Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1313).

This statutory instrument was due to be made under negative resolution, but was transferred to be made affirmative to ensure that it was on the statute books before our planned EU exit on 31 October 2019. The SI is made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 which, as hon. Members know, retains EU-derived legislation in UK law, and corrects deficiencies in EU-derived legislation arising from the UK leaving the European Union.

The instrument relates only to Northern Ireland and concerns devolved areas of policy normally dealt with by the devolved Administration. The Government’s preference is that the regulations be made and scrutinised by the devolved institutions in Belfast, remaining absolutely committed to the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland, but in the current circumstances we have decided to process this and other Northern Ireland regulations through Parliament, working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.

This SI is prepared on the basis of leaving the EU without an agreement, although the Government’s intention remains for an agreement to be in place when we leave. Should an agreement involve a transition period, the SI will not take effect for that period, although it may be needed thereafter.

The SI will make minor amendments to Northern Ireland domestic legislation. In some cases, it corrects minor errors in previous SIs, but predominantly it concerns final changes to make retained EU law relating to various biosecurity regulations operable. First, it makes changes to the Eggs and Chicks Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010. The SI amends those regulations to ensure operability following the UK’s exit from the EU by omitting redundant EU requirements, namely, specific offences of not marking eggs or not marking eggs correctly for delivery between member states. Those specific provisions would no longer be relevant since we would no longer be a member state.

Secondly, the SI makes minor technical amendments to the Importation of Animal Pathogens Order (Northern Ireland) 1999 in relation to a reference to and a definition of “another member state”. Since we will not be a member state, that reference must be changed.

Thirdly, the SI amends the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to insert a corrected reference to the community marketing rules offences in the Marketing of Fresh Horticulture Produce Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010. The amendment in the original EU exit SI provides transitional arrangements for fresh horticultural products placed on the market after EU exit day to ensure that fruit and vegetable marketing labels allowed under EU law will continue to be permitted in the UK during a transitional period of 21 months after exit. The labelling requirements set out in article 7 of Commission implementing regulation 543/2011, however, should have referred to regulation 15 rather than regulation 17, and that is corrected by this instrument.

Fourthly, the instrument makes an operability amendment to the Marketing of Vegetable Plant Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

If the Prime Minister’s deal is agreed, will eggs, for example, still have to be labelled as decided by the European Union?

[George Eustice]

During the implementation period, they would. In an implementation period under the provisions of the withdrawal agreement Bill, there are saving provisions for that EU law during the implementation period. As for what comes thereafter, they would be superseded by the future agreement put together during the implementation period.

[Nick Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way. My sense is that the eggs will still have to be labelled as decided by the EU after the implementation period. Is that not correct?

[George Eustice]

I think the hon. Gentleman is mixing up several things. If we were selling eggs into the European Union, they would probably require certain labelling to comply with its laws for people serving that market. The provisions we are talking about are much narrower, referring to a specific type of marking that one EU member states makes on its eggs when selling to another member state. We would no longer be a member state, so those specific, narrow provisions would no longer be relevant, since we had ceased to be a member state.

The fourth instrument to be amended is, as I said, the Marketing of Vegetable Plant Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995. This SI will amend those regulations by making a substitution of “United Kingdom” at regulation 4A, in place of the “European Union”.

Fifthly, the SI amends the Plant Health (Wood and Bark) Order (Northern Ireland) 2006 by removing references to the European Union and omitting EU decision references that are not operable outside the EU, and references to EU decisions. Those references would no longer be needed, since they will have been replaced by the UK common list.

The SI amends the Plant Health Order (Northern Ireland) 2018 to omit definitions of decision (EU) 2018/1503 relating to the organism Aromia bungii. That EU decision was originally added to the order after the first Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were made. It is now included in the UK common list, so it is no longer required and this SI removes it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Presumably, we are talking about the red-necked longhorn beetle, which affects Prunus trees in China?

[George Eustice]

I have been shown a picture, and—my hon. Friend knows a great deal about this—it looks like a beetle.

[Nick Smith]

Good catch!

[George Eustice]

Finally, this SI amends the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (Northern Ireland) 2019 to ensure parity with retained EU law, omitting the definition of “Union list” throughout the order and, where appropriate, replacing that term with “list of species of special concern”. That list is defined in the amendments to reflect that the list is derived from the EU’s list of invasive alien species. Similar amendments have been made to the UK Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019.

The amendments made to Northern Ireland domestic regulations in this SI maintain the integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book, ensuring legal certainty as we approach our exit from the EU, and ensuring that we maintain standards and protections across the UK. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I shall try to address as many of the issues raised as possible.

On the first point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), if the Northern Ireland Assembly were sitting and we had an Administration in Northern Ireland, this statutory instrument would not be needed. The devolved Administrations have been taking forward their own regulations in devolved areas, and therefore they would have been dealing with these statutory instruments themselves. When an Administration is formed in Northern Ireland, which we hope will happen soon, they will take on that role again.

In the event of a Brexit, if the Administration wanted to make additional changes we might need to remove or change the statutory instrument, allowing them to fill that gap. Although nobody wants to step across the devolved settlement, it is important that Northern Ireland has a functioning statute book, so in the absence of an Administration we have taken this step to legislate on their behalf.

On our consultation in Northern Ireland, we have worked closely with officials in DAERA. The shadow Minister will have to ask the Democratic Unionist party where it stands on the matter, but my understanding is that it wants to have a functioning statute book for day one of exit.

The hon. Gentleman asked a specific point about the two categories of regulation. In my opening comments I gave a long list of orders and statutory instruments that were being changed by this instrument. The simple answer is that an SR is an order made in the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland; they tend to be business-as-usual regulations and we have changed some of them through this instrument, where necessary. The references to SIs tend to be about the SIs that we made earlier in the Brexit process, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which we are now changing. The SIs tend to be changes to Westminster legislation and the SRs are for Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the latest new deal that the Prime Minister has brought back has any implications for the SI, and he mentioned checks at the Northern Ireland border. He will be aware that that has no relevance to this SI, which is a no-deal SI. This SI would be necessary in the event that we leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement, so it does not envisage any of the checks that he mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the transition period in some areas. As we have discussed, other SIs have a grace period of nine months but here we are applying a period of 21 months. The reason for longer transitions in some areas tends to relate to labelling requirements; this is specifically a labelling provision, so a longer period is needed. When these regulations were originally drafted, 21 months would have taken us to the end of December 2020. It was felt that for some of the marketing provisions, where there are labelling implications, it was appropriate to have a longer transition. In other areas, where it is simply a grace period, we have applied our continuity approach, which is that there should be no change for a minimum of six months but change thereafter is easier to contemplate.

The hon. Gentleman asked what consultation had taken place. As I said, we have discussed these issues in detail with officials in DAERA. Indeed, they have been supporting me today on this matter. Despite the numerous different political complexions in different parts of the UK, we have the advantage of a one civil service approach. I know that DAERA officials have engaged with the Ulster Farmers Union closely and that they have raised no concerns about these particular regulations.

[Conor McGinn]

I accept that point on these specific measures, but will the Minister tell us whether he has been to Northern Ireland to meet and hear from the Ulster Farmers Union directly? Has he discussed these measures with representatives of the political parties? Given the all-Ireland nature of agriculture, has he discussed the consequences of a no-deal Brexit with his counterpart in Dublin?

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Gentleman might know, this is my second time in this post. I have been engaged in the last few weeks with taking care of issues such as this and with preparing for the prospect of a no-deal exit. The last time I was doing this role, I visited Northern Ireland on several occasions and had numerous meetings with the Ulster Farmers Union to discuss its concerns. I am sure that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), did the same. Yes, the UK Government have engaged with representatives of the Ulster farming community.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

When the Ulster Farmers Union, which I admire, is spoken of, I always try to speak for the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association—the family farmers, of whom there are many more but on smaller pastures of land. NIAPA deserves attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I defer to my hon. Friend, who, as a former Minister, has great experience on these matters.

I conclude by mentioning, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the red-necked longhorn beetle. It is a distinctive, narrow beetle, with long antlers and a red neck, unsurprisingly. He is absolutely right that it is native across south-eastern and oriental areas. It has several common names, but “red-necked longhorn” is the most used here. It was first detected in Europe in 2008, when three adults were intercepted. It is a major threat, which is why we must be ever vigilant with this invasive species, as we should be with all other invasive species. I hope that I have been able to address some of the concerns raised by hon. Members, and that they will therefore feel fit to approve the regulations.

[The Chair]

Before I put the question, I should perhaps point out that none of our DUP colleagues were appointed to the Committee, which is why none were here.

Question put and agreed to.

Common Agricultural Policy (Market Measures, Notifications and Direct Payments) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Common Agricultural Policy (Market Measures, Notifications and Direct Payments) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1344).

Earlier today, we had a break from regulations on the common organisation of the markets—the CMO—and debated something else. The shadow Minister said in our first debate today that he liked the CMO so much that he had volunteered for the Committee on it; perhaps his Whips were concerned about his welfare and were trying to give him a break. We are now back to his favourite subject.

The statutory instrument amends provisions of retained EU legislation relating to the CMO that fall within devolved competence to ensure their smooth transition to a domestic regime, specifically by making amendments in the areas of the fruit and vegetables aid scheme and of production and price reporting. It also amends a domestic regulation relating to the EU common agricultural policy financial discipline mechanism.

Let me first address the provisions that concern producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector. Once they have been recognised as a PO, producers in the fruit and vegetable sector can apply for match funding under the fruit and vegetables aid scheme for certain activities that they carry out, with the aim of increasing their production and making them stronger in the marketplace. The instrument makes operable the core terms and conditions of the aid scheme, including—among other things—the activities that can be funded under the scheme, the amount of funding that can be claimed and the requirements that producer organisations must meet. It ensures that functions relating to the operation of the aid scheme can continue to be exercised by the appropriate authorities in the UK—either the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the devolved Administrations.

