Draft Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 General Committees

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also cannot help but notice the asymmetry in Committee. As an SNP Member, I am vexed regularly by the asymmetry in this Parliament and nowhere more is it manifest than in here this morning.

As the proposed amendment concerns the importing of food into the UK, and therefore into Scotland, it is therefore material to the devolved areas of competences, including food standards, plant health, agricultural standards, animal welfare and the environment. The Minister would expect the SNP to highlight that fact.

In January 2021, when the SI was originally to be tabled under the title “The Organics (Amendment) Regulations 2021”, it would have covered essentially the same issues. At that time, the Scottish Government stated that the SI would fall under the scope of devolved competence. I heard the Minister say that she had discussed the SI with the devolved Administrations, and that has been warmly welcomed, but there is a substantial and material difference between warm words and legislative consent. Furthermore the updated SI before us today has been criticised by the Welsh Government on the grounds of covering devolved issues without the UK Government seeking a legislative consent motion from the devolved nations.

Can the Minister confirm for the record whether the UK Government did in fact receive legislative consent from the devolved Governments? If they did and the consent was acquired, I will be able to go away contented from today’s session. If not, and it is shown that consent was not sought by UK Ministers, or sought but not granted, the Minister has a real problem. It is a not a problem of maths, of course, because whatever the Minister wants to get through this morning, she will achieve, but it demonstrates once again that DEFRA, essentially a quasi-English Government Department with very limited scope across the UK, has sought with the SI to hold the devolved nations in a form of contempt, again. The UK Government have sought, in a wholly transparent manner, to exploit the frontier element of the regulations, which deals with the importation of organic foods across territories, and extrapolate that across a whole suite of competences such as food standards and so on.

DEFRA has established what it thinks is right for England in organics equivalence and control and is now seeking to smash that into the statute of the devolved nations without the dialogue necessary to maintain the pretence of a Union of equals within the United Kingdom. In her introductory remarks, the Minister referenced “our organic standards”. Whose are those standards? I do not want to be unnecessarily abstract about this, Mr Stringer, because organic producers in Scotland of course want to export to the UK market, and the English market in particular, given it scale. There will be a significant degree of overlap and conformity in those standards, but it is about the process as much as it is about the outcome.

In the absence of legislative consent, the SI is another clear example of the UK Government seeking to wrest control of an EU-regulated matter as it returns to UK jurisdiction, despite the fact that it should clearly fall to devolved competence under the established principle of that which is not reserved is invariably devolved. I look forward to the Minister’s clarity on this issue.

[The Chair]

It is your turn now, Minister.

Plastic Waste

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing a debate that we are all invested in—so are our constituents, clearly.

The UK Government simply must do more to combat the plastic crisis. They must seek to match the Scottish Government’s significantly more ambitious targets and achievements. Protecting Scotland’s natural environment is a key priority for the Scottish Government and always has been, which is why we are bringing forward a circular economy Bill to encourage the reuse of products, to reduce waste and to increase recycling. That comes on top of all our other actions since 2007.

We are good at recycling in Scotland, but we want to get even better. The recycling rate in my Angus constituency is 59.1%. That is not quite the 66% of Lithuania, but if the Minister wants to come somewhere slightly more expedient than Lithuania, she is more than welcome to see what we do in Angus.

Consumers need confidence that the trouble they go to in order to recycle does not result in their commodified recycling turning up in mixed-plastic bales to be shipped somewhere far away and end up smouldering on a roadside somewhere, as we saw in Turkey. That does not instil confidence in consumers to do the right thing. This crisis must receive renewed attention from the UK Government, not least because the UK is estimated to produce 5 million tonnes of plastic waste every year, nearly half of which is packaging.

According to National Geographic, half of all the plastics ever manufactured was produced in the past 15 years, as others have said. That is clearly and profoundly unsustainable. Without oversharing, I must mention my fondness for Mr Kipling’s lemon slices. I am too fond of them, and it is unfortunate that they come in a plastic tray, inside a plastic sleeve, inside a cardboard box, held together with—I hope—a water-based glue, although it might be a plastic-based glue. That is not okay, and it is done in pursuit of a competitive edge.

