Draft Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We are at it again—now we are revising the revisions. Mistakes were made in earlier Committees, so we have had to come back and review them. In correspondence with me, and I am sure with the Minister, the Green Alliance has said:
“The pace at which draft legislation has been processed has been relentless, with many different areas covered each week. Parliamentary scrutiny has been creaking at the seams with MPs and peers often admitting they haven’t had enough time to review the legislation thoroughly.”
I strongly concur, because we are here doing it morning, noon and night. This is the second of my three SI Committees today; no doubt the Minister and I will be engaging later, unless he is being given time off for good or bad behaviour.
The pace is a worry, because the legislation has been so rushed that mistakes were bound to be made, as we have been saying. As much as we love and trust the civil service, the rate of knots at which it is having to work begs the question of what will happen if some of it goes wrong. In this case, some of it has already gone wrong and we must correct what we did.
The Minister says that these are minor amendments—amendments of amendments—and I understand that. On 5 March, however, which is not that long ago, the European Statutory Instruments Committee noted that the explanatory memorandum says that the instrument
“will, as far as possible, provide that retained EU law has the same effect as current legislation, ensuring that consumers and businesses are able, after exit day, to provide and make use of the same information, presented in the same way as before”.
I am not sure whether that is legal, political or something about interpretation, but it does not give me the greatest confidence that what we are doing will be completely right. It may be that some of it is not right and that we will be back here again next week amending the amendments.
In many respects, the regulations are fairly technical. I will not argue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley, who may have different views on GM. In fact, as we are not changing the policy—at least, I do not think we are—we cannot have that argument, as the Chair would tell us.
The Chair
Dr Drew
Such an argument would be unseemly, particularly within the Labour Benches, and this would not be the appropriate place.
I have several things to say to the Minister, because some points need to be brought out, including on minor amendments. Although he has said time after time—we have been here before—that there is no change in policy, the implication of the instrument is that there could be, and to some extent it opens the door to what the future policy changes could be. It is interesting that we are doing this now. As he said, we would not necessarily disagree with the direction of change, but the rate at which change is happening is significant.
I ask the Minister again what the implied costs are of the instrument. It is always said that there is no cost, which is why we do not have a regulatory impact assessment, but according to the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which scrutinised the instrument and moved it from negative to affirmative on 5 March,
“a significant new duty is being conferred on the Secretary of State.”
We cannot all be right. Either significant new duties—not powers—are being imposed on the Secretary of State, or they are not. I would welcome it if the Minister said something about that.
Again, the problem is that there has been little engagement with other organisations. By chance, I had a meeting with the RSPB this morning. I said, “We’re not getting much from you about SIs. We rely on you being the eyes and ears because you are dealing with how this will be implemented in practical terms”. The answer was, “We just can’t keep up with them. We have no capacity.” That was the RSPB, which has 2 million members. It has a fair number of staff and they cannot keep up. The NFU cannot keep up. It says something when the Opposition have to struggle through the policy issues and the organisations working on them with lots of specialists cannot keep up with the rate of change.
There have been some comments from the Nature Friendly Farming Network, which makes a point about the complexity of layers of policy changes, and the different way of looking at things. We are extracting things from EU legislation and bringing them into UK law. This may be a consolidation, but the Nature Friendly Farming Network implies that the changes afoot need to be scrutinised in much greater detail. Its biggest concern is the lack of requirement for independent scientific evidence and input in respect of the replacement of the European Food Safety Authority by competent authorities. I assume “competent authority” means our own Food Standards Agency, but does it have the capability, capacity and interest to be able to take on some of these great changes?
I may disagree with some aspects of GM, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley is right that those who believe that the agricultural industry has to change are looking at the science and technology—not necessarily genetic modification, but other ways of looking at how plant breeding takes place.
We have discussed pesticide regimes in a separate SI; those are very important in the regulation of GM. The Nature Friendly Farming Network argued that there should have been much more consultation with farmers and scientists on what is happening and how.
The major concern of the NFU is with no deal and its implications for British farming. It worries that some of the changes have been made in such a hurried way that the impact of a no-deal exit will create uncertainty; I know the Minister will lecture us on why we could have a deal, but we have to look at the uncertainties. The reason why they matter is that this legislation could be enforced sooner rather than later. If it is not right, somebody somewhere is going to pay for the consequences. It is very important that we continue to ask these questions; I have not asked many today, because this legislation is more straightforward and we are revising the revisions.
However, the regulations are important. I am not impugning the civil service, which will understand them, but others who are involved in the issues have to understand them as well. It is vital that we get this right. I am worried about how this issue has come back. Are we getting it right, and what do we do if we get it wrong?
David Rutley
I will reiterate what I said, because these are important matters: the UK Government have not announced how EU GIs will be treated if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement in place. I also said that we look forward to further negotiations on the UK’s future economic partnership with the EU. All these things will be considered in that round.
Dr Drew
I apologise, but I meant to mention that the annexe of geographical indicators is where most, if not all, of our specialist branded goods appear. What will happen to those? Will we have our own annexe to some future piece of legislation? Will we still be able to go to the EU and ask it to put various UK products on its list? I do not know if the Minister has a ready answer to that, but that issue was picked up by the Committee.
David Rutley
We will create our own UK GI scheme, which will protect UK GIs within the UK. We will publish guidance on the day that we leave. I talked about how we will recognise EU GIs in answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. All those things will need to be negotiated and reviewed as we go further forward. However, I assure Committee members that we are working closely with key stakeholders, not least the SWA, as we take this work further forward. I promised the hon. Lady that I will meet her to discuss this in more detail. We will fix that up shortly. I know that this is a key interest for her, both in her role as a spokesperson and as a constituency Member of Parliament.
Once again, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. This SI sets out operability changes that are technical in nature, important as they are. As a result of what has been said, I once again commend this SI to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines AND RESIDUES (amendment ETC.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to see the Minister in his place. We see an awful lot of each other at the moment, and will no doubt see each other again.
I start with our usual caveat: this is an incredibly complicated bit of legislation and, to be honest with the Committee, I have not completely got my head around it yet. It is very complex, bringing together a number of different issues that, in a normal state of affairs, we would look at separately and scrutinise in some detail. To make sure that we are all on the same page, GI refers not to an American serviceperson, but to geographical indication. That is quite important, because we will not have Cheddar cheese or various ciders if we do not get this right. We have to do our bit as an Opposition, despite the problems posed by the number and complexity of these SIs.
For this SI, I will start with something slightly different, and ask some quite complicated questions that I hope the civil service will be able to answer for the Minister or in tandem with him. If not, I hope that the civil servants will be able to write to me in due course through the Minister. Some quite separate issues have been conflated in this SI, so I am doing the best I can. I will start with some fairly complex, but nevertheless important, issues.
Paragraph 6.4 of the explanatory memorandum states that the maximum residue limits
“are set to protect consumers from residues of medicines in produce. These limits are used to establish withdrawal periods (the period that must elapse after the last administration of the medicine before produce from that animal may enter the food chain).”
My question is quite simple: how long are the withdrawal periods, and will those periods be the same length regardless of what happens next week?
Paragraph 6.5 states:
“This instrument provides for the conversion of veterinary medicines issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to UK approvals in order for these products to remain on the UK Market.”
My question is whether UK approvals will be recognised in the EU market, or whether we will have to go through a different process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has already picked up on the issue of costs. As NOAH has intimated, there is certainly some concern about the fee structures, because we are changing the mechanism by which these medicines are being regulated. If there are additional costs, are the Government aiming to defray those in any way? Again, we received no regulatory impact assessment, which is always very sad, because those assessments are supposed to provide that kind of information. We therefore have to rely on the Government to give us some indication of what those additional costs may be; there is certainly no such indication in the explanatory memorandum.
Paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“All GI applications will go through a single UK scrutiny and opposition process, rather than the two-stage process for applications”
that currently exists under the EU scheme. Will the Minister say something about whether that is sufficient? Could it limit scrutiny for geographical indications? Again, it is a matter of not just what is allowed, but what is not allowed. We all know the arguments about who claims Cheddar cheese and so on. These things can get terribly complicated if we are not careful. Producers get very hurt when their particular product is undermined by something that claims to be something that it clearly is not, yet people are able to sell it.
Sandy Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that where such controversies arise around geographical indications, we currently have recourse to debate, consultation and reconciliation processes in the EU, but we will no longer have recourse to them once we have left?
Dr Drew
Of course. At the moment, I am not quite sure what is in place and what is not. That brings me to my next point, about the appeals provisions for those who have made an application. The provisions say that those who have a legitimate interest can appeal to a first-tier tribunal. Is that tribunal set up, and who will be part of it?
Then we come to the logos. Logos matter here because they are the only way the general public can tell exactly what they are buying. Currently, the Government intend to introduce a new UK process, whereby geographical indications for a product will be clearly labelled in this country, but what ability does this country have to then negotiate with the EU over the acceptability of those logos in what will be a different marketplace?
I could go on at great length, but I am trying to get to the kernel of what the Government are trying to do with this legislation, albeit that it is largely a cut and paste from existing EU regulations. Paragraph 10.3 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“Respondents were happy with the proposed three year adoption period until logo use becomes mandatory on food and agricultural products.”
Why was a period of three years chosen, and will that period begin on 29 March or some date thereafter?
Finally in terms of my detailed questions, paragraph 12.2 states that changes to packaging requirements are the only ones
“introduced by this instrument that present significant cost implications”.
That brings us back to the issue of cost. Clearly, if we are changing logos and the way in which those logos are regulated, an additional cost is implied, at least in terms of the logo and the packaging. Why is there no mention of that in the legislation?
As the Minister rightly said, my friends at the National Office of Animal Health will be the ones mainly concerned with this legislation, because they are the representative body for veterinary medicines. I have to say that they are largely happy with it and with the way it is being carried through. The Minister was right that they had some questions about how it is going to work in practice. I certainly looked at the time periods, which is where NOAH is most quizzical regarding the changes in our relationship with not only the EU but third countries. Clearly, products will come to this country that will then be sold on to the EU. It would be interesting to know what discussions the Government have had, within and without this country, to ensure that this process is as seamless as possible.