The instrument also amends provisions on producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector in EU regulation 543/2011 to allow a programme established under that regulation to continue for the lifetime of that programme. It further makes amendments to EU regulation 2017/1185 to ensure that DEFRA and the devolved Administrations can continue to obtain certain production and price data from economic operators, as they do currently. The information is used for market management purposes; after exit day, DEFRA and the devolved Administrations intend to maintain its collection and use in the UK. They intend to review the operation of mechanisms for managing the data across the UK after EU exit, and may introduce further agreed amendments to the legislation based on the outcome of that review.

The instrument makes an amendment to an EU exit statutory instrument that the House approved earlier this year in the area of the financial discipline mechanism. It inserts a provision that makes it clear that sums deducted from 2018 direct payments for the purposes of the EU crisis reserve and other pillar 1 spending, but not used, will be paid back to farmers in the usual way following EU exit.

This instrument was laid before the House on 14 October. Like many other EU exit SIs laid close to 31 October, it was tabled under the made affirmative procedure to ensure that it would be in force on exit day. I trust that I have made clear to hon. Members why the amendments that it makes are necessary and appropriate. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and delighted that yet again we are talking about CMOs—only for the second time tonight. We did have a break in the Committee in between.

I am intrigued why the same explanatory memorandum has been used for these regulations and for those that we considered earlier, the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Given that the memorandum is the same, I do not understand why we could not have conflated the two statutory instruments. I know that they relate to different market sectors, but unless I am wrong, the present instrument refers to wine as well as other sectors, although it is more all-embracing. I meant to ask that question in our earlier debate, but it slipped my mind.

The point that I really want to raise is about the mechanism for charging. Paragraph 3.3 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“Defra has decided not to issue this instrument free of charge to all known recipients of SI 2019/828 as, given the nature of the correcting provisions in this instrument and the proportion that they represent of the whole instrument, it would be disproportionate to apply the free issue procedure to SI 2019/828.”

If it is not being offered free, what is the charging mechanism and who is paying? Presumably we are talking about producer organisations, as in the previous SI, but it would be interesting to know a little more about what the mechanism involves. Will it be fundamentally different if we leave the EU, or will it be a similar funding arrangement?

We are back to our old friend the common organisation of the markets. Will the Minister say more about direct payments, which are in the title of the regulations? What exactly will be, or could be, owed to farmers if and when we leave the EU? Presumably the money will come out of pillar 1, but what will happen to those who are owed money under pillar 2? Will they be subject to a different statutory instrument or a completely different regime? It would be useful to know exactly what the procedures are for compensating those farmers, owners or producers with what they will be owed if we change the status of the arrangements that they are subject to.

Finally, the explanatory memorandum gives the usual list of consultees—we get used to reading the same thing in explanatory memorandums, because they look very similar. The statutory instrument is pretty all-embracing. It applies to the devolved Administrations, does it not?

[George Eustice]

indicated assent.

[Dr Drew]

It would be interesting to know what specific consultations have taken place with Scotland and Wales, or even with Northern Ireland, given that there is no one to consult with, as we know from our debate on the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019. That is why those regulations were made: because the UK Government have had to take on the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, which are not in existence at the moment.

I have no specific or overall concerns about the regulations, so the Minister will be pleased to hear that we will not vote against them. However, no doubt it would be of public interest to get some clarity on what is being paid to whom, and to ensure that nobody loses out—particularly as the regulations imply that people will be making contributions towards their involvement as producer organisations.

[George Eustice]

I hope that I can deal with the shadow Minister’s concerns. Paragraph 3.3 of the explanatory memorandum relates to the free issue of hard copies of the instrument. The reason for our approach is that the regulations do not make policy changes; as we have discussed many times, they simply make minor changes to make existing policy operable. We will not be giving out free hard copies of the SI, but obviously it is available to anybody who wants to see it.

Why do we have one explanatory memorandum but two statutory instruments? The regulations that we considered earlier relate exclusively to reserved matters, whereas the present regulations are about devolved matters, so we needed two statutory instruments. However, they both address generally the same topic, so we chose to cover them in a single explanatory memorandum.

The shadow Minister asked how the direct payments process works. As always with the CAP, some of the matters involved are complicated. The financial discipline mechanism, as it is called in EU terminology, applies only to pillar 1. Under that mechanism, each year the European Union top-slices the pillar 1 budget, which normally goes out in the basic payment scheme. It typically takes about 1.5% of the budget and holds it in the crisis reserve; should there be a major market disruption in dairy or something else during the year, that top-sliced crisis reserve will fund interventions in the market such as buying up skimmed milk powder.

Under the SI, the money top-sliced in the last scheme year will be reimbursed to farmers the next year if it is unused. If there is no crisis against which the money needs to be used, it goes back into the pot for the following year. That is how the EU system works; we are simply putting it beyond doubt that if there is unused money in the crisis reserve, we will add it as a top-up to next year’s BPS payment, even though we will be outside the European Union.

Finally, the shadow Minister asked whether the devolved Administrations had been involved. I can confirm that they absolutely have. The regulations relate to matters of devolved competence. We have had discussions with the Administrations; although we are legislating UK-wide, it is with their consent.

I hope that I have been able to address the shadow Minister’s points. I welcome the fact that he does not intend to press the regulations to a vote.

[Dr Drew]

I wonder how many more CMO SIs we will have.

Question put and agreed to.

Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer organisations and Wine) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1343).

This instrument is part of a series of statutory instruments amending retained EU legislation relating to the common organisation of the markets—the CMO —to make it operable. I promised the shadow Minister that there were more delights to come relating to the CMO. The instrument specifically concerns producer co-operation; producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector; special provisions for the import of wine; and protected denominations of origin and protected geographical indications—PDOs and PGIs—for wine. These amendments are in the reserved areas of regulation of anti-competitive practices and agreements, international relations, import and export controls, and intellectual property.

The instrument also revokes implementing Acts adopted by the Commission setting out its decisions concerning the protection of PDOs, PGIs and traditional terms for wine. Those implementing Acts will not be needed after exit, as the effect of those decisions—that is, what appears in the PDO and PGI register—is all that is required to ensure continuity, and that will be in place.

I turn first to the provisions concerning producer organisations and producer co-operation. Once recognised as a producer organisation, producers in the fruit and vegetable sector can apply for match funding under the fruit and vegetable aid scheme for certain activities that they carry out, with the aim of increasing their production and making them stronger in the marketplace. The aid scheme currently allows a PO to take members from across the EU and receive aid in respect of all its producer members, no matter where in the EU those members are based. Once we leave the EU, the aid scheme will become a domestic scheme, and although it will still be possible for members to be based outside the UK, aid will no longer be paid in respect of land located outside the UK. The instrument also removes redundant provisions on transnational co-operation concerning POs in other sectors.

The instrument also ensures that functions relating to the recognition of producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector can continue to be exercised by the Secretary of State after exit, and it amends provisions relating to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector in EU regulation 543/2011 to allow a programme established under that regulation to continue for the lifetime of the programme.

I turn to the provisions concerning wine. EU regulation 1308/2013—the basic CMO regulation—requires wines imported into the EU from a third country to be covered by a certificate, with a few exceptions. To avoid any risk of disruption to wine supplies, the instrument contains a time-limited transitional arrangement of nine months, which will allow wine imported from the EU to enter the UK accompanied by other forms of documentation that provide evidence of the alcohol content and details of the amount of wine in the consignment, provided that the Secretary of State considers the wine to meet UK marketing standards.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Should legislation for an election go through this evening or tomorrow, this may well be my last performance, so it would be remiss of me not to try to get my name into Hansard to show I am still alive. When the Minister talks about wine, does that include fortified wine?

[George Eustice]

My understanding is that the instrument concerns all wines—all those things defined as wine, including fortified wine—coming from the European Union. I am sure my officials will update me before the end of the debate if I am incorrect. As usual, my right hon. Friend asks a perceptive question.

We are willing to accept documentation covering existing EU schemes, which will allow the UK to import wine from the EU without the specified wine import certification. UK enforcement officials will carry out checks based on existing commercial and excise-related documentation.

These changes are necessary to ensure that we can still import wine from the EU in the event that those imports do not yet meet the new UK import documentation requirements after we leave. The regulations allow for a grace period, giving importers and overseas producers time to adjust.

The regulations also make operable the legal framework for the protection and cancellation of PDOs, PGIs and traditional terms for wine in the UK. Currently, the European Commission publicises its decisions on those matters by adopting implementing Acts. After exit, the Secretary of State will simply publish such information in line with our domestic practice.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Some apple growers in my constituency make a beautiful drink called applesecco, but they were told they cannot use that designation because of current legislation. Will that remain the case after we leave the European Union?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend’s part of Worcestershire is home to many producers of cider and other products. This instrument relates to the import of wine from the European Union and does not affect at all the terms that might be used by UK producers. There is a separate issue: in the event of a no-deal Brexit, although we are offering a unilateral nine-month grace period to enable supply chains—in common with many other areas—to continue normally, the EU has not yet indicated that it will reciprocate what we are doing here.

This instrument was made and laid before Parliament on 14 October. Like many such EU exit instruments laid close to 31 October, it was laid under the made affirmative procedure to ensure its being in force on exit day. I trust that I have made it clear to hon. Members why the changes made by the regulations are necessary and appropriate. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I start by answering this question of where the draft regulations fit within the wide panoply—as the hon. Member for Stroud described it—of CMO regulations. The CMO is a highly complex body of law, as he and any of us in such Committees have discovered. It is a big jigsaw, but I assure him that it all fits together neatly, once we bring together all the different SIs.

