Sport Horse Industry: Import and Export Controls

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. I recognise the great economic, social and cultural benefits of the sport horse industry to this country, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Government’s support for it.

On the introduction of the new import controls under the border target operating model, the introduction of biosecurity controls on imports is not optional. Now that we have moved away from the EU’s rigid biosecurity, surveillance and reporting systems, we are responsible for protecting our own biosecurity from threats such as foot and mouth disease, African swine fever and the African horse sickness virus, which we must remain alert to despite it never having reached these shores. Otherwise, such threats could devastate UK industries and cause significant damage to the environment, public health and the wider economy. We remember the impact of foot and mouth in 2001, which cost British businesses nearly £13 billion in 2022 prices. It caused massive disruption to many industries, including the sport horse industry.

Biosecurity controls are also essential to protect our exports and international trading interests. Our trading partners want to be reassured that we maintain the highest biosecurity standards. Maintaining our reputation for high biosecurity standards is in the interests of the sport horse industry, to ensure that we can continue to move first-class animals and germinal products in and out of the country.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a veterinary surgeon. The Minister will be aware that a couple of years ago the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published our report on the movement of animals across borders. There is a balance between allowing the smooth movement of animals and protecting the biosecurity of our animals in the UK. We looked at the key issues of trying to replicate the tripartite arrangement, which allowed for the smooth movement of high-health horses between the UK, France and Ireland, and progressing the digital identification system for horses, both of which would allow smooth but safe movement. Government progress in those areas would help to protect our industries and our biosecurity.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his work in this subject area. He is very informed on these matters and the House benefits a great deal from his expertise. We will continue to work with the sector. We want to have as much freedom of movement as possible, but in a way that protects our biosecurity. I am sure there will be more opportunity for us to benefit from my hon. Friend’s expertise as we find solutions to the challenges.

The new controls begin today. They require high-risk consignments, including equine germinal products from the EU, to enter GB via an appropriately designated border control post, where 100% documentary, 100% identity and 1% to 5% physical checks are undertaken. We are aware that the sport horse industry and its representatives, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire, have been concerned about the controls coming in during the peak season for the import of equine germplasm. We have been glad of their engagement on this topic and for their having drawn their concerns to our attention so that we can address them and make sure we get the implementation right.

The import of equine germinal products provides for genetic diversity and the rapid genetic improvement of British breeding horses. Using the chilled rather than frozen product enhances conception rates, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire pointed out. We know that the movement of these goods is highly time sensitive, if they are to be successful, so we have to consider appropriate measures that work for the sector. We have considered that in the context of the new BTOM controls.

Thanks to representations from the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others, we are aware that on some import routes logistical challenges mean that some checks required by the BTOM cannot currently be undertaken within the required timeframe for the products to reach their destination mare. DEFRA officials have therefore worked closely with the main importers of chilled equine germinal products, port health authorities and the British Equine Veterinary Association to develop and secure approval for a temporary contingency measure with an optional additional adaptation. That will facilitate trade while maintaining essential biosecurity controls.

The contingency measure temporarily reduces the requirement for official identity checks from 100% to 20%, and allows them to take place at a border control post or at the destination, using the optional temporary adaptation pilot process with the BEVA. As a result, the consignments, which also benefit from 100% documentary checks before arrival in GB, complete official import controls in the minimum time possible.

On the movement of live horses—which the hon. Member for North Shropshire was keen to address—in planning and implementing controls we aim to reduce any disruption or administrative burden as far as possible. We recognise that in the case of the sport horse industry we can often rely on robust industry processes that are in place to assure the health of the animal. For that reason, when new border controls on live animal imports come into force, we have developed and agreed, with the help of industry, an exemption for certain horses that meet a definition of high health. Verified equines used in racing, competition, breeding and sales can all qualify for that facilitation if arriving from the EU and sanitary group A countries.

We estimate that approximately two thirds of equine imports will be eligible for the exemption. They will be cleared for import on the basis of a documentary check, and their identity as a high-health horse will be verified with industry databases. That provision will allow them to avoid attendance at a border control post for a physical inspection unless a concern raised during the documentary check triggers such an inspection.

We are also focused on ensuring that the border control post infrastructure, which we will have in place for equines that must come through one, works as well as it can for the animals and their requirements. It is intended that the existing airport BCPs will be supplemented with Government-run BCPs at Holyhead and at Sevington in Kent, which will have the additional impact of assisting animals transferring from the island of Ireland and our friends in Northern Ireland. We are confident that we will have sufficient infrastructure, given the planned exemption for high-health horses, but we will continue to test that position over the intervening months.

