Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That is a fair point.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

The UK has some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world, but American attitudes to farm animal welfare remain very backward. Given that there is now a cross-party consensus in this House that we should enshrine recognition of animal sentience in law, should the Government not require the United States to pass equivalent legislation at federal level as a precondition to any trade deal?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point from someone who was an excellent Minister. I so enjoyed serving with my hon. Friend. As ever, he shows that his commitment to animal welfare and to the highest standards in farming remains undimmed. We are very lucky to have him in this House.

draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (miscellaneous amendments, etc.) (eu exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and common agricultural policy (miscellaneous amendments) (eu exit) regulations 2019 Draft Agriculture (Legislative Fuctions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 General Committees

[Dr Drew]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and I welcome the Minister to his place. This is my third SI of the day, so if I sound tired, it is because I am tired—rather tired of SIs. Given that the Minister has worked out all the questions I was going to ask, my job could be relatively short. I had better think of some other questions, just to make sure that the civil servants earn their pay for the day. I also welcome the former Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, yet again. We have a double act here. He does this for free now, but he should not tell his colleagues that; they will think it is a good way forward, and we might get a few more of them acting in that way. We will say nothing more about that.

I state my usual caveat: we are doing these things in an incredibly rushed way, and mistakes will be made. In fact, the previous SI we considered was all about the mistakes in an SI from last week, so we are going back over what we went over. That will happen, given that we are going through these SIs at a rate of knots.

I am a simple soul, so I will take the SIs in some sort of order; otherwise I will get confused. There are four instruments, but effectively three statutory instruments. I am still trying to struggle through them, but I will try to make my explanation as simple as I can. The first is the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which the Minister mentioned. Much of the subject matter is devolved, and I am intrigued about the extent to which there is an attempt to pull back to the centre some of the changes coming from the EU. The Minister touched on this and made the point about the Administration in Cardiff. I would like him to at least allay my fears that the devolved Administration are losing out in some way. I am sure that the Scottish National Party spokesman will have something to say about that.

This whole area of market structure is not easily picked up; I found it complex—perhaps I am not that clever. I know enough about pillar one, and the way it has worked for a long time, having studied it for a long time. There are issues to do with the lack of clarity on how this will be restructured, even though we are talking about just a transfer of powers, according to the Government. We are told these are technical regulations, but at least some stakeholders disagree with that and feel that there is a change in the relationship. Given the attempt to conflate all these SIs, we have to pick through them carefully.

The Minister outlined the different things covered by market organisation—public intervention, aid for private storage, aid schemes, marketing standards, producer organisations, import and export rules and price measures —all of which are covered by the transfer of powers, as far as I understand. As I said in my rant to the Minister’s colleague in the last SI Committee, the Opposition struggle because all the non-governmental organisations are struggling to keep up to date. I am glad that the Minister is meeting the NFU and CLA, but the various non-governmental organisations to whom I have spoken say that they do not have the capacity to undertake any scrutiny of these SIs because of their complexity and the speed with which they are moving through the House.

The NFU has, however, commented on the first SI. It sees producer organisations as being very important, so continuity as the European legislation becomes UK law is important, as is remaining exempt from competition law; if there is no exemption, it will complicate matters. That is particularly true of horticulture. I would welcome hearing from the Minister on that, so that we can be sure that there are genuinely no changes.

EU member states have been encouraged to work on strengthening routes to market; I know from talking to farmers that they see that as being where they should go. How will these SIs, which are all about market structure, encourage farmers to move closer to the marketplace without raising food prices? We have to be well aware of that. The issue is the degree to which these SIs touch on competition law, and whether the UK will have to revisit its competition law.

The second SI, the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, seems to anticipate future SIs. What are those future SIs and changes? How will they impinge on the way the market operates? Given that this has a lot to do with producer organisations, where is the financial analysis? That is the question that I always ask. Can we be assured that the burden will not fall on the producer organisations, which already suffer from market precariousness? In the short term, there will be churning in the policy vacuum—and there is bound to be a vacuum; things may operate seamlessly, but various questions will remain.

We have to look at where we are, and where we want to be, and make sure that policies are as fair, open and transparent as possible, because any unfair trading practices will undermine the point of trying to encourage producer organisations. That is borne out by what the NFU said to me. It believes that producer organisations are the way in which farm businesses should be moving, so that they can negotiate more successfully with retailers and directly with the customer.

Greener UK asked me a series of questions about the regulations. I will not go through all of them. It is concerned about how the effect of the changes on the environment will be monitored and measured in a fully transparent fashion. It wants to know how the searchlight will be turned on, and how we will make sure that procedures are fully operative as early as possible. That is all linked to the implementation of environmental law and policy. It is also interested in how we will deal with possible breaches, and that will reflect how citizens or civil society organisations will look at this. Greener UK has views on the fairness or unfairness of how things work. Producers and representatives of customers have questions about transparency, accountability, and what to do when things do not work as they should.

The draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 are much more about the structure itself, but concern such aspects as organic production and labelling, which we have talked about in previous Committees. It is important that we recognise that that sector needs greater protection, because it will undergo considerable changes. Although we have our own organic regulators in this country, so much of it is about commonality with the rest of the EU, and that will have to change.

The main issues are diverse, and extend to the functioning of age schemes, including for school milk and the fruit and vegetable scheme, which is of course about providing good-quality food to children, and subsidising the industry, to put it bluntly. The question is how can the Government realistically think that anyone, especially key stakeholders, can cover that? There is such a wide range of elements in the SI. The Minister said that the Government did not need to consult, but it would be interesting to know what consultation, if any, has taken place.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

All we are doing with the SIs is substituting “a member state” for “national authority”, or replacing “Commission” with “the appropriate authority”, simply to make the existing regulations operable. The real question is where was our ability to scrutinise the original EU regulations that were imposed on us? Nobody generally bothered to look at them, barring the Ministers who were there at the time.

[Dr Drew]

The answer is that we could always do it better, and now we have no reason not to. It puts the onus on us, which is why the SIs are important. If we do not get it right now, it will come back to haunt us, either because we will have missed an opportunity or because we will have to revisit the SIs, as we did with those laid just a week or so ago. I accept what the former Minister says, but a whole series of market segments are affected by the CMO and the way in which the SI will operate.

The Government say that there are no costs, but somebody, somewhere, has to bear some of the costs, because there will be new regulatory burdens. As yet, the Government are not clear on how those burdens will be set up, and what form they will take. It would be interesting to understand the Government’s thinking on that, because unless we get the market structure right at least some of the different segments within the food industry will suffer, at least in the short run. Some of the legislation really matters, because it is about emergency measures, which we all ought to know about because of what has happened in previous food scares.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that my final point will be my usual entreaty about databases. We are looking at how we will set up a new databank—in this case, of isotopic data—to detect fraud. The current one is based on samples taken by the member states; we will have to replicate that in a UK context. It would be interesting to know where we are with all the wonderful IT innovations that the Government are trying to introduce, also at a speed of knots.

There is no date for this, so I do not know whether we will borrow stuff from the EU. Clearly, they have collected and stored a lot of material on, for example, the authenticity of wine and what level of sugar has been added, and how much water is in the wine. There is something biblical about that. If we are starting from scratch—I do not know whether we are—can we just bring all the information across, or do we have to pay for it? Alternatively, can we use comparable databases?

It is the usual questions. Where are the databases? How advanced are they in terms of their operation? Who will have access to them? If there is evidence of fraud in the way these different market sectors are operating, what do the Government intend to do? I have nothing more to ask. This is one of the more complex SIs of the many we have been through. As the Minister answered many of my questions to start with, I have come up with a few different ones, but I welcome that we are now getting the answers as well as the questions. It makes my job that much easier.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Perhaps officials in the Department could foresee that Parliament would baulk at the idea of leaving without a deal. “One year” might be a reference to the extension.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former Minister, who is again backseat driving the Minister’s role. I would like to think that officials are that prescient about the Government’s inability to bring forward a deal that they can get a parliamentary majority for, but I suspect the answer is that this SI has been sitting on a desk in DEFRA for some considerable time, and we are waiting until the last moment for these SIs to be given the scrutiny they deserve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, driving through so many SIs means that the level of scrutiny that stakeholders and the Opposition can give them is more limited than if we had been given more time. However, I would be grateful if the Minister set out answers, particularly about the geographical indications and what they mean for the read-across of UK protections.

Draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 General Committees

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and to welcome the Minister and the former Minister to their places. We are going to get doubled-barrelled explanations of everything that is going on.

I thought that last week I was getting to the nadir of my understanding of things, but these SIs are complex. In many respects, they are not controversial, but then, as the Minister rightly touched on, we get to the red meat levy. Those of us who were on the Committee in question spent a lot of time arguing whether it was appropriate, and the devolved Administrations do not necessarily agree with England on the issue. It would be interesting to know whether that has been properly worked through.

I refer back to the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which looked at the issue on 4 December. Its report quoted the instrument, which explains:

“Removing this levy will ensure that, following EU Exit, there will be equal treatment between the EU and the rest of the world for animals imported for slaughter. Defra’s estimate of the maximum financial impact to the AHDB caused by this change is a loss of c. £1,000 per year in levy, although it is believed that the amount actually collected by the AHDB in relation to the rest of the world imports are far lower than this and are probably nil.”

The Minister touched on that. The moneys exchanged seem very limited. I do not know why we have any regulation relating to that, if it is so unimportant. Can he enlighten us a little?

I will start with some general questions, because some points need to be brought out early on. I hope the Minister will get some help from somewhere to answer them. I am always willing to accept written contributions, although I have not received any yet. We have had rather a lot of SI Committees, and so far I am yet to have anyone write to me saying, “You should look at this to understand that,” or, “The Government intend to do this to move to that.” It would be useful to get some contributions so that I at least know that I am along the right lines, or that the Government have done it in the right way.

Under the common agricultural policy, there are payment windows. We have a lot of arguments over them, because they are often breached, and farmers or landowners do not get the money that they should currently get within those windows. Do these regulations in any way change those payment windows? It would be interesting to know what the Government’s contingency is if we were to crash out of the EU. Much of this is predicated on our having an Agriculture Bill in place. Sadly, it does not appear that there will be such a Bill in place, which has caused some consternation among the Opposition—let alone among Government Members—about what will happen if we are no further forward.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Agriculture Bill is all about developing a future policy; these regulations, in common with all such regulations under the EU withdrawal Act, are about ensuring that the current EU scheme and retained EU law—including the common agricultural policy and all its provisions—are operable in the interim period.

[Dr Drew]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but there was supposed to be a seamless move from one to the other. It does not seem very seamless anymore; it seems rather senseless that we are unclear about where we are today—let alone where we will be in a week’s time—in relation to where we would possibly be going in terms of the Agriculture Bill, of which we have heard nothing. We suppose that it will crash out of the Government’s programme this year and we will have to revisit it again next year. We are not really going forward at a rate of knots.