For a number of reasons, we have had to do the SIs in different stages: sometimes because certain matters are reserved and others devolved, so at times two SIs must cover broadly similar areas; in other instances because different provisions within the CMO have not all been dealt with at the same time; and sometimes there have been time issues, when certain matters have been unresolved or still subject to discussion and so left until later in the process. The reason we are discussing this again, although we have discussed the CMO many times, is that these regulations fall into that last category.

There was discussion with the devolved Administrations earlier this year on exactly which matters were reserved and which devolved. These are the matters we have decided and agreed are reserved, which is why we made this instrument[Official Report, 30 October 2019, Vol. 667, c. 2MC.]. Later today, a separate SI will deal with some of the devolved issues in a similar space—

[Dr Drew]

I’ll be there.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman, who was corrected by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, made an important point about the export of English wine, as well as Welsh and other such wines. They are increasingly successful overseas, and the growing export market for English sparkling wine in particular has been a big success story. However, as I said in my opening remarks, organic certification recognition and other regimes are one of a number of areas where the European Union is maintaining the position that it will not discuss such matters until after we have left on 1 November. Inevitably, therefore, in the short term there would be an air gap in such areas, but all of them—including ensuring that we expedite the recognition of certification documents for English wine entering the EU market—are on a list of priorities that we will seek to progress as quickly as possible.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of page 13, annex 8, which is simply about the anti-avoidance criteria. Those are in a fairly generic form that has been used previously. He also mentioned page 16 and, on reading that page, the document seems to me to be largely about interpretation of EU documents. However, to answer his direct question, in all these SIs we are moving functions currently exercised by the European Commission to be exercised instead by—since these are all reserved areas—the Secretary of State.

I hope that I have managed to address some of the particular issues raised by the shadow Minister—

[Dr Drew]

I accept what the Minister has said. Clearly this is a specialist area, but no specialist wine producers were included in the consultation. Will he assure me that he has talked to the industry about the impact of some of the changes? I dare say that will include retailers, who will presumably be interested to know how they will get their French, Spanish and Italian wines.

[George Eustice]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have had extensive discussions with the UK hospitality industry and its trade body—which we meet weekly—and more widely with agrifood stakeholder groups, which we have also met. As we progressed our plans for a potential no-deal Brexit, they have been fully engaged. At one point, they had been concerned that we might not have a transitional period of nine months. We gave some consideration to whether we should, in the first instance, offer that unilaterally to the European Union or whether we should seek mutual reciprocation.

In the event, in this and virtually every other area, the Government took the view that we should adopt a continuity approach for at least six months. In this instance—I know the hon. Gentleman asks about this a lot—we felt that a nine-month transition was consistent with what we said about giving six months of continuity, when not much would change at all, while recognising that bottles need to be labelled in a particular way. To give people the extra time, we chose to go for nine months in this particular instance.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have consulted widely with the industry, which is reassured that we are offering this grace period on wine. On that basis, I hope the Committee will support this statutory instrument.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

rose—

[Marion Fellows]

As these are largely technical regulatory amendments required to continue the current regulatory regime, we will abstain. However, may I point out that there is no better deal for the agricultural community in Scotland than the uninhibited European market that already gives access to more than 500 million consumers, some of whom may indeed enjoy Scottish wine?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady makes a point slightly outside the scope of the instrument, which is clearly preparation for a no-deal Brexit, should we have to do that, although none of us wants it. The best way to ensure that we protect the interests of the food and agriculture sectors is to get behind the new deal put together by the Prime Minister.

[The Chair]

All sorts of things in the Committees I chair are on the margins of order, but we have learned to live with that.

Question put and agreed to.

TB in Cattle and Badgers

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on securing this debate and, as several hon. Members have said, on the sensitive way she approached a difficult and contentious issue, particularly in her recognition of the trauma this issue causes farmers.

Bovine TB is one of our most difficult animal health challenges. It is a slow-moving, insidious disease. It is difficult to detect. None of the diagnostic tests are perfect. I will come on to that later. It can exist in the environment for several months. There is a reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population, hosted in badgers. No vaccination is perfect. The best vaccine we have is the BCG vaccine, which typically provides protection of around 70%.

As the hon. Lady said, bovine TB also imposes a huge pressure on the wellbeing of our cattle farmers and their families. As many hon. Members have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), it is a tragedy when farmers have a TB breakdown. Some farmers lose show-winning cattle. For many, their herd of cattle is their pride and joy, and it is utterly soul-destroying to see those cattle lost.

No single measure will achieve eradication by our target of 2038. That is why our 25-year strategy, launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) in 2013, sets out a wide range of interventions. Cattle testing is the cornerstone of our current programme. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), suggested that we are focusing on badgers at the expense of other interventions. That is simply not true. We have a wide range of testing regimes.

There are regular surveillance tests, every four years in the low-risk area, every year in the high-risk area and every six months in hotspots. There are pre-movement tests. Recently, we introduced compulsory post-movement tests for cattle moving between holdings. There are trace tests on cattle that have recently been added to a herd. We have tests on a herd following a sale of cattle to another herd, where that leads to a TB breakdown. We have radial testing in some areas and contiguous testing in others, where there are implications from a neighbour’s farm with a breakdown. Where there are inconclusive reactors, we have re-tests. Recently, we dramatically increased the use of the far more sensitive interferon gamma test, to ensure that we detect the presence of the disease and root it out faster from our herds.

It is not correct to say that our policy is built solely on the contentious badger cull policy. The cornerstone of our fight against TB is and always has been a very thorough testing regime, to remove the disease from cattle. All the demands we place on farmers through testing, despite the trauma concerned and the dangers they pose, are crucial to our fight against the disease. We must continue to be vigilant on this front. That was one of the recommendations from the review conducted by Sir Charles Godfray.

Seven years into our 25-year strategy to eradicate TB, we feel that it is a good time to reflect on the strategy and think about other elements we might want to evolve. That is why the former Secretary of State asked Sir Charles Godfray to conduct a review around the five-year point of the strategy. That was published a little under a year ago. Several hon. Members have asked why the response has been delayed and when to expect it. All good things are worth waiting for. I envisage the response being published soon. I hope it will not be interrupted by an election purdah.

The response to the Godfray review is an opportunity for us to take stock and review the current strategy, seven years in. The shadow Minister offered to work with me on this. When we publish our response to the Godfray review, I will invite him and his team to meet me in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to go through what we are proposing. The tone of this debate has been slightly different from previous debates on the matter. While we will never entirely agree, I detect a sense that both sides can make a step towards one another and achieve a consensus on certain issues. I am keen to try to achieve that. This is a long- term fight—it is a 25-year strategy—so it would be helpful to have cross-party understanding and consensus on elements of it.

This debate relates to Derbyshire. As the hon. Member for High Peak knows, we took a difficult decision to pause a proposed cull in the south of Derbyshire. I understand that has caused great frustration to farmers. We did that to ensure that we can assess how we can have co-existence of badger vaccination and culling in parts of the edge area. That is why we chose to pause it for this year.

Badger culling is a controversial policy. We have powerful scientific evidence to show that the cull is working, despite passionate attempts by some to suggest otherwise. TB was first identified in the badger population as long ago as 1971. A series of trials in the 1970s demonstrated that a badger cull could lead to significant reductions in the incidence of the disease. That was borne out further by the randomised badger culling trial in the early 2000s.

Crucially, a recent independent peer-reviewed epidemiological study, published by Downs and others in the internationally-renowned scientific journal Scientific Reports, showed that licensed badger culling is leading to a significant reduction in the incidence of the disease in cattle in each of the first two cull areas. The study showed that there was a 66% reduction in TB incidence rates in Gloucestershire and a 37% reduction in the Somerset cull area, over the four years of intensive badger culling, relative to similar comparison areas. No significant changes have yet been observed in the third area in Dorset, but that is after just two years of culling. Furthermore, there was no evidence of an increase in the TB herd incidence rates in cattle located around the buffer area. One of the key findings of the report was that the so-called perturbation effect, which was a concern for some when the cull was launched, has not materialised in the culls so far.

The Government do not dismiss badger vaccination, but it is important to remember that the only vaccine we have is the BCG vaccine, which does not provide full protection. We do not have any hard, scientific evidence of how it works on a field deployment scale.

[Deidre Brock]

I may have missed something, but I noted from the Library report that was given to us that the Animal and Plant Health Agency was conducting an efficacy study and that the results were expected later this year. That is a research programme to identify an oral vaccine and a palatable bait. I wonder whether there is any update on that.

[George Eustice]

I think that was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). In all my time in this role previously, I kept going and persevered with the research to try to identify an oral vaccine, because—in reality—if we want to deploy a vaccine on scale in the wildlife population, an oral bait vaccine would be the answer. I have had numerous submissions over the years inviting me to pull up stumps on that research, but I persevered.

However, I am afraid that in the end we could not get there, for the reason that my right hon. Friend pointed out, namely that a badger’s digestive system is too powerful and it breaks down the vaccine. All attempts to find other ways around that were unsuccessful. It is also the case that when such vaccines were deployed in the field, certain badgers would get a lot of the vaccine and others would get none at all, because there would be a propensity for some badgers to take up the bait but not others. So it is not something that we are continuing with at this stage.

I will pick up on a few points that hon. Members have made. The hon. Member for High Peak raised the issue of cows that were heavily pregnant with calves. She is right that it is an absolute tragedy to cull such cows and in fact a couple of years ago I changed the rules in this area, so that a cow that is in the final month of its pregnancy can now stay on the farm and be placed in isolation. We have even provided that a cow in the final two months of its pregnancy can be isolated, provided that the isolation facilities are sufficiently robust. So I have already changed the rules in that regard, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire pointed out, it is horrendous when a cow that is about to give birth has to be shot on a farm.

The hon. Lady also raised the issue of the badger population in Derbyshire. The reality is that in in her area in the north of Derbyshire, where badger vaccination is taking place, incidence of the disease in badgers is quite low. However, that is not the case in south-west Derbyshire, particularly along the border with Staffordshire, where there is a high prevalence of the disease in the badger population.