This is one of those complicated SIs. Trying to struggle through it is very difficult. In terms of what it does, it is very important to so much of our agricultural produce, because that produce will be branded—it will have its own logo and its own statement of what it really stands for. We have to hope that the disruption is as limited as possible, but it is something we will have to watch.
It would be interesting to know what scrutiny the Government intend to carry out when and if there are complaints, and how they will handle those complaints. How can we be sure that food products, and particularly veterinary medicines—which are the bit that is most about safety—are being properly regulated? If there is a new system, such as a tribunal to which appeals will go, we will need to know that it is transparent and up and running. Those involved in making food products and veterinary medicines need to be sure that they will be able to sell them as far afield as they have in the past. That is something that has to carry on, rather than being threatened by huge disruption.
David Rutley
I thank Committee members for their contributions. I will seek to answer as many questions as I can, so they should bear with me. I seem to be spending more time with the hon. Member for Stroud than my wife at the moment, along with the other three musketeers on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that I am spending more time with SNP Members as well. These are important times, however, and we need to get through these SIs because of the momentous changes happening around us—or the potential for them to happen.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked an important question about withdrawal time periods, which are individual to products and the active substances within them. Existing withdrawal periods will not be affected by EU exit. To give some examples, the withdrawal period is seven days for eggs, 28 days for meat and seven days for milk. Hopefully that gives him some assurance.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about MRL fees. The important point to recognise is that the VMD works on a cost recovery basis, so it is looking to do all it can to ensure that it reduces the costs associated with MRL fees in future. I highlighted the cost of those fees, as does the SI, and I assure him that they will be significantly lower once the cost base has been established. That will be done administratively to start with, and put into legislation in due course. They will be much lower, which will of course be welcomed by the pharmaceutical businesses and producers involved.
Another important point I made earlier was that the instrument will ensure that the conversion of the medicines approved by the EMA—there are only 389 of them—to the UK approvals process will take place and that there will be no charge for the conversion. We are taking every possible step to ensure that the transfer of powers takes place and that the costs are lowered, to be more in line with the costs associated with them. In relation to conversions, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the products would be recognised in the EU market. EMA products are already approved in the EU; all other products are authorised on a national basis in the individual member state. As now, companies will need to apply to market products in the EU.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about geographic indications and whether single-step scrutiny was sufficient. I assure him and other hon. Members that the reduction to a single step will not reduce the rigour of the process. The EU process has two phases because it needs to allow for a national and an EU-level step—that is the way it has been set up. In future, we can do the same job in a single phase, but no less diligently. In fact, having a single-step process will reduce the burden on applicants, which can be considerable. I hope that addresses some of his points.
The first-tier tribunal is administered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and was set up to handle appeals against administrative decisions made by Government regulatory bodies, among other things. Appeals on GIs are therefore part of its core business and experts can be appointed by the court. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Dr Drew
I accept what the Minister has said, but this is very different work for the courts and tribunals system—very specialised. Will it be looking to appoint people who have particular knowledge of food and the food chain? Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult to arbitrate on some of these issues.
David Rutley
I will get back formally to the hon. Gentleman on that point, but my understanding is that the court can appoint experts to help with particular issues. It is important to recognise that this SI also introduces additional appeals provisions as a result of the UK assuming the responsibility and functions previously belonging to the EU. In short, a person who thinks that the Secretary of State has got a decision or application wrong can go to this first tier tribunal to appeal against that decision. The appeal processes will cover all four regimes: agri-foods, wines, spirits and aromatised wines. The appeal provisions ensure that we comply with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman on his specific point.
A number of points were made about geographical indications. The hon. Gentleman asked when the three-year period would start. It will start from the day of exit. The whole point of having a three-year period is to enable time for the producers to adjust themselves and their packaging to the new situations. Protection of UK GIs in the EU will continue automatically after exit. They have been through the EU scrutiny process and they have earned the right to their place on the EU’s registers. To remove UK GIs from its registers, the EU would have to change its rules. If the UK GIs are removed from the EU registers, the Government will support UK GI holders in reapplying for EU GI recognition.
The key point here, certainly from the Government’s perspective, is that we should not lose sight of how important securing a deal is, for some of the very reasons we are talking about here, but we have processes in place should we find ourselves in a no-deal scenario.
DRAFT ZOONOTIC DISEASE ERADICATION AND CONTROL (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am always pleased to serve on the occasional statutory instrument with the Minister; this is only the second today. It is nice that we have moved into our front room from the more austere surroundings further up the corridor. We just need a sofa in the corner and then we can lie down to be ready for the next SI, as they come with great regularity.
I make the usual caveat. The SIs are coming through at a rate of knots. The Opposition have to do the best we can, given the seriousness of the issues being addressed. The way in which we are trying to scrutinise this SI is not the best way to pursue a proper legislative overview of what is happening to our wonderful nation.
I am going to start with a quizzical point. We are scrutinising the Zoonotic Disease Eradication and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and I might be wrong, but the only things mentioned are salmonella, chickens and turkeys. Does the SI not apply to any other zoonotic species? It is not named correctly, in my opinion, because it should mention poultry. If we are to define and defend these things, it would help to get it right at the outset. I have searched through the regulations to try to find other animals, but there are none, so this piece of secondary legislation is very specific. The Minister might at the very least look at that because in previous debates we have mentioned African swine fever, blue tongue, avian influenza and bovine tuberculosis. They are all zoonotic diseases, but they are not mentioned in this particular SI, unless I am mistaken. I will not talk about them in any great detail because they will not be relevant to this debate, so I will stick to salmonella and poultry.
Although this is a clearly defined and limited debate, as far as I can make out, unlike our previous one—that was opaque and I am still trying to understand it—it is in a sense very simple because we are moving regulations across from the EU into the UK for the benefit of food safety. Clearly, salmonella is an ever-present threat and a nasty disease. Those of us who have had salmonella—I think by mischance many of us have—do not wish it on anyone else. Salmonella is an ever-present danger—I do not know how many suffer from it, but it must be a considerable number as it is the most common form of food poisoning—so my first question is: what happens if there is no deal next week? Are we ready and able to put in place a regime whereby we check our poultry, we check the imports of poultry and check what happens if the consumer buys poultry and is not very well?
I am intrigued that for the first time we are talking about devolving responsibility. It is good to see the Scottish National party spokesperson in her place. Normally we talk about the centralisation of the process, but in this debate, we seem to be decentralising responsibility. How will that work when poultry moves backwards and forwards between the different nations of the United Kingdom? Who will take responsibility if there are outbreaks?
Although I am not going to talk about wider issues, those of us who lived through both bovine spongiform encephalopathy and foot and mouth know that the onus is on the country from which the disease supposedly comes to take responsibility quickly, otherwise exports are shut down. With both BSE and foot and mouth, we suffered for a considerable period and were unable to open up the export markets. How will the policy work between the different devolved Administrations? Have they the capacity to bear down on diseases or will we be left with a difficult situation in which everybody looks the other way when we have a major disease outbreak on our hands?
This instrument was originally going to be considered under the negative procedure, but it is now being considered under the affirmative procedure because the Joint Committee expressed concerns. We welcome that, but it is intriguing why the instrument was first designated as it was, because this is an important part of the jigsaw puzzle of how we see our food safety as being of paramount importance.
Paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum states that the Government wish to retain health protection standards relating to salmonella, which is a good statement —that is the very minimum—but how do we keep up with improvements, dare I say, in the rest of the world, but more particularly in the EU? We have driven up food standards across the whole Community, not just in this country, and we import considerable amounts of poultry, particularly from Denmark and the Netherlands, so it is important to know that their standards and ours have commonality.
Likewise, paragraph 7.3 states that, for the UK authorities to exercise functions transferred back from the EU, they need
“setting requirements for national control programmes, special control measures and reference laboratories”.
This has come up in previous debates on statutory instruments. Where are those laboratories? Do they exist? Are we using the existing facilities at Pirbright and Weybridge or wherever, or do we have other laboratories that we can bring into operation? It is important that we know that, because if there is an outbreak during the change from what we have now, someone has to know exactly where we will deal with the impact of such an outbreak.
My usual caveat is that I am an honorary associate member of the British Veterinary Association, but it is important that we put it on the record that the association is largely happy with this bit of secondary legislation. However, it stresses that trade and animal movements across the borders of the UK are hugely important and that any disease interruption would cost the UK dear. That is one thing that we have to recognise: we will be less able to access the various European organisations that are there to bear down on disease eradication and to try to prevent those diseases. As we will not be part of that, it would be interesting to know what the Government’s strategy is.
Although the Government have placed a duty on competent authorities to co-operate, it is difficult to co-operate from outside the club, so again, it would be interesting to know what discussions the Minister has had with other EU countries about what a post-Brexit scenario would look like in dealing with disease issues.
It is likely that we will get more of this when we talk about the livestock SI, which I believe is coming up on Monday, unless it has been reordered, which is always possible in this mad world that we live in. Those are the questions that I would like the Minister to answer; they are important. I have kept my remarks to salmonella and poultry, because they are what this SI is all about.
David Rutley
I thank members of the Committee for their contributions. As ever, I will endeavour to answer some questions, and will seek inspiration for others, before the end of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked why the draft regulations were originally laid before the sifting Committee as being subject to the negative procedure. At that time, we did not seek to transfer functions from the Commission. Those provisions were added in as events evolved, and the procedure was changed as a result. I am sure that he is grateful that the draft regulations have been granted the degree of scrutiny to which he is accustomed.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why the regulations did not relate to zoonotic regulations more widely. Regulation 216/2003 creates a framework through which any zoonotic disease can be regulated and, at present, the EU only uses the framework to regulate salmonella.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the particular pressures on reference laboratories and others on day one. Poultry is tested on the farm at present, and there is no reason to believe that there would be any additional pressures on day one on reference laboratories or enforcement bodies. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is confident there is sufficient capacity to operate as normal.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the testing laboratories. The current laboratories in England—there is one in Weybridge—and a similar laboratory in Northern Ireland will continue to operate as normal. He mentioned resources. As I said, APHA is confident that its expertise will continue to be able to enforce salmonella controls post EU exit.
There was also some concern from the hon. Gentleman, and from the hon. Member for Wrexham, about how the devolved Administrations would work together. We are exploring options to combine the expertise of advisory agencies and committees to build on existing capability and expertise and to provide advice from day one in a no-deal scenario. We are also exploring what modifications might be needed to existing decision-making machinery, with the aim of having joined-up evidence in a flexible decision-making process, in order to operate to deliver our biosecurity needs.