Those who criticise the common agricultural policy—no doubt there are many in this room today—will question the fitness of the legislation as it stands and as it will stand tomorrow should these regulations go through. Farmers are calling for improved systems, so was this not the opportunity—notwithstanding what I said about payment windows—to look at how the system would be improved? Throughout the Agriculture Bill, I have called for the scrapping of the Rural Payments Agency and for its replacement with a new, purpose-built body. Unfortunately, we do not seem to have got any further with that.

My next question is about the limited consultation. Yes, it is true that farming organisations were consulted. However, given that we are moving towards environmental payments, it was really quite a narrow consultation. What about the different environmental organisations that have contributed, largely through the Green Alliance? As the Minister knows, they are very critical of this process and how it has been taken forward. Why were they not directly consulted about these statutory instruments? That would at least have been commensurate with the direction of travel.

I will make two more general points, before I comment on specific bits of legislation. Given our learned experience from having been a member of the CAP for 43 years, it would be useful to know why these SIs could not take account of some of the direction of change.

My last general point is about what the Minister said about there being a series of technical amendments. But this involves direct payments, which is one of the more controversial areas—as we know, through the Agriculture Bill—between the four home countries. When I talked to the Ulster Farmers Union and said, “Of course, we will be removing direct payments,” its representatives basically intimated: “Over our dead bodies!” They believe that direct payments have a strong and continuing role to play in keeping people on the land in Northern Ireland. Since we debated the issue during the Agriculture Bill, have we got any further forward on how we intend to deal with a very different approach? [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene—

[George Eustice]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Drew]

Sorry, the former Minister; I am still getting used to all the different roles being played.

I am intrigued about where we are with those four different approaches: Scotland has its own approach and did not want to make its statement through the Agriculture Bill; Wales is largely in common with England, but has made its own contribution to the changes; and, because there is no Administration in Belfast, we are not at all sure what Northern Ireland is doing. But let us go on to the three bits of legislation.

The draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 again come down to money. I am interested to know whether the Government, through the SIs, will commit to exactly the same moneys being available today and tomorrow, regardless of what happens next week. It would be useful to know whether the Government are prepared to make that commitment of the £3.1 billion or £3.2 billion, which would work its way through to the system. As I said, the Ulster Farmers Union in particular is very clear about wishing to continue with direct payments. How does that impact on the way in which the other parts of the UK will respond?

The Soil Association, although not part of the direct consultation, looked at the issue. It is clear about welcoming the Government’s direction of travel but, again, questions whether the draft SI makes any difference to the programme under which, starting in 2021, we gradually run down direct payments. That would be interesting to know in connection with the draft SIs, given that we have no Agriculture Bill coming through. We are only talking about 18 months away now, so it is not way in the future—this is in the foreseeable future, and farmers are already making calculations about their investments.

The National Farmers Union brought up the point, which the Minister did not mention, that there are now criminal offences for breaching financial assistance schemes. Will he say something about that? The NFU is unhappy about it. Will these SIs mean that obstruction of a person acting in pursuance of the regulations could result in the farmer or landowner facing a financial penalty or worse? Again, some of the conflicts that arise out there are difficult to resolve without clarity of thinking and a much clearer explanation of the impact of these SIs.

The draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 largely concern the budget and the income-support system. One presumes that in the short run we will carry on with the existing structure, because we have no Agriculture Bill and because unless we give farmers the moneys that they thought they were getting, they would be at a distinct disadvantage in competing with other parts of the European Union—in particular in Ireland; Northern Ireland would not want to be at any disadvantage.

We laid down some pretty strong targets in the Agriculture Bill, but how does that relate to the draft statutory instruments? The Nature Friendly Farming Network, for example, wants much longer-term commitments on moves towards soil management, protection of water and the rest of it. Again, that is all wrapped up in the environmental management schemes, which are not part of these SIs, but unless we get things right, farmers will be at a disadvantage in the meantime.

The last instrument is the draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This has been mapped out and spoken about on many occasions by the Secretary of State, but the real issue is how to move from direct payments to environmental payments. Sustain in particular was worried about whether the new shared prosperity fund—the Minister will say that it is not affected by the SI, but that is contingent on the Government’s direction of travel—will be administered by DEFRA or go to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as Sustain fears it might. Where will the moneys for environmental payments be set aside in the interim?

The Ramblers’ Association has made some points about how cross-compliance will essentially alter things, come what may, because of how the Rural Payments Agency has itself been reformed. We know that there is a problem with countryside stewardship for various landowners—the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth talked about that on the Agriculture Bill Committee, when he was the Minister. It would be interesting to know how that cross-compliance will operate not only through the new Bill, but with respect to the regulations before the Committee. They constitute the interim policy; if we do not get that right, farmers, landowners and environmentalists will be disadvantaged.

[George Eustice]

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby to his post. I offered to take part in these Committees specifically because I am largely to blame for some of their content and have signed some of the statements.

I pay tribute to the DEFRA officials, who have had to work incredibly hard on this and all other similar SIs. Hon. Members who read those SIs will quickly establish that to fillet through every piece of EU legislation, literally exchanging the words “Member States” for “relevant authority”—that is predominantly what these statutory instruments do—is not the most attractive of jobs. It requires somebody to go through a huge amount of legislative text. A huge amount of work has gone into all those instruments and it is important to recognise that their purpose is simply to make retained EU law operable.

The shadow Minister made the point that as we are not changing policies, we should surely have drafted the regulations to make them a bridge to the direction of future policy. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was explicitly clear that that should not be done. The purpose of that Act was simply to allow for retained EU law to continue to function as closely as possible to the way that it does currently. It was clear that any future changes in policy should, as a general rule, require future legislation. Of course, we have the Agriculture Bill for that.

It is also worthy of note that section 2(2) of European Communities Act 1972 is probably the most pernicious Henry VIII power in this country in modern history. It is used, particularly by a Department such as DEFRA, to drive a coach and horses through all sorts of pieces of domestic legislation, often without much more than passing a statutory instrument via the negative procedure. The irony with all these SIs is that we expend a great deal of effort to judge whether we are happy to swap the words “Member State” for “relevant authority”, but those powers were simply imposed on us, generally by delegated legislation or by Acts implementing European Union legislation.

When we looked at the AHDB levy—particularly the exemption from the levy for EU animals, which was raised by the shadow Minister—we had two things to consider. The first was whether we should go for a strict interpretation, seeking legislative continuity, in which case we might have said, strictly speaking, that the EU was now a third country and should therefore be treated as such. The second was whether we should adopt an approach to provide continuity for producers in the closest way possible. Had we taken the former approach, we would have required abattoirs up and down the country to suddenly start trying to design and implement systems so that they knew when they were dealing with an animal that might have come from the European Union and could apply a levy to it. As the shadow Minister noted, we apply a levy to animals from outside the EU, but not those within the EU. We concluded that the best way to provide continuity was simply to extend that exemption to everyone in the world, which meant that operators could carry on broadly as they do now.

I do not have a lot of affection for the horizontal regulation in the EU, which one of the SIs relates to. It led to lots of administrative problems for DEFRA to do with how we had to interpret penalties and implement audit processes. It is far from perfect, but the Agriculture Bill has a sweeping power to modify it once we leave the European Union. But for now, in keeping with the ethos of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we should retain it, which is what the regulation does. On financial discipline, in England we decided that we wanted to retain the power to make use of some of the pillar one payments for a crisis reserve, so there would be funds to support agriculture at times of great need in the year ahead before we have introduced our own crisis measures through the Agriculture Bill.

Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned a couple of points about criminal proceedings. We debated that during the Agriculture Bill, and I gave an undertaking to look at the issue. My understanding is that we have never used that power; it has been in our enforcement powers for the EU regulations—that is why it is retained for now, although obviously it can be looked at in the context of the future Bill. As he knows full well, because we debated it at length in Committee, the budget will stay the same in cash terms until 2022. I predict that will cover the timescale for these regulations under retained EU law, because long before that I hope we will have our Agriculture Bill in place.

Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 General Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Davies. It is good to be in Committee for a second time today, albeit not in the same room—this time to debate fisheries.

I begin with the usual health warnings about the speed and the volume of the statutory instruments that are being pushed through. The Opposition believe that there are several glitches and gremlins in them that would have been caught with greater scrutiny and that could have severe consequences when it comes to implementation. We have concerns, which I will set out in turn, about all three instruments that the Committee will consider today.

Combined, the instruments represent about 190 pages of additional regulation. Concerns have been voiced by many of the stakeholders that we on the Opposition side work with about the sheer volume of legislation being pushed through, and about their ability to adequately scrutinise dense legal text and provide good scrutiny from a stakeholder perspective. Some 80% of UK environmental laws come from the EU.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that when these original regulations came from the EU, drafted by the European Commission, they probably came in the form of delegated Acts or implementing Acts that would have received little or no scrutiny in this House. These regulations, as with others under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, are just about making those powers operable.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is good to see the former Fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, in his place, and good to know that the Government now need not only a Fisheries Minister but a former Fisheries Minister to rebut some of the Opposition’s scrutiny.

The concerns that we are raising sometimes relate to the implementation and drafting of the regulations. As the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth will know from the statutory instrument Committee we sat on earlier today, the Minister himself acknowledged that there was a gremlin in that particular statutory instrument, which we flagged up. Our concern is about what other gremlins are in the statutory instruments we are considering today, and how they will affect future considerations.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for making my point for me. The fact that mistakes have been made in that respect means that other mistakes could be made, which is why enhanced scrutiny is important in making sure that the regulations we are considering today—all 190 pages of them—are dealt with sufficiently robustly. These regulations affect one of our most important sectors, one that is especially important for those Members who represent coastal communities. As Business Green has noted,

“The pace at which draft legislation has been processed has been relentless…Parliamentary scrutiny has been creaking at the seams with MPs and peers often admitting they haven't had enough time to review the legislation thoroughly.”

I will now set out the Opposition’s concerns about these SIs, starting with the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. We have a number of concerns about how the powers provided for in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are being used. The drafting in a number of areas appears to be defective: it often fails to adequately correct the provisions of EU law, and makes a number of policy changes to the current provisions. Environmental organisations have got in touch with us to recommend that these common fisheries policy SIs be annulled and updated, because they fall short in a number of areas. I will take the Committee through the areas in which we believe the SIs, and this one in particular, are falling short.

These SIs risk creating a governance gap, placing responsibilities from EU bodies on to organisations that are yet to be created or sufficiently financed. They leave gaping holes in the area of enforcement, leaving fishers less safe and our waters less protected—a concern that the Opposition have raised about previous SIs. There is a risk that these SIs could degrade environmental standards, a point to which I will return when we consider electric pulse trawling. We have specific concerns about the Government’s ban on electric pulse trawling: it is a good example of a policy change hidden within these SIs, notwithstanding the Minister’s statement that there are normally no policy changes in such SIs.

