Draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.

I am glad that I am with the Minister; he and I spend a lot of time, in one place or another, on SIs. I have to say that, of the many that I have been involved with, this one concerns me the most. As the European Statutory Instruments Committee said in chapter 5.4 of its report in December 2018:

“The Committee believes that the issue has significant financial implications and is of particular importance to rural communities. Although the amendments are required in a no deal scenario to implement the commitments made by the Government on funding, we consider the significance of the instruments and interest in the subject is such that the additional safeguard of affirmative resolution is appropriate.”

That is why we are here to discuss the instruments.

I am glad that the Minister mentioned that this is about £430 million for existing programmes. My concern is what will happen at the end of 2020. There is no clarity at all from the Government on their rural policy, because it does not really have one, despite needing a rural strategy. What will the Government do then? That matters because, as the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire made clear, a panoply of different schemes are encapsulated within the catch-all of the EAFRD.

The Minister may correct me, but I believe it remains the sad state of affairs that we have never drawn down and match-funded the full amounts of rural development moneys that are available for the UK Government to spend—certainly that is the case for the rural development programme for England. That matters, because there is no other rural programme out there. I have severe concerns that what we are beginning to see here is a programme that is already underfunded, and rural areas need funding—they do not need huge amounts, and they certainly do not need great dollops of money in particular places, but they need some funding.

This particular scheme has been one of the strengths of the EU, partly because, through things such as the Erasmus programme, different higher education institutions—such as the one in my area, the Countryside and Community Research Institute at the University of Gloucestershire—have done clever work across different parts of the EU to allow rural development to work in parallel in so many different countries. Of course, all that finishes. We have nothing left. Now, it is possible that we could do some bilateral work, and a number of institutions are looking to relocate at least some of their offices in order to remain within the EU. I do not quite know how that will happen, but they have gone to those extreme lengths to keep some of those programmes going.

I worry about what is left. When this goes, what is left in rural England? The hon. Member for Dundee West will no doubt have a lot to say about Scotland too. These funds are the building blocks of what happens in rural communities. They cover a huge range of things, from countryside stewardship to support for particular initiatives in villages and other small market towns. I am left with the view that we may well start again, but what are we starting with? We are starting with something that does not exist at the moment.

I am taken, again, by those who have commented; there has been quite a lot of say-so from organisations that feel they have not been consulted, particularly in areas such as this, where there is such a diverse range of organisations that it would be difficult to know who to consult. Because, again, there is no regulatory impact assessment, it is difficult to know who the Government went to in terms of rural consultation. That is important, because it is all about the money. It is about the things we do with the money, but unless we have money, we cannot do the things we want.

Among those who have written to me about this, the Landworkers Alliance has been clear that it is worried that some of the land-based initiatives it is involved in will suffer and that the money for existing services such as schools, pubs and shops, which have hidden subsidies—perhaps not directly, but through good organisations such as the Plunkett Foundation that are able to find ways of helping to keep those services alive in those communities—is now highly questionable. The Landworkers Alliance is very unhappy about some of the things that are currently run on a shoestring, but on a shoestring of which much of the money comes from the European Union.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for noting the situation in Scotland. Much of this is devolved and I hope it will continue to be devolved, but I want to highlight one particular issue about money, particularly the rural economy and the rural support that is needed. Research by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions shows that the highlands and islands region, which has benefited hugely from EU resources over recent years—as a result of which, the population of Inverness city has actually grown—will miss out on more than £160 million in EU regional development funding for the period from 2021 to 2027. The UK Government have still not brought forward a plan for the proposed replacement fund, and have failed to give any assurances that the funding will be replaced at the same levels. I look forward to hearing the reply, but I wanted to raise that because it is just one example with this Government of where we do not know what the long-term plans are.

[Dr Drew]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because in a nutshell that is where we are; we just do not know. One of the sad things about the loss of these moneys is that it has been targeted at particular groups—young farmers, for example, who desperately need investment into the way they come into the farming industry. I do not like to use the term “funny money”, but there have been ways we have been able to fund it through the various different grants that the EU has made available. Where will those grants come from in the future? People of ordinary means cannot, sadly, enter the land, because of the costs—not just of securing the land, but of investing in the way they intend to farm, particularly if they are going to be a livestock farmer. Those are very expensive and punitive impositions on them when they are in the infancy of trying to get on the land.

Before we decide how we vote, it would be useful to hear from the Minister about what the Government’s strategy is. I am aware that we have done very little in this House, which is to our shame. The Lords does a lot more work on rural economies: there is the Cameron report, which came out about nine months ago, and a report that is just about to be released by Lord Foster, which has looked at some of the impacts of rural development.

I am aware of the Rural Services Network’s call for a rural strategy, which I totally support. This is against the background of next year being the 20th anniversary of the then Labour Government’s 2000 White Paper, which was a very good piece of work because it was accompanied by a billion-pound budget. Sadly, it was all frittered away. Such things happen in Government, but many of the good initiatives that were set in place have been lost for good, which is wrong. As the then rural tsar Stuart Burgess talked about, there is £347 billion of untapped capacity in rural England. I know that is a magical, mystical figure, but it shows the capacity there is in rural England—I cannot comment on Scotland, because when I was on the Select Committee I was able to look only at rural England—to do some interesting work.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman remembers the 1995 rural White Paper, which I was quite involved in. It was a very solid piece of work.

[Dr Drew]

I agree entirely. The problem was that it did not have a budget, which meant, sadly, that it was rather stillborn, but it was a very good piece of work by Lord Deben. It is important that we parliamentarians recognise that the rural economy and society does not get enough publicity, and that we do not do enough to help it.

I have some questions for the Minister. It would be interesting to know the financial framework the Government envisage once the EAFRD offer goes, because I cannot see anything in place. I met a member of the rural team—I know there is one—but I do not know what budget they have to do anything. It would be interesting to know about the financial framework that the Government envisage after 2020 or, dare I say, 2021—whenever we finally leave the EU schemes.

I am taken by some of the things the Green Alliance has been saying recently about the lack of consultation, particularly in the area of stewardship. Countryside stewardship is not in a good place. We are talking about the environmental land management schemes as if they will just roll in on the back of countryside stewardship. The reality is that many farmers—the Minister will know this—are pulling out of stewardship because it is seen be too complicated and is not fit for purpose. Given that at least some of this money came through this budget heading, it would be interesting to know what the Government intend to do.

What is the Minister planning to do in order to consult more widely on how we might get towards a rural strategy? If the Government do not do it at this stage, at what stage do we move towards a rural strategy? Everyone who is involved in this area is calling for a rural strategy. If we are losing money that we have already been able to allocate, and we have not got anything else in place, at what stage do the Government get serious about launching a consultation to find out what we could do to make a difference?

My final question is about the legacy of many of the schemes that we have put in place over a generation. Is anyone going to capture them, to see in what ways we have worked with our EU neighbours and if any of them can be opened up in different formats?

I assume that there are ways and means of looking at different funding streams so that institutions such as CCRI, which I mentioned earlier, can continue to do some research on a pan-European basis. It would be a great tragedy to lose the knowledge that we have without putting anything else in its place. Whatever one’s views on the EU, I cannot find anyone who does not see that as one of the EU’s strengths; there are many weaknesses, but we do not want to throw away all the collaboration that has happened over a long period—between higher education, rural communities and practitioners within those rural communities who do a lot of the groundwork. It is important to know from the Government what they intend to put in place instead of something that will be a loss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I look forward to that robust exchange of views. Indeed, it might be that, given my particular take on some aspects of that Bill, we look at some amendments. Who knows!

The hon. Member for Stroud made a valid point that not all the funds have been drawn down. That is a great disappointment, because the funds are important to develop not only our rural economy but the public goods and the environment that people wish to see. We need to analyse why that was not done. In the case of some of the capital grant funding for improvements to businesses, the EU structure was often very much based on giving money to co-operatives. Many European Union countries have a much wider co-operative structure among their farmers, particularly in areas where there are small farmers, who can work together only if they co-operate. In the UK, we do not have that same history of co-operatives, which in some cases has prevented farmers from applying, say, for better storage facilities.

Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, many EU schemes are complicated and over-bureaucratic. We need to look at how to simplify them. Given the egregious exploitation of schemes in some parts of southern Europe, I can understand why the European Union came to the view, in some cases, that every farmer was out to exploit the system in a way that was not intended. My view is that farmers in this country are much more likely to comply and engage with our common objectives.

I met several landowners and farmers at an event last week. The point has been made that we have not made payments as effectively as we should—there have been delays, particularly in the agri-environmental schemes. Many such schemes involve up-front investment, such as buying seeds or hedging plants, so we need to improve our performance to encourage more people to feel that they can invest in them.

The hon. Gentleman talked about funding. There is the small matter of our contribution to the European Union budget, which we will be able to deploy for our own interests. As net contributors, we will be in a better position to make sure that the money is adequately spent. We will certainly be engaging in the spending review and with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we have a fair share of the available money and that it can be deployed as intended and not top-sliced in some other way.

[Dr Drew]

Obviously we will not replicate pillar 1 and pillar 2, but is the Minister saying that the pillar 2 moneys will be secured? So far, he has mentioned agriculture and land, but not rural communities. A key thing about the pillar 2 moneys was that they were ring-fenced for particular rural developments, which may have involved farmers and landowners, but did not have to. What will the Government do to make sure that the pillar 2 moneys are secured, as they were under the EAFRD?

[Mr Goodwill]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the direction of travel in policy is to switch funding from pillar 1 to pillar 2, so direct funding will be reduced at the same time as the schemes that the Agriculture Bill facilitates are delivered. I am ambitious and optimistic that we can continue to build on such schemes and that the money will be there, because we will be directing it for the public goods that farmers will be keen to deliver. The general public will also feel more content, perhaps, that taxpayers’ money is being spent in those directions rather than how it was spent in the past.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the consultation. There was no statutory requirement to consult, because we are not making operational changes. We met the Rural Payments Agency industrial partnership group in September 2018 to update farming and land management stakeholders about the Government’s plan for EU exit. A number of stakeholders were present, including the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Farming Community Network, the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators, the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants and the National Farmers Union. A subsequent meeting was held on 26 November 2018.

The hon. Member for Dundee West is concerned about Scottish participation. I spoke to Fergus Ewing last week to reinforce my wish to work with the Scottish Government. Their consultation, “Stability and Simplicity”, which was published in June 2018, invited comments on their proposals for dealing with the implications associated with leaving the common agricultural policy. It explained that the first stage would be for EU law to be retained in domestic legislation. The consultation closed in August 2018 and there were 137 responses. At least so far as that aspect is concerned, the Scottish Government are engaging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make the case on behalf of not only his constituents but his nation. We certainly look forward to robust exchanges about the way funding is brought forward, but I repeat that, as we leave the European Union, the money that we previously paid into the coffers in Brussels will be available for us to deploy here. England is embracing the opportunities of leaving the European Union, and the Agriculture Bill is one clear example of that. The Scottish Government need to engage more widely in those opportunities and must not be in Brexit denial. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. and hon. Friends seem to think that it is not going to happen. It is important that they realise that the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom was to leave the European Union. The Government of the United Kingdom are determine to deliver our promise.

As further changes to the way we deploy and deliver the agri-environmental and other schemes in this SI emerge, we will of course consult. We will evaluate the way that schemes have worked in the past. We will need to see how we can balance and incentivise new schemes, particularly in connection with the environment, to ensure we get the balance right between rewarding those who were in the vanguard of delivering these environmental schemes and incentivising new entrants. Getting that balance right will be one of the important challenges for us.

[Dr Drew]

Given how small the rural team is in DEFRA—people now just call it “DEF”, because the “RA” has dropped off—who will do this? These schemes, such as the ones through Erasmus, have not necessarily directly involved DEFRA. It may have had some sign-off, but it has not been directly involved with some of the rural initiatives. Who will do that? We are talking about dropping out next week, so this is pretty urgent stuff. What mechanism is in place to undertake this evaluation?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will only drop out next week if the Labour party votes against the agreement that will allow us to leave in an orderly way, and allow the implementation period to be delivered. We are preparing for a no-deal Brexit, but it is not a particularly palatable prospect, in terms of turbulence in the land market. The documentation required for, say, fish exports will need to be delivered in a very short time. The Labour party needs to think long and hard about the game it is playing in this regard.

Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The draft regulations are among a number of statutory instruments under the affirmative procedure, to be considered as the UK leaves the European Union, and will ensure that legislation that protects biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora, and conserves wild bird populations, will continue to function after exit.

The draft regulations make technical legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable. The adjustments represent no changes of policy, nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public. The draft statutory instrument is introduced under the correcting powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and principally makes amendments to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to address technical operability issues.

The territorial extent of the draft regulations is the United Kingdom, with some exceptions. Part 2 extends to England and Wales. Part 3 extends to England and Wales, but also extends certain provisions in certain circumstances to Scotland and Northern Ireland, in relation to certain specified reserved matters. As the implementation of biodiversity and nature conservation policy is a devolved matter, we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on the regulations and on their respective instruments. Where the regulations relate to devolved matters they have given consent.

The Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland are making similar changes through their own secondary legislation. The Committee may be aware that we debated the DAERA measure in Committee on Monday, and it was passed by the House of Commons last night. The Scottish measure was debated in the Scottish Parliament’s Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee yesterday.

Members of the Committee may be aware that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds expressed concern that management objectives for the new national network of protected sites established under the regulations with regard to special protection areas were not commensurate with the objectives for the EU Natura 2000 network of sites, which are being replaced under new regulations 16A and 18A. We had some back and forth legal debate between Government lawyers and the RSPB, and to make sure the position was absolutely clear the Secretary of State took the decision to withdraw the provision in question, and re-lay the measure after redrafting. That was to make it absolutely clear that existing protections for species of wild birds and their specially protected areas will continue when we exit the EU. That has been welcomed by the RSPB.

Part 2 of the draft regulations amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to ensure that species of wild birds found in or regularly visiting the UK, but not elsewhere in the EU, continue to be protected. Part 3 amends the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 covering England and Wales. Part 4 amends the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 covering the United Kingdom’s offshore marine area. The changes in part 4 largely mirror the changes made in part 3.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

What is the impact if we do not pass the Fisheries Bill and we crash out of the EU? Would that have an impact on this statutory instrument?

[Dr Coffey]

The Government have no intention of crashing out of anywhere. It is important to state that the statutory instrument is not directly related to fishing. I am aware of the issues, because I have signed legislation with regard to fisheries in the past 48 hours, when for a few short days we did not have a Minister. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is now in post. He was due to attend this Committee, before he was elevated. He has significant fishing interests in his constituency, and he will now be cracking on, I am sure.

Part 5 of the regulations amends the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 with regard to the functions concerning imperative reasons of overriding public interest—often known as IROPI—and is consistent with changes made to the 2017 regulations.

The majority of changes under this instrument involve various terms in regulations or directives that relate to the EU being amended to be relevant to the UK. For example, the instrument removes references in the EU legislation to the UK as an EU member state. The five main changes mainly involve a transfer of functions from the European Commission to Ministers.

Sites designated in the UK under the nature directives are currently part of the EU’s Natura 2000 network. That is the contribution from the UK to what is called the Emerald network, which is run and administered by the Council of Europe, fulfilling the Bern convention. The sites in the UK will now form a national site network and will continue to fulfil the UK’s international biodiversity obligations. That was covered for Northern Ireland the other day, and it is being covered separately by the Scottish Parliament for Scotland, so we are dealing with other sites in the rest of the UK, as laid out. At the end of November last year, I wrote to the secretariat of the Bern convention, confirming that the sites would continue to form the UK’s contribution to the convention’s Emerald network of protected sites.

New regulations 16A and 18A set out ministerial responsibility to manage and, where necessary, adapt the national site network in co-operation with other Ministers. The network’s management objectives look to secure compliance with the overarching aims of the habitats and the wild birds directives, which will be in retained EU law.

This instrument transfers to Ministers functions relating to the designation of special areas of conservation that are currently undertaken by the Commission. Ministers will assess any new SAC designation proposals, acting on advice from the appropriate nature conservation body—Natural England in the case of the Government—and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and using existing criteria. Selection of those sites will continue to be based on the criteria in annex III of the habitats directive.