The growing use of plastic is a feature of competition, largely in food production, a shift to ready-made produce, and the growth of the food service sector. Legislation has not been anywhere near keeping pace with changes in the market. As the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) mentioned, plastic packaging is not cheap. It may be relatively cheap in monetary terms to produce, but it is not cheap in environmental and generational terms.

There is a technological and a cultural dimension to this crisis. Culturally, we need to move to greater awareness of our purchasing decisions, to drive producers to change their practices, but we need the legislation to back that up. There will always be plastic waste, and we need to halt those bales of mixed plastic being shipped out and dealt with somewhere else; we need to deal with our mess here. In our regime, it is “Out of sight, out of mind.” That is the UK’s position and it is incorrigible.

We need a technical vision, too. We need to see beyond the current challenges and find a route out of them. This might seem a little abstract, but I want to touch on the production of Concorde, the supersonic passenger aircraft. It is no exaggeration to say that the engineers and technicians who designed that aircraft had no idea how they were going to do it when they embarked on it. We need to recover some of that ambition and eagerness to confront the challenges in front of us.

The Scottish Government led the way in October 2014 with the plastic bag charge, with England following after. Scotland is again leading the way. We have already banned personal hygiene products containing plastic microbeads, and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. In this parliamentary Session, the SNP will take action to ban single-use plastic cutlery, plates, straws, balloon sticks and so on. Those are some of the most environmentally damaging single-use plastics, and we will ban their manufacture and supply in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) went through the entire list, and I have touched on some of the imminent improvements in Scotland. They will be supplemented by an ambitious deposit return scheme.

I urge the Minister to listen to Members from her own party, if not to me, and to have the most ambitious deposit return scheme. The one that we are to introduce in Scotland next year will incentivise the recycling of not only single-use plastic drinks containers, but cans and glass bottles. Scotland is leading the way, and I very much hope that the UK Government will follow in this context and many others. It is incumbent on Ministers and the Government to ensure that this is delivered on.

May I, in a conclusion that is hopefully not too confusing, speak up for plastics, as some right hon. and hon. Members have done? I do not fancy a life without plastic. I do not want to get on an aeroplane without plastic; I do not want to get ill in a world without plastic; and I really do not want to clean up after my 12-year-old Golden Retriever in a world without plastic. Plastic is not the villain here. We must minimise its use in a way that is consistent with our climate objectives, but focus on the post-consumer regime. The operative word in the plastic waste crisis is “waste”, and I urge the Government not to waste any more time.

Grouse Shooting

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Thank you, Ms McDonagh. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I am happy that this debate has received a substantive airing and am grateful to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for advancing it in his role on the Petitions Committee. I understand and respect the fact that he had no control over the title of the petition, which personally I find a little troublesome, because it gives the sense that if I do not see things in exactly the same way as others see them, I am somehow wilfully blind. That is not a very appropriate start to such an important and nuanced debate.

Turning to legislation, in a whole host of ways the UK’s bureaucracy and Executive trail in the wake of Scotland’s dynamism under 14 years of SNP Government. Members can take their pick from policy areas, including net zero targets, social care reform, tuition fees, rate relief, tree planting—the list goes on, and it includes the ambition for grouse moor management. By contrast, the dead slow and stop approach by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the challenge is unacceptable and does not benefit anybody on either side of this challenging debate.

In Scotland, the independent grouse moor management report, which is also known as the Werritty report, was published at the end of 2019. It took a comprehensive and consultative evidence-based approach to key issues surrounding the management of grouse moors in 21st-century Scotland. After careful consideration of the report’s recommendations, the Scottish Government will look at implementing a licensing regime for grouse shooting, providing a framework to the sector that will assist it in combating illegal persecution of raptors and related wildlife crimes. Grass moor estates found to be non-compliant—those that practise the types of behaviours that nobody wants to see—would face the prospect of not having a licence, whereas those that uphold the very best practices would be endorsed and licensed as undertaking a legal and productive activity. Those changes are designed to apply an achievable balance; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked at length about the importance of a balance, and other hon. Members have discussed the need for evidence.