I understand that the Minister will want us to hold our nose and vote these SIs through, because we are at risk of careering towards a no-deal Brexit. In the area of fisheries, unlike in other areas of Government scrutiny, the regulations are not necessarily in place if we do not pass these SIs, so we need to make sure we are using our time properly. However, given the extension from 29 March to 12 April, I suggest to the Minister that some provisions in these SIs should be looked at again and the instruments re-laid, so that they can be comprehensive and fulfil the role they are supposed to.

I am not trying to be difficult or fly a partisan flag, but the concerns about this SI were also highlighted last month by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on 6 February. Its report states:

“Given the significance of fisheries as a policy issue, the House may wish to explore further the approach the Government have taken with this instrument.”

We also reject these SIs being grouped together. That is one reason why we have asked for them to be taken individually, and why I will focus my remarks on each in turn.

I have mentioned the governance gap, which was raised by a number of stakeholders. That is a common theme that Ministers and Government Members will have heard about from the Opposition when responsibilities, especially oversight responsibilities, are being moved from EU bodies to UK bodies. Several provisions in the first common fisheries policy SI remove functions currently carried out by EU bodies, such as the European Commission, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, the European Fisheries Control Agency and the Advisory Council, which are not replaced in this particular SI. The loss of monitoring, reporting and other governance requirements will seriously undermine the functioning and effectiveness of the law. I would be grateful if the Minister came back on that point when he gets to his feet.

Obligations to provide assessments from reports to the European Commission and the European Parliament have been removed, including the provision of data on stock quantities. Given the fact that we are leaving the European Union, that might not be an unreasonable assumption, but our concern is that no subsequent scrutiny functions are inserted. The oversight role that we are looking for is no longer there.

[George Eustice]

Surely when we become an independent coastal state we will re-join other bodies, such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Through those bodies and our membership of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea we will contribute our own scientific evidence. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the UK, year in, year out, regularly corrects data from the European Commission, through our Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former Minister. Our CEFAS scientists are brilliant. He will know our concern that there is insufficient focus on science in creating truly sustainable fisheries with the Fisheries Bill. I take your note, Mr Davies, about not talking about things that are not in these SIs, but these SIs need to fit together with the Fisheries Bill, and that Fisheries Bill has sunk without trace. It is no longer being tabled. I am really concerned that the lack of a Fisheries Bill—indeed, of an Agriculture Bill for the associated one—means that the jigsaw that is being put together with these SIs is incomplete, and the fishers cannot see what type of environment is being created for them after we leave the European Union.

The former Minister is right about one element: after we leave the EU, some of those functions will be carried out by other bodies. However, there is no requirement in these SIs for those other bodies to pick up those requirements, nor is there a home for those scrutiny functions to sit in between leaving those EU bodies and becoming part of any future bodies. That is a concern, because it assumes that we will participate in those bodies in the future. I think some of the examples that the former Minister just raised are fair. However, the situation does not sit easily with me. We need to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny throughout.

[George Eustice]

Is that not just a product of the fact that we are becoming a self-governing nation again? We do not need to be held to account by an external body, but should hold ourselves to account.

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed. I suggest that the former Minister lobbies his colleague, the new Minister, to bring forward the Fisheries Bill, because without a Fisheries Bill we have no legal and legislative framework to hold ourselves together. The former Minister proves my point again, because we lack a Fisheries Bill. That may have been a concern of his when he was at the Department.

I return to this SI in particular. The key role that the Commission plays in the control and enforcement of the rules of the CFP has been removed and not replaced by this SI. Regulation 4(43) of this SI removes articles 96 to 118 relating to the European Commission’s control of the application of the CFP and Council regulations 1224/2009 by member states, including the requirement on member states to report on implementation. That reporting requirement is important, because it is about how we have decent scrutiny of any of the implications of this SI and how hon. Members—assuming they fulfil the role of scrutiny of the European Commission, previously performed by the European Parliament—are able to scrutinise the outcome of this SI.

References to “advisory councils” have been removed and not replaced in this SI. The Minister will know that the Opposition tabled amendments to the Fisheries Bill, to include advisory councils in the future fisheries regulation—a proposal that the former Minister encouraged Members on the Government Benches to vote down. The lack of formal stakeholder engagement means that the involvement of the fisheries industry is removed with the direct implementation of this SI, which is a point of concern not just for the Opposition, but many of those stakeholders.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted in its report that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs argued:

“The oversight function that the Commission currently holds over Member States could, for England at least, be provided by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP)”.

But in the event of no deal, that will not necessarily be provided. That is where stakeholders have created a governance gap. Indeed, the Office for Environmental Protection is, as hon. Members will be aware, coming down the track—not something that we can implement today. That creates the risk of a governance gap in this particular SI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

As far as I am aware, this is one of the issues that needs to be dealt with during the implementation period.

[George Eustice]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with other countries outside the European Union, such as Norway, we have in place framework agreements that set out our approach to joint fisheries management; that those agreements include provisions on data sharing; that the European Union has created a mandate for there to be a continuity agreement for the remainder of this year, which would cover such issues; and, indeed, that the Department already has advance plans for a future framework agreement to cover such matters?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank my hon. Friend—having had five years in this job, he is well aware of the intricacies of some of the issues. However, the point that I am making is clear: the Prime Minister negotiated a 20-month implementation period to allow this and other measures to be agreed.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, who speaks for the SNP, said that we want to see continuity. That is precisely what this measure does: it ensures continuity. The measures agreed at the Fisheries Council before Christmas will continue past the date on which we leave the European Union. It has always been clear that that will be the case. I have to say to her, however, that members of the Scottish fishing industry—those to whom I spoke, anyway—are fully behind Brexit. They relish the opportunity we have to be an independent coastal state and to exploit the resource available to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question; Hartlepool is an important port just up the coast from my constituency. As I said, only three authorisations are in place for UK vessels. We are proposing to review that, with a view to withdrawing them. I am confident that we may well be in a position to be ahead of the EU in getting that ban in place.

[George Eustice]

Does the Minister agree that the UK has led the calls in the EU for that change? Far from responding and reacting to what the EU is doing, we will implement, through the changes he outlines, a ban on the majority of pulse trawling in our waters far sooner than the European Union.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I can think of several instances where the UK has wanted to move ahead on environmental or animal welfare legislation. I am digressing slightly, but we are looking at dry sow stalls, battery cage legislation and veal crates. The UK moved ahead of, and faster than, the rest of the EU—it was not moving at the same speed as us. Although people say that leaving the EU will result in a degradation of our environmental and animal welfare legislation, that has no regard to our track record as a nation. Both parties have been keen to promote those topics and to move faster than the rest, so leaving the European Union will give us the opportunity to do that, rather than dragging behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

This draft instrument bears the brunt of my concern and the Opposition’s concerns about electric-pulse beam fishing. I am grateful to the Minister for doing my job for me by saying that there will be no changes in behaviour because of the draft instrument, and then in the next sentence saying that changes over time will build a more sustainable fisheries industry. Both cannot be true.

My concern relates mainly to the electro-pulse beam fishing method. There is widespread, cross-party condemnation of this method, as was raised in the Fisheries Bill Committee. I will spend a bit of time talking about those concerns in relation to the draft instrument.

The explanatory notes to the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 say:

“The technical changes made by this instrument are necessary to ensure that the rules contained in the CFP continue to operate effectively, so that fishing within UK waters continues to be regulated in a sustainable manner.”

However, our concern is that how sustainability will be provided is open to broad interpretation.

Provisions of the draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 replace certain duties on authorities to take action with powers. This is not only a legal change, but also potentially undermines the effectiveness of the law. The main concerns around this raised by stakeholders—some environmental and some from the industry—relate to conservation. Regulation 25(7) removes reference to article 7(3) of Council regulation 2018/973, which provides that emergency measures under the CFP should form part of remedial measures to restore stocks above maximum sustainable yield. That sounds very technical, but what it effectively says is that we must ensure there are sufficient fish in the sea for our fishing industry to fish, and the changes to that could be quite considerable. Provisions on conservation measures have also been removed and not replaced; regulation 3(5) of this statutory instrument removes articles 6, 7 and 8 on types of conservation measures and the establishment of fish stock recovery areas. That is a concern to a number of stakeholders who have got in touch.

Certain provisions of this SI, such as regulation 25(11), remove requirements for the UK to co-operate with other countries when taking measures to protect fish stocks. That presents a risk that the important role that other countries and European functions play in ensuring that fish stocks are maintained will be lost and not replaced. Further to the concerns raised about the first SI, the question is how we ensure that we have a functioning fisheries regulatory environment, especially when it comes to sustainability, as soon as we leave the European Union.

[George Eustice]

Is the hon. Gentleman not just alighting on the simple fact that after we leave the European Union, it will no longer be the role of the European Commission to enforce these things? Instead, it will be for us to enforce them ourselves. He is referring to the removal of a function from the European Commission, which is absolutely right and proper in the context of our leaving the European Union.

[Luke Pollard]

I like to think that scrutiny is a bit like energy. We cannot destroy it; it can only be moved from one function to another. If we are taking scrutiny away from the European Commission, it must be placed somewhere else, and that is not what this SI does.

Our main concern with this SI relates to the phony ban on electric pulse beam trawling. Crucially for us, this SI had the potential to create commonality—a common bond between the Opposition and the Government on the need to ban this cruel fishing method. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, this fishing method is cruel. The voltage used by some fishers can be so high that it breaks the vertebrae of the fish they are dealing with. Given how strong a fish is, a considerable amount of force is needed to break those vertebrae, and that involves a level of cruelty that I think the people who sent us to this place would find completely unacceptable.

The Minister will know that the Opposition have significant concerns about this ban. It does not go far enough, it is open to abuse and it fails to make good on the promises that I believe were made by his predecessor in the Fisheries Bill Committee, where the Opposition tabled amendments that, by my rough arithmetic, would have passed if we had not withdrawn them.

[George Eustice]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I have not even got to my main point, but I am happy to give way.

[George Eustice]

As the Minister at the time who made that offer, I completely refute the hon. Gentleman’s allegation that this does not live up to what was offered. It was made clear in Committee that the derogation that applied particularly to the 87 or so Dutch vessels would not be carried into domestic law, but it was also made clear that the small number of Scottish vessels—I think there are three or four—that practise that method would still be subject to that derogation, but obviously it would be open to the current Minister, or indeed a future Minister, to change that through licensing regulations.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to move ahead with my speech; I will run through the first bits, and then, if that does not address the point, I am happy to come back to it.