We have already been fortunate to have had the benefit of the expertise within the industry to help to shape the physical design of the equine facilities at Sevington, and we have made many adaptations because of that advice. That co-design will undoubtedly make the site more effective in the way it operates. We hope to continue that joint work to test and challenge the operational procedures at the border control post in relation to the way horses travel to the site and are handled and inspected. Of course, that will be an area of focus for our work over the coming months.

We continue to welcome the open and supportive dialogue that we have with the sport horse industry. I again thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire for securing the debate. This is an important set of issues, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them.

Question put and agreed to.

Checks on Goods Entering UK

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the introduction of checks on goods entering the UK under the border target operating model due to be live on 30 April 2024.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)]

Under the border target operating model, tomorrow the Government are introducing documentary and risk-based identity and physical checks on medium-risk animal products, plants, plant products and high-risk food and feed of non-animal origin imported from the EU. Checks on high-risk products, currently conducted at destination, are moving from destination to border control posts and control points. Recent media reports suggesting that the introduction of these controls will be delayed are incorrect.

Documentary checks will happen at all risk levels. Physical checks will initially focus on the highest-risk goods, with some also taking place on medium-risk commodities. We will build up to full check rates to both protect biosecurity and minimise disruption. We will continually review our enforcement approach as we track compliance and trade flow, and will adjust our approach accordingly. This pragmatic approach will support traders as they adjust to the new regime.

The Government have worked closely with industry, inspection agencies and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, known as APHA, to ensure we are ready for the introduction of these controls. We are confident that border control post infrastructure has sufficient capacity and capability to handle the volume of checks expected under the border target operating model. We are confident that our systems are robust, dynamic and effective, and that the inspection authorities are appropriately staffed and trained.

I close by emphasising that the introduction of these biosecurity controls is not optional. Now that we have moved away from the EU’s rigid biosecurity surveillance and reporting systems, we are responsible for protecting our own biosecurity against threats such as African swine fever.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let us start by saying this is not about Brexit because, whether Members supported or opposed Brexit, nothing proposed here is inevitable or unavoidable. Having left the EU, we need border controls, but what is proposed will not be controlled—it will be chaos.

The EU brought in checks in 2021, but this Government have delayed doing that five times. In that time, they could have negotiated a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to avoid the mess that is about to happen. Instead, from Wednesday, for the first time, 2.7 million lorries will need to be stopped at Dover so their contents can be checked, and another 4 million will require a health certificate for the animal products they carry. On top of that, 5 million of them will have to pay a common user charge for the privilege of importing goods deemed medium or high risk, whether or not they are inspected. The costs to business, which we know will be passed on to consumers, are horrendous and chaotic, and the charges were confirmed only on 18 April.

The Government have admitted that the checks will cause inflation, but they claim it is only £300 million—0.2%—over three years. Independent analysis shows it will be 10 times that amount, or £8 a month on the average food shop. If the Minister wants to dispute that figure, will he finally publish the modelling that the Government have refused to disclose so we can see how they have come to their numbers? We know their numbers are wrong because, while they have confirmed that the common user charge—the direct cost to each lorry—will be about £145 a time, they admit they have not calculated how much the new veterinary checks will cost, with some running to hundreds of pounds. They cannot make those calculations because they told European countries to set their own standards and charges, so how can Ministers tell us we can be confident when we do not know what will be passed to be healthy in Hungary, Germany or here?

If food standards matter to people, they will be disappointed because the Minister has just admitted that only “some” checks will happen on medium-risk goods from Wednesday. Will he put a number on how many checks will happen from Wednesday? Medium-risk goods are anything of animal origin that are not alive, but could also be beetroot or sweetcorn. What a mess.

Small businesses are going to be clobbered for a fee for a service they will not even get. On top of that, Sevington has not even been declared a border control post to carry out any of the checks. Where will goods coming into Dover be checked on Wednesday, especially if they are high risk? What about the other ports around the UK that can set their own charges? And who is going to enforce any of this? The Government told industry to be prepared, but there will not be any checks after 7 pm, so people can say goodbye to those just-in-time supply chains for perishable goods. People coming back from holiday have no idea what their “personal use” is, so they could be stopped for carrying gorgonzola.