This approach is designed to apply that achievable balance on protecting wildlife and natural habitats, while ensuring that business adheres to the agreed standards on grouse shooting. Importantly, the report did not recommend that grouse shooting be banned, consistent with the remit to ensure that grouse moor management continues to contribute to the rural economy of Scotland, but it did recommend that heather burning be subject to increased legal regulation applicable to all moor burning, not just grouse moors.

As with all good debates, there are pros and cons; positives and negatives. Scottish Land and Estates will maintain that raptor persecution on Scottish grouse moors has been addressed in recent years. Police-recorded crimes are at their lowest level ever. It will cite evidence that predators such as foxes and crows are managed on grouse moors to maintain a favourable balance with their prey, and that is scientifically proven to save rare and declining birds such as the curlew, lapwing, golden plover and black grouse, as well as mountain hares. Many hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Robert Goodwill), cited the recovery of some of those important breeds.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation will definitely share the views of a Scottish Land and Estates. It will share its view that muirburn supports other species and prevents larger fires from occurring. Both would contend that in moorland areas, grouse shooting is one of the most economically significant land uses, bringing in full-time permanent jobs and supporting local communities. I know that to be true.

As cons, the League Against Cruel Sports would claim that driven grouse shooting depends on creating artificially high numbers of grouse in order to make it commercially viable. That is achieved by large-scale elimination of natural predation and the engineering of environments in their favour. The petitioners will highlight what they suggest would be significant public support for an end to shooting of game birds such as grouse for sport. I have seen a figure of 69% of the British public in favour of a ban. Those questions need to be nuanced and contextualised for the consequences, not just the broad and bare ambition and aspiration. Finally, on the cons, the annual “Birdcrime” report by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that in 2009, four of the five worst areas in the UK for raptor persecution over the previous 10 years in Scotland were the highlands, the Scottish Borders, Aberdeenshire and, I am afraid, Angus.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted the lack of a UK Government economic impact assessment. That same absence is not evident in Scotland. The economic impact of the sector in Scotland was set out by research commissioned by the Scottish Government and published in autumn 2020, “A summary report of findings from research into socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors and the employment rights of gamekeepers”. The case study used in that published research showed that grouse shooting can generate a significant economic impact for communities, with impacts being generally localised.

Reflecting on my own constituency, I know very keenly how important employment on the estates is for communities in the Angus Glens—for the schools, hotels, shops and the petrol station. The total absence in those communities of alternative employment means that the number of potential job losses is not as important as the effect of those job losses on those communities.

We must not let anyone kid themselves that this is an issue of just one job here or another job there; it is about the living viability of very fragile, very rural communities and economies. No sector can operate in isolation, indifferent to the public opinion or the evolving nature of society and the division of standards of normative behaviours. An honest assessment would identify the fact that the industry has made improvements to its operating model, as has been set out. That must continue, especially in the light of the challenges around muirburn, lead shot and losses to natural predation, particularly aviation predation. Any demand for outright bans on established economic models, with the jobs and livelihoods of my constituents at risk, leaves me very concerned. Reforms, if required, need to be evidence-based and founded on consensus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We have to look at this in the context of the fact that at the moment Australia does not sell us any of these goods because, in the case of beef, it has a minuscule tariff rate quota of only about 1,400 tonnes. We also have to look at it in the context of the fact that we already have a TRQ with New Zealand that is over 100,000 tonnes, and New Zealand does not fill that quota.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on enforcement of the proposed ban on importing shark fins.

