Plant Health and Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Oliver Heald(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Cummins. You will be glad to hear that my comments today will be brief, and we will not be opposing this statutory instrument. That is not only because it is a clean-up measure, essentially—I love the Minister’s language and will remember “It’s a deficiency!” the next time I make a mistake—but because on Monday evening we had a bit of a marathon with some SIs. This one is much simpler.
Today, we debate the amendments made by the Plant Health and Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022. I read at the top of the page with interest that this statutory instrument has been made in consequence of defects—the “deficiencies” —in a series of SIs. I looked a bit more closely at that first one—2020 1482—which was discussed with the Minister’s predecessor, I think, back in 2020. I looked back to my opening comments then, and my notes said, “Very lengthy. Hundreds of pages—much room for error.” It seems that I was a touch prescient.
However, I make no criticism of those tasked with this complicated work. I would just gently point out to the Government the scale of the challenge if they seek to rush to amend many hundreds of these complicated regulations; there will inevitably be mistakes.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman want to pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, because it actually spotted this?
Daniel Zeichner
Absolutely, and I must say that as I delve through the various papers, I admire the in-depth work of the various Committees, which is so useful, particularly for an Opposition spokesperson, as we come to these discussions. I generally quote them at length, and I commend them for the work that they do.
I turn to the substance. It is welcome that the problems facing devolved authorities when seeking to collaborate in the face of a Great Britain-wide pest outbreak are being addressed. I am grateful to the Horticultural Trades Association, whose advice I sought on this, for confirming that it is necessary and important because the change will allow the demarcated areas to cross boundaries between Administrations, with the competent authorities working as one. That, apparently, was not possible before, preventing authorities from introducing a demarcated area within their own territory if a pest is identified in another, which limited the authority of that unaffected territory implementing necessary prevention measures.
The explanatory notes say that the amendment has been introduced following a
“recent outbreak of a certain pest near the Wales/England border”.
Can the Minister give us any details of that outbreak? Was it the only incident? How significant was it? What happened prior to this amendment if an authority from England, Scotland or Wales needed to extend a demarcated area beyond its territory?
Moving on to a further defect in another regulation, article 4 of the retained commission implementing decision relates to the import of potatoes from two regions of Lebanon. The eagle-eyed Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments referred to the two issues in its “Eighteenth Report of Session 2022–23”. The first relates to changes in labelling requirements so that they are in English, rather than one of the languages of the European Union, which is understandable. The second relates to an omission in the previous SI, which revoked the requirements for inspections to be carried out at one of the intermediate stages. It is clearly sensible to rectify that, but has an assessment been made of the consequences of that defect in the initial SI?
Finally, on the issues relating to the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment and Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022, there is an amendment to correct an omission that will ensure that the appropriate authority has the power
“to change the rules on imports of equine animals from a particular country and the power to establish specific rules if there is a change in the disease situation of the approved country.”
I note that the language in regulation 8(2)(d) changes from “shall be established” to “may be established” in relation to the functions undertaken by the appropriate British authority. Was that a deliberate alteration to limit the obligation of GB authorities to change and implement animal and public health requirements for imports from the EU? [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head, but I am sure he will explain.
As we are all aware, health certificate requirements are currently being implemented for exports, but not for imports. That certainly could be interpreted as meaning that any additional checks and requirements on imports might not be carried out, possibly due to a lack of vets and capacity at the borders. If that is the case, we should all be concerned, because animal and plant health matters, and we should insist on the very best biosecurity procedures.
Restoring Nature and Climate Change
Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Oliver Heald(5 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady is correct; I suspect we will be hearing more examples of good work done by other wildlife trusts.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I will say a word about the role of water and wetlands. The hon. Gentleman will know the example of Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire and about the work that is being done to improve the wetlands towards Anglesey Abbey. We could do with more work like that around the country. In Hertfordshire, our chalk streams are suffering from over-abstraction. Do we not need a policy for water?
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I am about to embark on a tour of wetlands; Wicken Fen will be one of them. This summer we have seen some particular problems with a number of streams drying up, so we need a plan for water.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. It is great that we are all paying tribute to our local wildlife trusts; I will put in a word for the wonderful Sussex Wildlife Trust. Does he agree that we need urgent action? Ministers could make a decision right now to ban the burning of blanket bog, ending the release of huge amounts of emissions that could otherwise be captured by peat. When we consider that globally peatlands can store more carbon than rain forests, we need to be doing much more and not burning them.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady is right, as is the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who spoke from a sedentary position. Later in my speech, I will make that point.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The University of Cambridge provides global leadership, but I occasionally point out to it that the link with the local community could be improved. Universities need to be close to their communities.
Sir Oliver Heald
On that point, Professor Sir David King, the former master of Emmanuel College and emeritus professor at Cambridge, who has been the Government’s chief scientific adviser on this, has been a strong advocate of carbon sinks.
Daniel Zeichner
Indeed, Sir David is of course one of my constituents and I happily canvassed him recently. Cambridge is a wonderful place in which to canvass, I assure the House.