This instrument, at regulations 25 and 26, transfers to Ministers the role of the Commission to offer an opinion to local decision makers, such as local planning authorities, as to whether IROPI apply where a plan or project may adversely affect priority habitats but there is no feasible alternative. In doing that, Ministers will need to take account of the national interest and consult widely, including with devolved Administrations and the JNCC. I think it is worth sharing with the Committee, as I did on Monday, that there have been no instances of that ever happening in the UK. Nevertheless, the Commission currently has the power to offer an opinion, and we thought it important, for operability, that that be brought over and made a power of Ministers.

A new instrument-making power, in new regulation 145 of the conservation of habitats regulations and new regulation 84B of the offshore marine regulations, allows Ministers to make amendments to the annexes and schedules where those reflect technical and scientific progress. The devolved Administrations will have the same powers. In essence, this is a “keeping pace” approach. Quite regularly, we see certain changes and learn new and different things about a variety of issues in relation to habitats, species and birds, and it is important that we have the power to keep up to date. Any amendment under the provision would need to be supported by expert opinion. Once the statutory instrument is, as I hope, passed, we will set out in guidance the means by which Ministers will seek that expert input, including from our statutory advisers, before deciding on any amendment to the schedules and annexes.

To ensure transparency and accountability of environmental performance, new regulation 9A of the conservation of habitats regulations will require Ministers to report publicly on the implementation of the regulations in their jurisdictions within six years from the date of exit and every six years thereafter. The position is exactly the same now, and the Secretary of State will compile reports into a combined UK report within two years. The requirement for biennial reporting on the use of any permitted exemptions or derogations from the strict protections of habitats and species is maintained. As a contracting party to the Bern convention, from which the habitats directive arises, the UK will remain obliged under article 9 and resolution 8 of the convention to submit those reports to the secretariat.

The draft instrument will ensure that the strict protections that have been in place for many years for our most vulnerable habitats and species will be maintained once we leave the European Union. For that reason, I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and delighted to follow my boss. I will make just a couple of additional points, which I hope the Minister can answer. This is about my past, because in a previous incarnation I spent a lot of time with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), worrying about the environmental liability directive.

That may not seem pertinent to this bit of legislation, but it was based around the Natura 2000 network. That was at the height of the genetically modified crops issue, and the directive effectively said that if a farmer in one place caused, through emissions in the air or indeed through the watercourse, pollution or some form of deterioration in another site, they were responsible for making good the damage.

This SI is about conservation and habitats, so I ask the Minister: do we intend to continue with the environmental liability directive in a UK context? If not, what are we going to put in its place? It would be interesting to know, because I am not sure whether different bodies will oversee this—perhaps I am not reading this correctly.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington has said, Natural England is under enormous pressure at the moment. It may well be that, through the way the EU operates, it has already subsumed a lot of the responsibilities that the Commission imbued it with, and therefore this is something it will do as a matter of course, but I would be interested to know the structure of accountability. These things matter when they go wrong. When things are working perfectly all right, that is fine, but we all know that these pollution events are not uncommon. Certainly with air pollution, we are in the era of air quality and it is important to know what we will do if these important conservation areas are adversely affected. It will be no good if our current protections are not carried forward; indeed, one would hope they would be enhanced.

[The Chair]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those last comments, and I am sure the Minister will answer in relation to the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which are before us today.

Draft Air Quality (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles Database) (England and Wales) Regulations 2019

David Drew Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I make two apologies. First, my voice is terrible, so please bear with me. Secondly, the shadow Minister would normally lead on air quality, but she is otherwise engaged, so she has passed the mantle to me.

May I say at the start what a pleasure it is that we are not talking about our EU withdrawal? Three times last week we did that, so I thought that this Committee must have something to do with Europe. However, it appears that this is very little to do with Europe for once, although European standards are something I presume we should wish to concur with, as EU standards are as high as ours, although we have a long way to go.

Sadly, on air quality, the Government have a long way to go, and have been in the courts on numerous occasions. In April 2015, the Supreme Court ordered the Government to draw up an air pollution plan, owing to breaches of the law. In November 2016, the High Court ruled the Government’s plans unlawful and imposed a deadline for drawing up a new plan. In April 2017, the High Court ordered the Government to publish that plan, after they tried to delay doing so. Last year, the High Court once again ruled the Government’s plans unlawful.

It will be interesting to know whether the Government have a lawful plan that is unchallengeable by those who take this issue very seriously, as we all do. We all have seared on our minds the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah from asthma in 2013, which is an ongoing case.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in deaths, particularly of children and very old folk with respiratory illnesses, is alarming? Does he also agree that the Mayor of London is being brave and bold and—with very little resource—is acting, through his policies, in the interests of the lungs of Londoners?

[Dr Drew]

I do. To my mind, this is climate change here and now. We sometimes think of climate change as 12 years away and something we can do something about. Sadly, many of our constituents already experience the degradation of the climate because they live in areas that regularly fail decent air quality tests. We should be careful that we do not ignore that and fail to do something about it.

My starting point is that the database, useful as it may be, is a database. It will not actually deal with the problem of how to bear down on some of the issues of poor air quality. We need a much more ambitious transport strategy that deals not only with taxis and private hire vehicles but vehicles in general. I will ask the Government several questions on that.

It is vital that these statutory instruments are not a matter of paying lip service to this issue but are a means by which we can do something fundamental. The Government will say that it is up to local authorities, but if the local authorities do not have the means, they cannot do anything about air quality. It is beginning to disturb our constituents. People ask me, “What are you going to do about the air quality?” This is in Stroud, which is supposedly a rural area, but in parts of it the air quality regularly fails a decency standard. We ought to do something and be seen to be doing something.

Two non-governmental organisations are most concerned about air quality. Friends of the Earth has made countless reports on local air quality monitoring objectives, to check which local authorities are doing something about that and which are not. It is good to hear about the Mayor of London but, sadly, too many local authorities do not have the facility to get on top of this issue. It is astonishing the number of places with an air pollution problem. It does not affect just some people some of the time, but an awful lot of people all the time.

ClientEarth, which has taken the Government to court on a number of occasions because of their lack of an effective plan, welcomes this statutory instrument and sees the database as necessary, but there is not as much detail as it would like. We have the database, but what do we do with it? It is all right having this information, but someone has to compute it and ensure that someone is acting on it. Will the Government impose standards on those local authorities that fail to do what they should do as a result of the database? The statutory instrument allows the Secretary of State to set up the database, but there is no duty to pursue it.

I have some questions for the Minister. First, where does this statutory instrument fit in the Government’s overall strategy of moving towards non-polluting cars? That was the aim by 2040. Are the Government on track to meet that target? In some ways, it is an incredibly ambitious target, but in others it is disappointing, given the scale of the problem.

Dealing with air quality makes long-term economic sense. Some global estimates talk about a cost of £20 billion —I suspect that is a gross underestimate. It will be interesting to know what resources central Government intend to give to local authorities so that they begin to track what is happening—admittedly, with a small number of vehicles, but if it can be done with taxis and private hire vehicles it can begin to be done with private cars. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said; at what stage does a vehicle become a public vehicle rather than a private vehicle?

Do the Government really intend to crack down on illegal air pollution? There have been numerous reports from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee on the means to do something about this. We sometimes use exaggerated terms, but here we do not—it is a public health emergency for those whose lives will be cut short. That requires us to do something drastic.

On Highways England, what are the Government doing with their road strategy to ensure that where there are areas of very high pollution, there are means by which we can control vehicles? I do not know if hon. Members saw what happened in Addis Ababa a few weeks ago; the Government banned vehicles for a Sunday. If anyone has been to that city they will know how polluted it is. They felt that that at least made the point that people can find ways of living their lives without the petrol or diesel engine, that makes their lives that much worse.

What is the target date for the database being up and running? How does that deal with what local authorities are involved with in their own clean air zones in the interim? It would be useful to know where the joined-upness of the overall strategy is.

The original SI was introduced on 8 January 2019 but was then mysteriously removed, which is not unusual with SIs at the moment. This one, however, has nothing to do with Europe, yet it was removed and a slightly different version was retabled. It would be interesting to know why that happened and why we have a different SI before us.