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

As we set out in the recently published action plan for animal welfare, we will be bringing forward legislation to ban the import and export of detached shark fins. DEFRA has been working closely with the Home Office and Border Force officials. We need enforceable legislation that will lead other nations to join us in banning this dreadful trade.

[Dave Doogan]

I quite agree that we do need enforceable legislation, and not just on whole shark fins but on shark fin products. I have asked the Minister about this in a written parliamentary question and in Westminster Hall, and I have not had a satisfactory response. Can she confirm today that shark fins and shark fin products will be proscribed from UK borders, which will be a great relief to my Angus constituents?

[Victoria Prentis]

We are in the process of preparing the legislation at the moment. I would be very willing to meet the hon. Gentleman on the detailed wording of how we do this. We are making good progress. We need to make sure that our measures are as effective as possible in delivering shark conservation measures globally.

Animal Welfare

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this important debate. We have had a cross-party discussion on the shame attached to various behaviours so grotesque that it is truly challenging to admit that they are tolerated in any culture or community, much less elements of the communities that we live in and represent. I thank the members of my constituency who contacted me independently and those who signed these important petitions.

I turn first to the toe-curling barbarism of shark-finning and the unfolding catastrophe it presents. A once rare and infrequently consumed dish for the Chinese aristocracy, it is now a macabre edible trinket of no nutritional value—I understand it must be comprehensively seasoned before it even has a taste—the global demand for which, principally from the burgeoning Chinese middle class, has made it a totem for conspicuous consumption and an ultimate status symbol. The resulting demand is literally insatiable; there will never be enough sharks to sate the demand, currently running at 73 million sharks annually.

The strongest action must be taken if we are to reverse the growth in popularity of this most costly of dishes—costly in every sense, not only in that it is $100 for a bowl of broth—making it the guilty pleasure that it is and ensuring that, over time, it is consigned to history. We should do so as soon as possible. The UK Government have said that they will bring in legislation to ban the import and export of detached shark fins. Will the Minister clarify whether that is only shark fins that are intact and dried, or whether it is also shark fin products? If it is not, we risk supplanting one problem with another just as grievous. This being an issue of customs and enforcement at the UK border, it is of course reserved for the time being to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the UK Government, but to be clear, the SNP Government in Scotland will support any prohibition on the import of detached shark fins and shark fin products, to protect this majestic animal, an apex predator, from the unimaginable suffering of finning.

Let me turn to puppy smuggling. I and my colleagues on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have heard the most harrowing evidence of puppy smuggling into the UK. Particularly horrifying was the evidence about pregnant bitches being seized and found to be pregnant without having had the opportunity to heal from their last caesarean section. This was compounded by evidence that the gangs will grudgingly concede their pups at the border when seized, but will be very unhappy indeed to lose a breeding bitch. This indicates the terrible ordeal for pups and their mothers who travel huge distances in poor conditions and the long-term health problems that will leave many a heartbroken family with a poorly bred pup that will never reach adulthood.

The SNP Government in Scotland have pledged to modernise and update the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and will continue to adopt the highest possible animal welfare standards to protect their wellbeing. The Scottish Government will adopt new licensing requirements for breeding puppies and, importantly, also for kittens and infant rabbits, something that I do not believe at the moment, although the Minister might clarify this, DEFRA is planning to do, and we will have the introduction of Lucy’s law, which will end the third party selling of dogs and cats under the age of six months in Scotland.

On ear cropping, many of us in this room are dog owners and dog lovers and the notion of mutilating a puppy to reshape its ears into a more aggressive posture is beyond my ken, and I am sure beyond that of the vast majority of the public. However, it is not currently prohibited to possess a dog with cropped ears. As suggested by the Scottish SPCA, animals that have undergone that mutilation are being seen in greater numbers. These animals might have been cropped illegally in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK, or might have been imported, and we need to make sure that we work cross-party and cross-nation in the UK to adopt the best possible outcome for our animals.