This controversial form of fishing in UK waters is done mainly by Dutch trawlers operating under a phony scientific derogation. They have effectively built a commercial fishery in electric pulse beam fishing—a fishing method that has caused excessive harm to our marine life. British fishers and conservationists warn that it is wreaking havoc on our sea bed, and there are reports that large parts of our sea bed have been turned into graveyards after this method has been used in the waters above them. It is powerful enough to break the vertebrae of large cod, and it is thought that similar damage and suffering is being inflicted on other sea life.

The previous Minister and I were corresponding on this issue before he resigned from the Government. I thank him for responding to my feedback, but it was unfortunate that he decided not to accept it. The Opposition were trying to create a comprehensive ban that would have ensured that this fishing method was not seen in our waters. In Committee, we withdrew an amendment that would have put a ban in the Bill. Following the Minister’s response to the amendment, I was more than happy to grant him the opportunity to correct the situation.

Although we welcome the idea of introducing a provision in the SI to ban electric pulse beam fishing, we do not believe that this one goes far enough, because, as the explanatory notes state, far from removing the ability for any boats to fish with this method, it includes a derogation. Page 16 of the explanatory notes—hon. Members may wish to read this for themselves—states:

“The derogation will therefore permit the authorisation of up to 5% of all the beam trawlers in the United Kingdom fleet to use the electric pulse trawl, along with certain other conditions that remain the same as before EU Exit.”

To me, a ban on a fishing method means that no one can use it. Allowing 5% of beam trawlers to use that method sounds like authorising a large number of fishing boats to use it.

[George Eustice]

Is that not simply a product of the fact that the EU withdrawal Act says that we should not change policy? We should simply bring across EU policy, and the 5% the hon. Gentleman mentions is EU policy. The best that we could do with this SI is remove the derogation for the Dutch vessels that make up the vast majority of those using this technique.

[Luke Pollard]

The former Minister hits on the problem. The SI does not do what it needs to. The commitment given when the Committee amendment was withdrawn was that an SI would come forward that would comprehensively ban electric pulse beam trawling. That is not what the SI does. It opens the window for up to 5% of all beam trawlers in the UK to use electric pulse trawl, and certain other conditions remain the same as before. That is not the ban that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

When the Minister got to his feet, I was looking to him to commit to removing that 5% derogation and ban the practice completely. That is what the Opposition are looking for and what hon. Members on the Government Benches, who have fishing communities that have been trimmed from the SI, also want.

If we are to have truly sustainable fisheries, which is the ambition set out in the fisheries White Paper, we must not allow a loophole through which up to 5% of beam trawlers can use this method. Conditions might change; we need to ensure that fishing regulations are future-proofed. Otherwise, all we are doing is simply allowing a loophole that will need to be addressed in future.

We are very concerned about the 5% figure. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how he intends to remove any loopholes from future regulations. Potentially allowing 200 boats—5% of beam trawlers—to use this fishing method in future opens the opportunity for considerable pain.

I would also like the Minister to edit this part of the SI to include additional protections. The former Minister set out the need for occasional scientific derogations, to investigate whether elements of technological change in pulse beaming could be more sustainable, but clear parameters should be set around that.

The Minister missed a trick with regard to public consultation, and when he said there was no prohibition on this type of fishing activity in marine protected areas, or within 12 nautical miles of the shore. We believe there should be strict punishments and proper enforcement.

I am conscious that hon. Members wish to return to the main Chamber, so I will not keep us on this point much longer. Our concern is that the SI creates a loophole in law and does not set out a clear enough vision or certainty that this method will be banned. I would like to see the SI brought forward again with that loophole removed, in which case the Opposition would be happy to support the Minister.

[George Eustice]

Does not what the hon. Gentleman is asking for violate the essential principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act? It is not there to change policy. What he is asking for should be delivered through the Fisheries Bill, which, as he knows, has passed its Committee stage and will, we all hope, return to the House shortly.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former Minister for that comment. As he will recall, in a room very similar to this one, he made the commitment that an SI would be brought forward before we left the European Union that would comprehensively ban electric pulse trawling.

[George Eustice]

That is not what I said. I said that we would not bring across the derogation for non-UK vessels, and that is what the SI delivers.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former Minister for seeking to clarify his words. The fact is that the SI provides a 5% loophole for this cruel and unsustainable fishing methodology to be used in UK waters. It does not provide a ban as soon as we leave the European Union—the Opposition withdrew the amendment to the Fisheries Bill because we thought it would—nor does it seek to close loopholes that could be used in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister will be unsurprised to know that I have similar concerns about the governance gap in these regulations, and about how they fit with the Fisheries Bill. I appreciate that the Minister may want to call it a Fisheries Act, wishing that it had gone through its parliamentary stages, but it is a Fisheries Bill—at the moment, it is a missing Fisheries Bill—and we need to ensure that it fits with this SI so everything works together.

The Minister talked about the removal of TACs, and I will return to that concern in a moment. More broadly, our concerns about this SI relate to conservation and governance gaps. They are similar to the concerns we set out in relation to the previous two SIs. The requirement to report certain catches against gear type has been removed—that is regulation 6(10)(c)(ii), for people following this closely—but it has not been replaced by an obligation to report that anywhere else instead. The Minister may say that that will be in the Fisheries Bill, but the Fisheries Bill does not exist in the way we want. It is not going through its parliamentary process, so that level of oversight and governance has been lost. The Minister says it is business as usual, but it is business as usual with only minor scrutiny. We have concerns about that. The provision stating that total allowable catches should be set in line with the principle of sustainable exploitation and consistent with maximum sustainable yield have been removed in this SI.

Regulation 6(7) omits article 6 of Council regulation 2019/124, which states that total allowable catches should be set in line with the principle of sustainable exploitation and should be consistent with maximum sustainable yield. The Opposition have raised concerns throughout the fisheries SI process, and during the Fisheries Bill, that if we remove the requirements to fish at a sustainable level and do not replace them with robust requirements to ensure our seas are fished sustainably, there is a risk that our fishing may be at unsustainable levels in future. When the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth was the Minister, I had great confidence that he would not set catches above sustainable levels, although I recognise that they have been set in some cases leading up to this point. I hope that the current Minister would not do such a thing either, but that is not to say that any future Minister, buoyed by political concerns or otherwise, may not be tempted to do that.

[George Eustice]

Is it not the case that in doing so they would be in breach of other international fisheries obligations that we have?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the former Minister setting that out, but we know that there is fishing above sustainable levels today. Mackerel losing its sustainable status just a few weeks ago shows that all our fisheries in the UK are not being fished at sustainable levels at the moment, but they need to be. Given the risk of fishing populations changing due to climate change, we need to ensure that there is an adequately responsive deal on fisheries.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the UK has no right to represent itself in the mackerel negotiations with countries such as Norway and the Faroe Islands? That is done by the European Union. Insofar as there is a problem, it is literally the fault of the European Union.

[Luke Pollard]

The lack of fish in the sea is also about overfishing and the regulatory environment that deals with overfishing. The solution to restoring mackerel stocks to sustainable levels will not be about pinning blame on whichever body, but about making sure that fishing levels are set at a sustainable rate, so we are not overfishing stocks, especially those on the decline due to poor recruitment or overfishing. We have to be clear about that.

I have been through most of my concerns about the governance gaps in the statutory instruments, so I will not keep the Committee any longer. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out where our total allowable catches lie, and his vision for the Fisheries Bill. Perhaps he could say when he expects the Fisheries Bill to return, so we can see how this statutory instrument would fit in with any provisions the Government propose in future.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted to give way to my dear Friend.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He is right to say that the European Union does not have border infrastructure in place to carry out the border inspection checks that he mentions. Is that perhaps why the EU has asked us to dynamically align our regulations for a period of nine months so that it would not have to carry out such checks during that period?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right, but dynamic alignment during those nine months would mean our being a rule-taker during that period. Dynamic alignment would allow us to be registered as a third country, but there would also be sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—checks on a variety of products.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I resigned from the Government two weeks ago over the issues that we will be debating in the days ahead. Since Parliament has now taken direct control of events and decisions in this negotiation, I wanted to be free to participate in that debate and to make the case publicly on the Back Benches that I have made privately within the Government over the past year.

I fear that Parliament has set us on a dangerous course. We are in real danger, today, of signalling to the European Union and others that we are too scared to leave without a deal and, tomorrow, of ordering the Prime Minister to go on her hands and knees, and cap in hand, to Brussels—

[Heidi Allen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[George Eustice]

No, I will not give way.

We may be ordering the Prime Minister to go cap in hand to the European Union to beg for an extension to article 50, and we do not know what counter-offer it may make. It may demand that that extension must be for two years, and it may demand a large financial charge for that extension. It may even say that it will not give an extension, but that it is open to us to revoke article 50. Members in this House may face a very difficult, very uncomfortable decision in just a couple of weeks’ time.

I believe that we must be willing, if necessary, to take our freedom first and talk afterwards. We know that the European Union—I worked closely in a lot of the preparations for no deal—is already seeking what is, in effect, an informal nine-month understanding.

There have been a number of points over the past two years when I think the Government could have reappraised their approach to the negotiations. Personally, it became clear to me a year ago, at the point at which the implementation period was agreed, that our negotiations were getting into a little bit of trouble, and that we were in danger of drifting along a path of least resistance, only to find that we had an agreement that Parliament would not accept. At about that time, something else interesting happened.

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely and sincerely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can I take it that he has made a point of speaking to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who has warned consistently about the dangers of no deal, of a hard Brexit and of a hard border on the island of Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I have not spoken to the Chief Constable, but I have been involved in a lot of other negotiations on the DEFRA front.

On 22 March last year, when I was visiting Oslo for some fisheries negotiations, our then ambassador to Norway told me that she had had a busy week, because she had been placed on standby by the Foreign Office to deliver a letter by hand to the Norwegian Government giving 12 months’ notice of our intention to quit the EEA. In the end she was stood down, because of the transition agreement, and this country took a conscious decision not to give notice of an intention to quit the EEA.

That made me curious, because up until that point, and indeed since, the Government have always maintained that when we leave the EU our agreement under the EEA will automatically fall away. If that were true, and if it were the only possible interpretation of the EEA treaty, why was our ambassador armed with that letter to deliver to the Norwegian Government? After much probing, I established that there is indeed more than one interpretation that could be adopted, and the Foreign Office was concerned that, in the absence of giving that notice, we could be subject to challenge under the Vienna convention.

For me, that opened the prospect of a different approach: relying on our existing EEA membership, asserting our rights under that treaty, and simply applying to join the EFTA pillar of the EEA agreement. That arrangement means we would have had no customs union; control of our fisheries and agriculture policy; an independent trade policy; no need for an implementation period; no need for a backstop; and no need to worry about whether we have a codicil or a protocol, since we would be able to quit at any time, with 12 months’ notice in writing.