With 36 hours to go, we need some straight answers. Our constituents cannot eat the paperwork or afford the price rises these checks will create. Corner shops, delis and restaurants will go bust and our ports will be bunged up. I say to the Minister that there is still time to cancel the Brexit border tax, so will he please listen to concerns from across the House and do so?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady either chooses not to understand what is happening, or deliberately tries to inflame a situation that will be of great benefit to the UK moving forward. She deliberately picked the highest figure available. For low-risk goods, there is a £10 charge for products, capped at a maximum of five products, so the maximum amount that can be charged on a lorry load of low-risk goods would be £50.

The hon. Lady is right that we have calculated that over three years that will lead to an additional 0.2% on food inflation. In comparison, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease cost this country £12 billion, not taking into account the impact on international trade and our reputation as a country, so these checks are a small price to pay for ensuring we are safe and protected for phytosanitary and sanitary goods coming into the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Obviously, as part of the European Union and the single market, we could not impose checks to ensure that diseases such as African swine fever did not come into the country. The Minister has said that there will be a graduated approach to the introduction of the checks. What is the timescale for ramping them up to a level that he believes will be satisfactory? If consignments are diverted to Sevington, what measures will be in place to ensure that those trucks or vans actually arrive at Sevington and people do not dump what is on board in a layby or transfer it to another vehicle?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for the scrutiny that his Select Committee has undertaken.

It is important to distinguish between those goods that come into the country through approved routes, via approved importers on traditional lines, and those people who may seek to import goods into the UK illegally or without that documentation. There will still be border control checks by Border Force at the port of Dover to catch those who are trying to do something illegal, but those who are operating within the system will move to Sevington. To stop halfway and avoid those checks would be a criminal act and those goods would not be able to be sold within the UK marketplace.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

We recognise the need to ensure the UK’s biosecurity, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). What a mess. It is 29 April and the new checks are being introduced tomorrow, but the businesses involved are unclear about how the system is supposed to operate—and that is after the five delays that we have heard about and huge sums wasted on border control points. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much has been wasted on Portsmouth, for instance.

We want these checks to work. I have been to the London and the Dover port health authorities and been extremely impressed by the work that they do, but it is baffling that, in the battle against Asian swine flu, at Dover, the Minister is taking away vital funding, as the Government move the checks 22 miles up the road to Sevington. Can he tell the House how food vehicles will be controlled on that journey, as Dover Port Health Authority tells me clearly that they won’t?

The Government have admitted that the cost will be an extra £330 million annually. Others say it will be more. What definitive figures can the Minister provide for the inflationary impact that this Government’s border measures will create for food supplies in the UK? What assessment has been made of the savings and efficiency that would be made if we were to achieve a better veterinary agreement with the EU?

In conclusion, the British chambers of commerce says that DEFRA has failed to listen to industry over these changes. Others say the same. Many businesses are exasperated by the endless delays and the repeated and continual lack of clarity and certainty in the implementation of the new system. Why have the Government left businesses and even border chiefs in a position where they simply cannot plan properly and are left in the dark, as one put it, at one minute to midnight in terms of being told about the essential features of the new system? What is the Minister going to do to sort out the mess?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and his interest in this topic. What is clear is that there is a distinction between those goods that are coming into the country illegally, which will still be inspected at the port of Dover by Border Force, and those that are coming in via legitimate routes, by legitimate trade links, from areas that have been inspected by their own country’s equivalent of the Food Standards Agency to make sure that those port goods are safe to come into the UK with the correct documentation. Those goods will go to Sevington. But if someone tries to do something illegal, they will be picked up by Border Force at the port of Dover, via inspection, including intelligence-led inspection. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says that there is no money, but we are in conversation with Port of Dover to resolve that.

The other challenge that the shadow Minister put to us was that we have delayed this a number of times. That has happened because we have been in conversation with those people and hauliers who have had comments on how to improve the system. We have listened to those concerns and now have the model that will operate, given the advice and liaison we have had with those companies.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