British Meat and Dairy Products

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing today’s debate. As the Member for Angus, one of Scotland’s most productive areas, it is a pleasure to sum up for the SNP and to add the Scottish dimension to issues raised by Members from around these islands. In Great British Beef Week, let us all collectively acknowledge that there is no finer beef than Aberdeen Angus. I look forward to the Minister confirming that in her summing up.

I am fully signed up to supporting and promoting British produce, but I will not be dissuaded from highlighting the current challenges that our producers face. The challenges in the meat and dairy sector have their roots in last spring, when we should have seen the emergence of new demand. Instead, we saw the eruption of a global pandemic, which decimated the hospitality and food service sector overnight.

Efforts were made to ensure that domestic demand, which rose sharply, would take up surplus commercial supply but, in reality, commercial food packaging and products made it incompatible with retail distribution processes and consumer tastes. Where we saw a glut of T-bone and fillet steaks, consumers were at the same time rushing out to buy mince. It was not just carcass balance issues that affected our producers. It was cheese, milk and yogurt, in large commercial containers with limited outlet into retail.

It was against that crisis that many of us called for an extension to the transition period last year, also recognising that the transition period was really no such thing. The UK Government advertised to businesses to get ready for exiting the single market and customs union, but were pretty sketchy on exactly how they could get ready to do that. Without a meaningful transition period, a soft start, room for manoeuvre or margin for error, UK meat and dairy exporters were thrown off a bureaucratic and procedural cliff on 1 January.

The dairy industry was especially hard hit, with exports to the EU down 96%, with beef, lamb, mutton and chicken exports collectively losing £50 million in EU sales. Many hon. Members have talked about the opportunities to export to wider markets. That is great, but it should not come at the cost to existing markets. The Food and Drink Federation report has shown that Scottish exports have been hit hardest, down 16%, with Wales 3.9% and Northern Ireland 7%. The British Meat Processors Association Brexit-impact report insists that blaming that on teething problems is no longer credible, if it ever was.

Collateral damage threatens our producers and their suppliers. I recently met with the Agricultural Industries Confederation to discuss the challenges in the agri-supply sector. Exiting the EU was top of their list. New tariffs for importing molasses for livestock feed, caused by an error in the UK global tariff, mean that there is now a higher tariff here than in the EU, which is expected to add £1 million to £1.2 million in extra costs to UK producers, all undermining our competitiveness. DEFRA is aware of this but, to date, there is no resolution. Nor is there a DEFRA resolution to issues affecting processed animal protein and the export health certificates that are now required to export those products from GB to Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister might want to discuss that in her summing up. Staying with Northern Ireland, as the president of the Ulster Farmers Union, Victor Chestnutt, pointed out to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week, Stirling bull sales in Scotland are vital for pedigree breeding and exchanging genetics. In 2019, 120 bulls from 37 Northern Ireland exhibitors showed at Stirling; by 2021 just four bulls were exhibited at Stirling from three Northern Ireland exhibitors. That is because when Northern Ireland farmers take a bull to GB and it does not sell, they need to pay for six months of residency before they can take it back to Northern Ireland. That madness is a disaster for sales and for breeding, and it is also a problem for Carlisle sales.

I want to touch on a comment from James Withers, of Scotland Food and Drink, who said

“It’s become clear that the EU third country import system was never designed for a country on its doorstep, integrated into its supply chains, sending large volumes of highly perishable product and smaller, consolidated volumes. In the end, the industry and consumer here want to maintain standards so let’s agree to align with our EU partners. Otherwise, the rug will be pulled from a significant chunk of the £1.2 billion of annual Scottish food exports for little, if any, benefit.”

The UK Government have in its power to support our meat and dairy sector through the Brexit carnage. I fully commend the innovation and energy with which our meat and dairy producers feed our communities and contribute to our economy, but let us not uphold any notion that everything is going invariably well. It is not. Those producers and the wider supply chains rely on EU exports, but exporting meat and dairy to the EU and Northern Ireland is harder now than ever. Let us all at least acknowledge that.