I have tremendous respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and was initially very encouraged when he picked up that idea and ran with it. However, as hon. Members who know him will know, he also has a tendency to overcomplicate things, so a simple and clean EEA model that could have given us an easy pathway out of this became Norway-plus, then the customs union 2.0, and then a backstop was added as well. The result is that it has alienated many Members on the Government side of the House who might otherwise have supported it.

In conclusion, my view is that, first, we need to unhitch the customs union and the backstop from any proposal based on our existing EEA membership. That might require us to be ready to leave without an agreement. Secondly, we can dynamically align our regulations over the next nine months. Finally, we can have the dynamic alignment as a bridge to a new arrangement in which we apply to join the EFTA pillar.

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

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[George Eustice]

These are two of a number of affirmative statutory instruments to be considered as the UK leaves the European Union, as provided for by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They ensure that pesticide regulations remain operable after 29 March when we leave the European Union.

Plant protection products, commonly called pesticides, are currently regulated by means of EU regulation 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and associated regulation 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. Those two regulatory regimes are closely related and currently rely on centralised EU processes and mechanisms, although much of the business of the regimes is already conducted at national level. Decisions at EU level are taken on the basis of evaluations and assessments undertaken by member states, such as those undertaken by our Health and Safety Executive.

In future, those evaluations will inform a national decision rather than informing UK input to an EU decision. That means that much of the infrastructure and expertise we need is already in place in the UK, which will provide a good degree of continuity when we implement the UK-wide regime. The Chemicals Regulation Directorate, which sits within the HSE, already has around 150 staff working on pesticides, which is a considerable resource. We are known as probably the most advanced and developed country in Europe in terms of technical expertise.

Under the current system, a chemicals company that seeks an authorisation for a new active substance will go to a member state to have its technical information and scientific data evaluated. Those technical evaluations are currently conducted in the UK by the Chemicals Regulation Directorate. UK authorities already do around 30% of all the assessments of new products that take place in the European Union—we are known to be very efficient at doing that work and chemicals companies often choose to come to the UK.

The CRD then produces a draft assessment report, which contains a technical evaluation, looking at issues such as eco-toxicity, human health impacts, the fate of the chemicals in the environment and their efficacy. That draft assessment report is then submitted to the European Food Safety Authority which, in some cases but not all, runs a simple peer review process using a committee of experts. Following that process, EFSA reaches a final conclusion and makes a recommendation to the Commission. That recommendation is ultimately approved as a decision by one of the European Union’s standing committees—in this case the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.

In future, we will still run all that information. Instead of having an EU peer review process, we will use the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides, and rather than the EU running a public consultation, there will be a requirement on the HSE to run the public consultation.

The regulations are designed to achieve a number of things. First, all decision-making functions and powers are repatriated from the EU to national level in the way that I have explained. That includes approval of all active substances and a number of related functions, such as the precise nature and format of the documents required and some of the renewals processes that are currently provided for in EU law.

Secondly, a mechanism is established to give effect to national decisions by listing approved active substances on a new statutory register in the form of a publicly available online database. This replaces the current EU mechanism for giving effect to decisions through a large volume of tertiary legislation that establishes the register.

Thirdly, other EU tertiary legislative powers will be repatriated. These are the powers to set out the principles and decisions and the thresholds and end points that should inform decisions. The powers will be exercised in future through statutory instruments rather than through tertiary legislation from the EU. A few very minor things, such as the precise format of dossiers and of assessment reports, can be dealt with administratively.

As I have explained, EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in a national context. Examples are consideration of specific technical issues specified in the regulations, public consultation on active substance applications, provision for consultation with independent specialists where appropriate, and final decision making.

National arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place. We already have advisory committees of experts and academics—the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food. They are preparing to meet the challenge of any additional advice that they will need to give. They are already looking at the forward pipeline of potential renewals and new product applications that they would need to consider, and reviewing whether they have the right skills balance in their existing committee structures and seeking to recruit additional ones where they deem that necessary.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Under the current regime, the EU produces in the order of 50 additional regulations per year. Once the powers have been repatriated to this country, will there be very close alignment of this country with the new regulations being produced in the EU? If not, how will we be able to maintain our ability to trade with the EU given our need to demonstrate that our pesticide standards are at least as good as the EU’s?

[George Eustice]

It is obviously open to us as an independent country to choose independently to adopt processes and have things similar to those in the EU if we want to. There is nothing to prevent us from doing that, but I believe that, when it comes to pesticides, it is very important to base our decisions on the correct scientific and technical interpretation of the risk to the environment and to health. We have instances where European countries have sometimes done the calculations wrong and authorised products that they should not have authorised. We would not want to follow them if they had made errors in their analysis. The important thing is that, as I have said, the CRD has the best scientific experts on pesticides in the EU definitely and possibly in the world. It is very important that we rely on that to protect the rigour of the process and do not simply slavishly follow decisions that come from elsewhere.

The EU regime’s power to establish a rolling active substance renewals programme will be replaced with a power to establish a national renewals programme to ensure that we are able to take renewal decisions as necessary from day one of exit.

Some elements of the current regime that rely on EU membership will no longer be able to operate. For example, the mutual recognition provisions for fast-tracking product approvals between member states in the same zone will no longer be relevant. However, as I said earlier, the UK will be able to take account of relevant assessments by other countries’ regulators in our own national assessments. Similarly, parallel trade permits for products rely on the sharing of information between member states and will no longer be relevant. Current parallel trade permits at the point of exit will remain valid for a transitional period of two years after exit or until the extant expiry day—whichever comes sooner. Transitional measures have been put in place, ensuring that changeover to the national regime is smooth. For example, we have measures to ensure that all current approvals and authorisations remain valid after the point of exit and measures to make provision for the handling of applications in train at the point of exit.

We are also taking forward a separate instrument, as I mentioned at the start, that was laid on 12 February. The Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make some further minor changes relating to plant protection products and maximum residue levels. Those regulations are being made under the negative procedure. It is essentially a wash-up revocation and miscellaneous amendments SI to deal with changes that have come late in the day from the European Union. As Members will understand, there is a constant torrent of regulation in this space, so it is important that we make any necessary updates at the end of the process.

Those separate regulations also reinstate the original wording of article 46 of regulation 1107/2009 in place of the replacement article 46, which was to be substituted by regulation 5(24) of the draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which we are debating. That reinstatement is because the correction of article 46 made by the original drafting inadvertently altered the grace periods permitted under the article as it operates currently. In the new regulation, we have reverted to the original text.

The main changes in the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are very similar to those in the first instrument. First, the regulations repatriate all decision-making functions and powers, such as the setting of maximum residue levels, from the EU to the national level. Secondly, a mechanism is established to give effect to national maximum residue limit decisions by listing them on a new statutory register in the form of a publicly available online database.

EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in a national context, such as the valuation functions specified in the regulations. National arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place with our two highly respected expert committees. The requirement for reviews of EU maximum residue levels to ensure that they are set appropriately has been replaced by a provision for reviews at the national level. That has been necessary to ensure that it is practical and realistic for the UK to deliver acting alone. More realistic timelines to undertake reviews in a national context have therefore been set. They better match the real time that this work takes in practice in the EU at the moment.

The power to establish an EU residue monitoring programme has been replaced by an equivalent national power to put in place a national monitoring programme. The current EU programme looks three years ahead, so the UK’s obligations under the programme for the next three years are retained. That will ensure that the same standards of protection are maintained after exit. Transitional measures have been put in place to ensure that changeover to the national regime is smooth. For example, all MRLs in place at the point of exit will be carried over.

I make one final point clear to the Committee. There is a constant flow of EU tertiary regulations, typically with several each month giving effect to decisions on active substances and maximum residue levels. Two minor transitional provisions in the regulation on maximum residue levels, which were laid before Christmas and relate to regulation 396/2005, and which convert EU MRLs into our new statutory register, have already become redundant due to amendments made to that regulation by the EU in January. As I mentioned earlier, last week we introduced the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Among other amendments, it will revoke the two transitional provisions that have been overtaken by events in the EU. Both SIs will be made together once the draft instrument laid last week has passed through the necessary parliamentary processes, which will ensure that our regulations link correctly to retained EU law as it is on exit day.

I want to make one final point. I appreciate that the SIs are very lengthy—they are longer than many of the other exit SIs. Hon. Members will note that there are large schedules at the back of the regulations that contain a long list of revocations of EU regulations that we no longer need, since those pieces of tertiary legislation were essentially the vehicle that delivered a message that will be recorded on our statutory register in the future. The vehicle itself is no longer needed and is redundant, which is why there are so many revocations at the back of these statutory instruments.

I hope I have explained the process to hon. Members and reassure them that we have a very high degree of technical expertise. Although we operate under an EU regime, in practice most of the technical work is done by our national authorities, which are well equipped to continue to do this task after we leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Drew]

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Sandy Martin]

Is there not a danger, Minister, that the people with the expertise will find that there is a more ready market for their expertise in the rest of the European Union, and that they will take their expertise back to the European Union rather than remaining in this country?

[George Eustice]

I do not think so because we will still need to comply with the regulations in the UK. The opportunities offered by Brexit to all DEFRA agencies add up to an exciting time. Rather than slavishly following EU law as we have had to do for decades, we have the opportunity to think through from first principles what good policy looks like, and to shape it independently.

Let me give hon. Members a sense of the scale of the renewal programme. Each year, usually around seven new active substances come on to the market, so the workload involved in assessing those is relatively modest, but dozens of active substances need to be reviewed every year. As the shadow Minister pointed out, currently under EU law the maximum residue limits are supposed to be reviewed within a 12-month period, which never happens. The European Union routinely breaks its own rules and typically takes up to three years to do that job.

We have to ask ourselves an important question. Is it better to rush things through in a hurry to hit some 12-month deadline, and to do things in a rather slipshod fashion, or is it better to take the time it takes to do the job thoroughly so that we have an absolutely proper understanding of any changes in the science on MRLs, and ensure that we have available all the necessary data on which to base a decision, and then be realistic about that timescale? The position we have taken, having discussed that with the HSE, is, “If you are going to do the job, do it properly; and if you are going to do it properly, be realistic about the time it takes to gather the raw data.” The HSE believes that a three-year window makes more sense than 12 months, and that in practice the EU works to that deadline anyway regardless of its own rules. We think it is better to have rules that we can abide by and that make sense than to have rules, as the EU does, that are routinely broken.

On peer review of the scientific advice, as I pointed out, we have the Expert Committee on Pesticides. Just as the EU currently puts together a peer review panel to look at the technical assessments done by the CRD, we envisage that the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food will be able to carry out a peer review process on the work done by our CRD officials.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of accountability. It is important to recognise that, under the current system, there really is no political accountability. As I said, the blizzard of tertiary regulations that come from the European Union go to a standing committee, where things are decided. After that, there is no parliamentary process in the European Parliament. As far as our Parliament is concerned, those regulations do not even warrant an explanatory memorandum to tell hon. Members what has been done. This is the simplest of all delegated Acts, of which there is zero political scrutiny at present.

