smoking related waste.

(2) The scheme will compel those tobacco companies operating in England, as defined in the regulations and subject to annual review, to provide financial support to the scheme based on a market share basis.

(3) The scheme will ensure that those tobacco companies will have no operational or other involvement in the scheme other than to provide financial support in accordance with guidance from the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Department of Health and Social Care.

(4) The regulations will set a target for a reduction in smoking related waste by 2030.

(5) The regulations will set out an appropriate vehicle to deliver the scheme including governance and criteria for funding related initiatives.

(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report of the scheme and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”—(Ruth Jones.)

The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government creates a producer responsibility scheme for smoking related waste. No such scheme exists at present and the clear up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other Directives.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

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

The new clause is really quite clear, and I suspect that colleagues on both sides of the Committee know what is coming, but I want to speak to it for a moment. It is designed to ensure that the Government create a producer responsibility scheme for smoking-related waste. No such scheme exists at present, and the clear-up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other directives.

I remind colleagues that it was this Government who clarified, back in February 2020, that tobacco packaging is covered by the current producer responsibility regulations, which require companies to recycle a proportion of the packaging waste that they place on the market. In their resources and waste strategy, the Government committed to look into and consult on the extended producer responsibility, or EPR, for five new waste streams by 2025, as well as to consult on two of them by 2022. The five priority waste streams are: textiles, fishing gear, certain products in construction and demolition, bulky waste, and vehicle tyres—the Minister has already alluded to that several times during our debates. They are important areas for the challenges facing us as we look to tackle the climate emergency.

The producer responsibility powers in the Bill enable the Government to set up an EPR scheme for cigarette litter. I urge the Minister to do so, and I look forward to a positive response from her on that specific point. I am concerned that, up until now, Ministers have not identified cigarette litter as a priority area for EPR, so I would like some further clarity on the detail and the likely timescale for any progress. I am sure that the Committee does not need to be reminded—I will do so anyway—that cigarette butts are estimated to account for 5% of ocean plastic, which is a big deal. We need to act, and we need to act now.

I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out a clear action plan and timetable when addressing the issues raised by the new clause. There is a crossover with the other responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians and lawmakers, because it is clear that smoking has a public health impact. Having been an NHS physiotherapist for more than 30 years before being elected to this place, I know a fair bit about the lungs and the danger that smoking causes. New clause 30 will help the wider battle against smoking and help promote a healthier world for all of us. As such, and with the determination needed to tackle the climate emergency, I wish to divide the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

The new clause seeks to address a glaring problem with the current biodiversity net gain provisions, which we discussed earlier in the proceedings. Currently, the Bill does not extend the requirement for biodiversity net gain to major infrastructure developments delivered through the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. We fear that that exemption will result in habitat loss on a large scale due to the size of those major infrastructure developments and could potentially lead to the destruction of irreplaceable habitats, increased fragmentation of remaining habitats and the local extinction of endangered species.

We have a very controversial example at the moment in High Speed 2—a major infrastructure project that does not have biodiversity net gain and that has put at risk 108 ancient woodland sites, 33 sites of scientific interest and 693 local wildlife sites. I appreciate that HS2 was not delivered through the NSIP regime, but it is comparable with future major infrastructure projects that would be delivered in that way. It is disappointing that HS2 has not gone with the trend of recent times and moved away and gone beyond no net loss, despite frequent calls for it to do so. Will the Minister comment on why no net gain is necessary in her view?

In their response to the net gain consultation, in which the Government outlined their intention that nationally significant infrastructure would not be subject to the requirement, despite the fact that there was considerable support from many respondents, the Government said that they will

“continue to work on exploring potential net gain approaches for these types of developments”.

What alternative net gain approaches have been considered for NSIPs? I understand that the Government have commissioned a study into the costs and benefits of bringing the large infrastructure projects into the scope of mandatory biodiversity net gain. What are the findings from that study, and is the Minister able to share them with the Committee?

I have one final plea for the Minister to find redemption in this whole process. As I have said many times—she has quoted it many times—we started with the 25-year environment plan, but we now find ourselves with the “Planning for the future” planning White Paper. Will she write to me on this issue—another item in our endless list of correspondence—and explain how the planning White Paper proposals will impact on net gain? This is one last chance for redemption. I live in hope.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for his tempting words and for the new clause, which would extend the biodiversity net gain objective and the biodiversity gain plan requirement to include nationally significant infrastructure projects.