Covid-19: Animal Welfare

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for securing this debate, which is about a very serious problem for people across these islands. My constituents in Angus are no different, and have contacted me in significant numbers about this issue.

Since devolution, where Scotland leads, the rest of the UK often follows, and so it is in animal welfare. Scotland was the first part of the UK to ban performances of wild animals in travelling circuses. That important animal welfare policy was widely welcomed, and since been replicated elsewhere in the UK.

As part of the European Union, we were obligated to maintain strict animal welfare policies. In some instances, Scotland exceeded the minimum standards, for example, with bans on fur farms. While there are historic positives, there are also low points, such as the Conservatives’ manifesto position in 2015 and again, in 2017. They stood on a manifesto that would give their MPs a free vote on repealing the fox-hunting ban—a ban against which the Prime Minister himself voted in 2004.

With the effects of covid compounded by the administrative and exporting challenges thrown up by Brexit, along with to the Government’s refusal to uphold animal welfare standards in either the Trade Bill or the Agriculture Act 2020, we see a challenged position. Moreover, that position is inconsistent with “Scotland the Brand”, which has a world-class reputation, thanks in no small part to Scotland’s strong animal welfare policies.

Covid has presented additional challenges, over and above Brexit, on animal welfare and, in particular, on the domestic and international trade in puppies. Alongside my colleagues on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which includes the wise counsel of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), I heard harrowing evidence about the malice of puppy smugglers and the contempt with which they treat litters, and especially the mothers of those litters: caesarean sections are carried out inhumanely quickly one after the other, leaving insufficient time to heal. It is an egregious, greedy trade. The Government have an opportunity to address this issue, which is of real concern to ordinary members of the public.

Puppy demand and prices experienced an extraordinary jump following the covid outbreak. That, in turn, led to a 140% increase in commercial import licences for foreign dog breeders. It is important to note that not all foreign dog breeders are breaching animal welfare standards en masse. Likewise, it is important to acknowledge that there are instances of breeders breaching standards on these British Isles. Taken together at home and abroad, this issue is of significant concern to my Angus constituents, as is the horrendous spike in dog thefts, which is terrifying for families with dogs.

As a dog owner myself, I know the importance of dogs to families across the UK, and the place that they hold in the hearts of the British public. The difference that my beautiful old golden retriever, Maggie, has made to my family during lockdown has been invaluable—she ensures that we get exercise and she provides companionship. It is no wonder that people have sought similar comfort and enjoyment from having a pet.

I was delighted to support the excellent work of Dogs Trust, which provided information to hon. Members before the debate. The Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reported that a gang of puppy smugglers were arrested following the use of an Airbnb property to sell trafficked puppies. There is a significant element of duplicity in the trade. Half those puppies died, including from parvovirus, because of the squalid conditions in which those poor creatures must have spent their brutish, short lives. That poses a more general risk to dog health in the community.

One SSPCA investigator noted that public demand for puppies

“remains sky high and as long as this continues, bad dealers will find any means to operate.”

Dogs Trust also noted that the effects and impact of the pandemic would be felt for some time to come. That is true for all walks of life, but in this context, it would be sensible for Government to carefully consider the Blue Cross recommendation that Governments undertake work to determine the impact of covid-19 on puppy farming and smuggling, the damage caused to date, and how to reverse that trend.

The demand for puppies fuelled the unsustainable rise in prices, and for families duped into buying a puppy from an unreputable breeder, that causes significant financial loss, as well as heartache. We have seen an apparent increase in impulse purchases: 31% of people who acquired a dog or a cat during the first lockdown stated that they were not considering becoming pet owners beforehand. Although the great majority of recent pet owners will go on to provide safe and loving homes for their pets, that spike in ownership presents a clear risk that, for some, the good intentions will give way to the financial reality—not least the first uninsured visit to the vet for health complaints which, if the animal was poorly bred, may be the first of many visits to the vet.