Salmonella testing is carried out by UK laboratories approved by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Food Standards Agency. That will not be affected by EU exit. As I said, our current reference laboratories in England and Northern Ireland will continue to operate as normal.
I want to reassure the Committee that, although there will be an operational change in the sense that the different control programmes will be administered by the devolved Administrations instead of a single UK entity, they will continue to have a joined-up approach. That was extensively highlighted by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow raised anti-microbial resistance, which is important. We talked about what is happening with poultry trends. I am trying to keep my remarks to the point, as the hon. Member for Stroud did, but there are concerns about AMR more generally. The partnership with the livestock protectors in every profession has already reduced the sales of veterinary antibiotics by 40%, down to the lowest level seen since records began in the 1990s. The Government are working with vets and farmers and are committed to further reducing the use of antibiotics in animals by 25% between 2016 and 2020.
Some concern was expressed about international trade. I am trying to read through the inspiration that I have received—
David Rutley
I was asked whether the US was on the third country list. It is. To get on the list, it will have had to demonstrate that it has an equivalent control programme.
I know the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is very assiduous on these Committees, and he has been very disciplined today, but I want to reassure him that this in no way seeks to water down our standards at all. In terms of chlorine-washed chicken, the existing food safety provisions from the EU will come across with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which will make sure that those protections are in place.
I hope that I have been able to answer the Committee’s questions, and I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Zoonotic Disease Eradication and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. As always, I thank the Minister for his remarks.
I will start with the usual caveat. At one level, this is one of those Committees where we are merely nodding through something that may, in due course, become just a series of technical changes. However, this SI includes live exports, the pre-stunning of animals, journey times and other things that—if my postbag is anything to go by—people care passionately about in their own right, so we are nodding through something very important.
The Minister will come back with the usual proviso that the Government are not making any changes to the legislation—I will come on later to people who wish that the Government had made some changes to the legislation, particularly given their commitments to issues such as the banning of live exports—but as the Opposition, we have to do our best to ensure that what is passed is fit for purpose and gives us confidence that the situation will not change for the worse.
We are considering some difficult issues; I will mainly refer to what different groups have said about the regulations. When the Minister responds, it would be helpful for him to put on the record at an early stage where the Government are on their policy of banning live exports. They campaigned on the issue, and many Conservative MPs strongly support it, as stated in the 2017 manifesto, but there has been a rolling-back of the belief that it can be easily done.
We have not really touched on the difficulty that the different territorial Administrations have different views about the issue. For example, the Scottish Government feel that it should not be interfered with, because live exports into England, Northern Ireland and the south of Ireland are important for Scotland. We have to make sure, however, that when we pass the measure, at least the people responsible for undertaking those activities know exactly what the law says, and that the law is being enforced.
We as a Parliament have made many statements about how we want to ensure that journey times are kept to a minimum, and that animals are properly fed and watered—that word “lairage” appears—so they are taken out when appropriate and allowed to stretch their legs. It is the case that we cannot then control what happens in the EU, but we certainly must control what happens in the UK, so it is important that we get the regulations right.
As the Minister rightly said—hon. Members will be pleased to know that I will not say much about it—the statutory instrument refers to the regime for slaughterers’ certificates of competence. It sounds straightforward, but I ask the Minister which body will oversee that in the UK, because it will obviously have to comment on the suitability of other nationalities to do the type of work that they will be doing, which will depend on their qualifications in their own countries. We are losing the commonality of the EU, which was one of its great advantages, and which meant that there was at least some standardisation of qualifications.
As an introductory point, it is also worth noting the issue of third-country health certificates. Unless I am wrong, the draft regulations will permit meat produced in EU member states and in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland to be accepted without a third-country health certificate. I would be interested to know whether such a certificate will be required of those countries with which we intend to sign trade deals, because there needs to be some consistency in what we put in place with countries that we deal with as members of the EU and those with which we would normally expect some form of import and export relationship. If and when such trade deals are passed in due course, depending on what happens on 29 March, will DEFRA have a say over the third-country health certificates?
I will not rehearse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South about cost, but it would be interesting to know to what extent DEFRA has factored in the additional environmental impact and who will pay for it. Those costs will include collecting data, monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations and reporting regularly. We will lose access to the TRACES—trade control and expert system—database, which presumably we had particular access to in regard to such activities, so it would be interesting to know how far DEFRA has got in finding an alternative, running it and ensuring that it actually works.
No doubt the Minister has considered input from stakeholders, as I have. I make my usual declaration that I am an associate of the British Veterinary Association, which is reasonably happy with the draft regulations, bar the issue of certificates of competence. It is important that it be clearly spelled out how those certificates will operate, because—as I have said on numerous occasions—95% of our vets on the line in abattoirs come from outside the UK, and most of them come from within the EU. Without a vet on the line, it has to shut down. It would be interesting to know how the system will operate, at least in the short run; if we do not get it right in the short run, it will not work in the longer run. It would be useful if the Minister explained exactly how the one thing links into the other.
Luke Pollard
I have been reflecting on the Minister’s remarks about the number of people affected. I wonder whether it would be helpful for the Committee to be given the geographical breakdown of those figures, so that we know which regions of our country will be most affected by these changes and whether any of them are in the south-west, which my hon. Friend and I represent. That would help us to understand the impact on our regional economies as a result of the additional regulatory burdens for people continuing to do their job.
Dr Drew
That would certainly be very helpful. There are three abattoirs in my constituency; I could not say how many of them are personed by EU vets, but I know that that is common across the terrain, so I imagine that they are.
Compassion in World Farming sees the draft regulations as a missed opportunity. It would like the Government to go much further on tightening up pre-stunning, live exports, movements and other matters that we have discussed. It would be interesting to know by what process we will ensure that if and when we leave the EU, what we do in this country—hopefully we will at least maintain the same standards—will happen in the rest of the EU. One would not want to see any diminution of standards here, but if animals are being exported into the EU, clearly we need to ensure that standards there remain the same. It would be useful to hear from the Minister how we will continue negotiating with our colleagues—or, after March, our former colleagues—to ensure that standards do not decline anywhere. We pride ourselves on our approach to animal welfare; that is one of our arguments for not signing free trade deals with certain parts of the world.
CIWF has also looked quite hard at some of the slaughtering methods. It is not happy with the current methodology for pigs, sheep or broiler chickens, which it felt should have been tightened up. It is not necessarily about just the method of slaughter, but the mechanism behind it. I have the figures here. A recent survey by the Food Standards Agency reports that in England and Wales 86% of pigs are slaughtered with high concentrations of carbon dioxide. CIWF argues that that is incredibly environmentally damaging, and something that should gradually be run down and replaced. It will be interesting to see whether the Government have that as part of their agenda. Likewise, the non-stunning of sheep is a problem that we have never really got into, because of the normal arguments about halal and shechita methods of slaughter—sheep tend to have been left out of that.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is disappointed that this SI does not go further, certainly in terms of managing live exports. It has asked, what happens in terms of additional border inspections posts? I have asked the Minister that on previous occasions. We have to be aware that at the very least, as an independent nation, we will have to have more independent border inspection posts. It will be interesting to see what contingencies the Government put in place to ensure that that is the case. If the exports go through even the existing ports, such as Dover, we will need to do more checking.
The Dogs Trust—interestingly—said that it did not have time to respond, because the consultation period was so short, but it is a pretty important organisation. It is worried about the transport of adult dogs. I had not realised how many dogs get picked up, literally because the method of transport is so poor that they are seized as part of that transit. The Dogs Trust regularly rehouses adult dogs and puppies that are taken in that way. It felt that this was an opportunity to look at the way in which we transport these animals, and to raise awareness about the diseases that animals can acquire. I am told that leishmaniasis and babesiosis are both rife among puppies—something which the Dogs Trust has to deal with when rehoming those animals. What mechanisms are the Government putting in place to try to bear down on disease, when things are clearly not right at the moment?
I think this is a missed opportunity. Although SIs are coming round with such regularity that none of us knows what we are doing, but we do the best we can, there are some reasons why we should set a standard—not necessarily a gold standard—at which we can feel confident that our animal welfare is the best in the world. If we are saying that we will not diminish that, we have to be confident that it is the best in the world, so when and if we sign these wonderful trade deals, we have to set that as the standard. If other countries cannot meet those standards, we cannot sign the deals.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if we reduce our standards in any way, we will potentially cut off trade with the entire European Union? Furthermore, does he agree that any delays at the border, as we have seen this week, could be hugely detrimental to animal welfare and could actually increase the incidence of disease outbreaks?
Dr Drew
I agree, and that is why I am saying that we have to ensure that our standards not only stay high, but get higher. Therefore, we will find, hopefully, that countries that we trade with will want to reach those standards.
In conclusion, this is another piece of legislation that, at one level, is nothing other than the usual cut-and-paste job. However, it covers a number of hugely controversial areas, and if we do not get this right, we will have missed an opportunity. More particularly, if we get it wrong, we will all come to rue the day when we sat in this very interesting room—not one that I have been in before, but one that is no doubt fit for purpose, as we have seen today.
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Member for Stroud for—as always—his thoughtful contributions on a number of issues, and I will do all I can to address his points. There may be one or two issues on which I will need to get back to him in writing after this meeting; I hope he will understand, given everything we are trying to deal with today.
David Rutley
Again, I will pick that up afterwards, but I understand.
The hon. Gentleman’s first question, which has come up several times, is why we are not doing more within this SI. It is important for me to say at the beginning that under the withdrawal Act, we do not have the power to make changes to the current legal regime for live exports, welfare at slaughter, journey times, and the other things we have talked about. This SI is not the place to make those changes. However, the hon. Gentleman regularly holds my feet—and those of other Ministers—to the fire on those topics, and he is aware that we have made commitments to bring about changes and are absolutely committed to moving those things forward.