[Ruth George]

What evidence is there for the incidence of the disease in badgers? Will the Minister look to test badgers in the cull areas post-culling, because it is so important that we are clear about whether there is or is not incidence of the disease?

[George Eustice]

We have a number of approaches. We do some roadkill surveillance in areas to identify where there is disease. Also, whenever we have a breakdown on a farm, an assessment is carried out by APHA vets to try to establish the most likely cause of that breakdown. So there are breakdown epidemiological reports.

The hon. Lady also raised an issue about herd size. In addition to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), the fact of the matter is that it is an epidemiological reality that the more cattle there are in a herd, the more interfaces there are with the environment and the more likely they are to pick up infection. I remember that some years ago our chief scientist in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs got very excited and thought that those with small herds must be doing something right. However, we concluded that it is simply a mathematical fact that a small herd has fewer interfaces with the badger population and therefore has a lower propensity to have a breakdown.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) raised an important issue about slurry. I can tell her that I have had meetings with Dick Sibley and that he has attended roundtable discussions we have had on this issue. However, as long ago as 2015 we launched a biosecurity plan that included slurry management best practice guidance, so this is an issue that we recognise and that we try to improve. The evidence is a little mixed, because the reality is that if we are testing and removing cattle, we would tend to remove them before the disease shows up in slurry, unless the test is ineffective and is missing those cattle. So this is an area that we are keen to look at further and, as I have said, we are in dialogue with Dick Sibley on some of these matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire made a point about diagnostic tests. He is absolutely right—we are now allowing the use of unvalidated tests and, again, Dick Sibley is using one of those tests. We have also dramatically increased our deployment of the more sensitive interferon gamma test.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire made an important point about epidemiology and, crucially, how we get daughter infection below one, so that we can put this disease into permanent retreat. The R₀—the reproductive number that he mentioned—is notoriously difficult to calculate, but we have a track record in our own history of taking this disease from a very high prevalence in the 1930s down to zero in the 1980s. So there is a point whereby, if we keep going, we can put this disease into permanent retreat.

[Mr Paterson]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I will take a brief intervention and then I will conclude.

[Mr Paterson]

I will make a point briefly. Will the Government look at evidence from other countries, particularly Ireland, where the evidence is quite contrary to what the SNP spokesperson—the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock)—said, in that there is no intention of eliminating a species? This process is about getting the population per kilometre down to a level whereby the disease simply cannot reproduce itself, and then we will end up with a completely stable, healthy badger population, and this whole nightmare will go away.

[George Eustice]

We will look at that evidence, but this is a difficult issue. My right hon. Friend is right that our aim, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed out, is to get the badger population down by 70% in the four years of the cull; it is not our intention at all to eradicate the badger population. This is an issue that we will continue to look at because, as we plot how to get from where we are now to being officially TB-free by 2038, it is clearly an important issue.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also pointed out some of the challenges of vaccinating badgers and the further challenge that we have had with an oral vaccination. However, if we can use such a vaccination, there are also some advantages. It provides herd immunity and there is some evidence that cubs born in badger populations that have been vaccinated have a higher degree of resistance to the disease than other badgers.

Finally, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked about Scotland. The approach taken in Scotland is very similar to the approach that we take in a low-risk area elsewhere. Scotland does not have a large badger population and nor does it have a presence of the disease in the badger population, which is in common with the north of England. Therefore, the nature of the challenge in Scotland is very different from that elsewhere.

The badger population has more than doubled in this country over the last 20 or so years. In the cull areas, which we are targeting because the disease is rife there, we simply look to reduce the badger population by 70% for the duration of the cull.

[Dr Drew]

The one thing that has not been mentioned—I should have mentioned it myself, of course—is cattle vaccination. Such vaccination was always 10 years away, but I gather that it is now five years away. Are the Weybridge and Pirbright research institutions still working on this vaccination and, if so, can they clarify where they are with that work?

[George Eustice]

Yes, we are continuing to do cattle vaccinations; that particular research has not been stopped. As the hon. Gentleman says, cattle vaccination is an important line of work and it is one that we intend to continue.

Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1312),

laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The technical amendments made by this instrument will ensure that retained EU law remains operable upon leaving. These provisions mainly fall into the category of changes that are needed because EU regulations have changed since the end of March, when previous statutory instruments were laid before Parliament. This new SI is therefore needed to reflect the changes that have taken place in EU policy. However, this SI makes no new policy changes to the effect of the retained EU law, and no change in the way that the fishing industry conducts its activities is expected as a result.

The amendments extend and apply to the United Kingdom. Fisheries management in the UK is largely devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These instruments have been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent. This ensures a common approach that respects the existing devolution settlement and maintains the existing system of fisheries management, providing certainty to the fishing sector and to business.

The regulations amend three pieces of retained EU legislation. First, they make updates to the technical conservation regulation, which outlines technical rules that fishing vessels must adhere to for conservation purposes. That regulation is essential for the management of fisheries in the UK, wherever those vessels may be, and of non-UK vessels in UK waters. The technical conservation regulations were previously made operable in retained EU law through an EU exit statutory instrument made in March 2019. However, in July, the EU introduced revisions to those regulations. The UK was engaged in the process of revising the technical conservation regulations, which make important changes—for instance, to support the implementation of the landing obligation. UK fishermen are already working to those new standards, which are important for the protection of our marine environment.

Secondly, this statutory instrument completes the transfer of the North sea multi-annual plan into retained EU law. This establishes long-term plans for the recovery and sustainable management of mixed fisheries in the North sea. The bulk of the legislation was previously made operable in UK law, but this statutory instrument completes the process by bringing across legislative powers necessary to introduce or amend the details of the plan in future. Those powers were previously conferred upon the European Commission, but will now be exercisable by UK Administrations.

Thirdly, the SI makes necessary changes to ensure that the western waters multi-annual plan is made operable in retained EU law. This establishes a long-term plan for the recovery and sustainable management of mixed fisheries in the western waters, of which the UK forms a part. Just as we did for the North sea multi-annual plan, which was published and implemented earlier, we are making this plan operable now that it has been published and implemented.

As a consequence of changes made to the EU regulations since previous instruments were passed, the instrument also amends previous marine and fisheries EU exit SIs: the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019. Such minor changes include the revocation of certain regulations relating to regional fisheries management organisations and a community fisheries control agency; as those regulations have been revoked at EU level, they will no longer form part of retained EU law. They also include a minor change to the amendments to the North sea discard plan, which has since been amended by the Commission. This ensures that our amendments to retained EU law are up to date with the legislation that, on exit day, will be transferred to the UK statute book via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

There were also a number of errors in the previous instruments that are being corrected by this statutory instrument, such as a typographical error in a reference to “member state”, in the singular form, when it should have been “member states”, in plural. These minor typo- graphical errors would not have stopped the instruments functioning correctly, but given that we now have the luxury of time, as it were, as a result of the extension of exit day from the end of March, we thought it prudent to take this opportunity, since we were bringing forward an SI anyway, to make these minor corrections.

We have also corrected a handful of other small errors in previous amendments made to the annual EU total allowable catch and quota regulation. In particular, we have amended provisions relating to commercial and recreational bass fishing, to ensure that the approach intended by the regulation—namely that the provisions in question continue in force into 2020 until they are replaced with new regulations—is actually implemented, and to ensure that these provisions do not just fall at the end of the year.

Finally, this instrument makes minor changes to the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to amend an EU regulation on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. In particular, it removes an unnecessary power to make regulations about animals not previously covered by the regulations’ annexes, because there was already a power to amend the annexes themselves. Therefore, the power is not necessary. Similarly, a second amendment to a technical rule for transporting horses has been removed, because it duplicated an amendment made by a different instrument.

As I said earlier, these are technical changes to reflect the fact that EU law has changed since the end of March. As I also said earlier, we have consulted with the devolved administrations and secured their consent to make these changes on a UK-wide basis. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I thank the shadow Minister for his kind words on my reappearance in the Department. He followed them with a blizzard of questions, which I shall try my best to address. I also want to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), our only PPS in the Department, is more than capable of doing the work of many, such is his ability. Indeed, he spends most of his time in Committees such as this.

The shadow Minister is aware, as all hon. Members are, that the central principle behind the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is one of continuity. It explicitly is not about changing, making or consolidating policy. It is about simply making the changes necessary to make retained EU law operable. The idea is that on day one after we leave the EU, we should have a statute book that is as close as possible to that of the day before. Only after we have left can we, through primary legislation, debate properly in this House what future policy should be, and what changes we want to make. In the 2018 Act, the emphasis is on continuity. That is why there is no consolidation planned. EU law is what it is—a hotch-potch of all sorts of regulations—and there is a lot of complexity in making those operable. However, I know that the National Archives will be publishing all the SIs that have been tabled. It is working on various products to ensure that those are accessible and available to people. The most important thing that we can do for people in the fishing industry, and any other industry, is give the reassurance that there will be a functioning statute book on day one after we leave that is as close as possible to what came before. Policy change and divergence thereafter is a matter for primary legislation.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

With my colleagues’ permission, I ask a question as Opposition Whip for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Could the Minister enlighten us about said primary legislation? Can he give us a hint, or a raised eyebrow, or perhaps suggest when we might see the Fisheries Bill again? He and the shadow Minister put a lot of work into it, as did officials, and as he says, the fishing industry needs some certainty to work towards.