As a veterinary surgeon, I am passionate about biosecurity. I am reassured that our Conservative Government are taking this matter very seriously indeed. I thank the Animal and Plant Health Agency and everyone at our borders who do so much in this regard. Prior to leaving the EU, we did not have the opportunity systematically to check animal and plant products coming into the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we now have the opportunity to strengthen our biosecurity and that the introduction of the border target operator model will protect animal, plant and, ultimately, human health in the UK moving forward?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area and his expertise in it. Moving forward, we will be in a much stronger place in terms of our phytosanitary and sanitary protections. That is the right outcome. We will continue to ensure that we are safe in the UK and that we protect our borders proportionately.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is simply untrue. We have been working closely with the sector, with hauliers, and with companies that want to import food into the UK. We are approaching this in a pragmatic, proportionate way. We have taken our time to get it right. I do not apologise for taking time to ensure that the system that we will introduce tomorrow is proportionate and pragmatic. We have listened to the companies that will use the systems to ensure that we get it right and it works. We are ramping this up at a pace that is slow but steady to ensure that we get to the right place in the right time, to keep the country safe from any disease.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes the point that there have been delays, and he makes no apology for them. Given those delays, will he accept my assurance, since Sevington is in my constituency, that the team working there, whom I have spoken to about this in great detail, are absolutely prepared and well trained to do the checks as well as they could possibly be done? People can be assured of the safety of import checks at Sevington, because the team there are absolutely across everything that needs to be done.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and the reassurance that he gives the House. We will continue to listen, and to work with those who want to import goods into the UK, to ensure that we remove as many barriers to the operation of free trade as possible, but at the same time keep ourselves safe.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Our trade intensity has fallen to the lowest level in the G7, and ITV’s Joel Hills has stated that the estimated costs of the new model are 10 times the Government’s estimate. I hope that the Department will publish its detailed workings soon, but surely the bottom line is that the cost of living crisis has not gone away, and the Minister is basically introducing a system that will cost UK consumers more to check on imports coming from the EU to standards that are exactly the same as the UK’s, and which of course meet EU standards in the first place. Does he seriously think that voters will forgive him?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be extensive costs. As I said, for low-risk products they are £10 per product, limited to a maximum of five products per common health entry document. That means that the costs are reasonable. We calculate that there will be a 0.2% increase in cost over three years. He says that these goods are coming from within the EU under the same regulations. African swine fever is moving across Europe. It is already present in Italy. Were that disease to get to the UK, it would be devastating for the UK pork market and the UK pig population. It would also damage our ability to export pork products around the world if we lost our credibility as being free from African swine fever.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Minister is absolutely right about the devastating impact of not having proper checks and the risk of African swine fever, so can he explain why Dover Port Health is having its costs slashed for essential checks at the border? Will he accept that the existing checks should be maintained in full at Dover Port Health; that Dover port of is the right authority, with its state-of-the-art facility, to do these important checks, in respect of which it is the most experienced body across the entire channel; and that we should not risk having these checks at some new, untested, supposedly trained facility 22 miles away in Ashford? That is a risk to this country.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tenacious campaign on behalf of her constituents and the port of Dover, but I hope she will not mind my drawing attention to the fact that these are separate regimes: goods coming in legally, via legal channels, with the right documentation will move to Sevington, but the port of Dover is the right place for Border Force to ensure that we are protected from illegal imports, and those checks will still take place. The conversations with the Port of Dover over funding continue, and we want to see Port of Dover continue to help to keep us safe and intercept any illegal imports that people may attempt to bring into the UK.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Those of us from rural communities, particularly those like mine in Cumbria that had to live through the horror of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, know how vital it is to have biosecurity at our borders—but intelligently applied, so that we do not damage supply chains and have excessive red tape. Does this issue not shine a spotlight on the fact that we are now, sadly, increasingly reliant on food imports? Britain produces only 60% of the food we eat. Does that not remind us that the Government’s agricultural payments scheme, which actively disincentivises the production of food on good-quality, productive agricultural land, is extremely foolish and should be reversed if we are serious about our security as a country?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I am familiar with the beauty of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; as he knows, I was there on Saturday with the shadow Minister. He gives the figures for what we import in total, but for the food we can produce we are at 72%. The Prime Minister has also recognised that challenge, and we will introduce a food security index so that we can monitor this issue, to make sure that the Government’s policies do drive farmers to increase their productivity and their production. I have full confidence in the ability of our farmers to continue to produce top-quality British food, to continue to expand their productivity and to keep the country well fed.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

These changes are required under World Trade Organisation rules and are about keeping us safe from disease threats, but in practical terms, how will it work for mixed loads in particular, to reduce the cost to business and therefore to consumers?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. That is why we have capped the maximum charges to five per load, particularly to support SMEs. As I say, for those of medium risk the charge is £10, or a maximum of £50 per load. That cap is specifically aimed at helping and supporting SMEs that are importing food into the UK.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