In the future, there will be a maintained register, a national consultation run by the HSE and a peer review process run by the ECP, with its minutes published in the same way they are now for product authorisations. We will have a very open and transparent process that people with technical expertise will be able to probe and challenge, and people who seek to understand why a particular product is on the statutory register will readily be able to find the information they require.

In conclusion, I believe we have the expertise in place to run both regimes effectively. We have also taken on a scoping exercise to recruit additional staff and provide additional resources to the CRD. We have the expertise. The statutory instruments will ensure that we have an operable set of regulations that change nothing and bring across the EU regime. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee had considered the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(George Eustice.)

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

12. What plans he has for farming policy after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

Our plans for future farming policy are set out in the Agriculture Bill. At the heart of our new policy in England will be a system that pays public money for public goods, rewarding farmers for enhancing animal welfare, improving soil health and creating habitats for wildlife. We are also introducing measures to support investment in farm productivity and to improve fairness in the supply chain.

[Luke Hall]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he update me on what steps the Government are taking, following a very serious case in my constituency, to give the courts the power to grant injunctions to prevent people who are on trial for animal cruelty from acquiring new animals as they go through that legal process?

[George Eustice]

I recall meeting my hon. Friend about a particularly difficult and tragic case in his constituency. His local authority did make a powerful case for there to be a power to have an injunction to prevent the restocking of farms while prosecutions were pending. Such injunctions are usually reserved for civil cases. It is already possible to confiscate animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but I will look again at this issue as we consider future legislation.

[Alex Burghart]

Will the Minister reassure the House that food production will remain central to agricultural policy and that we will continue to encourage farmers to produce food of the very highest standard?

[George Eustice]

Yes, I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that guarantee. It is called the Agriculture Bill and it has provisions to allow market intervention to support that. There are provisions to improve fairness in the supply chain. Every five years, we currently have an assessment of our food security. The Bill is absolutely about producing food sustainably, not ceasing to produce food.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

John Vernam, the chairman of Cherry Valley, the source of the majority of the world’s Pekin duck breed, came to see me recently to talk about his concerns about the effect of a no-deal Brexit. He says it will have a wide-ranging impact on the industry and on animal welfare and food standards. Can the Minister please prove that he is no chicken and reassure the poultry industry that he is actively encouraging the Prime Minister to avoid a no-deal Brexit?

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on tackling air pollution around schools and hospitals.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

This instrument makes amendments to domestic legislation and retained direct EU legislation that would otherwise not be operable after our exit from the European Union. It makes only those changes required to ensure a smooth exit from the European Union and does not change the definition or compositional requirements of fertilisers.

Fertilisers are essential yearly inputs for the UK agricultural, horticultural and amenity sectors. The UK is a net importer of fertiliser products, with only domestic production of potash, polyhalite, ammonium nitrate and lime contributing to the UK’s total fertiliser requirement. The legislation on fertilisers concerns the manufacturing and marketing of products. It provides for the definition, composition, labelling and packaging requirements for specific categories of fertilisers that are set out in lists. This legislation does not address the application or use of fertilisers. Such issues tend to be dealt with through separate provisions in measures such as the nitrates directive.

In 1975, the EU created its first set of legislation relating to fertilisers. However, the wide disparity in existing fertiliser rules between member states, and the bulky nature of these materials restricting cross-border trade, meant that it was not suitable to fully harmonise rules on all fertilisers throughout the EU. Instead, fertiliser rules were partially harmonised to begin to remove technical barriers to trade within the EU. The UK has therefore kept its existing domestic framework alongside the EU framework. The EU regulation sets out the requirements for so-called EC fertilisers, or previously EEC fertilisers, which can be sold freely across the European Union. Manufacturers can choose which framework to market their products under. This partial harmonisation remains in place today.

The current domestic framework for any material described as a fertiliser is the Fertiliser Regulations 1991. In the EU, the current framework is the EU regulation EC 2003/2003, which applies only to fertilisers labelled “EC fertiliser”. It was implemented in UK law by the EC Fertilisers Regulations 2006. In addition, ammonium nitrate fertilisers are controlled through safety regulations that apply to all ammonium nitrate in Great Britain.

This statutory instrument amends domestic legislation that is out of date and addresses the failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, along with other deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Part 2 of the instrument amends out of date references in the domestic legislation. For example, it omits references to “EC fertilisers” and “EEC fertilisers” to ensure clarity for users of the legislation.

In the case of EU legislation, part 3 of this instrument amends retained EU law to ensure that it will operate effectively after exit day. For example, references to member states and the Commission are amended to refer instead to UK authorities. A requirement on the language to be used on labels is also amended. It replicates the EU framework in UK law, replacing the “EC fertiliser” label with a new equivalent “UK fertiliser” label. The requirements will otherwise remain the same. The instrument also amends the EU framework to include a provision that preserves the ability of relevant bodies in the UK to continue to be able to take certain actions such as prescribing how specified fertilisers should be identified. Part 4 amends domestic legislation as a result of exit, ensuring continuity of supply by recognising the EC fertilisers label for a two-year transitional period after exit day. This will minimise burdens on businesses and authorities and enable suppliers to use up existing stocks, both of fertilisers and packaging. The amendments in the statutory instrument do not change the definition, compositional requirements, or labelling or packaging rules for fertilisers, whether they are marketed under the existing domestic framework—the 1991 regulations—or the EU framework.

Ammonium nitrate fertilisers are additionally covered by domestic safety regulations, since they can be misused as improvised explosives and pose safety risks if mishandled in manufacture, transport or storage. It is worth noting that part 4 of the instrument also amends the regulations surrounding ammonium nitrate fertilisers with high nitrogen content in Great Britain, to treat imports from EU member states the same as imports from other third countries in line with World Trade Organisation obligations.

Under the GB ammonium nitrate regulations, the rules for imports from the EU are different from those for imports from outside the EU. In the light of WTO rules, it would not be possible to retain these differences, so the instrument amends some aspects of the ammonium nitrate regulations, in particular the detonation resistance tests, to apply the more stringent of the two regimes to all imports after the end of the two-year transition period and to uphold current safety standards.

The definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

This is a very important issue for the fertiliser industry. Could the Minister clarify whether this provision would give the opportunity to Ministers and the Department to charge fees to cover the costs of tests needed for official control measures?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why the regulations were referred by the sifting Committee for debate. There is already a power in the existing regulations for authorities to make charges for that testing. All we sought to do in drafting was retain that ability. Broadly speaking, the testing we do here in the UK is run by the Health and Safety Executive at our facility in Buxton and it tends to be a commercial choice for the fertiliser companies whether to use that or to use an alternative at their own cost. There is not really a cost recovery mechanism that is deployed beyond that; it is simply based on research done by the companies. We have clarified and made a change to the drafting of the regulation to be clear that we simply seek to retain the existing abilities to charge rather than to create new ones.

Continuity of supply is ensured by a transitional period for imports from the EU, which provides 99% of imported ammonium nitrate to the UK. That allows the continuation of current rules on the time limit for detonation resistance tests and the ability to recognise EU laboratory test certificates. These arrangements give manufacturers time to prepare for compliance with the import rules post exit and reduce any burdens on UK laboratories immediately after exit.

The definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere. We have taken a view on that regarding when the quantity of material manufactured without alteration of composition or characteristics is longer than 92 days. We will therefore retain the EU definition of “batch”.

The instrument was previously presented to the sifting Committee on 1 November 2018 as one that should be subject to the negative procedure. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), the sifting Committee did not agree. It considered that the effect of one regulation was to allow Ministers to charge fees. In addition, it considered that the instrument conferred powers to legislate. It therefore recommended that this instrument be debated in Parliament. The instrument has been amended since it was presented to the sifting Committee to reflect certain recommendations in the Committee’s report. For example, the provisions that the Committee considered to confer powers to legislate have been redrafted to make it clear that they do not contain new legislative functions.

In general, fertiliser policy, as with other agriculture policy, is devolved. The devolved Administrations were closely engaged in developing these regulations, which apply to the same geographical area as the original legislation that they amend. All Administrations have agreed to maintain a single common framework for fertilisers labelled as UK fertilisers, while continuing their own domestic framework. That will make the marketing of fertilisers much clearer for industry, and is a good example of how well the four Administrations work together towards a common goal.

The instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards, with no significant impacts or new administrative or economic burdens on business or other stakeholders. Although there was no statutory requirement to consult on the instrument, officials have held discussions with key stakeholders, including the fertiliser manufacturers’ representative body, which is the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and the farmers’ representative body—obviously, the National Farmers Union. Their main concerns have been addressed by allowing for a transitional period for existing rules and compliance with the amended rules.

In conclusion, the changes to the rules on ammonium nitrate have been developed in conjunction with the HSE and the Home Office, to ensure that safety and security elements are maintained. This package of measures is essential to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively in the UK once we leave the EU. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I now have even more points to try to address, and I will do so as comprehensively as I can.

First, I turn to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). He raised a general point about the use of fertilisers, which is that we should be trying to encourage more sustainability, perhaps through the use of organic fertilisers. He will be aware from the discussions we have had in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee that we are looking, in clause 1, to be able to incentivise more environmentally sustainable farming, which could include, for instance, supporting the use of organic farmyard manures more than manufactured fertilisers. He should also recognise that increases in fuel costs have anyway had a major knock-on impact on the cost of fertilisers in recent decades, such that in the past 30 years or so fertiliser use in the UK has fallen by about 40% already. He pointed out that at the moment we import most of our ammonium nitrate, predominantly from the European Union; there is one manufacturer of ammonium nitrate here in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on security—in particular, whether there is a risk that the material will get into the hands of terrorists. As I pointed out, we have gone for the more stringent detonating test regime, meaning that any consignment imported to the UK, whether from the European Union or a third country, would have to have had that detonation test within the previous 60 days. We are applying the more stringent set of rules that we have for third countries to all countries.

On the general issue of security, I also point out that in 2006 a fertiliser industry assurance scheme was set up between the Government and the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and it has since successfully created and monitored voluntary standards in the industry supply chain to ensure that ammonium nitrate fertiliser can be traced and does not end up in the wrong hands.