That will inevitably lead to increased health and behavioural problems. Puppies that were introduced to their families with an abundance of affection and attention during lockdown will need careful management when adults return to work and kids go back to school. It will be a very demanding adjustment for animals and humans alike, which will have consequences, including abandonment and pressure on rehoming services. When the consequences of poorly bred dogs or inappropriate and unsustainable ownership or changes in circumstance post lockdown wash out, it will be animal welfare charities that have to pick up the pieces, at a time when their ability to fundraise is seriously constrained, which we must all bear in mind.

There is significant scope for the UK Government to tighten the licensing regime for foreign dog breeders importing puppies into the UK and for the UK Government to work together with devolved Administrations on better regulation for domestic breeders. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance in this regard.

Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 General Committees

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that there are no salvos of discord to come from the Scottish National party this morning. As she has already pointed out, the Ministers in the Scottish Government have provided their legislative consent for this measure and, just as importantly, the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee is content to provide its consent to Scottish Ministers, once removed. Nevertheless, it noted to the Scottish Government their ongoing dialogue with the UK Government around the Northern Ireland protocol and requested that the Committee of the Scottish Parliament be kept up to date on progress with those negotiations.

I think I understand the concerns that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee has on the Northern Ireland protocol. Much of the change in language that we are discussing this morning is a result of the separation, in administrative and operational terms, of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK and therefore GB, for fisheries purposes, in line with the protocol. This will see fishermen in Northern Ireland continuing to fish UK waters, but free to export both harvested and processed fish to the EU internal market without the burden of tariffs.

Does the Minister agree—I am happy to accept that she may not—that, subject to the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the separation of Northern Ireland in this way poses a profound commercial and operational threat to Scottish fishing, should a deal not be done, owing to the tariffs that will inevitably be placed on harvested and processed fish from Scotland in a no-deal scenario? I wonder—continuing that theme—whether Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers have given due consideration to the issue of skippers under GB Administrations, although most likely from Scotland, registering their vessels in Northern Ireland to take advantage of those favourable terms and avoid any post-Brexit barriers to the EU. Does the Minister agree that that is a material risk and, if so, what are DEFRA’s views on how to mitigate it?

We are just a few days away from a deadline without any details of a deal, meaning that the risk of calamity for the fishing industry is high. Should there not be a deal, tariffs will pose a huge threat to Scottish fishermen and Scottish fishing communities and processors, unlike their fellow seafarers a mere 12.5 miles across the North channel. The reality of the Government still amending vital legislation just weeks away from the end of the transition period highlights keenly how sub-optimal this process has become.

If I am mistaken in any of what I have said, I look forward to the Minister correcting me.

[The Chair]

Does any other Member wish to speak? I am looking very carefully this time. No. I call Minister Prentis.

Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Both these SIs continue the legislative decoupling of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, replacing mentions of “the UK” and “the Union” with “Great Britain”. We have discussed the operational requirements for these measures over the last 20 minutes, but it is telling nevertheless. They serve to highlight the additional restrictions, barriers and hurdles that will face food and drink exporters after the end of the transition period. They are an unfortunate but necessary reminder of the inordinate legislative and bureaucratic challenge that accompanies the UK’s departure from the EU.

The Horticultural Trades Association has called for a delay in the implementation of these regulations and checks on plant imports. In a roundtable discussion in mid-November, the HTA raised concerns that

“The proposals as currently envisaged are logistically impossible to implement”

and that

“The requirements will not achieve the objective of improved plant health because of their complexity and the administrative and financial burden they impose”.

The HTA also understands that the required IT systems are not ready or fully tested, and it says that the Government are

“pressing ahead with compromises that are wholly iniquitous for the industry”.

Given this concern from industry, what assurance can the Minister provide that these measures will promote and support the sector, which relies on £350 million-worth of plant imports? It would be devastating to the industry if imports in the new growing season were disrupted even to a reduced or marginal extent.