What do the Government have against the £6.2 billion floristry industry in this country, which employs 240,000 people—seven times as many dentists as we have in this country? Many of them work in small family businesses on very small margins. Why did the Government do absolutely no impact assessment when they increased the costs for those bringing in chrysanthemums, dianthus, solidago, orchids and gypsophila to £500 and introduced severe delays on products that need to be at market by 9 o’clock in the morning? Weddings, funerals, Mothers’ day and Valentine’s day—is there any family event that will not feel the dead hand of this Government?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight how important that sector is to the UK economy; that is why we want to protect those growing flowers here in the UK from any diseases that may be imported via products that have not come through the right channels with the right documentation. We want to keep the growing sector in the UK safe from any of those diseases; that is why we are introducing these checks.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The border operating model will not apply on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain; those trade routes are exempt. However, given the record of dodgy products being manufactured in the Irish Republic and brought through Northern Ireland to GB, can the Minister give an assurance that, should that route be used either by Republic of Ireland producers or other EU producers, he will not be installing checks on Northern Ireland to GB trade, which is so important to the Northern Ireland food industry and economy?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

Of course, we recognise the importance of the Northern Ireland economy, and we want to ensure that Northern Ireland feels part of the United Kingdom. We will do everything we can to limit any impact. As the right hon. Gentleman identifies, there is currently no timescale for the introduction of the way in which we will monitor and work with those who are moving goods across from that part of the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that that does not become a back-door route, and we will continue to have conversations with the authorities in that part of the world.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

On the subject of back-door routes, can my right hon. Friend tell us when the border control points for the Welsh ports that connect to the EU through the Republic of Ireland will be operational?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I cannot give my right hon. Friend a date at this moment in time, but we are in detailed conversations—particularly with those at the port of Holyhead, which is an important UK port—and as soon as we have a date, I will update him from the Dispatch Box.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Minister says that this policy will benefit Britain, but the Centre for Economic Performance says that our food prices are already 30% higher because of Brexit, and independent analysis shows that the Government’s approach will cost another £2.9 billion. Why is he ignoring British business estimates on this issue and hitting British customers with another Tory tax at this difficult time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Spencer]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from my previous answers, we are working hard to ensure that we keep UK food producers free from plant and animal diseases. That is why we are introducing these checks in a proportionate way that does not impact on business, it is why we have limited the amount of charges that can be introduced to five per lorryload, it is why we have ensured that those fees are set at only £10 for medium-risk products, and it is why we will continue to work with industry to ensure that we have a proportionate approach that does not take cash away from businesses and only recovers the cost of keeping us safe as a country.

[Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)]

Why have the Government refused to implement a tonnage-based approach, as the EU does, which would support small and medium-sized importers, particularly in Wellingborough? Not doing so risks putting them out of business. To avoid that, will the Minister adopt measures such as ensuring that all small and medium-sized importers can join the trusted trader scheme?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

We did look at different models. Of course, we could have adopted the model of third country to the EU, but that would have created significant cost for those wishing to import food across the channel. We also looked at adopting the EU’s model, which, again, would have cost way more than the model that we are introducing. The model that we are rolling out tomorrow is the best and most pragmatic model that we have been able to develop through working with and listening to the advice of those in the sector.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Food prices are 30% higher than they were three years ago, and independent estimates reckon that new border checks are equivalent to adding a 10% tariff to imports. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that border checks will have on living standards in Welsh households, in which one in every four adults has been skipping meals to make ends meet?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

Actually, on increased food prices in Wales, the biggest danger is taking 20% of land away from Welsh farmers and out of production and imposing a top-down approach to those farmers. I hope that the right hon. Lady will rethink her support for the Welsh Government’s disastrous proposals, which will drive thousands and thousands of people out of Welsh agriculture.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