The Government’s manifesto made it clear that we will take early steps to control the export of live animals for slaughter once we leave the European Union. Last year, we sought evidence on how we could achieve that, including through a possible ban. We are currently awaiting advice on that issue from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, as well as its advice on how we can improve welfare more generally for animals in transport. That advice will be available shortly, and will address both live exports and the transport issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of which body will authorise the slaughter certificates: the Food Standards Agency will continue to do so post exit. He also understandably raised issues about slaughter, particularly religious slaughter. He and I were both at the BVA’s annual dinner recently—at which he was a welcome guest, given his contribution to that organisation—and he will remember that at that dinner, I was clear that the Government’s long-standing position is that we would prefer to see animals stunned before they are slaughtered. We accept the right of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat slaughtered in accordance with their religious beliefs; however, the Government believe that consumers should have available the information necessary to make an informed choice about their food. We will consider that issue more fully, and actively work on it, once we have left the EU.
David Rutley
Clearly, we will need to assess the whole issue of food labelling more fully once we leave. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are already working on allergens, which are an important dimension. While we are in the EU, we are limited in what we can do, but when we have left, we can look at this issue in the round. This is not just about religious slaughter, although that is one key dimension, or the method of slaughter, which could include CO2 concentrations; we need to think more broadly about sustainability and the welfare standards that are involved. All of those things will be reviewed fully once we have left the EU. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of CO2 concentrations as a method of slaughtering pigs. We are aware of that issue; we will focus on it, and trials are underway on potential alternatives, such as low atmospheric pressure stunning.
I will try to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s more detailed questions. He asked about the geographic split of slaughterers who might be affected, prompted, I think, by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—they were an amazing double act today. Unfortunately, at the moment, we do not have a breakdown of that concentration, but I will take a closer look at what information we might be able to provide to the hon. Member for Stroud.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to be taking part in this debate at this fairly late hour. We could have done this in a Committee Room upstairs at 6 o’clock, so it is good to know that the timetabling really is working well. At least we have a packed Gallery wanting to listen to our every word. We would not have had that if we had been doing this upstairs at 6 o’clock, because our Second Delegated Legislation Committee earlier was also packed—with no members of the public. There is something about what we are saying or doing that is not quite hitting the public’s imagination. However, these draft regulations relate to an important issue for the organic industry. The topic of the earlier Committee—the movement of animals—was also important, for reasons that I set out then, and I do not intend to repeat them.
The Lords debated the two statutory instruments that we are considering now on 13 March, so there has been some scrutiny. However, our caveat, as always, is that the process has been terribly rushed, and none of us knows quite what the repercussions will be. Although the civil servants are doing a wonderful job of cutting and pasting 43 years’-worth of European regulations, no one knows how well that is being done. We will not see the impact for some time, but there will be an impact.
We do not have any particular problem with taking the two statutory instruments together, but the issue at the heart of all this, as has been picked up by the National Farmers Union and the Soil Association, is to what extent we can guarantee that the quality of our organic industry will not be undermined by cheaper imports. That is a real threat, because the proposed trade deals are with countries that have different organic standards. The US, for example, does things very differently from us when it comes to the treatment of organic produce, both in growing it and in trying to keep it as fresh as possible for as long as possible.
It took some time to work all this regulation through with our EU neighbours. There was no quick fix, and our approach to organic standards is different from that of some other EU countries. It is good to see the former Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), in his place, because he signed off one of these statutory instruments, so I am glad that he has come to check that we are doing a good job. He may have something to say about what he did in signing it off. The draft regulations are about ensuring that we not only do not dilute our standards, but keep our export markets in place. The last thing we want is to shut down our potential future exports when we have been successful. Even though we are still a major importer of organic produce, we have a good reputation based on what we sell abroad.
I have some questions for the Minister; it would be a surprise if I did not. The first is about what would happen if we crashed out of the EU on 29 March. What guarantees that existing regulations and, dare I say, the certification bodies are able to handle a purely UK-based measure of good organic quality? We already have different measures, as there are six mainland bodies and two from Northern Ireland, about which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will no doubt say something later. We need to be absolutely clear that those bodies can undertake proper scrutiny of what is good-quality food, because if our standards slip, we will lose our export markets.
Although the Soil Association is by far the largest certification body, it is not the only one, so if things go wrong next week, what is in place to ensure that this industry, which is a microcosm of British agriculture, but a very important part of it, can cope with whatever is coming its way? Those are the concerns that have been expressed to me and, no doubt, the Minister. If we go through this transition period, as we hope, we will have 21 months available. What measures will be put in place to ensure that we do not in any way undermine the quality of produce in this country during that period? Labelling is so important. In this area of agriculture, we need to know that what is on the label is actually being delivered. We have to get that right, but we also have to be clear that anyone in the EU from whom we import materials during those 21 months is keeping to their side of the bargain.
This is really about how important the Government see this industry as being. It is still a nascent industry in which we want more farmers involved; 6,000 producers are defined as organic, and we want that number to increase, because this is a successful niche market. We would hope that the Government had good strategies to ensure that growth continues.
As usual, I have my ask about access to the TRACES—trade control and expert system—database. Presumably, that has been pretty important in enabling us to know that things that are defined as organic across the EU can be defined in that way, and so can be put on a database in which there is some commonality. What progress is being made on that? I asked the Minister earlier about the animal issues that we were looking at during debate on the agricultural statutory instrument. It would be interesting to know what progress the Government were making on the alternative to the TRACES database, or whether they are able to pay money to keep their place on the database. I am not totally sure about that. In the interim, will we be stuck with some manual processing of the certification measures?
It would have been helpful if we had got the Agriculture Bill through, because what we are dealing with here might have been part and parcel of that. Sadly, we hear nothing of the Agricultural Bill or, sadly for my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the Fisheries Bill. We rushed through those before Christmas, so that we could have a comprehensive approach to fishing and agriculture, but sadly those Bills seem to have disappeared into the ether. I hope that we will not be faced with their having to be reintroduced in a new Session, as some of us worked hard on them. It would be hard for some of us to have to go through them all again, given that even though we disagreed on elements of those Bills, we did make some progress. We were hoping that on Third Reading, and particularly on Report, we would be able to make further progress and improvements to that legislation.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government have got the message that we have tried to play our part in scrutiny, and in looking seriously at these important bits of legislation, albeit at nearly half-past 10 at night. We have a number of other SIs before us this week— I believe I have seven, which for me is a record—so we will be meeting on a regular basis. It is important that we undertake this scrutiny to the best of our ability, and we can do that only if the Government are absolutely clear on why they are bringing legislation forward, and on how they will at least maintain standards and, if at all possible, improve them.
Draft Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. It is a pity that you have to be here rather than in Cheltenham, but we all have to make our sacrifices. It might be a bit wild and windy there anyway.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Macclesfield. I thought we might get the new farming Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill); I have not yet had the opportunity for any exchanges with him, but I am sure that that will save for another day. I have just a few points to make—the Minister will be relieved to hear that the Opposition will not vote against the draft regulations.
I know that we are bundling up statutory instruments. Because of the time constraints we are under, that is something that we have to face, for good or bad, but we are now bundling up SIs within an SI. With the best will in the world, I do not understand what natural mineral water, spirit drinks, food labelling, aromatised wine, GMOs and animal health have got to do with each other. It is quite interesting how the civil service has come up with these portmanteau SIs, where we try to look at a range of different issues, which may not in themselves appear to be very important but are in totality.
I will dwell for a minute on animal health, looking at the explanatory memorandum. The bits on animal health are largely about the transference or transmission of equidae—I hope everyone knows what they are—and their semen, ova and embryos. As for animal health, at the end of the memorandum it says that no consultation was undertaken
“given that no change to policy is being made”.
My ears pricked up when the Minister said there were three weeks of consultation overall. That is not a great deal of time for some of the changes that are implied here. Does that matter? Those of us who were around at the time of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak will remember that we had to ban the export of semen because that was one of the products that was caught up in the beef on the bone ban. It matters when it matters. That did matter because it cost us billions of pounds in lost exports.
We have to be very wary about what we put through here today. We put down our usual caveat that we are doing this at an enormous rush. No one really knows the implications of what we are doing because none of us—certainly in the Opposition—has had the opportunity to delve in depth into some of the changes. I know the Government say that there are no changes, that this is a cut and paste job, but we have to rely on the cut and paste being right and work on the presumption that, as time moves on, we are going to vary from the EU, enhance the process or, dare I say, do less. That is a concern.
I have a number of questions to put to the Minister. The one we usually start with is that there is no costing in the SI, so we do not know the implications or the impact, not just on Government, which must oversee this, but on the industry. With regard to changes to labelling, we are going to be faced by variability in the labelling regime. I am interested to know how the Government intend to approach that with regard to information for consumers. We know that labels differ at the moment but there is some commonality through our membership of the EU. If we leave on 29 March, that will have to change.
We could spend the whole hour and a half on GMOs, although colleagues will be pleased to hear that I will not. This is a very controversial area. My starting point is that we have four constituent parts of the UK. It is a pity there is no Scottish representative here but I think Scotland has gone as far as a GM ban for the nation. Will that happen again in future or will we have to accept that the UK Government are now sovereign on that matter?
That will make a difference because the French in particular will never allow any genetically modified product into their country. We are more lax—we have allowed animal feed to come in, particularly from north America. That does not mean we can feel satisfied that that will be accepted, because the French will ban our exports or re-exports if we are not careful.
The regulations will almost certainly demand additional bureaucratic observance, scrutiny and investigation. It would be interesting to know what additional work the Government have done on the GM issue. That matters, because any attempt to sign a free trade deal with the United States will bring it to the fore in the public’s perception. Those of us who were around at the time know that, whatever one’s views on the science, the public had a very clear view on GM. They did not want it and they made that very clear through their representatives. Our policy, which we have kept to, is that we do not grow GM crops in this country.
It would be interesting to know what environmental impacts the Government think these changes will have. The Minister rightly said that nothing will change at the moment, but it would be interesting to know what “at the moment” means, because clearly there can be changes in the future. That will be very important, in terms of reporting procedures and our capacity to assess.
Several issues were raised by the bodies that are most concerned about this statutory instrument. I declare my usual interest: I am one of the British Veterinary Association’s advocates. It is a non-paying role, but I welcome that relationship. The BVA is looking at the wider issues relating to the e-petition on pre-slaughter stunning that is doing the rounds at the moment. That is a very controversial issue. The BVA asked me, “How does this relate to some of the changes we are making?” Not very much, it could be argued, but we will have a new regime. That is important, because one of the things that we are looking at today is clarity of labelling. Whether there was stunning will have to be spelled out very clearly. Is that something that the British Government are ready for? Will they condone it and encourage it in what will be brought forward? How does that relate to our export markets, which depend on commonalities between regimes? It may be that we are very different.