I ask my usual question about Plymouth—it is good to have one of the Plymouth Members here, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View. I am always intrigued when Plymouth appears in such regulations. Regulation 2(c) mentions

“section 5 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975”.

Why does that one local authority always get mentioned? I have been in Committees before where Plymouth is mentioned. Either it is more advanced than any other part of the country or it operates under a very different legal framework from other local authorities. I understand there are different terms regarding the City of London, but I never quite understand why Plymouth features.

I hope the Minister can answer my questions, or will write to me. DEFRA should pay a lot more attention to this subject. Air quality is a deciding factor in people’s quality of life. For me, it is the start of climate change and we ought to pay much more attention to it. That is why I welcome the small step of the database. I hope it will not just sit on a shelf somewhere; I hope it is a measure through which local authorities, working with central Government, can really begin to make sure that polluting vehicles are dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

More than £3.5 billion has been set aside to tackle air quality—TfL was given money for that as part of its last settlement—and more money has gone to the Mayor of London and many other councils to make the changes necessary, such as retrofitting buses.

I am conscious that the Mayor of London would like more money, and the Secretary of State has agreed to support a spending review bid to tackle air quality in London. For example, the ultra-low emission zone charge, which will come into effect in a couple of months, is a significant step. The policy was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), but the current Mayor has taken it through. I also encourage TfL to think about its rules for taxis and how they can more quickly be made air-quality-friendly. TfL has made a good start; I am sure that it could go further.

The hon. Member for Stroud asked specifically about Plymouth. That question has come up once before, in an SI on air quality last year, but I am afraid that my officials and I cannot remember the answer precisely, so I hope that he will forgive me if I write to him and the Committee on that specific point. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Committee will consider the draft regulations important in giving local authorities the database that they believe necessary to tackle air quality in their local areas.

[Dr Drew]

Will the Minister give way before she sits down?

[Dr Coffey]

I have sat down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

In the spirit? Very quickly.

[Dr Drew]

I thank the Minister very much. I shall be quick. I gather that she is meeting the Mayor of Bristol later today, which is interesting and my Whip will no doubt know about that. Is that common when a local authority or a Mayor has failed an air quality arrangement? I am just praising her—does she say to local authority leaders and Mayors, “You’ve got to do better”, “This is how you can do better”, and, “Here’s some money to help you”? Is that what she does?

[Dr Coffey]

I am delighted, Mr Owen, that you persuaded me to take that intervention, because I have visited many areas around this country and I spoke to the Mayor of Bristol yesterday. Unfortunately, of all councils, only Stoke-on-Trent City Council is on track with the timeline for delivering the first part of its air quality plan; sadly, other councils have fallen behind. I have to keep emphasising and pushing the matter, which is why we have included ministerial directions. On directions, the High Court said that we should use further legal instruments with all councils, to ensure that they get on with improving air quality.

I am disappointed, because there has been funding and we need to crack on with this, so yes, I have regularly have done what the hon. Member for Stroud suggests. I have been to Nottingham and Birmingham, and I have met people from Leeds. I have been around the country regularly, although I have yet to visit many places. I am pleased to say that I have been to Derby, too, to meet councillors. Yes, I am looking forward to having a face-to-face with the Mayor of Bristol, although yesterday he assured me on the phone that he will present his plan by the end of March, which is welcome news for the citizens of Bristol.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has also raised the case of Cherry Valley, and I have given an undertaking that I will meet it as soon as possible. The company exports live ducklings and imports ducks, and I am happy to look at its concerns. Obviously, on the wider issue, the Prime Minister absolutely wants to avoid no deal. That is why she is encouraging everyone to back the agreement that she has secured.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It would be nice to know when the Agriculture Bill is coming back to this place, given the months that have now fallen by the wayside. I ask the Minister on behalf of his boss, the Secretary of State: how are discussions going with the Chancellor on whether there will be tariffs on food imports?

[George Eustice]

The Government are currently in discussions about a tariff policy in the event of no deal. The options that are open to us are to have tariff rate suspensions, which we are likely to do on goods that we do not produce, and to have autonomous tariff rate quotas or lower applied tariffs. That issue is being considered by the Government and a statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who do so much right across our country. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Church of England, which operates the single largest group of schools in the UK. Very often those schools are in small rural communities, and the schools and their teachers face big challenges, as do other rural services—distance, access to facilities, cost of living, the reduction in family sizes and so on. The Church has done a great deal to try to improve the sense of community right across our country.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place. Does she accept that one of the problems now is that we have so few ministers and so many churches to look after? In my own area, the Stroudwater team has three ministers to look after 15 churches, although we have had a vacancy recently. We ought to recognise that that puts enormous pressure on those ministers, and I hope that the Church is looking after their welfare.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in praising all those clergy who do so much, often working under quite some pressure and with large parishes to deal with. In 2017, the number of clergy who retired was 330, and I am pleased to say that the number that the Church is training is more than the number who are retiring.

Draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment Etc.) Regulations 2019

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms McDonagh. I get up every day and wonder what I am going to do today, and then I remember that it is another SI. This is the third one I have been on this week. It was moving animals in the first one, and fertilisers yesterday on the Floor of the House. Today we have pesticides. This is probably the most complex and, potentially, the most controversial, because some believe that we should bear down on pesticides. I know the Minister has read every page and has notes. He will be pleased that I will not refer to the instruments page by page, but some important issues must be put on the record. Hopefully my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich will choose to question the Minister about some of them.

The Opposition’s biggest criticism is that the preamble in EU law is missing—we have not brought it across—which means that the interpretive effect and the broader legal framework is not there. I am sure the Minister will comment on that. It matters because it relates to where this fits with the withdrawal Act. We are trying to replicate in a very short time something that has been in place for 45 years. The preamble says, for example, that

“public health should be given priority over the interest of crop protection”.

What is the Government’s attitude to that? The minimum residue levels are set in consultation with the EFSA. Does our Food Standards Agency have the capability, let alone the capacity, to take on the role?

There are all sorts of issues in dealing with banned substances. There are rules for third countries, minimum data requirements and continuous monitoring. I have a huge list, which I am sure the Minister will at least know about. The reality is that he did not mention those points. Where are we in terms of the monitoring and evaluation of something as crucial to pesticides? We have not necessarily abrogated that to the EU because much of the work has been done in this country, but the process and protocol will be difficult to replicate, at least in the short run.

I am indebted to the Pesticide Action Network, which is a good organisation. I do not necessarily agree with it on every aspect, but it has done me proud, because I do not have time to go through every page of the statutory instruments. It has identified six areas, some of which were rehearsed when the Lords discussed the measures in November. It is interesting how long they have taken to get to this place—normally the scrutiny in the two Houses happens fairly rapidly.

PAN’s first critique is about the loss of oversight, checks and balances, and the significant consolidation of power, and not just in Westminster—much of it is devolved. What accountability is there for the oversight, checks and balances that come with the powers that we are granting to the Minister? That matters because, for all its faults, the EU has a process with EFSA that is subject to scrutiny in this country. As my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said in the other place:

“At the moment, we have in the EU a thorough process of evaluation of products. The responsibilities for risk assessments are shared out across member states. There are clear decision-making roles for the European Food Safety Authority, the rapporteur member state, individual member states and the European Commission. All this is supported and backed up by access to the best scientific advice. While no process is perfect, there is considerable assurance that within the EU a detailed assessment of the risks has been carried out and cross-checked.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2019; Vol. 795, c. 1831.]

Presumably, that will pass to HSE, which has faced dramatic cuts in the last decade and more. It will be interesting to see what additional staff it will get as the competent authority. We talk about 150 people, but how many of those will be in HSE?

The second argument is about the weakening of the requirement to obtain independent scientific advice. The Minister made the point that there will be independent evaluation, but my concern has always been—this is not recent; I had it in my previous incarnation—that much of the research money received by the academics who end up on the evaluation boards comes from the companies. That is what happens to ensure that we are at the front end of the science. The conflicts of interest are not easy to overcome. I am interested to know how independent is “independent”? How easy will it be to set something up in a short time that not only reflects that independence, but ensures that what we are doing is appropriate, not bureaucratic and safety conscious? Human health must be our primary consideration.