I recognise the good intentions behind wanting to apply the mandatory biodiversity net gain objective to such projects. The Government are clear in the 25-year environment plan that our commitment to seeking to embed a principle of environmental net gain for development applies to infrastructure as well as housing. In line with that commitment, we are exploring how a biodiversity net gain approach for major infrastructure projects could best be delivered and how policy or legislation could be used to support that.

There are a number of ways in which a form of the biodiversity net gain requirement could be implemented for nationally significant infrastructure projects, but it is very important, as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, to take the time to work with stakeholders to develop an appropriate approach. Many stakeholders are really keen to discuss the matter.

Introducing a new legal requirement for such projects now could lead to significant delay and increased costs for projects in the pipeline, hampering our ability to build back better in future generations. I am sure the hon. Member appreciates the need to get lots of the projects going, not least because of the link with jobs and levelling up across the nation. Risks of delays and costs to major infrastructure for a premature and inappropriate mandatory requirement could result in delays to the delivery of environmentally beneficial projects, such as those living renewable energy generation and waste facilities.

The hon. Member is trying to draw me on the planning White Paper. All I will say is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We are at absolute pains to work with that Department, but also to ensure that the environmental protections remain there. It is going to be a green future, as the Prime Minister himself has said many times—in fact, I heard him say it again yesterday—so I can give assurances on that.

Nationally significant infrastructure projects are often distinct from other types of development in terms of scale and complexity. They have to be planned for over a number of years, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and many are in that design pipeline. We need to be very careful about doing what he is asking for now.

It is therefore important that any strengthening of biodiversity net gain requirements for the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime is done at the right time and in the right way, particularly if any mandatory net gain requirement is introduced. We do not want to be limited to the proposed approach to Town and Country Planning Act 1990 development when considering how to introduce any objective to other classes of development. As I have said, there are a number of ways in which biodiversity net gain for those big projects could be implemented through legislation or policy in future, for example through the national policy statement, sponsor-driven objectives or changes to planning legislation.

As I have said, the Government have set out a clear ambition to deliver infrastructure, but greener and faster. I support the intention behind the proposed new clause, but to ensure that we consider the best way to introduce any requirement for biodiversity net gain for major infrastructure, we need to consult on further details, which we will in due course. It is really important that we take that time to get this right. I would like to think that the hon. Gentleman will agree on that and will withdraw his new clause. I hope that we can continue to engage constructively on this issue when we do formally consult.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I admire the Minister’s relentless optimism, which she has managed to maintain throughout the Committee’s proceedings, and I congratulate her on that. I almost misheard her at one point: when she said that DEFRA had been “at absolute pains” with MHCLG, I thought she said that they “are absolute pains”. There may be some truth in that.

I am not surprised to hear that, yet again, the Minister is unable to support our new clause, but we will not divide the Committee. I will just say finally that the Minister’s jacket is enough to brighten any dull winter day, and I thank her for her optimism. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Do the Opposition wish to move new clause 33?

Draft Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture, Animals, and Marketing of Seed, Plant and Propagating Material (Legislative Functions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and to be with the Minister again today. There is something rather important about the statutory instruments before us. I am not sure that anyone thinks that considering them is soporific because most Members, in my experience, are quite keen on knowing what they will have for tea later. Somewhere down the line, this could well affect what we find being served up in the Members’ Tea Room, so it is important stuff. [Laughter.] I will come to it—do not worry. I also have a direct interest in the sense that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences. I have many life science researchers in and around my constituency, so I know quite a lot more about this issue than I did when I came to Parliament a few years ago, and it is important.

Paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum explains what the instrument does, which is pretty much what the Minister said:

“In England and Scotland, the Residues Regulations prohibit the use of certain substances as growth promoters and provide for a surveillance programme for residues of veterinary medicines…Regulation 470/2009 establishes maximum residues limits for pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs from animal origin.”

That is, of course, quite salient to many of the debates that we have had in recent times. Paragraph 7.2 states:

“The policy objective is to maintain existing laws.”

We agree with that overall objective; the question is whether it will be achieved. Paragraph 7.3 talks about

“light touch regulatory controls on medicines that are approved in Northern Ireland and not Great Britain and that move from Northern Ireland onto the Great Britain market.”