The BVA’s final point is that the UK Government should legislate to ensure that imported goods have the same clarity of labelling as home-produced goods. What resources are the British Government putting in place to ensure that is the case? That relates to the matter of border inspection posts. It is not clear from the SI or the explanatory memorandum what additional checks the Government intend to put in place to ensure that what they are told is coming into the country is actually what comes into the country. For animal products, that is the biggest threat we face. Anyone who has been to New Zealand will know that they basically strip-search people to make sure they do not bring in anything that could have any kind of pathogenic impact, because they know that that could wipe out their livestock industry. They are incredibly careful about who comes in and what they bring, and if people do things they should not do, they deal with them pretty savagely. What additional resources are the Government putting into border inspection posts to ensure those things do not happen? At the very least, we must do everything we can to prevent them from happening.
The biggest problem of the lot, of course, is the Northern Ireland border—not just the backstop, but the mechanism by which we ensure the movement of food back and forth. I have used the example of Baileys many times before, for which milk goes back and forth seven times. At least some additional checking will be involved.
Finally, let me look a bit more intensively at the GM issue. It would be helpful if the Government stated today that they will not alter their policy on GM. Regardless of the position after 29 March, it would be helpful if we had a clear statement that we do not grow GMOs in this country and that we do not import GMOs, other than because they happen to be in animal feed—for all sorts of reasons, there is not a lot we can do about that.
I have touched already on the fact that the drafting of the SI could allow for considerable differences between the four nations of the UK. The Minister said he had consulted the other Administrations, bar Northern Ireland, with which interaction is at official level. It would be interesting to know whether there is any divergence on GMO policy. As I said, from memory, Scotland had a very clearly negative position on GM. Is that the message that came back from the Minister’s discussions?
Let me make a final couple of points on standards and regulations. Somebody has to ensure not only that we have a clear statement of official controls between us and any single market we may work through, but that we are very clear about the relationship between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It would be interesting to know what additional regime will have to be put in place to ensure that border inspection posts take cognisance of what is happening in the different parts of the United Kingdom. That will be crucial, because the last thing we want is a disease outbreak shortly after 29 March. If that happened, the finger would be pointed very clearly at its being Brexit related. It may be completely unrelated, but that accusation would be made.
I accept that the Minister may have to write to me about one or two of those points, but this is a quite important piece of secondary legislation. It is a hotch-potch of different things, and some parts of it will have an ongoing impact. I hope the Minister realises that, although we will not vote against the instrument, issues such as the environmental liability directive, which I have mentioned before, will come back in one form or another. We need to look not just at individual SIs but at the totality of the way we protect the country from disease outbreaks. Obviously, if we get that wrong, we will not just be the poorer but face repercussions in the wider world, because other countries will take action against us, as they did over BSE.
Draft Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. There are two sets of regulations for members of the Committee to consider. These statutory instruments are made under the enabling power in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to amend provisions related to imports, and transit through the EU, of live animals including horses; animal products including meat; genetic material used for animal breeding, such as semen, ova and embryos; and to the non-commercial movement of pet animals.
I emphasise that the instruments make purely technical changes to animal trade legislation to ensure that it continues to operate effectively when we leave the European Union. They do not introduce new policy, and they preserve the current regime for protecting the UK’s biosecurity. The instruments are closely linked and so have been grouped together, with your permission, Mr Sharma, to facilitate a single overarching discussion on animal trade.
The first instrument makes technical amendments to directly applicable EU regulations and decisions. As hon. Members will see, this instrument is substantial.
David Rutley
I am delighted to hear that. The instrument includes amendments to nearly 50 pieces of EU legislation. Members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not go through every regulation—[Hon. Members: “Go on.”] I will, but not today. Now, I will outline the most important aspects of the legislation.
The instrument makes technical amendments to ensure the continued operability of 14 EU instruments concerning imports of live animals or reproductive products; 17 concerning imports of animal products intended for human consumption; six that lay down protective measures against the introduction of particular diseases; two that cover the EU pet travel scheme; and seven that relate more generally to the import regime for animals and animal products. This instrument also contains minor technical amendments to references to fees in two domestic instruments.
The amendments ensure the continuation of veterinary controls and other import conditions that safeguard animal and public health. They allow for authorisation of businesses to continue and for the maintenance of health certification and transport requirements, and allow appropriate actions to be taken in cases of reported non-compliance or disease outbreaks in other countries. Furthermore, they provide for the continuation of the existing health and documentary requirements for the non-commercial movement of pets into the UK under the EU pet travel scheme.
In addition, the amendments transfer certain powers and functions from the European Commission to our respective UK Ministers. The amendments give Ministers the power to take appropriate action in relation to trade restrictions resulting from disease outbreak. Regulation 3 of and schedule 1 to the instrument provide the power for the appropriate UK Minister and Northern Ireland Department to draw up lists of third countries approved as having equivalent official disease controls for continuing trade with the UK in live animals and animal products.
The Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make technical amendments to EU-derived domestic legislation. Importantly, this instrument amends our main English animal trade instrument—the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011. That is key legislation for the import of these commodities into England. It establishes a system for trade in live animals and genetic material with other EU member states, and for imports of animals and animal products from outside the European Union.
The measure also amends two related instruments that regulate the non-commercial movement of pet animals into Great Britain: the Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2013, and the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974. The instrument will allow these laws to continue to work after EU exit, for instance, by removing redundant references to EU bodies, functions or legislation, and replacing them with domestic equivalents. It will also amend phrases that would no longer be correct, such as changing “legislation of the European Union” to “retained EU law”.
Taken together, the two instruments that we are considering ensure the continuation of appropriate certification, sufficient pre-notification of imports, checks of certain consignments, and isolation and vaccination facilities. That safeguards our current strong biosecurity standards for imports of animals and related products, and provides for the continuation of the existing legal framework around the movement of those trade commodities and pet animals.
These instruments have different territorial extent and application, and the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in their development. The first instrument applies to the whole of the UK; in the second instrument, part 2 applies to Great Britain and part 3 applies to England only. The devolved Administrations are tabling their own versions of the amendments in the second instrument, which relate to their own “mirror” legislation and are being laid as separate affirmative instruments.
As stated, these instruments make technical amendments to maintain the existing standards, and no impact is anticipated. As they do no more than is necessary to enable domestic legislation to be operable immediately after EU exit, there is no statutory requirement for public consultation. Formal consultation and impact assessments have not been performed, as these amendments will not introduce additional requirements or costs for stakeholders.
Dr Drew
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Sharma. I am also happy that this Committee Room is more suited to the number of Members here than Committee Room 14, where we met the other day. We will be in the Chamber tomorrow. This is one of three days when I will be taking part in the great scrutiny of statutory instruments.
I will put my usual caveat in place: this is not the way to pass legislation—we are doing things in a great hurry. As the Minister himself says, we are expected to scrutinise the legislation. We could go through it page by page; I am sure that the civil servants have done a wonderful job of cutting and pasting the European regulations, but we will know exactly what we will end up with only after we leave in March, or whenever. It is important that the Opposition do their best to find out what the Government are doing, why they are doing it and whether they are doing it in the right way. That, however, is problematic, given the background: we are trying to keep on top of so many SIs that are coming our way.
I will begin with a couple of general points before I ask a number of questions of the Minister, including about the point made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for The Cotswolds. I have argued that for each of the SIs there should have been regulatory impact assessments, because these do have an impact on business and communities, but we have had none—so we do not know what the cost implications are. If the Minister does not answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will try to.
We need to keep our finger on the pulse. There will be implications: we are not just taking across a series of regulations in the form of an SI, but we have to make changes and employ people to undertake them. That will cost something. Someone is going to pay; if it is not the Government, it will have to be the people on whom those changes are imposed.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour in the south-west for giving way. Does he agree that we need to understand the implications for our constituents? Many of us receive correspondence asking whether the regulations will prevent the import of lesser-quality animal products from countries such as the United States as part of a trade deal and whether constituents have to do anything to make sure that their pet passports continue to apply so they do not get stuck at the border. The regulations do not give us clear answers about any of that.
Dr Drew
That is helpful. My hon. Friend puts his finger on something important. To some, this is a very dry subject—about semen, ova and embryos—but we are also discussing pet passports; some of us, in our previous incarnations, had a bit to do with getting those introduced. With the best will in the world, that issue will not necessarily be plain sailing if and when we leave the EU. Most people who take their pets abroad go somewhere in the EU and it will be problematic, to put it mildly, if they want to move there for work or study. They may find additional difficulties with the pet passport situation.
I want to make four general points. The regulations clearly have a lot to do with post-Brexit agreements and trade relations. We have to do what we can to make sure that there are no unnecessary barriers, otherwise trade will suffer, whatever one’s views on what trade there should be and with whom. As a backdrop, there is the key issue of animal welfare. It would be a tragedy if the high standards that we have introduced were threatened in any way, and it would be economic madness if we allowed things like rabies to come in because we did not have enough people to check as a result of having a different process for allowing animals with such diseases to come in. It is frightening to think what diseases might be coming our way, as I said in a previous statutory instrument Committee, so we have to be on our guard.
If we have different standards, it is not just the immediate impact that we need to consider. There will be a longer-term impact on our ability to work with other countries, because they will react against us if we have lower standards, which will have a huge impact on the agricultural sector. One of the questions I want to ask the Minister stems from the debate, which was quite testy, I think it is fair to say, with the Secretary of State about where we are today—this is from the National Farmers Union conference—with regard to the UK becoming a third country in relation to the EU. How are those negotiations going? It appears that they are stuck in transit, as I gather that the Secretary of State did not have the easiest time answering questions at the NFU. One of the key concerns was when we would be able to say that that relationship was properly embedded.
Finally—this point is not to be ignored—this has a huge impact on science, innovation and research, because many materials that come in are used by our research laboratories in tandem with our colleagues in the EU. Clearly, that may not necessarily continue, but we have to look at ways in which we can try to make that as seamless as possible. I suppose that that is an example of frictionless trade.