The third point is about the weakening of other standards, which is partly about deadlines. The Minister touched on the EU’s requirements to review minimum residue levels within 12 months of an active substance being authorised. The worry is that the Government, under the powers they are taking, seem to have a lot more discretion about what they do and when. PAN advances the criticism that it is less obvious how the Government will pursue emergency interventions and what the timescales will be. As my noble friend Baroness Jones said, the explanatory memorandum states that the renewal programme will

“need to be proportionate for one country alone to deliver”,

which the UK obviously is. How will the Government transpose that into British law to ensure that it is appropriate and carried out properly?

The fourth point is that the important parts of the regime are left unclear, or details will be filled in later. Again, the Minister was open about that. We will need to have other SIs because the situation will evolve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, things are changing within the EU and we may not be able to keep up to date because of our short-term pressures. We therefore have to be very clear on our response and how we will be able to guarantee—we want to sell into the European market—that we are doing the right things in the right way.

Fifthly—colleagues will be pleased to hear that I will not be much longer—there is a lack of capacity and lack of investment in stand-alone regimes. We are currently part of a very sophisticated process. I have mentioned the HSE. There will be considerable interest in what mechanism the Government put in place at both an academic level and a scrutiny level to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that things are happening as they should.

The chemical division of the HSE has 150 people. I am not clear whether the Minister will get an additional 150 people or the same 150 people will be doing what they already do. Will they be doing what they are doing now and a lot more because they are a stand-alone organisation? They will not be part of a wider process even though they have been key to that wider process.

I will not go through them, but there are some mistakes in the drafting, which I will be happy to send notes on—no doubt PAN has sent them to the Government already. It would be interesting to know whether they have been picked up.

To conclude, pesticides are very important. Pesticides are crucial to farmers—there are farmers on the Government Benches who know how important they are. They are also very important to people’s health. If we get this wrong and let the wrong things go on the marketplace, we will pay the consequences.

More than anything, this is about trading arrangements. Again, we are now trying to put in place, in a great deal of hurry, a sophisticated system to replicate what is already there, and I wonder about the timescale. It will be difficult if we crash out—how capable are we of doing this from the start of April without question marks about safety and about the appropriateness of the scrutiny mechanism? More particularly, how will the consumer be absolutely guaranteed that what is happening is happening in the right way and not a hostage to fortune?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I want to draw on some of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud. I will return to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby at the end.

The first thing to note is that the current regulation that governs active substances is Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. Our own HSE was largely instrumental in the drafting of it. I have to point out to the hon. Member for Stroud that the then Labour Government voted against that infrastructure despite the fact that we had been involved in drafting it on the basis that they did not agree with the hazard-based principle. Nevertheless, we as a Government are bringing across the existing regime, with all its imperfections, including the hazard-based principle. We are bringing it over exactly as it is and placing it on the UK statute book.

To address the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who is obviously anxious to do things better, yes there are indeed opportunities to do things better and to refine the system, but that is a discussion for another day. We are absolutely crystal clear that the EU (Withdrawal) Act is about bringing across the existing regulatory structure. It seeks to make no policy changes whatever, and the regulations make no changes whatever.

To draw on the point about HSE resources, probably only the eight largest member states of the European Union have any meaningful capacity to do such work on pesticides. The UK is renowned in Europe for being the leader in terms of the scale and scope of our expertise. As the hon. Member for Stroud says, we have 150 experts on pesticides in the chemical regulations directorate. We have identified that there will be an additional workload. Scoping work has suggested that the directorate will probably need another 40 members of staff. The directorate has commenced that work, and we have identified that we will probably need to give it an additional £5 million a year to do it. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the directorate already does the bulk of the work. It is simply fiction to think that the European Union does it. The European Union has an oversight role and owns the regulations, but the actual work—the technical evaluation—is already done by our own Health and Safety Executive.

[Dr Drew]

If we are not doing that work for the EU, the EU will have a huge hole. Obviously, we will have to check food that comes into this country because of the potential that the EU now might not be as effective. Is that not the reality?

[George Eustice]

It is very much the case that I would be open to saying that, as part of any future partnership, we should still have wider European technical working groups, so that the European Union can continue to benefit from British expertise but, at the moment, we are obviously not at the point of being able to advance discussions at that level of detail—as things stand, we are struggling to get a withdrawal agreement agreed by both sides at all.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to take part in this statutory instrument debate and welcome the Minister to his place. A couple of weeks ago I thought, when we got Committee Room 14, that we could not get a bigger audience to listen to these statutory instrument debates. How little did I know that we would end up in the main Chamber? I will sound the usual caveat that the Opposition do not think this is the way to scrutinise secondary legislation. Some of it is very important, and it is being rushed through at the speed of light. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult to scrutinise, and we are obliged to rely on the capability of the civil service to ensure that the exercise they are doing, which is largely a cut-and-paste job, is right; otherwise, mistakes will be made, which we will only learn about in due course.

The Minister was right to say that the process became an affirmative procedure at the request of the House of Commons sifting Committee, and the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) was right to point out that one reason for that was that there is a cost implication, because DEFRA has the ability to charge fees for the costs of tests. The other two reasons were that the instrument confers powers to legislate, changing the functions of the UK as a member state to functions of UK public authorities—presumably a reference to the Health and Safety Executive—and that these amendments had an impact on the safety regulations governing the import of ammonium nitrate materials from outside the EU.

The instrument before us is not a contentious piece of legislation, but it is important because ammonium nitrate, for those who know, is explosive. My own port of Sharpness, which imports fertilisers, including ammonium nitrate, was regularly policed in the days of the IRA because of what could happen to that ammonium nitrate. So we cannot but do our best to ensure that the instrument is as foolproof as possible.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. We do not intend to oppose the instrument, but it is important that we get it right. Clearly, fertilisers are crucial to agriculture, but they are also controversial. If the Agriculture Bill does return to the Floor of the House, amendments will be tabled on Report on the relationship to the Government’s environmental strategy, which is about using fewer fertilisers, and on looking at agri-ecology as an alternative way of producing our food supply. So this is quite a controversial area to the extent that there are those who would say that we should reduce, if not remove, fertilisers and find other ways to grow our food.

This instrument provides for the definition, composition, labelling and packaging of fertilisers, and given that the UK imports the vast majority of its fertiliser, we are dependent on those who wish to export it to us. That will be a substantial change, if and when we leave the EU, because we may choose to import from different parts of the world, and we must ensure that we are completely clear on the safeguards and that the regulatory regime is fit for purpose.

At the moment—I am not sure whether the Minister said this—businesses can choose whether to use the current UK regulatory regime for fertilisers or one that is available from the EU. It will be interesting to know what the Minister thinks about potential changes, and the implied costs. Again, we make our usual criticism that there is no regulatory impact assessment. It is only fair and reasonable to ask what the cost implications are. Yesterday, I managed to take part in a debate with the Department of Health and Social Care on pharmaceuticals, and it provided a regulatory impact assessment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not seem to be very good at producing such assessments. Its argument is always that there are no explicit cost implications. That is easy to say, but it would be much easier for us to make a judgment if we could look at that and investigate it.

The explanatory memorandum—this may be my inability to access IT—refers to a technical note on page five, but I cannot download that note. It would be useful to know what it contains, but I may be able to obtain it in a different format. It is important that that is made available to those who need to know, whether they are in the business or whether they wish to scrutinise what we are up to.

As I have said, I have a series of questions for the Minister, as always, to keep him on his toes and make sure that we know what we are doing. The Nature Friendly Farming Network raises the case of those who have stored fertilisers that have been labelled under the EU system. What is the status of those fertilisers after the two years are up? Should they be destroyed? Can people continue to use them? Do the fertilisers have to be re-regulated? What is likely to be the situation? As we know, many farm products are stored for years, if not decades, so it is important to know the timeframe for existing products. Will the Minister say something about that, as people want certainty about it, and they need to know exactly what the implications are.

The Nature Friendly Farming Network says that the rules for imports from the EU are different from those for imports outside the EU. Presumably, we need a standard trade agreement, otherwise we will have a differentiated trade in fertilisers. What will the Minister do to ensure that that is the case, so that there is consistency?