[George Eustice]

I was just about to come on to the issue of the Fisheries Bill. A little under a year ago, we were debating it and taking it through Committee, perhaps in this very room. I had hoped that we would stick to the plan to leave the European Union at the end of March; that the House would get behind the withdrawal agreement that the previous Prime Minster had put together; and that we would then be able to get the Fisheries Bill through Parliament. We would have had an implementation period, and then the provisions of the Bill would have taken over. In the event, there was not a majority in the House for that. We all know what happened: this House has been in a muddle for a period of six months, unable to agree anything. It has been incapable of saying what it does not want and unable to say what it does want. That has made it very difficult to introduce any other Fisheries Bill.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

No, I shall finish my point. The Fisheries Bill was unable to progress because Parliament failed and refused to progress leaving the European Union, and in fact voted to delay leaving. We now have a new Session, and the Fisheries Bill is in the Queen’s Speech, so there will be a Fisheries Bill in this Session of Parliament. That answers that question.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised a question that had been highlighted by Greener UK, namely why article 21(c) had not been brought across. The reason for that is that article 21(c) includes the concept of member states making joint recommendations for the European Union to consider. Once we are outside the EU, we will not be making joint recommendations to it; we will be controlling and deciding these things for ourselves, so the very concept of a joint recommendation does not make sense. In so far as there were other elements of article 21 that did make sense and did function in a national context, those were brought across.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the point about regional co-operation. To be clear, this statutory instrument brings across the conclusions of the North sea multi-annual plan and the western waters multi-annual plan, but it does not bring across the architecture for that co-operation, because once we cease to be a member state, under EU law, we cannot be a member of those particular groups. At the moment, Norway is not a member of those groups; it sometimes attends as an observer, but it gives its input to the groups on the North sea through different mechanisms.

How we will co-operate with our European neighbours will be an issue for a future partnership. If we can get across the current withdrawal agreement, which the Prime Minister has brought back, and get the deal agreed, the plan is to have a new partnership agreement with the European Union by next July. That can cover all manner of things, including how we would co-operate on a regional basis. The issue of the architecture for regional co-operation is a matter for our future partnership agreement with the EU. However, coming back to my point, the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to ensure that on day one after leaving, we have an operable law book, and that retained EU law is operable. The changes to regulations that the EU has introduced since March are now EU law, and we should therefore make them operable. That is the primary purpose of this SI.

The hon. Gentleman asked about impact assessments, and complained about the use of the phrase,

“no, or no significant, impact”.

I am told that the term has particular relevance to the procedures of the House, and is terminology that it relies on.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about what other types of errors there were. They are all similar. In one case the word “fishing” was used, where it should have been “fisheries”. In another case, the text said “ICCA” when it meant ICCAT—the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. In one case, the Roman numeral “ii” should have been “a(ii)”. In one instance, “must” was used, but it was felt that “shall” was better. I do not want to bore hon. Members any further by going into that, but the hon. Gentleman asked a question that suggested that what we meant by “errors” was suspicious, and I just wanted to clarify the point.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if Parliament got behind the Prime Minister’s deal. He will be aware that all the statutory instruments that we are talking about and taking through should be seen in the context of no-deal preparations—preparations for what would happen if we came out without an agreement. A withdrawal agreement Bill will be published later today and will have its Second Reading tomorrow. A deal will include various saving provisions to ensure that we can have an implementation period. The regulations are predominantly about no-deal preparations. In the event of a deal being done, the provisions of the implementation period come into effect.

The hon. Gentleman asked about pulse trawling. He will recall that this was a matter we discussed in the Fisheries Bill. In a previous SI, we chose to ensure that the scientific exemption could not continue for EU vessels, and that will remain the case if we come out of the EU in a no-deal scenario. The European Union has since made other changes to phase that out by 2021, and has already significantly reduced the number of vessels that are licensed.

Finally, we discuss bass provisions every year. They form part of the total allowable catch and quota regulations, which would always stay in place until the new TAC and quota regulations take effect, typically at the end of January. The way the original SI had been drafted meant that they would have ended at the end of December, which meant that there would have been an air gap. The draft regulations simply ensure that the provisions will remain extant until replacement provisions are put in place.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications. In relation to the intricacies of fishing in Northern Ireland and the new border down the Irish sea, would the Minister be prepared to write with further detail, in particular about the paperwork required for a GB boat landing in Northern Ireland, and vice versa, and around the concerns that the industry has regarding red diesel?

[George Eustice]

Rather than write, let me touch on that now. The concerns on red diesel are a separate agenda being pursued at the World Trade Organisation about removing subsidies. We believe that, although we want to remove subsidies from fishing, red diesel is not the type of subsidy that we are referring to, so we very much support the continued use of red diesel for our fishing fleet.

The withdrawal agreement—the Prime Minister’s deal—does not have any implications for the fishing industry per se, because it is more about customs than fishing opportunities and fish being landed. It is already the case that a catch certificate is required when crossing borders, whether a boat is coming from the Irish Republic to the UK or vice versa. Beyond that, there will not be additional changes for the fishing industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1312).

Draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

This is one of a number of statutory instruments relating to our European Union exit that we have had the pleasure of debating. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby took a number of them through Parliament during his tenure of my position, and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has enjoyed the Committees on them so much that he volunteered to sit on more of them.

The instrument that we are debating amends retained EU law and domestic legislation on the common agricultural policy—including the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, also known as the CMO—to ensure their smooth transition into a domestic regime. The technical and operability amendments made in the draft regulations will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of legislation that would otherwise be inoperable following exit from the EU. The regulations will ensure that we continue to operate schemes for important farming sectors, and that we maintain the standards they set; that will support confidence in our farmed goods in domestic and international markets.

The draft regulations are technical in nature and limited in scope. They make changes to ensure that existing standards and processes continue in the UK. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that they will have limited impact on businesses and other stakeholders. The regulations amend CAP and CMO functions in EU legislation that are carried out by the European Commission so that they are instead carried out in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State—or, in one instance in relation to contractual negotiations in the dairy sector, by the Competition and Markets Authority. This will enable those legislative and administrative functions to continue to be used after the UK leaves the European Union.

The EU regulations concerned cover the following areas of the CMO: conversion rates for rice; certification and importation of hops; sugar sector agreements; milk and milk products; import and export of certain proteins derived from egg white or whey; export refunds; adjustments in the common customs tariff; producer organisations and co-operation; and the import of eggs. The EU regulations confer various functions on the Commission, so that it can develop the technical details required to operate a specific regime.

Examples of that include being able to update the legislation when necessary to take account of amendments in so-called CN—combined nomenclature—codes, which are used to identify tariffs in customs; establishing conditions for the fixing of export refunds; specifying certain forms to be used; setting financial limits or prices; defining programme eligibility criteria; setting deadlines; and facilitating producer co-operation and supporting producer organisations. If we were to leave the European Union without making these amendments, the legislative functions in the EU regulations would become inoperable, so this instrument simply uses powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to correct that deficiency to enable the necessary functions currently exercised by the EU to be exercised by the Secretary of State instead.

The draft instrument also makes a minor correction to a domestic EU exit statutory instrument, namely the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to clarify that the power contained therein, concerning contracts in the sugar sector, rests with the Secretary of State, since it is a reserved power.

The draft regulations refer to reserved policy areas, but notwithstanding that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has engaged with the devolved Administrations on its approach to CAP legislation under the 2018 Act, and on this particular instrument, to familiarise them with the legislation ahead of laying it before Parliament. DEFRA has worked collaboratively with the devolved Administrations and has fully involved them in discussions on the regulations. We consulted them extensively to ensure that the legislation that the regulations amend continues to work.

DEFRA has also engaged with stakeholder umbrella organisations and has met regularly with the Rural Payment Agency’s industry partnership group to update the farming and land management sectors on the Government’s plans for the UK’s exit from the European Union, including the approach to retained EU law.

These regulations, in common with many others under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, are really about changing references to EU institutions to references to the UK Secretary of State. Such changes are minor and technical in nature, but they are important to ensure that this body of regulations remains operable. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I shall try first to deal with as many as possible of the issues that are pertinent to the statutory instrument. I shall then touch on some of the broader, connected issues that have been raised.

First, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud, is right. The CMO is a complex body of law, so in the context of this exercise it has in some ways been the gift that has kept on giving. He will, however, be pleased to know that we are reaching the end of the process. There is light at the end of the tunnel. I understand that there are just two more items left relating to the CMO and, I think, 12 more left in total linked to EU exit; so we have a few more to do, but we are nearing the end of this process.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the issues are ones that we had to revisit, or whether they were not dealt with originally. There was one exception, which I alluded to, which was a change of a power that was drafted originally as though it were devolved, when it was actually reserved. The vast majority were secondary and tertiary legislation—implementing acts and delegated acts from the Commission. They were deprioritised as not absolutely essential for March, but they were things that we intended to get to.

The right hon. Member for North Durham and the shadow Minister asked what we mean by “technical” and were suspicious of my intent. Let me give a few examples. The vast majority of the changes are about replacing EU-centric terms such as “the Union” and “the European Union” with “the UK” to make provisions operable. We are also replacing “Commission” with “Secretary of State”, so that there is an authority to go to. It is really a matter of making sure that there are UK bodies that can exercise functions currently exercised by the EU, since the EU will no longer be exercising them.

That links to the point about impact assessments and what

“no, or no significant, impact”

means. The purpose of all the EU exit statutory instruments is to keep everything exactly the same. I know many Members of the House would like to keep things so much the same that we do not even leave the European Union, but these particular regulations ensure that when we do leave, all the same procedures can continue to operate. The real cost to business would be if we left whole functions and bodies of law with which they are familiar to become inoperable and no longer work; that would have consequences. By ensuring that systems are operable, we give businesses the continuity that they seek, and we ensure that we have a functioning statute book from the beginning.

The shadow Minister asked about the position of the Northern Ireland SI and why that had been dropped. I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was unable to clear it in time for today’s debate, which is why it will probably be debated instead on Monday next week.