On the draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the pet passport is something of which we should be very proud. It took a long time to put it in place. It would be useful to know exactly how the Government intend to make sure that the measure passes into practical operation as seamlessly as possible. A lot depends on what relationship we have with the EU, but as page two of the explanatory memorandum identifies, various highly pathogenic avian influenza strains and Nipah disease in cats and dogs are ever present, and we need to understand how, when pets move around, the passport can be used to make sure that there is proper control and enforcement. It will be useful to know what the Government are doing in relation to that.
That came up in the Lords, which asked for the affirmative procedure. Originally, this was to be dealt with under the negative procedure, but the Lords thought that the issue was important and needed the affirmative procedure route. Following the intervention by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, I have touched on the need for a regulatory impact assessment—that theme always arises in relation to these SIs.
I have some questions for the Minister. He may not be able to answer them all, but he can write to me later. The NFU’s main concern is about shipments from other parts of the world—the example it gives is south American beef arriving in Rotterdam that is found to be not fit for human consumption—and what involvement the UK will have in such a decision. At the moment, that is a pan-European decision, but it cannot be for us if we are not in the EU. Do we put officers alongside those in Rotterdam or must we have our own checks this side of the border?
Food safety and harmonisation have a lot to do with who we sign free trade deals with. Some of us have grave concerns about signing one with the US, for the reasons we know about—chlorinated chicken, antibiotics and the rest of it—but it would be useful to know how many additional staff the Government intend to employ to guarantee that food safety will not be sacrificed. That links to the issue of antimicrobial resistance. Last week, I went to an interesting drop-in about the impact on human beings of AMR; I am sure that other Members went as well. I raised the point that the issue also affects animals. How do the regulations relate to AMR? At the very least, we should be doing more; if nothing else, we should be investing in science and technology to make sure that we are ahead of the game.
NOAH, or the National Office of Animal Health—an organisation well known to the Minister—has asked about animals and derivative products used in biomedical and veterinary research. How can we continue with existing research—again, that is pan-European? That is crucial to continuity in the life sciences sector. What analysis have the Government done about what happens after March—what needs to be rethought and what can carry on, hopefully, seamlessly?
The supply of animals and animal-derived products cannot in any way be delayed, because that would invalidate their use in science and have huge animal welfare implications. Although NOAH welcomes both sets of regulations, we come back to the crucial issue, which I have raised in previous SIs: where are we in relation to the TRACES database? So far, the Government have not been able to answer that. Are they looking for special dispensation? Are they willing to pay to be part of the database or will they have to investigate setting up their own one? Previously, the Government have said that they are putting money into setting up their own IT system, but with the best will in the world that will not happen before the end of March, when we might have a no-deal scenario.
My last point, about the Balai directive, which we have signed up to as part of our commitment to the convention on international trade in endangered species, has been raised by various organisations. At the moment, we sign up as a member of the EU. What contingencies do the Government have in place to make sure that we do not just drop out but continue with our clear statement of intent on the directive?
Many of these points have been reiterated in the material I received from the European Animal Research Association, which really stresses how important the import of animals and animal materials are to the life sciences sector. Its worry is that no deal will not only add to the time it takes to get the materials in, because of the additional checks that would almost certainly have to be done, but increase transport costs. What analysis have the Government made of potential additional transport costs resulting from the greater time taken because of more checks on what will no longer be an open border? The association clearly stresses its worry about a no-deal scenario and what the Government intend to do about that
The main concern of the British Veterinary Association is about who will do some of the checking. We have a shortage of vets. We will need more vets. Where will they come from? What level of skills will they have? The BVA wants a guarantee that the role of the veterinary professional will remain key to the whole process of trade. It would therefore be useful to know how that will continue at a level at least equal to now, although one would always hope that animal welfare requirements could be improved.
A very specific question to the Minister is on the tripartite agreement between the UK, France and the Republic of Ireland that allows the relaxation of procedures required under Council directive 2009/156/EC. It largely relates to the free movement of horses. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was rather concerned, as a devout Brexiteer, about whether racehorses will be racing at Aintree in the grand national if anything gets in the way. Do the Government intend to carry on with that tripartite agreement?
I am sorry that I have asked a number of questions, but they are important and are about seamless trade. The trade is out of sight, and most of us do not know what goes on. When I made a trip to Heathrow when I was a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I was shocked by the things that came through illegally. We went to look at the illegal trade in baboons, monkeys and so on—it was quite frightening—and who brought that in. That is one extreme of the trade, and it is illegal. There will clearly be continuity in regulation, one would imagine.
The regulations are about the legal aspects of what animals and animal products are allowed in, and it would be useful to know how the Government are approaching research and how we work on a pan-European basis. We are approaching the end of February and the particular date that we all dread for one reason or another. It is important that we know what contingencies the Government have in place, and that goes wider than the two SIs that have been put together—I do not demur from that.
There are some detailed undercurrents that we as the Opposition need to know about. The wider agricultural sector certainly needs to know, because it is its stock in trade. It needs to know with some certainty what the impact will be. We dread crashing out, but even if we have a deal or perhaps a realignment of our relationship with the EU, what are the long-term implications? The Government have to be very clear on that. As I go through these different SIs, I am not sure whether we have clarity or more confusion. Perhaps it will all come right on the day.
David Rutley
That is absolutely correct. I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying the point so well. The draft regulations are about trying to keep things as similar as they can be. The Government’s approach is continuity where at all possible and, as a result, there is no need for consultation or an impact assessment.
Dr Drew
Page six of the explanatory memorandum of the draft trade in animals and related products regulations states categorically:
“There is no additional impact on small businesses (employing up to 50 people) because this instrument maintains the status quo and does not introduce any policy change.”
Absolutely right, as my neighbour the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, but that is for “up to 50 people”. What will happen to businesses that employ more than 50 people? Will there will be an impact, yes or no?
David Rutley
That is a way of describing different—[Interruption.] Hold on; let me finish my thought. That is a way of describing different types of businesses. If it does not apply to those, it will not apply to bigger ones either. Genuinely, as has been set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, these are very small changes. We are just trying to maintain continuity.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Bristol North West, separate exit SIs will be tabled by the Food Standards Agency to deal with food hygiene and safety measures, which will be debated shortly under the affirmative resolution procedure. That will address some of his concerns about welfare standards, which we do not want to water down. We have talked about this at length in similar debates in the past.
There was discussion about why the Lords Committee suggested that one of the draft instruments should be debated under the affirmative resolution procedure, as opposed to the negative. Its concern was about reciprocity. However, as I have explained, our approach seeks continuity, to minimise the disruption to businesses. Even the Lords Committee observed that reciprocal agreements with the EU covering these issues would be the outcome of future negotiations.
The hon. Member for Stroud discussed our situation regarding third-party status with the EU. The UK will be treated by the EU as a third country if we leave without a deal. In order to be prepared for all possible outcomes, the UK has submitted its application for listing as a third country to continue exporting live animals and animal products to the EU after EU exit. Without listed status, no exports to the EU can take place. Several technical discussions are taking place with the EU Commission on the detail of receiving expedited approval for the export of live animals and animal products. DEFRA officials are currently providing detailed evidence to satisfy the Commission, but we cannot be certain of the timing of such approval. However, those are active discussions.
The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about food hygiene and unfit meat from South America. The FSA’s hygiene regulations will deal with that particular issue. I will gladly talk to him about that after the sitting. He also raised concerns about AMR. The FSA is committed to ensuring that imported food continues to be safe for consumers, including looking at AMR, which will include maintaining a robust and effective regulatory regime for the safety of imported food. We will continue to focus on that.
The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns, as have other Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople, regarding the capacity and capability of vets to cope with the extra work before them. He raises that sincerely, and I fully understand the concerns about vet shortages, which we are working hard to address. As I have said previously in similar Committees, DEFRA has provided evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee strongly supporting the return of veterinary surgeons to the shortage occupation list. The MAC is due to report in spring 2019.
We will work closely with the Home Office to ensure that there is a long-term strategy for the veterinary workforce as part of our future immigration policy. We have created a new role—certification support officer—to provide administrative support to official vets, so that they can more easily process the new export health certificates.
There were concerns about the grand national. [Interruption.] Everybody is listening now. There is no question but that those horses will be able to come into the UK. However, because of the timing of the grand national, new processes will be in place for them to leave the UK. Those arrangements are available on Government websites and so forth, and we will make sure that they are fully available.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the Balai directive. We will continue to trade under the directive because it has been transposed into UK law by our Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011. The final point that he made was on research. Research animals will continue to enter the UK under current controls when the UK leaves the EU. The UK does not currently require research animals entering the UK from third countries to enter via a border inspection post and intends to continue that arrangement.
I think and hope that that answers the detailed questions that were asked. For the reasons set out during the debate, and hopefully through the answers to some of those questions, I trust that hon. Members understand the need for these amendments. They will ensure that the strict import standards currently in place will be maintained after we leave the European Union without placing additional burdens on importers or barriers to trade. I once again commend the draft instruments to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(David Rutley.)
Draft Farriers and Animal Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley
I wish I had not gone there, to be honest, given some of the comments I have just received.
I have moved the motion for the draft Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and I will also speak to the draft Farriers and Animal Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. [Interruption.]
Dr Drew
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I welcome the Minister to his place. We have our issues with SIs, but we had not got to the stage where the Government were trying to freeze the Opposition into submission. This is a first.
I know the Minister was expecting a great audience. I welcome our audience, and I hope they can hear us in this big room. It is the annual dinner of the British Veterinary Association today—I declare an interest as an honorary associate—and perhaps the Minister was expecting all its members to turn up. Vets are an important part of our community, and they might have wanted some sport before their dinner tonight. Sadly, they have not arrived in any great number, so the message obviously did not get through to them.
I have no particular problem with the two statutory instruments—that on farriers is particularly non-contentious—but the situation does not bode well for trying to get through so many SIs before the end of March. I do not know whether the Minister has a checklist, as some must have elsewhere in his Department, where they are counting down the days. It behoves the Opposition, as well as the Government, to do their job, and our job is one of scrutiny and holding the Government to account. That is very difficult with the numbers of SIs coming through, and with some of the technical aspects of those SIs. That concern is shared across the board, and I put that on the record. However, we are doing our best. As I said in business questions to the Leader of the House last week, any additional resource would be greatly welcomed, so that we could be even more effective in what we are trying to do.