Although we have made changes to the GB regime for detonation testing and the ammonium nitrate regime, as I said in my opening comments Northern Ireland has its own specific rules in this area. The ammonium nitrate safety regulations apply to Great Britain. Owing to the past misuse of ammonium nitrate in making improvised explosive devices, Northern Ireland has its own controls under the Control of Explosives Precursors etc. Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 and, under existing rules, the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Those prevent any import, storage or use of ammonium nitrate fertilisers without a tier 1 explosives precursor licence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland is more thorough still, given the tragic history of which we are all aware.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we have not conducted an impact assessment. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) pointed out, that is because we are not seeking to make any substantive change to policy—indeed, the stated aim of all these EU exit SIs is, as far as we are able, to maintain the status quo from day one after we leave the European Union, to ensure that we have an operable law book. He also made a specific point about the technical note on page 5, which he claimed he could not download. I am reliably informed that, since he mentioned that, my officials have been online to double-check and successfully downloaded it. Perhaps the issue had more to do with the hon. Gentleman’s IT than with our system; nevertheless, I thank him for raising that so that we could at least double-check.

The hon. Gentleman also raised an important point about storage: what happens if material is stored beyond the two-year transition? We arrived at the two-year transition period for sale having consulted the industry. The industry generally thought it an appropriate period both to be able to market its existing stocks and to give it plenty of time to use up any residual fertiliser packaging and order new packaging.

[Julian Sturdy]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest. Would what the Minister has said apply to on-farm stock as well?

[George Eustice]

No. I was about to come to precisely that point, which was also made by the shadow Minister. If during the two-year transition period a farmer has bought products labelled under the previous EU regulations, he can then store them on farm. As I pointed out at the beginning, these are marketing regulations—pertaining to the sale of product, not storage or use after sale.

Finally, the hon. Members for Stroud and for Edinburgh North and Leith asked about the specific issue of tariffs on fertilisers. This is an issue that the Government are currently considering. As hon. Members may be aware, while farming representative groups such as the NFU would like to retain tariffs on some agricultural commodities, they are equally keen to have tariff rate suspensions on some fertiliser products. We are giving that consideration. It is important to note, however, that if we were to set a unilateral autonomous tariff rate quota or suspend tariffs on a unilateral basis, we would have to offer the same terms to all countries in the world, probably including Russia, notwithstanding the approach the European Union is currently taking.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that SNP Members were deliberately scare- mongering when they said that farmers would not be able to import any more after 29 March? Will he confirm that foreign suppliers are not cancelling contracts for after Brexit?

[George Eustice]

I can confirm that we do not envisage any problems at all with the importing of fertiliser, even in a no-deal scenario. That is predominantly because these products—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[George Eustice]

Let me conclude my point first and then the hon. Gentleman can decide whether I have answered the point adequately.

Fertilisers tend to come in bulk, predominantly through Harwich on container vessels where we envisage no issues with capacity. They tend not to come in on roll-on, roll-off ferries on the backs of lorries through Calais. It is right that there are some concerns about the potential impacts on the all-important Dover-Calais crossing, but they do not specifically affect fertilisers. We see no particular problems in ensuring that we can import the fertilisers we need for this year.

The hon. Lady asked why we cannot simply have an indefinite extension of the recognition of the EC fertiliser logo. The reason is that we have to treat all countries equally under WTO rules. Once we have left the European Union and become an independent country again, we will not be able to discriminate and give unfair privileges to the European Union in the way that she advocates.

The hon. Lady asked a specific question about what had changed in relation to detonation testing. The principal change on strengthening detonation testing is that it will apply to each consignment that comes into the European Union. Put simply, all that importers will need to demonstrate is that each consignment has been subject to a detonation test of a suitable standard within the previous 60 days. At the moment under EU derogations it is possible for that to run longer because they simply apply it to individual batches rather than consignments, so there will be a small change. In the longer term, once the transition has ended, those seeking to export their goods to the United Kingdom would need to have that detonation test done, probably by the Health and Safety Executive in Buxton. We have world-beating expertise in this area and that testing would be done effectively.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

In terms of scaremongering, was the Minister’s boss, the Environment Secretary, scaremongering yesterday when he said that in a no-deal situation he could not guarantee exports and imports would continue at our borders and that livestock exports from the UK would be subject to high tariffs? Was that scaremongering as well?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was referring to the export of sheep. We all acknowledge—I acknowledge it, too—that border inspection posts would frustrate that trade and that tariffs imposed on sheepmeat exports would affect that trade. He was explicitly not talking about fertiliser imports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was making a very specific point about whether there would be any threats to the import of fertilisers. As most of that trade comes through Harwich, we do not anticipate any problems at all on those grounds.

In conclusion, we have highlighted a number of important areas in this statutory instrument. We have had a thorough debate, but, as I have been at pains to point out, it does not seek to introduce any new policy. In keeping with the spirit and requirements of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it is simply about ensuring that retained EU law is operable on the day after exit. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Aquaculture)

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

This instrument extends to Northern Ireland only. The island of Ireland has only 10 native species of fish—40 fewer than in Great Britain and 80 fewer than continental Europe. With fewer species, it has fewer aquatic pests and diseases and, consequently, has a higher aquatic health status. We must ensure that that situation is maintained. We also acknowledge the vulnerability of the aquatic environment and the aquaculture industry to the introduction of diseases and alien species.

In Northern Ireland, aquaculture is a small but valuable market. In 2017, aquaculture production accounted for 1,248 tonnes of finfish at a value of over £6.5 million on 36 active licensed sites and 5,831 tonnes of shellfish, mainly mussels and oysters, at a value of over £9 million on 43 active aquaculture sites. The sector employs 93 full- time and 33 part-time staff.

Disease freedom underpins international regulations on the trade in live animals and their products. Northern Ireland enjoys a higher health status than the rest of the UK, as it is free from many of the most serious aquatic animal diseases. The maintenance and protection of Northern Ireland’s aquatic health status safeguards the interest of the aquaculture sector, as well as the public, who derive health and wellbeing benefits from angling and other recreational activities.

This statutory instrument will provide the necessary technical corrections to the Aquatic Animal Health Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009, which are the principal regulations, and the Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to ensure operability when the UK leaves the EU. The instrument does not introduce any policy changes.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I fully support what my hon. Friend is trying to do for continuity, but can we expect further legislation shortly after leaving—if we leave without signing a withdrawal agreement—because we would presumably want our own policy then?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that once we leave the EU, whether without an agreement or after the conclusion of the implementation period, the UK will be free to legislate independently in such areas, rather than having to do so in accordance with EU directives.

The UK Government remain committed to restoring devolution in Northern Ireland. However, in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, UK Ministers have decided that, in the interest of legal certainty for Northern Ireland, the Government will take through the necessary secondary legislation at Westminster for Northern Ireland in close consultation with the relevant Northern Ireland Department.

The proposed amendments fall into three main categories. First, cross-references to EU instruments are amended so that they are operable after EU exit. The amendments modify cross-references to the 2006 directive contained in the principal regulations. The modifications are essential to ensure the operability of the principal regulations following the UK’s exit from the EU. They are common amendments that appear throughout Northern Ireland, England and Wales and Scotland EU exit statutory instruments. For example, the amendments substitute references to “Member State” or “Member States” with “Northern Ireland”, the “Competent Authority” or the “UK or a constituent UK territory”, and references to the EU are changed to the UK. The amendments also include the substitution of references to articles in the directive with references to provisions in the domestic Northern Ireland regulations that transposed the directive to ensure a reference point in the regulation itself, rather than to an EU directive. Some cross-references contain further cross-references to the directive and, in these cases, the cross-references have been followed through to modify all the necessary provisions.

Secondly, a group of provisions will be redundant or inoperable in Northern Ireland law after EU exit. This instrument makes an amendment to the Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to remove the reference to a representative of the European Commission being able to accompany an inspector of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, because it will no longer be appropriate for such an official to attend after we leave the EU.

Finally, there are cross-references to directly applicable EU instruments to reflect technical amendments made to such instruments by other UK-wide SIs. Part 2 of annex 4 to directive 2006/88 contains listed diseases. It was replaced with a new annex 1A inserted into regulation 1251/2008 by the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to enable the UK to amend the list of diseases in retained EU law following exit from the EU. The amendments are made to replace references to annex 4 of the directive to annex 1A to the regulation, which will ensure correct references to retained EU law in the domestic Northern Ireland regulations.

Given the unique biodiversity of the island of Ireland, DAERA officials work closely with their Irish counterparts on a range of fish health issues, especially with regard to contingency planning, trade matters, disease issues and biosecurity. Co-operation on such matters was in place long before we joined the EU and will continue when the UK leaves the EU. There is a close working relationship across the island of Ireland on fish health and aquaculture.

For example, the Bottom Grown Mussel Consultative Forum facilitates the management of the seed mussel fishery on an all-island basis. It consists of officials from Departments, scientists, enforcement agents, Inland Fisheries Ireland and the aquaculture industry. The group has been instrumental in securing the Marine Stewardship Council certification for Irish bottom-grown mussels. This prestigious status ensures premium market access for Ireland’s top-quality mussels, and it demonstrates that the sector is vigilant on disease prevention and control, maintains high biosecurity standards and is environmentally aware.

The intention of the regulations is to maintain the status quo and keep the aquatic animal health and alien species in aquaculture regimes functioning much as they do now. The regulations do not create new policy or change existing policy. As a result, no significant impacts are expected to arise from them. In moving this statutory instrument, a workable legal framework underpinning business as usual in the aquatic animal health and alien and locally absent species in aquaculture regimes will be preserved after exit.

[John Redwood]

I seek to clarify my earlier question, which did not seem to get through. Is the Department working on a better regime for fishing in general, and for fish health in particular, for once we have left? This is a great opportunity, and fishing is an area that has been very badly damaged by EU membership.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that we have an operable law book on day one after leaving the European Union, but he will also be aware that, separately, the Fisheries Bill is going through the House—it has completed its Committee stage and will return shortly on Report. I can confirm that the Bill has a dedicated provision that gives the Government power to legislate in the area of fish health in particular so we can improve on the current regime and make any necessary changes. These regulations are simply about ensuring we make retained EU law operable, and I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

First, let me address the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). This is an important issue and I take exception to the suggestion that a transport issue could be more important than aquaculture. As I said at the beginning, it is an important industry in Northern Ireland, but it is also an important industry in Scotland. He will be aware that the Scottish Government have brought forward their own regulations to ensure that these EU regulations are operable in UK law and that Scottish authorities can continue to regulate the aquaculture sector in a way that is important.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important issue about the sifting Committee, which had indeed recommended that this SI be debated on the Floor of the House and is an affirmative resolution, rather than a negative resolution, as was the initial proposal. As he said, the Committee picked up on the reference to the ability to establish buffer zones. It raised a concern that this was a new power, but I can confirm that it is not a new power. This power already exists and it was probably a misunderstanding of the way the provision is phrased that led the Committee to consider that this was a new power being taken. In fact, DAERA, on behalf of Northern Ireland, has always been able to exercise this power. That said, given the importance of this issue, we chose not to challenge the sifting Committee recommendation that it should be debated, even though we believe it may have been based on a misunderstanding. I am happy to clarify here on the Floor of the House that the power to establish appropriate buffer zones is not a new power, but one that already exists.

Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can confirm that his understanding is exactly right: officials in DAERA will continue to be responsible for the licensing of aquaculture activities. The whole purpose of all these Brexit SIs is that they maintain the status quo and that there will be no change. Indeed, without them, there would be some doubt about whether DAERA would be able to exercise the full suite of powers available to it, because elements of the retained EU law that it will rely upon would become inoperable. This SI corrects any of those said deficiencies.

Finally, let me address the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin). He asked what we will do when we do not have the EU to give us the science in these areas, to make regulations and to tell us what we ought to be doing. I simply say that as we leave the EU it will be for us to decide these things and we have some of the best fisheries science in the world. Across the UK, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is our lead fisheries science agency. It is a world-leading agency and other Governments right across the globe seek input and expertise from our British fisheries science agencies.

Northern Ireland has its own CEFAS equivalent—its own Northern Ireland-based fisheries science capability, hosted within the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute. The AFBI is a multidisciplinary organisation, with 650 staff involved in all sorts of high-technology research and development. It leads on fisheries science. This morning, I met Mark McCaughan who is a chief scientific officer on fisheries. The AFBI has a fisheries science base in Stormont and it leads on all the key technical work that needs to be done on issues such as fish health and preventing invasive species.

As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government have had long-standing co-operation on building joint management plans for sectors such as mussels that predates the EU. These arrangements will continue; they do not need the EU to stand behind them. The island of Ireland is a single epidemiological area, and there has always been close co-operation on these matters.

There is a tendency for all these debates to cover lots of technical detail, as the hon. Gentleman said. However, it is important to remember that all we are doing with these SIs is substituting the words “United Kingdom Government” for “the European Commission” and making other such amendments. We are not making substantive changes. Members need to bear in mind that probably the most pernicious so-called Henry VIII power of all was the European Communities Act, because section 2(2) of that Act meant that with negative instruments all over the place the European Commission was in effect able to rampage through our domestic law book. The irony is that when any of these regulations were introduced in the House via a negative SI, sometimes to implement delegated Acts from the European Union, there would have been little or no parliamentary scrutiny. It is only now, as we seek to make those regulations that have been in place for some time operable, that Members seem to be concerned.

[Jim Shannon]

To reiterate and strengthen the opinion the Minister has just rehearsed, it is important to note that the local fish producers organisations that I referred to endorse what the Minister is putting forward today. If they have faith in the Minister and what he is putting forward, we in the House should have the same faith.

[George Eustice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation. There was indeed consultation, but it was led by DAERA. It is important to recognise that we are doing this on DAERA’s behalf and at its request. DAERA has co-operated and consulted widely with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the regulations have their support. In conclusion—

[Sandy Martin]

The Minister has not fully answered my question about the way in which directive 2006/88 is being replaced by regulation 2016/249. He mentioned something about an automatic carry-over, but I do not really understand how that works. The statutory instrument says:

“After regulation 21(6), insert—

‘(7) For the purposes of paragraph (1), regulations 19(3)(c) and 21(1) and paragraphs (1)(c)(iii) and 4(d) of Schedule 1A, Part A of Annex 3 to Directive 2006/88’”

and so on. It is almost impossible for anybody to work out what is actually happening. Will the Minister describe how we are going to take on regulation 2016 rather than directive 2006, as a result of this statutory instrument?

[George Eustice]

The point that hon. Gentleman describes in some detail is a point that I explained in my opening speech when I talked about cross-references. If the retained EU law retained a reference to an EU directive, that would no longer be operable, because EU directives would no longer apply in the UK. The only way to make such provisions operable is to have a reference point in UK law. The 2006 regulations will become retained EU law on a UK legal basis. All we are saying is that we will change references to the original directive that gave rise to the regulation and make them references contained within the regulations themselves, so that they will remain operable. It is quite complicated, but essentially it boils down to this: EU directives will cease to have effect in the UK after we leave, but retained EU law will continue to have effect, so if there are provisions in directives that we wish to retain, we must bring them over in the retained EU law. In this case, we do that with the regulation concerned.

We have explored some of the key areas of this statutory instrument. I hope I have been able to reassure Members not only that this instrument is essential to ensure that we have an operable rulebook in this area on day one of exit, but that we are not creating any policy changes or new policy through this statutory instrument. We are simply ensuring that the arrangements that pertain today can continue. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill promoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and to follow the able contributions of so many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Each and every one of them made a great contribution, often citing specific issues in their constituencies.

I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire for championing the cause of our much-loved service animals and promoting this important Bill in recognition of the strong support among the public for Finn’s law. In particular, I congratulate him on his persistence. The original draft of the Bill would have created a completely new offence, and he will be aware that at the time—I think that I first discussed this issue with him about a year ago—the view of lawyers was that a new offence was unnecessary. However, I had tremendous sympathy for the cause that he advocated, and I was delighted to ensure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs engaged with him to consider how his Bill could address this challenge. Together we came up with a sensible solution that is built on a model used elsewhere in the world, particularly in western Australia. It effectively removes an assailant’s ability to claim self-defence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in circumstances involving a service animal.

The Government recognise that service animals do invaluable work that can take them into dangerous situations, and the highest level of protection for such animals should be made clear in law. That is why the Government are supporting the Bill, which introduces what has become known as Finn’s law. I might add that it shows their characteristic commitment that both PC Wardell and Finn have followed each and every stage of the Bill’s passage through Parliament from the Public Gallery, and we are delighted to see them here today as well.

When the Bill becomes law, animals such as Finn will have more protection from unprovoked, callous attacks. That is because the Bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as it applies in England and Wales, to make it clear that someone’s ability to claim that they were acting in self-defence when they attacked a service animal shall be disregarded. No longer will someone be able to inflict suffering on our much-loved service animals—police dogs like Finn, police horses, or animals that support the prison service—and say that they were simply protecting themselves.

In supporting the Bill, we agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that using offences under section 4 of the 2006 Act to prosecute attacks on police and other support animals that cause unnecessary suffering could be made more difficult due to fact that the court must consider whether the defendant was acting in fear of harm. The Bill will make it easier successfully to prosecute people for causing animal cruelty by attacking a service animal. We are also taking separate steps to help to protect all animals under our care and protection—including our heroic service animals—by increasing the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) asked when that measure will be introduced; it will be brought forward as soon as possible. As he noted, the House is often preoccupied with other issues at the moment, but the matter remains at the top of the Government’s agenda. It is a clear commitment, and we will bring forward that legislation as soon as possible.

[John Spellar]

The Minister is pleading absence of parliamentary time, but did we not finish at about half-past two in the afternoon on Wednesday?

[George Eustice]

The parliamentary agenda and timetable are somewhat unpredictable at the moment, but the point remains that we are committed to raising the maximum penalty for animal cruelty to five years’ imprisonment. Specifically, we will amend the maximum penalties set out in section 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That will cover cruelty caused by attacks on service animals, which is the second limb of the Finn’s law campaign.

As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, Finn was stabbed by an assailant in 2016 when he assisted his handler, PC Dave Wardell, in the apprehension of a suspected offender. Finn received serious injuries, but we are all thankful that he survived and was even able to return to duty, before later retiring and attending debates such as this. In August 2018, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of meeting Finn and PC Wardell at DEFRA’s offices. The Secretary of State stated clearly that

“every day service animals dedicate their lives to keeping us safe, and they deserve strong protections in law.”

That was why he undertook to continue working with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire in developing this law.

The Bill is concerned with the offences under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which relate to animal cruelty or, as the Act states, causing

“unnecessary suffering to an animal”.

When considering a prosecution for cruelty, the court must currently consider whether the defendant was acting in fear of harm. Relevant here is the list of considerations in section 4(3) that the court must consider, which include whether the suffering was caused for

“a legitimate purpose, such as....the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal”.

In other words, the perpetrator of an attack on a service animal could use that provision to claim that they were acting to protect themselves. The Bill amends section 4 so that that consideration shall be disregarded with respect to incidents that involved unnecessary suffering inflicted on a service animal that was supporting an officer in the course of their duties. It will therefore be easier successfully to prosecute people for causing animal cruelty by attacking a service animal.

Clause 1 amends section 4 to allow the self-defence provision relating to animal cruelty to be disregarded if it concerns a service animal under the control of, and being used by, a relevant officer in the course of his or her duties in a way that was reasonable, and if the defendant was not the relevant officer in control of the service animal.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

May I just say how delighted I am to be here this morning? I was the shadow Policing Minister during the first debate on Finn’s law, and I am so pleased that we are today passing this Bill, and that I am in the Chamber as well.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. I think that we are all delighted to be here today to pass such feel-good legislation, which we all support.

The provisions will apply to dogs and horses used by the police and to dogs used by prison officers—they tend not to use horses, unsurprisingly. Service animals are defined in the Bill by reference to the person who is in control of them. The Bill applies only to animals that are under the control of a relevant officer at the time of the attack. The definition of “relevant officer” covers a police constable, a person who has the powers of a police constable and a prison custody officer. The type of animal is not restricted either; it can include dogs and horses, or indeed any other animal in the service of a relevant officer.

Clause 1 also provides the Secretary of State with a power to amend by regulations under the affirmative procedure the definition of relevant officer, provided that the additional persons are in the public service of the Crown. That provides the flexibility to add additional officers in the public service of the Crown who might not have been considered at this stage.

The Bill also provides for situations in which a police or prison officer may be required to use restraint against their own service animal, for example, to protect themselves or a member of the public. It provides that new subsection (3A) will not apply in a section 4 prosecution where the defendant is a relevant officer.

Clause 2 provides for the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill, and sets out that the Act will come into force two months after it is passed, which is the normal time for the commencement of Bills following Royal Assent. It sets out that the Act will extend only to England and Wales, as does the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which it amends. The shadow Minister noted that Northern Ireland is not covered. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that is because the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the Bill amends, extends only to England and Wales. I should point out that Scotland has its own animal welfare legislation, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and Northern Ireland has the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, so they have the powers to make their own equivalent legislation, although I take the point about the absence of an Administration in Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, the Government have put animal welfare at the very top of our agenda. We are increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. We have made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses. We propose to ban the use of electronic shock collars on pets, and third-party sales of puppies and kittens. We have also modernised animal welfare standards for dog breeding, pet sales and other licensed activities involving animals.

It was noted at the start of the debate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire has been particularly dogged and persistent in championing this cause. I was very pleased to be able, as a DEFRA Minister, to bring forward the regulations that changed the licensing regime for puppy breeding, which is something I have championed since I was first elected in 2010. Today, let me underline the fact that attacks on service animals such as brave Finn will not be tolerated. That is why we support the Bill, which will provide additional protection for our service animals. We hope that it will now make a swift passage through the other place without amendment.