Could the Minister elaborate a bit on what those light-touch regulatory controls actually mean?

I am grateful to the British Veterinary Association, whose members obviously deal with such matters on a day-to-day basis, for giving us some advice. The BVA said:

“In the medium term there may be concerns about the availability of medicines in Northern Ireland. Today, medicines are often shipped from the EU and warehoused in GB. They are then moved in smaller quantities to NI. Friction in the Irish Sea could make this difficult. For example, there could be a requirement for batch testing once medicines enter Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a small market. Similarly, if there are additional costs associated with sending medicines to Northern Ireland companies may choose to exit the Northern Ireland market.”

It is therefore very important that we get this right. I am frequently accused by Ministers of being unduly pessimistic about the future, so here is a note of positivity from the BVA, which says that

“an agreed approach had been reached on a phased process for implementing medicines regulation in Northern Ireland up to 31 December 2021, providing the additional time needed”.

That is good news, and it came from the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee, which apparently met on 5 November, but it leaves some longer-term questions in the air. The BVA concludes:

“The concern is that there may be a requirement for a standalone authorisation process for Northern Ireland. As a result of the small market, this could see medicines companies choose to forgo the market.”

It is important that we get these things right in the future.

I am also grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords, which often does excellent work in this area. There is some correspondence between that Committee and Friends of the Earth, which had asked very detailed questions that the Department answered. It showed me the level of complexity in all this. With the best will in the world, I am not sure that any of us has the capacity, knowledge or time, frankly, to dig through the levels of complexity to be absolutely sure that nothing has been either overlooked or, if one were being unduly negative, passed through the back door in some way. The questions from Friends of the Earth certainly bear looking into. I will not trouble the Committee with the fine detail of each part, but I would be grateful if the Minister wrote in response to one or two of their points.

There is a detailed legalistic discussion about whether the analysis of animal product samples is subject to two pieces of legislation, one of which is removed in the first SI. The Department argues that it is replicated elsewhere, but I do not think Friends of the Earth are entirely convinced by that, though I am not in a position to judge.

The second question is more serious. Friends of the Earth argue that within the regulations there are so-called reference points for action. That essentially means points at which the standards are reconsidered. There are some to come in future, prompting a discussion between Friends of Earth and the Department as to whether we would replicate that process. The answer from the Department is only that we are committed to maintaining high standards. Frankly, that is not an answer. I would read that answer to mean that there is no guarantee, which potentially weakens the position we would have been in if we were not taking this course of action. On that basis alone, it gives me cause for concern.

What gives me more concern when I think about what might be in the Tea Room later—or many years hence—are maximum residue levels. That is the vexed question of what is still left in the animal when we come to eat it. There is a complicated series of questions posed about whether to shift to an administrative process rather than a legislative one. I would argue that the Department has not put our minds at rest on that process. That again suggests a potential weakening of our protections.

Some may ask why any of that matters. I will quote my good friend, the learned Lord Whitty, speaking in the House of Lords. Members will appreciate that much of this has been discussed before, when we were going through the process last year. Lord Whitty put the case very well. He said:

“MRLs are ultimately there to protect the human and, in some cases, animal consumer. They are there for a health reason. It is very important that we do not go backwards. The withdrawal period specified in the EU legislation—the period since the animal last received those medicines—is important to preserve but does not exist in the same way in other jurisdictions around the world. If we are entering new trade agreements with, say, America or Brazil, they will be operating on different systems. We must be careful.”

Lord Whitty asked that we check on one particular protection. He said:

“The Americans portray hormone injections as medicine but they are really there for growth.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 301GC.]

I suspect the Minister knows where I am going with this discussion, as all roads in these debates tend to lead ultimately to chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef. My concern is that deep in the intricacies of the legislation there are potential back doors opening to allow lower standards. That is something the Opposition are not prepared to allow.

The other SI deals with a range of issues. As the Minister said, it covers seven policy areas: seed, plant and plant propagating material; aquatic animal health; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and animal by-products; livestock; zoonotic diseases; pet travel and the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. That is very wide ranging and there is some question about how those issues are grouped. Some of the things we are discussing this afternoon were previously grouped with some of the things we discussed this morning, which adds to the confusion, I am afraid. No one ever said this was going to be easy.