At one level, these issues are not contentious. Members will be pleased to know that we are not going to vote against the SIs, but we have some points to make. On the issue of farriers, there is little to argue about. There is no shortage of farriers in this country, and it makes some sense that we try, in advance of whatever happens at the end of March, to bring some order to that particular trade. However, that is not true of vets.
We are already somewhat short of vets—I think the figure is 11.5%—and many of the vets in our abattoirs are European Union vets. That matters, because if there is not a vet on the line, the line shuts. There is a huge potential impact on the way in which our food is provided. If we get this wrong, it will be one of the aspects of our withdrawal from the EU, whenever that may be, that will have quite serious consequences.
As I have pointed out in previous Delegated Legislation Committees, we are, sadly, not taking the opportunity to improve environmental standards. This is really just cutting and pasting what we already have in place as members of the EU, and hoping that we can do similar things as part of a British legislative approach. It is not improving our environmental standards, which is sad, because the Government always say that they aim to improve environmental standards when we leave the EU. We may see that in the forthcoming environment Bill, and it will be interesting to know where the changes covered in these SIs fit with that primary legislation.
As far as I am concerned, we are going backwards to go forwards. Let us put some figures into perspective. The British Veterinary Association says that, in terms of European economic area veterinary surgeons, who are vital to the UK, something like 50% of new entrants each year who register with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are EU nationals, and 95% of vets in our abattoirs are either EU nationals or foreign-registered vets. That is where we get the figure of an 11.5% shortage, because it is very difficult to recruit foreign vets at the moment. Jason Aldiss, who has been to see me—he is probably known to the Minister—is from Eville & Jones, which is one of the major agencies for supplying foreign vets. He has two British vets and 600 foreign vets on his books. That is why we need a lot of foreign vets. It is important that we get this right.
I will ask some questions in a minute, but I want to put this in perspective. The Lords will consider this issue tomorrow, and I am sure they will have some points to make. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee came to the following conclusion:
“This instrument proposes to end the preferential access that veterinary surgeons with EEA qualifications currently have when seeking to practise in the UK. The significant change is proposed in the context of the ending of the mutual recognition of qualifications following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The Committee notes the assurances provided by the Department regarding the new registration requirements for EEA veterinary surgeons and the introduction of the new role of CSOs”—
certification support officers—
“who are to provide support in relation to export health certificates.”
That is all well and good, but the Committee goes on to say:
“Given the importance of EEA-qualified veterinary surgeons for the UK, especially in public health areas such as disease control and the safeguarding of animal health and welfare, the House may nevertheless wish to explore further the approach the Government have taken with this instrument and the potential impact…We therefore draw the draft Regulations to the special attention of the House, on the ground that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.”
Hon. Members will hear more about that tomorrow. It is at least worthy of some reflection that the Lords have identified this as an area of concern. We could likewise say something about the farriers regulations, but this is more contentious.
The Public Accounts Committee report, “Defra’s progress towards Brexit”, identified that as one of a number of issues. It was less than satisfied and said that the Department is “cavalier” about having enough suitably qualified staff to take on the work, particularly in ports and abattoirs.
Vets have previously come here from the EU and from outside the EU, but how does the Minister intend to fill the gap if they stop coming? The PAC recommended that DEFRA
“needs urgently to develop a credible plan for increasing vet capacity for export health certificates that does not add to exporters’ costs including addressing concerns around coverage across the country and whether it is appropriate or possible for non-vets to sign off health certificates.”
Of course, these jobs are statutory; someone else cannot do them. They require veterinary surgeons. That is why the BVA has expressed concern and highlighted how important those vets are—that is where the numbers come from. The same is true of the RCVS, which will oversee the new regulatory arrangement for registering vets from abroad. Those bodies are concerned and want the issue to be addressed.
The BVA and the RCVS referred the issue to the Migration Advisory Committee, to ensure that vets are considered one of the special professions that must be exempted from the rigmarole. As the Minister has rightly said, there is a registration process and some will get through it, but the cost of the exam is £2,500, which is not inconsiderable for someone who, for all sorts of reasons, may not be earning an income until they get to this country. It would be interesting to know who intends to meet those costs.
The Minister may not be able to answer some of my questions now, but I hope he will write to me in the course of time. The explanatory memorandum does not state whether policy is being changed. Are any policy changes required as a result of the SIs? If so, why has no consultation been undertaken with either vets or the businesses in which vets are employed? What changes will the measures lead to in operational delivery? If there are fewer vets, somebody somewhere will have to make some sacrifices.
Will the draft regulations impose additional costs on businesses, individuals or the public sector? We are told that there is no regulatory impact assessment because supposedly the measure will have no impact on those sectors, but the reality is that any such change will have an impact. These businesses are important to us. They actually see the throughput of our meat on to our supermarket shelves. I would have thought that that is worthy of a regulatory impact assessment.
Will the draft regulations result in any additional environmental impacts compared with the legislation being amended or replaced? What would happen in the event of us crashing out? That would affect not just these draft regulations, but the primary legislation covering the way in which veterinary surgeons operate. The sector would be immediately under the spotlight. We hope that such an eventuality will not happen, but what preparatory work have the Department and the Government done?
I have one last question, which I always ask. The main issue for those vets from abroad to whom I have spoken is less to do with what they are going to earn—because they negotiate that—than with their pensionability. What practical measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that pension portability is permitted and encouraged? Otherwise, foreign vets will find that whatever pension they earned during the period they worked here is locked up here, which will not be very helpful if and when they go back to their country of origin. It would be interesting to know the pensionable arrangements, because that, in its own way, will determine whether people come here and, more particularly, whether they stay here. That is all connected to the collection of data and regular reporting. I hope that the Government will keep us regularly informed about any potential shortfall in the number of vets, particularly in the abattoir sector.
The Minister may not be able to answer a number of those questions, but they are important because vets matter, and not just to our food chain. We all know vets, and foreign vets are at least somewhat quizzical about where their future in this country lies.
David Rutley
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made, and I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Stroud will be attending the BVA dinner this evening.
David Rutley
Yes, I will be speaking, and I am little bit worried about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that I might be the subject of some sport. We shall see, but I am sure he will be well behaved, just as he was trying to be today.
Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman has raised a number of important points—he does his homework, as we well know—but I will touch on the issue of the shortage of vets, because I think that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about that and want to take action. To address concerns that have been raised about the shortage, we in DEFRA have provided evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee, strongly supporting the return of veterinary surgeons to the shortage occupation list. The Migration Advisory Committee is due to report in spring 2019, and while the UK prepares to leave the EU, DEFRA is working closely with the Home Office to ensure that there is a long-term strategy for the veterinary workforce, as part of future immigration policy. I hope that is helpful.
Dr Drew
Will the Minister support me in saying that we can work cross-party on that? We believe very strongly that this must be sorted; it should have been sorted some time ago because of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, although I know these are not seasonal workers. I do not know whether there is anything the Opposition can do to help, but the Government have to get real. We must make sure that we are recruiting people appropriately.
David Rutley
That point is understood, and I will gladly meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss further his suggestion of working closely on the issue. That leads on to what else we are doing to help vets, in the event of a no-deal scenario, to prepare for increased demand for export health certificates for animals and animal products, because those products will need to pass through border inspection posts. DEFRA’s internal estimates suggest that we will need the equivalent of up to 50 full-time official veterinarians to respond to the changes in demand for export health certification.
We are providing free training for 400 official vets, and our very detailed discussions and engagement with the industry indicate that, with their existing capacity, the use of new certification support officers and their ability to bring more vets into the market, we should be in a reasonable position to meet that demand. In addition, we are providing free training for 200 CSOs and we are already starting to put CSOs through that training, so that they can add value and help our vets to focus on those issues to which they can make the biggest contribution in what could be quite challenging circumstances if there is an increased volume of demand for EHCs.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of the statutory exam, which is £2,500. We have looked at other professional regulators, and these fees are fairly comparable. For example, they are cheaper than the General Dental Council’s examination fees of about £3,735.
David Rutley
The hon. Lady has also made thoughtful points. I reassure the Committee that we are working incredibly hard to ensure that we are ready for any eventuality, including regarding the availability of vets. There is an ongoing dialogue: I have met the chief veterinary officer and the BVA several times and I am sure I will meet them again tonight. We have worked very closely to make sure that we are in the best possible position for any eventuality come 29 March.
Hon. Members have also asked whether there is a change of policy. The answer is yes, because mutual recognition of qualifications will cease in a no-deal situation. A couple of hon. Members made points about impact assessments, which are required only when there will be a direct impact on business as a result of regulatory change. The SI concerns the registration of individuals only. Those points have been discussed with the RCVS, which is content with the proposals.
I hope that my remarks have answered most of the questions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stroud will buttonhole me tonight if he has any other points.
David Rutley
I look forward to that dialogue, which will be really important. Lord Gardiner is looking forward to tomorrow’s debate in the House of Lords, where those points can be considered in even more detail.
As I said in my opening remarks, it is important that these statutory instruments are passed. If they are not, the current system for regulating veterinary qualifications from EEA veterinary schools will not operate effectively, which would result in an inconsistency of veterinary standards in the UK and the inability of inspectors to enforce certain animal welfare standards. Additionally, the system for recognising farriery qualifications from the EEA, enforcing animal health regulations and approving courses for certain veterinary procedures would not operate effectively.
We know and have discussed at length the importance of the veterinary profession and the contribution that it makes to public health and to animal health and welfare in the UK. The SIs will help veterinarians to carry out their very important work in a no-deal scenario. For those reasons, I commend both statutory instruments to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Farriers and Animal Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
DRAFT VETERINARY SURGEONS AND ANIMAL WELFARE (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(David Rutley.)
Sport in the UK
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
I think I have made it clear tonight that I am determined to deal with this matter, but I will reserve judgment until I have heard from the authorities. I will write to the hon. Lady.
Football reaches every community in the country, and it can play its part in helping to champion the values that we want to see in our society today. However, we need to get tougher on those who refuse to play by the rules. Zero tolerance means just that. We cannot allow the minority to ruin the sport for the majority of us who love it. I look forward to reporting back to the House on the actions taken as a result of my discussions.