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board does not have any particular bones of contention, but it is important that we listen to what it says, especially on the environmental effects of non-organic fertilisers. It would be a retrograde step to move away from the progressive approaches to which we have signed up as part of our membership of the EU. What are the Government doing to make sure that there is not a race to the bottom if we look for cheaper, non-organic substitutes, which would lead to all sorts of problems if they got into the water supply. At the very least, they would be likely to damage soil quality, which we discussed at great length when we considered the Agriculture Bill and which features heavily in the Government’s draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill.

The principal concern of the Agricultural Industries Confederation is about certainty, which is not there because of the current Brexit situation. It would be interesting to know what discussions the Minister has had with the AIC. If we crash out and have to adopt WTO tariffs, that will have a major impact on the industry because of its reliance on imports. What analysis have the Government made of the impact on the industry and on farmers in general?

Likewise, the National Farmers Union is clear that it needs continuity and an uninterrupted supply of fertilisers. It is worried about the cost implications if we cannot continue to source our fertilisers. I believe that most come from Spain and some come from elsewhere in the EU. That is important.

The Landworkers Alliance states that the agrochemicals, antibiotics and nitrate fertilisers used in intensive farming have a negative effect. What is being done to ensure, as I said earlier, that there is no race to the bottom and that we pay more than just lip service in our commitment to the environment? That is also important.

Although the Soil Association has no specific reason to doubt the Government’s intention for the faithful transposition of measures into UK law, it is concerned about the environmental objectives of the regulations, which are not necessarily spelled out as clearly as they could be. When the Minister sums up, it is important that he says something positive about that.

In conclusion, farmers need fertilisers. They need certainty about access and supply. On agroecology, we need to understand that, as the world moves forward, we will need fewer of them, but we will also need to ensure that they are good quality and, I hope, organic and that people are able to eat good, wholesome food. The one drawback from lack of access to fertilisers is that we could end up with an overabundance of phosphates and nitrates, which will have an impact on the food that we eat and the human food chain. It is important, therefore, that the Government commit to no diminution of standards. We have regularly heard them say that, but we have yet to see it in legislation, and there is no better place to put it than the Agriculture Bill. I hope that the Minister is listening and that the Government will ensure that they do not just talk about the issue but carry it through in the Bill so that our soils are replete and our farming can guarantee wholesome food, which is what we all want.

[Mr Speaker]

The natural modesty of the hon. Gentleman has prevented him from announcing to the House and for the edification of those observing our proceedings that in speaking from his party’s Front Bench he does so not as David Drew but as Dr David Drew, blessed with a doctorate in rural economy. That is something that should be known to the world. I call Minister George Eustice.

Draft Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Drew Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I welcome the Minister to her place; we will see an awful lot of one another in the coming weeks. I am not sure which of the 88 SIs we have to get through before the end of March this one is, but she is no doubt ticking them off on her calendar every day.

I will start by making the point that this process is not the way to run any Government; it is not effective scrutiny. As an Opposition, we will do the best we can, but the reality is that this process is being greatly rushed. It is difficult to know the enormity of what we are all taking on, because although this SI looks like a bit of a nothing SI, in fact, as anyone who reads anything about animal or plant diseases knows, these species could, effectively, wipe out the United Kingdom if we get this process wrong. Sadly, there is every chance that we will get it wrong.

I will also make the point that, as much as the civil service has done a very effective job—I am sure of that—a lot of this process is about taking out the words “Member State” and sticking in their place the words “appropriate authority”. I do not know how much European legislation and regulation over the last 45 years will be affected, but someone has had to do an awful lot of work, and I do not know whether they have done it well or whether they have covered all the bases.

The one bit of good news is, of course, that if any species are about to invade the British Isles, they can at least now get a British passport. That, no doubt, will make all the difference in terms of whether they arrive or not. [Laughter.] I am glad you got the joke, Mr Evans —at least you are awake.

This statutory instrument matters. I asked a parliamentary question in December about trees and tree diseases. There are now 1,820 notifiable tree diseases that affect various species in this country. The idea that this is a marginal, out-of-the-way statutory instrument misses the main point that disease is ever-present. We know that ash dieback and oak processionary moth have taken out our major trees in this country. We have to look at the impact very carefully.

When I sat on the EFRA Committee some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and I looked at the environmental liability directive. When you get into these things, you realise the implications in terms of not only the diseases that have come in, but who was responsible for them—if they were spread by humankind. It is very difficult to lay the blame; we still do not know what caused foot and mouth back in the early noughties, although there are those who make allegations about how it was brought into this country. To put that into perspective, it cost the British economy £8 billion. Thankfully, the rerun was not as bad. As the Minister said, a cost of £1.8 billion a year has been allocated to the implications of the issues before us. So we are on our guard, because we know what the implications of these things can be.

I have a number of questions, which I accept that the Minister may not be able to entirely answer, so I am quite happy for her to write to me. I make the point again that I made throughout the Agriculture Bill Committee—many of us are in the same place again today: it is rather strange that we cannot even get the four nations of the United Kingdom to agree to some commonality over something as basic as invasive species control. That does not bode well for the future. Scotland may well be very competent to bring forward its own secondary legislation, but for those who farm on the Scottish borders it is not much consolation that Scotland will do things in its own way. It may do them better than us, or it may do them worse than us, but the fact is that it is not doing them with us. That undermined the effectiveness of the Agriculture Bill, which is still in this place, and, sadly, it is likely to mean that we will have some conflict if there is a disease outbreak between Scotland and England. It does not look good that we cannot even get the four countries of the United Kingdom to agree on a particular policy.

The House of Lords voted on this measure last week—I thought it was quite a good debate. A number of questions arose that the Government have not yet answered. First, my noble Friend Lord Adonis asked the Minister, Lord Gardiner, what other pieces of legislation this measure was in synch with. He asked what had happened to the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. They were on the Order Paper for debate last week, but did not come forward.

The explanation was that they had been stuck in a Joint Committee, but it makes it very difficult, certainly for the Opposition, to make sense of these issues when things are put on the Order Paper and expected to be debated—and it makes sense that they are debated together—but they then disappear. Likewise, I am not sure about the link—the Minister did refer to it—between this measure and the Invasive Non-native Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Regulations 2019, which clearly has an impact on the grey squirrel, muntjac and other species. What measures are being taken against those particular invasive species? It would be nice to know what the order of these bits of legislation is and what happens if we pass this one, which we may well do today, but then we have these other SIs, which have not been passed. We have just over a month before 29 March, but it is not at all clear where we will be in terms of the whole way in which the Government are performing.

Let me quickly look at what the Lords came up with. Among the key things they identified was that the preamble to much of the European regulation regarding invasive alien species is not included in this secondary legislation. Yet, according to all the different non-governmental organisations I have been in touch with, that is quite an important element of the way we lay down how these invasive species are dealt with. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have looked at how they can include that preamble not in today’s statutory instrument, obviously, but in a future statutory instrument.

In terms of what the Minister said about how we cobble together the organisations that will take over from the EU, I am a little confused about where this all fits with regard to the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill, and particularly the office for environmental protection. Will the office for environmental protection oversee this piece of legislation, even though specific bodies she has referred to may have been given responsibility? The criticism advanced by those who welcome the Bill but who would say it needs to go further is that they are not sure what that body’s powers and responsibilities will be. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

This SI does not seem to change policy, but why was the Government’s commitment in this field—the Secretary of State has said on many occasions that they intend to enhance our environmental credentials—not taken up in regard to this SI? Are we just going to cut and paste from existing European regulations, which does not improve our environmental credentials at all?

It is unclear why there was no impact assessment. The Government argued that one was not necessary, because the regulations did not have a particular impact on the public or private sectors, but that seems strange, given that they will have a huge impact if they go wrong. It would be interesting to know what analysis has been done of the additional costs on business, individuals and the public sector if—as is likely—we find there is an impact as a result of invasive species coming on to our shores. That is linked with enforcement, because although we have these new bodies, I am not clear what powers they will have.

That links directly to the enforcement and permitting regulations. Have they been consulted on and agreed? The Minister could nod or not. Those regulations are the one bit of this that have been quite controversial. They effectively mean that if a rescue centre takes in a squirrel, the centre is told to dispatch it, because it will not be able to release it back into the wild. There are implications for muntjac as well. I am not clear what powers will be there or who will enforce them. Are we talking about a series of fines for people who take in a grey squirrel that may be injured? Again, that is not clear. It is all involved with the enforcement regime. The RSPCA and other animal aid organisations have been very unhappy in terms of whether this could ever be enforced or properly introduced.