To return to the technical issues, the types of things dealt with in the instrument are regulations on conversion rates for rice. We are talking about an assumed rate—about x amount of rice flour coming out of x amount of rice milled. An assumption is made about that for the purpose of an import licensing regime. I assure the right hon. Member for North Durham that these things are very technical. In the sugar sector, we have an arrangement at the moment whereby there are some exemptions in competition law to allow the National Farmers Union to corral a collective of sugar beet growers to work with British Sugar, and a collective bargaining system decides the price of sugar for a given year. That enables the Secretary of State to make any changes that they might need to make to keep the sector operable. If the NFU decided that it did not want to do that role anymore, but we decided that we would still like a collective to do that, we would have the option of changing that.

The hon. Member for Rhondda asked about the import of eggs. This relates to article 30 of EU regulation 589/2008. The provision simply confers power on the Secretary of State to make determinations of equivalence on marketing standards as a prerequisite for the import of eggs. We allow eggs to be imported only if they meet our marketing standard, which is currently an EU marketing standard. If in future a third country were to meet that standard, which is set out separately in law, there would need to be a body that attests to the fact. That is a power that the Secretary of State must have in future, as the EU will no longer be able to do that for us.[Official Report, 5 November 2019, Vol. 667, c. 7MC.] Again, that is a very technical thing around determinations of equivalence on marketing standards.

There is a wider issue with eggs: some egg producers are concerned that they might be exposed to competition from other countries, such as Ukraine, under a proposed tariff suspension. Some might also be concerned about their exports. We do not export a huge amount of eggs, but we export poultry meat. Those issues are perhaps for another day; I am sure we will have discussions on tariff rate schedules and so on in the future.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked whether we can improve standards. When we have passed the Agriculture Bill, we will have in place the primary legislation that is needed to change and improve these types of processes, but not until then. He will understand that the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to bring across, warts and all, the existing EU system. It is not about changing things, but about continuity, and the regulations seek to preserve continuity wherever they can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor also asked about the devolved Administrations. When we leave the European Union, there will be huge scope for the devolved Administrations to have new powers over their agriculture policy. Agriculture is generally devolved policy, so they will have a new, additional set of powers that they do not have now, as those powers are now exercised by the EU. This statutory instrument is specifically about reserved powers relating to competition law, international trading standards and the like. All the powers set out in the regulations are reserved, and would remain reserved under our devolution settlement, even after we have left the European Union.

I hope that I have addressed as many of the problems and issues raised as possible, and I hope that the Committee will support the statutory instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Agriculture and Fisheries Council takes place in Luxembourg on 14 and15 October.

As the provisional agenda stands, the main item for fisheries will be fixing the fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea for 2020. Member states will also discuss the regulation on the European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF) for which a preliminary agreement on the proposal, a partial general approach (PGA), is sought in Council. Ministers will also exchange views on the annual EU-Norway consultation for 2020 and on the 22nd annual meeting of the international commission for the conservation of Atlantic tunas (ICCAT), which will be held in Palma de Mallorca on 18-25 November 2019.

In the field of agriculture the main focus will be the state of play on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package. Member States will also exchange views on the EU Forest Strategy post-2020 followed by a presentation by the commission and an exchange of views on stepping up EU action to protect and restore the world’s forests. The Commission will also brief member states on the market situation.

There are currently five items scheduled under “any other business”:

The presidency will brief Ministers on the outcome of the European bioeconomy scene 2019, which was held in Helsinki on 8-10 July;

The Slovenian delegation will brief on the outcome of the Ministerial conference “Strengthening the Generation and Transfer of Knowledge for the Progress of Agriculture and the Rural Areas", which took place in Ptuj, Slovenia on 23 August 2019;

The Italian delegation will provide information on the serious damages caused by the Asian stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) to the fruit and vegetables sector;

The commission will give a state of play on African swine fever; and

The commission will provide a state of play on the major issues within food safety.

[HCWS1851]

Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.

This statutory instrument amends retained EU law and domestic legislation on the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products—also known as the common market organisation, or CMO—to ensure a smooth transition to a domestic regime. It also makes minor amendments to retained EU law relating to support for rural development and the maritime and fisheries fund.

The regulations are among those that were deprioritised prior to our planned exit at the end of March, because the bulk of the CMO rules that govern the existing schemes, and the vast majority of the details of them, were fixed and addressed in previous instruments. These regulations address the finer details of the schemes, in particular their administration. It was judged that it was not critical to deliver them by March, but the luxury of time, due to the delay in leaving the European Union to 31 October, means that we have the chance to get the job done and return to some of those issues.

The instrument is therefore technical in nature and limited in scope, as it amends the technical details of the schemes in the CMO, rather than the framework itself. We are upholding standards and maintaining processes; it makes appropriate corrections to ensure that those standards and processes continue to operate in a UK context. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that they will have a limited impact on business and other stakeholders.

We have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on the instrument to ensure that the legislation that it amends continues to work while, obviously, respecting the devolution agreements. Most areas covered by the instrument are devolved, with powers transferring to the devolved Ministers. In many cases, the Secretary of State can act on behalf of the devolved Administrations should they give their consent. In one or two areas relating to enforcement, Wales has chosen to introduce its own statutory instruments, for example in relation to the administration of an apiculture —beekeeping—scheme and some of the design elements of a school milk scheme.[Official Report, 4 November 2019, Vol. 667, c. 6MC.]

Some of the functions amended by the instrument that are currently carried out by the European Commission could be exercised in ways that are reserved, such as where they affect trade, or devolved, so we have worked with the devolved Administrations in those cases. We have agreed an approach that respects the devolution settlements but ensures that those functions can be carried out by the appropriate public authorities in the UK after exit, whether that is the UK Government or the devolved Administrations.

The CMO sits in pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy and was set up as a means of meeting its objectives, particularly to stabilise markets, ensure a fair standard of living for agricultural producers and increase agricultural productivity. The main CMO policy areas covered by the regulations can be broadly categorised as aid schemes for fruit and vegetables, and for milk in schools; apiculture aid schemes; marketing standards for olive oil, eggs, poultry, meat and wine; import and export licensing; and the provision of information and notifications.

The changes made by the instrument will ensure the continued operability of existing regulations, largely by replacing references to “the EU” or “member states” with alternative references to “the UK” or “the relevant authority”. The approach when amending retained EU law has been to keep the effect of that legislation as close to the current system where possible.

The instrument also contains provisions relating to rural development and maritime and fisheries legislation, which governs the operational programmes through which payments are made. These programmes were prepared either by the United Kingdom as a whole or by the devolved Administrations and then agreed with the Commission. There are currently four development programmes and one maritime and fisheries programme operating in the UK, providing support to the sectors for the 2014 to 2020 programme.

The instrument makes six minor amendments to the rural development legislation, four of which also concern funding for maritime and fisheries. It omits two references to member states and amends references to Union legislation, and it omits two powers that the Commission has to make secondary legislation where these are now redundant. It transfers from the Commission to appropriate authorities in the UK a power to make secondary legislation concerning the models to be used when reporting on financial instruments. Finally, this instrument also revokes two pieces of retained EU legislation relating to support for the olive oil and table olive sectors, as this legislation will no longer be needed in the UK after EU exit since we do not produce those particular crops.

We consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on preparing this statutory instrument and have their consent to lay it. I should say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also undertook targeted stakeholder engagement from November 2018 onwards on the amendments contained in the EU exit statutory instruments so far as they relate to food, as required under article 9 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament.

In conclusion, these regulations make changes to ensure an operable legal framework for the CMO and rural development and maritime and fisheries programmes, which support the work of farmers and deliver continuity. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will be brief, Mr Gapes, and I will try to address all of the points in turn.

The shadow Minister bemoans the fact that, yet again, we are having to discuss another complex and technical statutory instrument relating to the CMO. I hope to get to the end of the process too. I cannot guarantee that there will not be more of these SIs coming down the line; I am sure there will be more. Whatever our views on Brexit, we are all condemned to relive the groundhog day of Brexit debate until we finally get Brexit done and resolve the situation.

Many of the SIs that the shadow Minister has debated in recent weeks, although not this one, will have to be debated again because things have moved on, the EU has changed something over the summer or the dates referred to in the original SI are no longer valid. A lot of the current wave of SIs are a consequence of the dither and delay that Parliament demonstrated in deciding not to proceed with our exit from the EU at the end of March.

The shadow Minister asks about pillar 2 expenditure. We have agreed to keep funding on agriculture, including the pillar 2 schemes, at exactly the same level until the end of this Parliament; as he will know, that will be in 2022. In addition, the Treasury has guaranteed that the current schemes will continue to operate and to accept bids up until 2020, and the agreements entered into will be honoured for their full lifetime. For example, a five-year or 10-year scheme under the agri-environment schemes would be supported for the duration, even though we will have been outside the European Union for some years.

The shadow Minister asks about Scotland, which does not get a mention. That is because Scotland has been happy with these regulations. The body of regulations was made in co-operation with all the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked why Wales has chosen a couple of areas in which to have its own SIs. That comes down to an element of its devolved settlement; there are some areas that it prefers to do itself and that is its choice. In Scotland’s case, it was content to know that the powers are appropriate for Scotland to act through this SI. To save the hassle of having to draft the same types of SIs over and over again, it made sense for the UK Government, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, to do this on behalf of everyone.

Finally, the shadow Minister asked about olives. The CMO is a complex body of law that has to be written for the whole EU; it is a one-size-fits-all body of law. That means that we end up with lots of provisions that are not relevant to the UK. We have changed the reference about producer organisations for people who produce olives or table olives; we do not produce or grow olives or table olives in this country, so that reference is redundant. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the provisions relating to the marketing standards around olives have been brought across and made operable in the way he would expect.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked how we might diverge over time. I have to say to her that that will be for the Scottish Government to decide. The Scottish Government will no longer have to sit on their hands, awaiting orders from Brussels about what they can and cannot do. They will have power—the power to act and the power to design schemes that they think are right for Scotland.