Let me now turn to more positive matters, because I am very conscious that I need to move on.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister include the fit and proper ownership rules in her discussions with the football authorities? My club, Forest Green Rovers, has had a run-in with Bolton Wanderers because Bolton refused to pay the money that it expected for the transfer of a player. So many of those at the lower levels of football are not, dare I say, fit and proper people to run football clubs. Will the Minister look into that?
Mims Davies
I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me about it. As I think I have made clear tonight, trust and integrity are paramount in sport.
Our sport, internationally, has a massive part to play in our global reputation. We can travel the world and meet people who do not know much about our home town, but they will know if our local football club is in the Champions’ League or has been in an FA cup final. As we leave the European Union, we will work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Trade to ensure that the incredible contribution of sport can be part of our international profile, and part of our vision for global Britain. I recently met the Japanese Sports Minister, who is keen to learn from our experience of hosting major events so that the Tokyo 2020 Paralympics and Olympics can be an inclusive experience for everyone.
We can continue to deliver major world events, and this summer we will host the cricket world cup, with an expected global audience of 1.5 billion people. It will be a wonderful opportunity to showcase our country, bring communities together and get more people to be active. It is not just cricket—I will rattle through the other sports. The world wheelchair curling championships take place in Stirling in March; Liverpool host the netball world cup in July; the world road-cycling championships take place in Yorkshire in 2019; UEFA 2020 Euro fixtures take place at Hampden Park and Wembley; and the UEFA women’s Euros and rugby league take place in 2021, with matches hosted all over England. I am delighted that the benefits will be experienced across the country.
Our investment in major events will deliver opportunities for everyone. Everywhere, people will be able to see at first hand that sport is great. Of course, we look forward to hosting the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, which will be the biggest sporting and cultural event in the west midlands ever. All those global sports events offer a fantastic opportunity to showcase the UK to the world, and give us an opportunity to showcase our commitment to fair and inclusive sport, which is why we must take steps to protect the culture and integrity of elite sport.
Equitable Life
David Drew Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fabian Hamilton
Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for making that point. I know Ray and Marjorie Dunn very well—they correspond with me regularly—and I know that my hon. Friend has been a champion of their case and of many other cases in his constituency. I will go on to say a bit more about how I think they should be compensated.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Would my hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest problems is that we have had so many investigations into Equitable Life, and that it was not helpful that the previous Government did not accept the case of the financial ombudsman, right at the beginning? There was a lot of, dare I say, confusion and deliberate misleading, but that report was very clear on where the blame should lie. This has not helped the case of the Equitable Life fundholders.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The ombudsman’s report did indeed make it clear that this was a catastrophic failure of regulation, and that the Government bore considerable responsibility for compensating those who had lost out. I will go on to say more about that in a minute.
The Public Administration Committee also stated:
“We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long.”
That was more than 10 years ago. On 5 May 2009, Ann Abraham, the then parliamentary ombudsman, published a second report, “Injustice unremedied: the Government’s response on Equitable Life”, in which she stated:
“I was deeply disappointed that the Government chose to reject many of the findings that I had made, when I was acting independently on behalf of Parliament and after a detailed and exhaustive investigation.”
She concluded:
“In this case, I am satisfied that the injustice I found in my report to have resulted from maladministration on the part of the public bodies responsible for the prudential regulation of the Society has not so far been remedied.”
There was certainly no shortage of reports—just a shortage of justice for those who had, through no fault of their own, suffered huge losses in the life savings they had accrued over years of hard work.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
It is estimated that there are around 1,500 victims of the Equitable Life scandal in Lincoln, and I have been working closely with some of them. After years of campaigning, nearly 1 million people are still being told that their compensation is limited to less than a quarter of the loss that they have suffered, and many of those savers are nurses, teachers, civil servants and shop workers. They are not people with stocks of wealth to keep them in their old age. They have worked hard all their life and put money aside for a secure and peaceful retirement, just as the Government advised them to do. It is therefore completely unjust to expect them to accept only a fraction of the losses caused by administrative errors that were out of their control.
In 2010, the Government accepted in full the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings that the victims of the scandal should be promptly compensated for their losses, and that those losses were directly attributable to chronic failures by the Treasury and regulators. The former Chancellor, the previous Member for Tatton, stood up in this House in October 2010 and implied that, despite accepting the ombudsman’s findings in full, the Government could not afford to allocate more than £1.5 billion for victims due to his choice of embarking on a damaging and counterproductive austerity project. It is worth remembering that, although there is cross-party support for this cause, every Member here knows that it was ordinary people who suffered under austerity, at the same time as very wealthy people got tax cuts, and those tax cuts were clearly the Government’s priority at that point.
Karen Lee
No, I will not. I want to make some progress.
The victims appear to have fallen between the cracks of the financial crisis, which saw our banking corporations bailed out while hard-working and responsible pensioners were left to suffer. This is not charity. This is repaying hard-earned and prudently saved money to its rightful owners, and that is surely something that we should be supporting. The Government’s refusal to repay in full has real-life consequences. Hundreds of thousands of people across the UK have been denied the secure retirement that they made sacrifices for throughout their career.
In Lincoln, one of my constituents, Jill, has been fighting on behalf of local victims of this scandal. She said:
“My husband and I worked hard throughout our careers. We were devastated to find that all but a small proportion of our pension pot, for which we had saved so hard, has been lost to us. All we ask is that we are paid the money that is owed to us, and that we saved so hard for. I really hope that the Government will do the right thing and ensure that the thousands of claimants in Lincoln and across the UK finally get the pension they are entitled to.”
If austerity really is over—I am holding my breath on that one—I sincerely hope that the Government will finally listen to Jill and the hundreds of thousands of others who have, through no fault of their own, been stripped of their hard-earned savings. It is time for the victims of this scandal to receive the justice that they deserve and the full pension repayment that they have been fighting for.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate, and also to have a chance to reflect on how some of my constituents have suffered as a result of what happened with Equitable Life. However, it is probably worth my saying briefly now that, over the past few years, the tax take from the wealthiest in society has gone up, not down.
Let me turn to the general focus of this debate. It is worth remembering that these investments would not have been seen as high risk. People would not have thought that their capital was linked to the performance of the stock market. They would not have thought that they would lose their money entirely. They saw these investments as something for their lifetime savings—they used to be referred to as “widows and orphans” investments—and they would not have expected to lose the whole lot of their money. This was not buying shares in equity or playing on foreign exchange markets, when a person has to accept that there is a chance that they will lose not just what they think they might have gained, but the actual capital they invested. It is therefore understandable that this case has had much more of an impact on those affected than would have been the case had they been investing in the types of products with such enhanced risks.
I pay tribute to Usha Waygood, the co-ordinator of Torbay EMAG, for the determination that she has shown over many years, as well as for the information that she sent me ahead of this debate. It is worth reflecting on the fact that this is a business that ceased trading in 2000—19 years ago. It is clear that a total failure of regulation in relation to the company led to its collapse. The parliamentary ombudsman’s report was compiled in 2008—long before many of us in the Chamber had even been elected as Members.
There was then—the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) reflected on this in his interesting speech—a lack of response by the then Government, which was a huge concern. Thankfully, that situation was partially rectified in 2010, when we finally saw some action taken with the independent commission. It is worth saying people still saw only 22.4% of what they had lost paid to them.
To help me put that into perspective, I asked some of my constituents who had been affected to set out the cost to them. For example, Mr Brian Wills-Pope said:
“I have had 10% of the differences I should have got.”
Mr Gordon Cook said:
“It has cost me about £5,000 per annum in pension.”
Mr David Jones added that the loss was approximately £30,000. He was paid around £6,000 from the compensation fund in 2012. When Mr Robert Clee emailed me, he said that his pension had seriously depleted over the past 25 years, which coincided with his retirement, which he thought that he had provided for adequately. That is the issue: many of the investors were approaching retirement and therefore had little opportunity either to take on new work or to make alternative arrangements before they felt the full impact of the hit to their finances.
For me, this is about not just what happened—that has been well documented—but about what could happen next. I certainly join other Members in asking the Minister to look at retaining all the necessary data in perpetuity, given that there is an ongoing impact on those affected. That reassurance should certainly not be too difficult to give.
I am also interested in hearing a bit more about the point that has been made by some campaign groups in relation to the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants who could be given equality with later annuitants through the £140 million underspend from the £1.5 billion that has been cited. I am realistic—I accept that money does not grow on trees and cannot just be printed—but perhaps something could be done over the coming years. No one is saying that the money should be paid immediately. We accept that these are people who are looking for support over a period of time.
It is worth looking at some of the other impacts that resolving these issues would have. It is about a potential reliance not just on state—national—projects, but at a local government level, given the age of some of these people. Clearly they are starting to make social care payments, which would have been mitigated had they received the savings that they originally expected to have for their retirement.
It is vital that we reflect on how we ensure that people have confidence that this will not happen again—I am sure the Minister will consider that when he comes to respond to the debate.
Kevin Foster
I think that it is probably safe to say that there has been some action from this Government in responding to the recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman, but this is about building faith and about people having confidence. Let me be blunt about this. There are those of us who have just turned 40. We want to make sure that those who are taking part in auto-enrolment and who are looking to retire in the future have the confidence to start putting money aside. Bluntly, I am putting money aside now for my pension. I will be 68 when I am entitled to take my state pension. I have to be confident that my money will still be there in 28 years’ time. I accept that, as Members of Parliament, we are in a unique situation, but people in the workforce want to have confidence that if they put away money that they do not plan to access for 30, 40 or even 50 years, it will still be there. It is so vital that that confidence is there. Ultimately, the pension system, like any other savings and investment scheme, operates on the basis of confidence. People need to be confident that if they put money away, it will still be there. They need to understand the risk that they are taking at the time. As we touched on, people viewed these schemes them as a pension investment—a secure pot—not as a high-risk investment through which, yes, the returns might be high, but there was a clear and present risk to their capital as well as to any future profits.
I am conscious that we need to move on because we have another debate to follow, so I will draw my remarks to a close. I hope that we will be able to make progress and that people in Torbay who have been waiting for so long, and who probably would not have expected their MP to still be talking about this issue 19 years after the company’s collapse, will have something to look forward to.