I gently suggest that anything relating to spongiform encephalopathies and salmonella will cause politicians of a certain age to be on alert. Of course, that dispute ran for years and years. It strikes me as astonishing that people talk about how easy everything is to sort out when we spent a decade having an argument with the European Union, with all those “Dad’s Army” posters on the front of The Sun and all the rest of it, over one item of dispute. Goodness knows what lies ahead, but that is for another day, sadly. These are important issues and they need to be resolved properly.

Finally, I come to the subject that probably concerns the most people: the pet travel issues. As the Minister said, these SIs touch on that. As I understand it, something like 300,000 pets come into the UK at the moment. There are some concerns about those numbers and about puppy smuggling. Anything the Minister might want to say about that would be welcome. I again welcome the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords, because it has asked some serious questions about that, and again I will refer to the Government’s answers. It is all about which direction we are going in, basically. We can make our decisions, but it is not so easy for us to take pets into the EU. The EU is apparently now considering our application to be a Part 1 listed third country, and the Lords Committee rightly said:

“We note that it is not clear at this stage what the process and requirements will be for moving pets from GB to Ireland via NI after the end of the”

transition period. Anything the Minister can tell us about that would be extremely helpful.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also asked about the practical impact of having separate regimes in areas such as TSEs and zoonotic diseases. DEFRA’s explanation was:

“Changes for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be kept to an absolute minimum”—

oh, joy—

“but there will be a requirement for export health certification. A new Trader Support Service, available to all traders at no cost, will be established to provide wraparound support”.

Frankly, that is the same old magical thinking and we are not convinced by it. On that basis, we are not convinced by either of these pieces of legislation, but we will divide the Committee only on the first.

Draft Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be back in a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the Minister for her introduction. She explained very well the importance of geographical indicators, as did the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs in a powerful intervention. I think we are all broadly supportive of getting these things right. Geographically protected goods represent about one quarter of the UK’s food and drink exports each year, we are told by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and are worth almost £6 billion.

This is a complicated set of issues. I am not sure that I fully comprehend all the complexities in the documents that we have been given, but ensuring TRIPs—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—compliance and that we are conforming to World Trade Organisation rules is important, so we are broadly supportive of what the Government are doing. However, we do have a few questions, as you might expect, Mr Davies.

Some of the questions are really about the broader issue of what happens in the next few weeks if we do not secure a deal with the European Union. We have heard assurances from the Government that our geographical indicators will continue to be recognised in the EU market after the end of the transition period, but clearly there is considerable concern across the sectors that, in the absence of any deal, there is no guarantee that that will continue to be the case. If the talks do not lead to fruition and the UK does not offer mutual recognition for EU GIs in this country, what will that mean for those producers and what message are the Government giving to our exporters, who depend so much on these recognitions?

The Minister touched on the new arrangements for administering the schemes in the UK, which she described as being likely to be streamlined, more efficient and quicker. I am sure that we all hope that that will be the case, but what assurances can the Minister give that the internal digital infrastructure necessary to administer all this will be in place by 1 January? Perhaps she can update us on what progress has been made so far. As ever, I do not necessarily expect her to have all the answers at her fingertips—she is very good at writing afterwards.

The Minister claims that the new arrangements for administering the schemes will be more efficient, quicker and streamlined. Perhaps she could say a little more about the evidence to back that up, because we are not convinced that that is always what happens. We have not seen an impact assessment for this SI, but it seems to us that engaging with the changing systems will have some costs for specialist food companies and those with protected designations. What is the Government’s assessment of those extra costs, and what costs will be involved in applying for a new geographical indicator status and appealing to the first-tier tribunal?

We also imagine that there will be extra costs in setting up systems of promotion abroad for our specialist protected products. Again, any indications as to where the Government have got to on that would be helpful.

On the second SI, which is largely about natural mineral waters, it was clear from the consultation, which we welcomed, that the majority of respondents favoured the Government’s course of action, but some took a different view. Can the Minister explain why we settled on six months? Some looked for a much longer time through a transition period. That is a similar point to the one I made earlier about a no-deal scenario: it could leave our producers of natural mineral water at a distinct disadvantage if they cannot export to the EU. Will the Minister say a little about the provisions in that case?