Having wrestled with some of these schemes over a number of years, I can say that the EU schemes are far from perfect. In so far as we may—all of us—choose over time to diverge from the EU schemes, it will be to make them better, to make them more effective and to make them deliver for farmers and fishermen. I can give the hon. Lady the example of the fruit and vegetable regime, which is an EU regime that is poorly drafted and often ends up with litigation, both in Scotland and in England, and a complete muddle. We could improve on it over time.

We have examples of some of the local area groups— the LEADER groups—that are bound in completely unnecessary bureaucracy, having to keep all sorts of records, and the EU taking issue with the way we have checked whether they are VAT-registered or not. There is lots and lots of bureaucratic nonsense that can stand in the way of these schemes and really everybody accepts that it is unnecessary. If we talk to the people who have to try to administer these schemes, I think they would welcome a breath of fresh air and more of a common-sense approach. However, it will be for Scotland to decide whether it wants to do that, or whether it wants to stick slavishly to what has been inherited from the European Union.

Finally, I will address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. He is right that the purpose of this SI and all similar SIs introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to provide continuity. This is not an area where we are trying to change policies in any dramatic way, apart from omitting things that are not relevant to the UK. It is all about continuity, and the power to change and to diverge from these measures will be set out in the agriculture Bill; we have had a dry run of that already, as the shadow Minister pointed out.

[Deidre Brock]

There were a couple of questions that perhaps the Minister has not had a chance to answer yet. I wondered about the support schemes for fishers and farmers diverging from the EU schemes. I asked whether those currently receiving that support will all continue to receive it, at a level that is at least equal to what they currently receive. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an intimation of the Government’s intentions there.

[George Eustice]

We have set out that we will not change the budget at all until 2022. Within that, however, and again this would be an issue that Scotland would be able to take a different view on, the UK Government—the English Government for English farmers—have already set out our intention to start diverging from the so-called basic payments scheme, probably from around 2021, and to gradually phase it down and replace it with a new type of support system built around agri-environment payments and support for different approaches to livestock husbandry, for instance. So we have set out our approach there, but the funding guarantees that exist are the Government guarantees to keep the budget the same until 2022.

[Deidre Brock]

Could we have a wee bit of clarity on that, because quite often people say “until 2022”, but of course that is currently the date for the next election? We do not know the future; we do not know what the next few weeks will bring. I have also heard it said by various Ministers that it might be until 2022 or the next general election. Can the Minister clarify which of those it is, or say if it is actually both?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady is very experienced, so she will know that a manifesto commitment lasts for the duration of the Parliament in question. That may be until 2022, or it may be earlier. She will appreciate that this is not an appropriate place for me to start talking about the next Conservative manifesto; there are other and brighter brains than mine working on those issues. It will be for all parties to decide what level of support they want to indicate they will give to these schemes in their next manifesto, if indeed they want to give any sort of indicative figure at all; that will be a choice that every party has.

I return to the final points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. As I said, the power to change this measure will be contained in the agriculture Bill. It will have specific clauses to give us the power to modify retained EU law, which would include modifications to improve any of the pillar 2 schemes that we choose to improve. The moment that the agriculture Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have the power through secondary legislation to start the business of improving the common agricultural policy that we have inherited.

I hope that I have been able to address many of the Committee’s concerns, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.

Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1229).

This statutory instrument was made under the urgent made affirmative procedure. That is because it supports the UK’s application to the European Commission for third-country listed status for animal health purposes. That application will be considered at a meeting of the EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, or SCoPAFF, due to take place on 11 October.

While we are working hard to secure a deal with the EU, we should prepare for all scenarios, including that the EU would not accept any request for an extension or that the terms of any extension would be unacceptable to the UK. The European Commission considered the UK’s third-country listing application at a meeting of the relevant SCoPAFF committee on 9 April, based on the relevant animal health legislation in place on that date. The UK was able to assure the Commission that all relevant legislation had been made, and member states voted unanimously to list the UK as a third country.

Following the article 50 extension, another vote must now be held; as I said, that will be this Friday, 11 October. To ensure that we are fully prepared for that listing, this SI should be on the statute book to provide the EU with the necessary reassurances that they have said they want in order to expedite the process of listing the UK as a third country. The Government have taken care to rely on the urgency procedure contained in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in as few situations as possible, but we considered use of that procedure to be appropriate in this instance, for the reasons I have described.

The instrument makes a number of technical operability changes to existing instruments on animal by-products, or ABPs; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs; and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs—I hope members of the Committee will forgive me for relying on the abbreviations of all those terms. Those changes ensure that the laws in these policy areas will operate correctly after the UK has left the European Union. The instrument takes into account three recent, highly technical changes to the EU’s ABP and TSE legislation that were published in the EU’s official journal too late to be included in earlier EU exit SIs.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does this instrument have any bearing on the issue of carcass splitting and the specified risk material, namely spinal cord, that needs to be removed from certain lambs? I think both the Government and many sheep farmers wish to move from a system of aging the sheep through their dentition to one of using a date in the calendar.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend mentions a request that, as a former incumbent of my post, he will know the industry has been making for some time. It is under consideration, and is something that we progressed with the European Union during my previous time as Minister. I do not think that this particular change addresses that topic; it is much more about the use of certain animal by-products, which are not category 1, in fertilisers or soil improvers. This amendment covers a much narrower issue.

The instrument amends the provisions regarding harmonisation of the lists of approved or registered establishments, plants and operators and the traceability of certain animal by-products and derived products. The Commission introduced new legislation to create a transition period for those to come into force, and those lists were due to be altered by the Trade Control and Expert System—TRACES—an IT system run by the EU. This instrument simply changes those provisions to give us the flexibility to use either TRACES or our own, new import system, depending on the scenario we end up in.

The second change amends provisions to permit the export of products containing processed animal protein derived from ruminants and non-ruminants. In June 2018, the European Food Safety Authority updated the quantitative assessment of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy risk posed by processed animal proteins, and concluded that the total BSE infectivity posed by processed animal protein was a quarter of that estimated in 2011. Following the opinion delivered by EFSA related to processed animal protein, it was felt appropriate to include organic fertilisers or soil improvers containing processed animal proteins derived from ruminants in the derogation laid down to permit export, and the EU regulation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies was amended accordingly.

The third change makes technical changes to the provisions as regards the imports of gelatine, flavouring innards and rendered fats. The amendment adds Egypt to the list of third countries from which gelatine may be imported into the European Union; aligns the list of third countries eligible for the import of flavouring innards with a reference to the list of third countries authorised for the import of wild game meat for human consumption; and allows imports of rendered fats to be used for the production of renewable fuels using a method that has been assessed by EFSA.

In addition, regulation 5 of the instrument corrects minor inconsistencies in the language used in an earlier EU exit instrument, the Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as identified in 50th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. To exemplify the change in language recommended by that Committee, where the word “countries” was used in some references, it has been amended to “constituent nations”, and where the word “notification” was used, it has been amended to “consent”.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am glad to see the Minister back in his place. With regard to the minor errors contained in those earlier regulations, is he assured that there are no minor errors in these regulations?

[George Eustice]

As I have made clear many times, this is a complex set of regulations. Some 80% of all the Department’s legislation comes from the European Union, so it has been a huge task for officials to bring it all across into retained EU law. I pay tribute to them for the huge amount of work that has gone into that. It is inevitable that, in such a complex operation, there will be occasional errors, oversights or changes. That is why the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided for the ability, in the event of drafting errors being made, for them to be corrected for a period of time after we leave the European Union.

I have answered that as honestly as I can; I hope this is the final word. I did many of these statutory instruments the first time round and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby did many more after I left the post, so we are returning to familiar issues to update the legislation.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

With regard to GMOs, may I confirm that the regulations as amended will make sure that only truly safe GMOs are released and that the UK will still have the right to stop them being used in this country if we, this Parliament and the British Government, will that to be the case?

[George Eustice]

Yes, the changes in relation to GMOs are a few minor changes in language, following the recommendation of the Joint Committee.

The regulations mean that we are bringing across the EU regulatory system exactly as it is; the processes will be exactly the same. The EU system is sometimes criticised, not necessarily because of the thoroughness of the process that people go through, but because politics often gets in the way, so some applications have been left in limbo for up to 20 years. That has been criticised, but the procedures, the methodology, the thresholds and the evidence required will be exactly the same as before, after we leave the European Union.

This instrument applies to the whole UK, and the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in its development and have given their consent for it to be laid. I therefore commend this regulation to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will try to address some of those points as best I can. I completely share the view of the shadow Minister that we must never again take the sorts of risks in livestock husbandry that led to the BSE crisis. That crisis cast a long shadow over our beef industry. Indeed, even today, after all these years, when we are trying to open and negotiate access to markets such as the United States, China or Japan, the issue of BSE is still key and we have to give assurances.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no prospect of this Government weakening our regulations in this area. Even when, in some instances, the science suggests that an approach in certain areas might be more precautionary than is necessary, there is an issue of confidence in international markets. That is why in my time in this post I have always been cautious about departures from the flagship TSE regulations. I am sure that any future incumbents would take the same approach.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed out, the area of EU law relating to animal health and feed restrictions has been under the EU’s remit for some time, including during the BSE crisis. As the hon. Member for Ipswich says, it is a matter for historians, but when the Government of the day were confronted with that terrible crisis, they moved quickly to impose necessary restrictions.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this change has been recommended by the European Food Safety Authority; I hope that reassures him. In previous debates he has had a tendency to trust things that the European Union has said and to be sceptical of things that our own technical advisers say. Others, like me, value our own technical advisers as well. Our TSE experts—the group of technical experts we have in the Animal and Plant Health Agency—have peer-reviewed and assessed the work that EFSA did. They are content with the assessment and that it has reached the right conclusion.