I have a few more questions for the Minister. The consultation on these regulations was undertaken on an “informal” and “limited” basis. I am not sure whether we should introduce legislation without consulting the appropriate organisations. The consulted organisations were rather limited—for example, I do not believe that the National Farmers Union was consulted, even though the regulations will have a big impact on British agriculture if and when they go wrong. It would be useful to know whether the Government, as part of their environmental Bill, which is a good bit of legislation, intend to have a much bigger consultation to ensure that people are fully informed on the impact of alien invasive species.

I have two more questions, and I am sure other hon. Members will have others. On the responsibilities exercised by the current EU bodies, to what extent—I think particularly of the trade control and expert system database—will we still have access to operational functions that the EU carries out? The EU has always been at its best in recognising that this is a pan-European problem; we cannot pretend that it just starts and ends at our coast. That is particularly important, because these issues affect marine species, as well as species on the land and in the air. I am not sure what we will do about the TRACES database—it is important, because it is something we share. British influence has been fundamental in the way we have built up that collection of data. It would be interesting to know whether we will have access to it or whether we will have to set up our own. Should the EU have an outbreak, will we get to share that information? That really matters, because when something happens, it will be too late. We need to do much more preventive and precautionary work.

My final question is the usual one. Should we crash out of the EU on 29 March, this legislation will presumably come into play immediately. There is no transition, so it has to be foolproof, but it is not clear how the different SIs fit in. It is unclear what we will be able to execute. There are no bodies at the moment; they are not set up. We have no environmental Bill or office for environmental protection. It would be interesting to know what contingencies the Minister has put in place, should we end up in a no-deal scenario and face an immediate problem, given that African swine fever is already on the continent and is, sadly, coming our way. We have done our best to prevent that, but we have to be very aware of these things.

Those are a number of questions, which I am sure the Minister will try to answer. I am happy for her to write to me on some of them. This SI is really important, but it does not look to be anything other than a cut and paste from the current EU regulation. Should it go wrong, it will have a major impact on our economy and on people living here, particularly in the farm economy. I hope that we get more warning of what measures are coming our way—this one was quite a sudden imposition on us today—and that we get to know the fuller picture, which the Government should give us. If nothing else, they have to explain to the people affected what should be done in preparation, particularly if we crash out, and what we should do anyway, as a country, in terms of good preparation work to forestall the worst impact of these invasive alien species.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

Within DEFRA, we have taken an approach of bringing several SIs into one, for instance when amending references to EU law and EU obligations so that they refer to retained EU law and retained EU obligations. For example, a statutory instrument that we debated yesterday will change several primary Acts—four, I think—and make three cross-cutting environmental amendments. We are grouping operability changes that commonly require several SIs within one SI. Those instruments often relate to one directive. The draft instrument covers one directive in its own right, which is why we are only discussing invasive species.

I appreciate the hon. Member for Stroud’s concerns about the draft instrument. As I say, it has been through the JCSI. It was laid in the first week of December, and prior to that, DEFRA opened it up to a group of stakeholders to look at, so that they could talk it through with our officials and raise any questions. So far, that has only happened to one other SI, to which he referred: the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Unfortunately, before that draft instrument made its way through the JCSI process, and in response to feedback from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Secretary of State took the decision to change it. I thought my noble Friend Lord Gardiner answered questions on that rather well. The draft instrument was again laid before Parliament last night and will come back before the House in due course. I do not have a date for its return. That shows how, via stakeholders coming to the Government with suggested changes, we have been able to effectively consider the draft instrument before reaching the Committee.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points, I fully understand the biosecurity threats.

[Dr Drew]

Does that affect the draft Invasive Non-native Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Regulations, which were subject to consultation? Will that instrument be crucial for—dare I say it—the grey squirrel and the muntjac? It is entirely in line with this draft instrument, is it not, so when will it come forward?

[Dr Coffey]

As I just tried to explain, by going through this process with stakeholders we have changed that draft SI, which is why it was withdrawn and again laid last night.

The Government have not received any comments on this draft instrument, apart from what the RSPCA said about muntjacs and raccoon dogs. As I have tried to outline, the draft instrument is about operability, not changing policy. The draft enforcement regulations will be presented to the House, and I am happy to arrange for the hon. Gentleman to have a specific briefing on that. To reiterate, this is not about changing policy.

The hon. Gentleman was also concerned that the four nations could not get together. That is the element of devolution. There are quite a large number of our SIs over which the four nations have agreed to come together in different ways, but there are also those that the Governments have decided to approach through their own legislative vehicles. That is perfectly acceptable and respects the devolution process.

However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have had a Great Britain strategy since 2008, and we will continue to use that body to support all the Administrations as we work closely together on invasives. I particularly stress that the external borders of the United Kingdom are still a responsibility of the UK Government. However, the Scottish Government have decided to pursue domestic regulation through their own front.

On the impact assessment, the draft regulations will have no impact on external bodies, such as businesses, charities and voluntary bodies. A small cost is estimated for public sector bodies taking on the Commission’s functions, but those are limited and below the £5 million threshold, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the level for publishing an impact assessment.

On the link between this statutory instrument and the invasive alien species order, this instrument will make the regulations controlling the spread and management of invasive alien species operable after we have left the EU. It will apply strict reservations on a list, to which I have already referred, so that such species cannot be imported, kept, bred, transported, sold, used or exchanged, allowed to reproduce or be grown, cultivated or released into the environment.

That list includes grey squirrels, although the debate is not about grey squirrels. The EU regulation has been in place since 2015. What has happened very recently is that Natural England has said it will not be issuing any licences for the release of grey squirrels. That may be a suitable debate for Westminster Hall, rather than here, but I point out that we know that grey squirrels threaten the existence of red squirrels, which are our native species. We need to stick up for the red squirrel.

The legal advice I have received is that we do not need to carry over the preambles. Section 6(3) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is specific, and shows that the interpretation of the regulation that happens today—which is what the preamble is about—will be the same as that used post-exit. Any changes in policy in the future will have to be decided by Parliament through changes to regulations.

I assure the hon. Member for Stroud that the cross-cutting principles are effective in UK law already—he will be aware of the proposals in the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill. In terms of oversight, the bodies to which he referred will continue. Will the office for environmental protection oversee this area? As it stands, the bodies are there to provide advice, which is taken. The basic function of the OEP, which the Government have set out, is effectively to replace the Commission in respect of whether we are applying environmental law as we should. It provides an alternative way to do that, but of course Parliament is also there to scrutinise and hold the Government to account.

The hon. Member for Stroud asked why this statutory instrument does not change policy. That is not what we are allowed to do through these SIs—that is for another day. On the databases, I have referred already to the fact that we cannot say today that we will have access to this database. That will be the subject of ongoing negotiation and discussion. However, there is an obligation to co-operate. I am aware that this is a cut and paste, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. That is the point; it is what this SI is supposed to be.

[Dr Drew]

Are we negotiating over the TRACES database? Will we pay money to have access to that, or are we going to have our own database? That idea makes me feel cold, given that we are not necessarily that good at developing these databases, as even the Minister would accept. These things need to be understood. If we are shut out of that database, where will we get our information about invasive species from?

[Dr Coffey]

I have to say to the Committee that this is not my portfolio, so I have not been involved in the day-to-day negotiation about the IT elements. I want to point out that we have developed contingency plans to mitigate the impacts of losing access to the system. There is still the potential to make those changes as we move forward. If my noble Friend Lord Gardiner would like to say something that is different or to enhance what I have said, I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman.