On the details relating to Northern Ireland, there is a complex and difficult set of issues. Although we welcome the Government’s recognition of the pressure on the food industry in relation to labelling changes—I think they have advised that the necessary labelling changes for food sold in Great Britain will now apply to food sold from 1 October 2022 to give producers more time to get their affairs in order—there is still much to get in place by 1 January next year. After all, it is now only four or five weeks away.

Much still needs to be done in terms of pre-packaged food. If it is sold in Northern Ireland, it must include a Northern Ireland or EU business operator address. Food manufacturers have been told that from 1 January they need to label food from or sold in Northern Ireland as such where EU law requires it. So there is a range of complexities, and I would welcome any indication from the Minister on how close we are to resolving those points.

I have one final point, which I will probably repeat in future SI Committees. In my research for the Environment Bill Committee yesterday, I came across an interesting piece by Professor Andrew Jordan and Dr Brendan Moore, who have analysed many of the SIs that we have been talking about. It was a fascinating piece. We are frequently told that the SIs involve technical transpositions and that nothing is really changing. Their piece pointed out that in much of EU law there are review and revision clauses, and they have helpfully gone through and noted which are the SIs where we too have introduced review and revision clauses, and which are the ones where we have not, and overwhelmingly we have not. I will not bore the Committee with the list, but some of them are ones that we have ourselves discussed. So my question on all the SIs is: were the review and revision clauses included in the legislation that was brought across? If not, why not?

[Victoria Prentis]

That sounds like an extremely interesting article. I look forward to finding it later. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I can have a discussion while we wait for our SI debates this afternoon. I will try to answer as many of his questions as I can.

The first SI that we are discussing today is very long. It replaces 15 EU regulations and four different GI schemes. I accept that the legislation is complicated. In the first SI, there is certainly policy change. It very much lays the framework for setting up our new and, in my view, very exciting GI system.

To talk generally about the new policy, last week we had a webinar with about 130 producers, all of whom are raring to get going in the GI space. In future, there will be a one-stage application process. We are designing it with producers in a way that we hope will be as helpful as possible.

On the broader issues that have been raised, we very much hope that we will get a deal with the EU in the next week or two. As I said earlier, we will continue to recognise EU GIs. As I set out, we have a 21-month period of adjustment on labelling, and I will go through some of the labelling changes. The same basic rules will apply for logo use as under the EU schemes. Logo use will be mandatory under the agrifood schemes but optional under drinks schemes relating to wines and spirits—that is the same as it was under the EU schemes. GB producers of existing agrifood GIs will have a three-year period from 1 January until the use of the new logos becomes mandatory. New GB applicants for agrifood GI protection will need to start using the logos straightaway once their protection starts. It will be optional for NI producers that are protected under the UK schemes to use the UK logo, but they will of course continue to use the EU logos. We will endeavour to make the process as streamlined as possible for new NI producers that apply under both schemes.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister has explained that very clearly. What she has not touched on is costs to producers. Can she say anything about that?

[Victoria Prentis]

We very much hope that the costs will be less than for the previous application process, which is partly why we are engaging so heavily with producers at the moment to find a system that suits everybody. It is not an easy issue, though. To have a GI is a big deal for a producer, and it should be. The application process will of course be relatively onerous, but we will try to ensure that it is as low cost for producers as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is an additional new cost, however one looks at it.

[Victoria Prentis]

No, the existing GIs will just be brought over into our system, so there are no new costs for producers there. If producers wish to sell in the GB market as well as in the EU market, as I said earlier, we are working hard to ensure that the two processes are streamlined, to minimise the cost to producers as much as we can. This is in a world where I hope GIs will be a much bigger deal for the UK. I am looking forward to boosting them and to working with producers as we seek to export much more food, and much more really high-quality food, than we do at the moment.

I think I have dealt with most of the hon. Gentleman’s points. Public consultations were held on natural mineral waters, food labelling policy and impact assessments in 2018, when we thought we might have a no-deal Brexit. Meetings were held with industry, and we had a great deal of feedback from stakeholders. As I said, the amendments made by the SI are mainly technical changes in order to make the regulations operable, so we did not feel that any additional consultation was needed. With that in mind, I recommend that we approve the two instruments.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT FOOD (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020

Resolved,

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