The hon. Gentleman asked about TRACES. If we become a third country, the European Union’s approach is that we would not have access to TRACES. Over the last 18 months we have been developing our own import system. We have designed it so that it looks like TRACES and feels familiar to the relatively small number of importers who have to use it. The system has been running in a beta format for some time and a number of key importers who will need to use it have been familiarising themselves with it. We will have our own replacement system, but it is not impossible that in a negotiated settlement, with a withdrawal agreement, there will be information sharing provisions between our system and the EU’s, or some kind of ongoing access to TRACES, in order to ensure that all of us are doing everything we can to protect the food system.

Finally, on GMOs, the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of exports to the EU and asks if we would still be able to export to the EU were there to be a change. These regulations envisage no change at all. The EU regulatory requirement, as it stands, would come across. A small number of GM crops are authorised for cultivation in the European Union, including a variety of maize cultivated in Spain already.

More to the point, there are many crops that are not authorised for cultivation in the EU but that the EU is happy to import from other countries. The majority of animal feeds that are imported to the European Union from third countries are GM feeds already. The European Union allows those feeds to come in because to ban them would put a huge cost on livestock producers in the EU. That being the case, the decision that we might take as a country—or as a constituent part of the UK in England, for example—to grant an authorisation for a particular crop, given that it would have been done in the same way as the EU authorisation process sets out, is highly unlikely to have any impact on trade, when put in the context of other imports that the European Union makes.

I hope I have managed to cover many or all of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1225).

This statutory instrument serves three purposes. First, it makes a number of technical changes to existing statutory instruments, to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU. Secondly, it ensures that our statute book is closely aligned with the EU initially, to support our application for third-country listing for live animals and products of animal origin. Thirdly, it makes a minor correction to an earlier EU exit SI.

The SI was made under the urgency procedure, as it will be required to support the UK’s application to the European Commission for third-country listed status for animal health purposes, which is currently being considered by the EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed—SCoPAFF. As the Government have made clear, we seek a negotiated withdrawal from the EU, but we are also taking all responsible steps to prepare for all scenarios, including a no-deal exit.

The European Commission considered the UK’s request for third-country listing at the SCoPAFF meeting on 9 April, and based on guarantees and the relevant animal health and hygiene legislation being in place on that date, it agreed to expedite that third-country listing so that it was available from day one. However, another vote is now required, on 11 October, and this SI must be ready and on the statute book to provide the EU with the necessary assurances to be able to expedite that third-country listing. We are making an offer to the European Union, which it has agreed to previously and, we hope, will again, to align certain sanitary and phytosanitary regulations for a period of nine months, in return for its expediting that third-country listing so that it will be available from day one.

This statutory instrument, as with all such instruments, has a rather long title. I will refer to it simply as the animal imports SI, which I think will be easier for everyone. The animal imports SI transfers legislative powers that give the Secretary of State, with the consent of Ministers from the devolved Administrations, the power to amend, vary or add to the list of third countries that can export animals and animal products into the United Kingdom—a function previously carried out by the European Commission.

The SI also gives the UK the power to align with the EU by being able to add new countries to the list for commodities permitted to be imported once the relevant veterinary and scientific risk assessments have been made. Previously, this power was not considered urgent, since we have many alternative powers in other legislation to prevent trade from countries where there is deemed to be either an animal health or a food safety risk. However, this additional power makes it easier to align directly with the EU during that nine-month transition period, in accordance with the undertaking that we have given in order to expedite that third-country listing.

The SI also amends previously made EU exit SIs regarding animal and animal product imports. This is linked to that first power and will simply allow the Secretary of State, again with the consent of the devolved Administrations where appropriate, to publish lists of animals and products that require or are exempted from border veterinary checks outside of the legislation. This will mean that we can vary both the countries on that register and the products that each of those countries are able to export to the UK.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain why he is amending regulations that had already been made under the EU exit procedures in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 before we had even got to exiting? Was a mistake made the first time round or has there been a development? Why does he have to amend statutory instruments that were supposed to prepare us for a no-deal exit?

[George Eustice]

There are two reasons: first, as I said, the EU SCoPAFF’s April agreement has expired and it is considering the matter again on 11 October. Although the ability to amend and update the list in a quick and expeditious way was not considered essential the first time round, given more time we believed it would be helpful to put it in there to place beyond any doubt the fact that the EU would have all the assurances it needed to expedite third country status.

There was also an error, which I was coming on to. The statutory instrument amends the Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 by correcting a reference to the Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to enable certain EU, EEA and Swiss veterinary surgeons to register with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The error was simply that the previous SI referred to paragraph 43 of a regulation regarding professional qualifications that had been laid before the House by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The relevant paragraph in its final iteration became paragraph 44, so there was an error in cross-referencing to the wrong paragraph, and this SI simply corrects it.

Part 1 of this statutory instrument contains relevant definitions used in the instrument. The legislative powers to amend the list are transferred from the Commission in parts 2 and 3 of this instrument. In parts 4 and 5, amendments are made to a previously made EU exit statutory instrument, and to domestic regulations in England and Northern Ireland relating to the trade in animals and animal products. No policy changes were made by those amendments; they are simply technical.

The final purpose of this SI is to correct a genuine but minor error in referencing a paragraph that turned out to be wrong in the final iteration of the regulations that I have mentioned. The devolved Administrations were fully engaged in the development of this statutory instrument, and it applies to the whole of the UK. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I shall try to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible. Starting in reverse order with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, it is indeed the case that these powers, having been brought across, give the UK Government the power and the ability to change the list should, for instance, the European Union have a more lax state of affairs than us. Should it take unnecessary risks with food safety or public health, we would have the option to change the list to have a more stringent approach should it be necessary.

The purpose of amending the regulations now is, in the initial instance, to give the European Union the reassurance that we have all of the powers that we need dynamically to align our regulations on some of these SPS issues with the EU so that it can be reassured that we are not going to depart during that transitional period from the inspection regime that it currently has.

The hon. Member for Ipswich, the shadow Minister, raised the issue of goods from third countries. He is concerned that they may not be checked or inspected at all, but that is not the case. Currently, goods that come into the European Union will be checked in accordance with European standards. Goods that come into the UK on the day after we leave the European Union will also be checked, as they are now, on behalf of the European Union, in exactly the same way that they are now. Where we have transit goods—goods that are landed in another EU country but are destined for the UK market—they will be checked in exactly the same way as they are now when they come into the UK.

So it is already the case that goods in transit are inspected in the UK when they arrive, not at the port of entry. In so far as they are not coming through as goods in transit, but are simply landed in another EU port and then re-exported to the UK, they would undergo the same checks as they do today through the EU’s own system.

The other point I want to make is about rapid alert systems. The EU system is called RASFF: ports in member states can alert one another to problems that they have encountered at the border. The UK contributes the vast majority of the data to that, far more than any of the other countries. I think that for some items, as much as 75% of the intelligence on the system comes from the UK. We have to understand that the EU does not have its own inspection taskforce; it relies on member states. Currently, this task is performed at border inspection posts by the Animal and Plant Health Agency on our behalf, which does a very thorough job. That is where the expertise comes from; it does not come specifically from the European Union.

It may be the case that more goods have to go through the transit route to get to the UK. We anticipate an increase in the number of transit goods, which could mean up to around 8,000 extra checks at UK border inspection posts compared with now. However, we believe that we already have the resources to manage what is a small increase, based on the number of checks that we already do.

The hon. Member for Ipswich asked why we need to use the urgent procedure for this regulation. A European Union SCoPAFF meeting is taking place on 11 October, a few days away; that is not long. It has been a rather moving date: at one point it was going to be earlier in October, then at another point it was going to be 18 October, and it now seems to be moving again to 11 October. Given the importance of getting that third-country listing, we believed it was important to ensure we had done everything possible to provide the EU with the reassurance it wanted to be able to expedite that listing. That is why we made this regulation under the urgent procedure.

The hon. Gentleman ventured into a number of other areas, including the so-called Benn Act—the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. However, when challenged on some of those points, he also pointed out that they were outside the scope of what we are discussing today, so I will not be drawn into those issues save to say that this Government are working very hard and energetically to get an agreement, and have come forward with a sensible proposal to replace the so-called Irish backstop.

[Sandy Martin]

Why is it necessary to bring this SI forward now if there is no chance of our leaving without a deal on 31 October, and if there is a chance of our leaving without a deal on 31 October, how does that square with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act? That was the point I was making about that Act.

[George Eustice]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act does not say there cannot be a no-deal Brexit. It requires the Prime Minister to send a certain letter on a certain date. We do not yet know whether the European Union would agree to extend; we do not know what terms it would demand or extract; and we do not know whether those terms, and any counter-offer it made, would be acceptable to the Government, Parliament or anybody else. There are still many uncertainties here, and we are clear that we will leave, with or without a deal, at the end of October. That remains the Government’s position, and it is therefore prudent to prepare for all eventualities, which is why this SI is necessary.

Finally, I will deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk about vets and veterinary capacity. This particular regulation is more about the inspections that APHA would conduct on behalf of the Government on imports from third countries, and less about the export health certificate. No veterinary capacity is really relevant to those inspections, other than the APHA port inspections that we already carry out. As I said, I believe we have sufficient capacity to manage that small increase in load.

However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a point about export health certificates, where goods going the other way would need some veterinary attestation to say that the goods are what they said they were. We have been offering free training for official vets to sign EHCs. Some 736 have registered with APHA, and 564 are already enrolled on that course. I am told that 152 have qualified, and the number of official veterinarians who can sign EHCs for food products has increased by 200 since 8 February, to 835. We are also looking at additional approaches, such as having certification support officers so that this work can be done by people other than fully qualified vets. We are conscious that there will be an increase in burden when it comes to export health certificates, and we have been working to build capacity in that area.

I hope that I have managed to address most of the issues that have been raised, and therefore commend the regulation to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.