In conclusion, this is a cut and paste from the existing EU regulation to ensure that when we leave the European Union the functions continue to have legal effect. I assure the Committee that the Government take the issue of biosecurity extremely seriously. We are very conscious of the concerns about African swine fever. We recently took action very deliberately against species that were being reintroduced on licence in the Forest of Dean, killing beavers, because they had a disease that was brought into this country. Unfortunately, they were imported from Germany, against the voluntary code of practice, which meant they should have come only from Norway or other parts of the United Kingdom. We will take action, even when it is unpopular, to make sure that we preserve the biosecurity of nature and animals in this country. I hope that the Committee will support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

There are two ways in which a UK framework can be delivered. First, it is important to recognise that agriculture is devolved. Although the Welsh Government have asked us to add a schedule to our Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, they also intend to introduce their own future legislation. There are provisions relating to compliance with WTO rules, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will also provide an approach to state aid rules.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Tuesday, I met members of the Irish Farmers’ Association—there were other things going on as well as the debate—and they made it very clear to me how vital it is to get a long-term customs arrangement in place as soon as possible. They say that that view is shared by farmers in Northern Ireland. What is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs doing to make sure that that happens?

[George Eustice]

As was made clear at the very start of this session, the Secretary of State is, as we speak, in dialogue with Members of this House to establish a consensus, so that we can indeed have a customs arrangement after March.

[Dr Drew]

The Minister has been quite sanguine in saying that he now supports the Norway option. Is that view shared by the rest of the DEFRA team?

[George Eustice]

The DEFRA team, which includes me, supported the Prime Minister’s deal, because the deal that she brought forward was the way to most closely deliver the outcome of the referendum. That deal has now been rejected by this House, so of course we must consider all alternatives.

Draft Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am delighted that the Minister is in her place. Happy Christmas to everybody—it may not be so happy when I finish, but let us start as we mean to go on.

This is an interesting piece of secondary legislation. It is the sort of thing that could pass through on the nod without people taking much notice, because in a sense it is just doing what was agreed some time ago with the EU. Why has it taken quite so long to get here? It was laid down in 2016, and the original agreement dates back to 1997. I am a little intrigued about why, within three months of our potentially leaving the EU, we have this piece of secondary legislation now. I have always thought that the idea of humane trapping is an oxymoron, but I will pass over that quickly.

I want to raise a number of issues. Clause 108(1) in the Government’s excellent draft legislation to replace the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is about the prohibition of leg-hold traps:

“It is an offence to use a leghold trap for or in connection with the purpose of killing, injuring or capturing a wild bird or other wild animal.”

The Government are clear that they want to outlaw these things. It is disappointing that the primary legislation has not been introduced, which would mean at least that we had clarity. The Minister will have to answer this: should we reject this legislation, would it make any difference? We have an indication that the Government want to outlaw leg-hold traps when they introduce the primary legislation.

Are we putting ourselves in jeopardy as regards the international agreement? Clearly, this is one agreement that we will, supposedly, have to renegotiate: it is between the EU, Russia and Canada, not the UK. The Minister will have to persuade me that we have some clarity on how we will go about doing that—otherwise, why are we all here today? We could have left it until after March and done our own thing in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich might have some other things to say about the consultation, because he pointed it out to me. The consultation was a bit one-sided: respondents included every estate that can be imagined and only a very small number of animal welfare organisations. In the main, they shrugged and said, “Well, if it’s coming, it’s coming,” but they were not overjoyed at some of the proposals.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the accompanying impact assessment, which I thought was the most interesting document of the lot. On page 11, on currently approved spring traps that are rarely used and not compliant, it says:

“We should be restricting the continued use of non-compliant traps to the minimum necessary to enable the continued trapping of stoats”—

as the Minister rightly said, the regulations are mainly about stoats—

“prior to implementation. The remaining traps approved for stoat have been out of production for some time and are not used in meaningful numbers to trap any permitted target species.”

Out-of-date traps are therefore still being used—presumably, to trap stoats—yet we currently have no real intention of outlawing them, even if we pass the SI. If we are not outlawing, to some extent, these traps, what are we doing today?

Page 16 of the impact assessment says:

“There is significant evidence that the public value animal welfare”—

there’s a surprise. It goes on:

“Research by the University of Reading…conducted a small survey on animal welfare.”

That research found that 96% of respondents thought that animal welfare was a very good thing—I do not know about the other 4%; there always people who are contrary to the public will—and were prepared to pay extra for animal welfare to be put in place. I am not sure how that relates to the trapping of wild animals, but in my view we need animal welfare to be in line with not just the letter of the law, but the practicalities of how animals are treated.

Obviously, any trap in which an animal is kept for only five minutes can do limited damage. Nothing that I have read, however, says that the traps are time limited: an animal can be trapped for days, during which time it dies, yet that trap is apparently treated in exactly the same way.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I am confused by that statement, because it is illegal for a gamekeeper not to check traps every 24 hours, so an animal could not legally be left in any trap for any length of time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Dr Drew]

That is what happens in theory, but of course other people put traps down for slightly nefarious reasons. Yes, I know that gamekeepers have a strict way of doing things, and I accept that the regulations relate largely to gamekeepers. Within current law, however, others can trap and catch wild animals. On the one hand, we are trying to reintroduce stoats into certain parts of the country—sadly, their numbers are very small, despite being one of our native species—and on the other, we are trapping stoats in other parts of the country. That is just an observation.

Before I sit down, I will make a couple of other points. There is a real lack of clarity about why the regulations are being introduced now and what their impact will be. I mentioned the time limits for keeping an eye on caught animals, but there is no mention of animals caught by accident. Clearly, with any trap, any animal—dare I say, even a human being—can put its foot on a trap. Some ask whether that is an appropriate way to manage our wildlife.

The League Against Cruel Sports has been critical of the continuation of trapping generally, and, in particular, of the way that the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards operates. It wants greater clarification on how we intend to move forward—we are talking about a new traps regime. I am not totally sure who pays the £1.7 million cost of providing the new traps. Is it the industry, or are the Government prepared to put some money where their mouth is?

Perhaps alternative ideas could have been explored and brought forward. There are a number of questions. Where are the Government going with their animal welfare legislation? No doubt this issue would have been wrapped up with the animal welfare Bill if we had got it to the stage of being debated, in which case we would not have had to have this debate at all. Since we are having it, if the Opposition were to vote against it, would that put us in any international jeopardy or can we do our own thing, when appropriate, after March—if that is when we have some freedom—and adopt even higher standards of animal welfare? That could include looking at alternatives to trapping. Trapping is a very difficult exercise and we will always check to see that it is done in the most humane way possible. That is the whole point about this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

That is why there are two of us!

[Dr Coffey]

There is only one of me here.

The House is passionate about improving welfare standards. One of the slight risks of our leaving the European Union is that we have been at the forefront of promoting high animal welfare standards across the EU, and we will continue to do so. I am on my way to the Environment Council tonight, and I will continue to encourage my friends from other nations to keep up the good practice that we wish to set in place.

As I said earlier, the regulations do not have anything to do with the policy of trapping; they are about raising welfare standards for the policies currently in existence. I hope that the Opposition will support the regulations; I would be somewhat surprised if they were happy for animal welfare standards not to be so high in future. I am sure they recognise that.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend made his case powerfully in Committee. He will recall that, as a result, I undertook to give this issue further consideration and have further discussion with colleagues in government in time for Report.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The discussion in the Agriculture Bill Committee was very good, but unfortunately the Government chose not to accept our amendments, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the whole of the Select Committee on tabling theirs. I hope the Minister will confirm today that he will accept that amendment.

[George Eustice]

As I have explained, I do not believe that that particular amendment is the right way to approach the issue, nor is the Agriculture Bill the right place for such an amendment, as this is a trade issue. Nevertheless, I gave an undertaking to have conversations and discussions with other Departments in time for Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I can give the hon. Gentleman reassurance, and I sympathise with his concern for Asia Bibi. The information we have is that we need to be extremely careful that we do not exacerbate risks to Asia Bibi and her family. The Prime Minister answered a question during PMQs about what the Foreign Office is doing and confirmed that the UK is in conversations with other Governments, including the Government of Pakistan, on how to make Asia and her family safe.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

We had an excellent debate this week on Nigeria, initiated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Will the right hon. Lady urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to visit another bedevilled part of the world, South Sudan? Although it is a Christian country, many Christians are being persecuted there.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is very alive to the situation in South Sudan. Every well-read Christian Member of Parliament surely must be. In my tenure as shadow International Development Secretary, I went to southern Sudan, and it is probably one of the most distressing places I have ever visited. The women there told me they had very little confidence of peace being secured, because they fear their men just like to fight.