HTA chairman James Barnes said:

“It is imperative that government understands their proposals represent the biggest single non-tariff barrier in the history of our industry. By asking us to comply with new terms and conditions not yet agreed, with just 32 working days to go, represents an absolute ‘train crash’ for the industry and is setting us up to fail.”

That chimes with my observations on issues related to horticulture such as seasonal farm labour and the broader agricultural debate, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised in the previous debate in terms of the Secretary of State’s ambitions for lamb under import substitution. Those things taken in tandem, and a range of others besides, indicate that DEFRA Ministers, if they are not careful, inhabit some abstract bureaucratic ideal world and appear dangerously disconnected from the operational realities facing our farmers, growers and processors. Does the Minister think that the Horticultural Trades Association is wrong, and if not, why does it have such a negative impression of these provisions?

Agriculture

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

There are three instruments before us today. I will not touch on the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020, which affects England and Wales, but I will discuss the provisions relating to the World Trade Organisation and direct payments to farmers.

Before I do that, I predict that the Minister, as she often does, will cite the consent that she enjoys from colleagues in the Scottish Government on these matters. I will expand a little on what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has said —that there is sometimes a huge difference between consent and delight, or even between consent and something remotely similar to what we would do if we had the legislative authority to do it. That is sometimes the space in which our Ministers in the devolved Administrations find themselves.

The World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 set a limit of 12.67% of total UK amber box support for Scotland. This reliance on a percentage of the total UK quantum means that while Scotland remains within the UK, we must remain subject to the vagaries of the total UK figure. It is not inconceivable that in a mixture of ill winds and fair, high yields and low, we could see the figure to which that 12.67% relates reduce at a UK level—at a time when Scotland may need to increase the support to its growers and producers that is satisfactory even at a conceptual level. In addition, the Secretary of State holds the final say and authority to determine the classification of support as blue, green or amber box support. I am interested in better understanding the principles of consent and safeguards for fairness that will uphold that authority justly.

It is fortuitous that the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) is here. During the agricultural transition plan statement on 30 November, many Scottish MPs pressed the Secretary of State for assurances that state aid principles in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would not be used to prevent the Scottish Government from providing agricultural support in the way that they choose. No such assurances were provided, yet in answering a subsequent question during the same debate from the hon. Gentleman, who was concerned that Scottish farmers may be able to undercut Wiltshire farmers because of a difference in devolved Government support, the Secretary of State was quick to make an assurance and a commitment to the hon. Gentleman that that would not be possible—I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving him prior notice that I would mention him in this debate —so perhaps the Minister could address some of these points.

As regards direct payments to farmers, the comprehensive spending review made clear that Scotland will be short-changed, especially rural Scotland. Support for rural Scotland will be £117 million short of what was promised by 2025, despite the fact that the Government made a manifesto commitment to match EU support. The Secretary of State announced that, by 2028, support for farmers in England will move away from the direct payment scheme based on the amount of land farmed, with the initial budget of £1.8 billion dropping to half that by 2024. To be clear, we fully support the move away from rewarding land ownership to rewarding output, productivity and land stewardship. Nevertheless, that leaves several years in which farmers will face a shortfall in payments. That will not happen in Scotland, because the Scottish Government have committed independently to continuing payments at the same level as currently. The National Farmers Union president, Minette Batters, said:

“Expecting farmers to run viable, high-cost farm businesses, continue to produce food and increase their environmental delivery, while phasing out existing support and without a complete replacement scheme for almost three years is high risk and a very big ask.”

The wisdom of pursuing such changes at a time of such broad upheaval is a challenge for the industry and perhaps deeply questionable.

It is also necessary that the UK Government clarify that there will be no undermining of the Scottish Government’s ability to set and administer support for agriculture in whatever way they see fit. The statutory instrument makes changes concerning the new system of direct payments for farmers in England, including setting a ceiling on payments in England. Can the Minister assure me that that will result solely in positive consequences for Scotland through Barnett consequentials?