As a direct result of all these changes, small businesses will close, jobs will be lost and consumer choice will be reduced. That is the exact opposite of what Brexit was supposed to achieve, is it not?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. This is a pragmatic approach to keeping the country safe from animal and plant diseases while allowing the free flow of trade via a model in which people can get certification away from the ports to ensure that they can import products, and stamping down on those who want to act illegally.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Obviously, these controls will introduce additional logistical steps, which are problematic for time-critical products. I recently met people from Maincrop Potatoes Ltd in my constituency. It trades potatoes to producers, so it has a deadline to hit on those production lines, and it will be importing more this year because of the disastrous potato harvest. Can the Minister provide any reassurance that that process will be streamlined enough to enable that business to continue to move its goods around in a timely way?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What the hon. Lady has described is exactly what we want to try to achieve: making sure that trade, particularly in goods such as potatoes, flows across the channel as freely as possible, but that we protect ourselves from diseases such as brown rot that could be devastating to the UK’s potato production.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Could the Minister set out the Government’s current policy towards a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary agreement, and what negotiations—if any—are happening in that regard? That would surely be a huge win for consumers and producers right across the UK, and would have the added bonus of further reducing the level of checks required on agrifood movements across the Irish sea.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I do not think that if we were to reach that agreement, it would include veterinary medicines, but of course we continue to have conversations with our friends in the EU to remove as many barriers as possible. We have a strong interest in making sure that the farmers and vets in Northern Ireland continue to get adequate supplies of medicine, and we will work with our friends in the EU to unblock as many of those barriers as possible.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

My understanding is that the Minister was opposed to Brexit in 2016, and I presume one of the reasons for that is that he opposes red tape. Do this measure and others not indicate that, as feared, Brexit is turning into the biggest chapter of red tape in UK economic history?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I am a strong believer in democracy. The Brexit debate was one that was settled by the great British public. They voted to leave the European Union, and now I want to embrace the opportunities that that brings for the UK. As a Government, we will continue to work tirelessly to make sure that we make Brexit work for the UK and seize those opportunities that come our way.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now going to have to suspend the House. I suggest that we suspend for 10 minutes in order to allow the Front Benchers to read the statement.

Draft Veterinary Medicines (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 General Committees

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That this Committee has considered the draft Veterinary Medicines (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 4 March, will amend the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 in respect of Great Britain to ensure that our legislative regime for veterinary medicines is fit for purpose to protect animal health, the environment and public health, including the people handling the medicines or the treated animal and those consuming produce from treated animals.

It is estimated that more than half of our households have companion animals. Many of those households will rely at some point on veterinary medicines to keep their pets healthy and well. Farmers also rely on veterinary medicines, including vaccines, to prevent disease and protect the health and welfare of, for example, more than 9 million cattle and 21 million sheep. That, in turn, helps to protect our food chain.

Veterinary medicines are necessarily highly regulated goods. The 2013 regulations set out controls on their marketing and manufacture, as well as their supply, prescription and use. Those regulations, which have not had a major update since 2013, now require amendment to reflect advances and developments in the industry. The draft instrument will make the biggest change to them in a decade. We received strong support from our stakeholders across the supply chain in response to our public consultation in 2023 on the proposed changes to the 2013 regulations.

Given the length and the technical nature of the draft regulations, I will focus on the key changes in them. They will ensure that safe and effective veterinary medicines of high quality continue to be available to treat our animals. They will also encourage the appropriate and responsible use of veterinary medicines, which is especially important for medicines to which bacteria and parasites can develop resistance, making them harder to treat.

The draft regulations will modernise the regulatory requirements for veterinary medicines and ensure that they are fit for purpose by reflecting technological advancements and developments, for example by allowing electronic package leaflets or QR codes on packaging and by adopting a flexible approach to novel therapies. The latter will make it possible to deal with their novel nature, in respect of the data required for the technical dossier supporting an application to market such a medicine.

With these amendments, we can ensure that the most innovative veterinary medicines can be brought to our market without unnecessary regulatory barriers and without compromising our assurance of their quality, safety or effectiveness. We will maintain the UK as an attractive market for companies by removing the renewal requirements for marketing authorisations, increasing certain data protection periods and harmonising across the UK the requirements for post-authorisation monitoring of adverse events related to the medicines, such as side effects.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

In respect of the supply of veterinary medicines, paragraph 7.8(d) of the explanatory memorandum notes the requirement for

“online retailers to register with the regulator.”

Will a registration fee be payable?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

My right hon. Friend asks an interesting question. There is no fee to register, but it is important that those who are selling these medicines into the UK market take the trouble to register so that we can guarantee the safety of our pets, our farm animals and our consumers.

When we were part of the EU, officials in my Department contributed to the development of new EU laws on veterinary medicines, with the main aim being to reduce the regulatory burden. It has always been the expectation that the requirements will also apply in the UK. We are making changes to the regulations in respect of Great Britain, which will, for example, make it easier for businesses to apply for licences for medicines on a UK-wide basis, reducing the regulatory burden for pharmaceutical companies. These companies, which are often global companies, are set up largely to serve the European market as a whole. Changes will also enable common labelling and packaging to be used across the UK. Altogether, this will encourage companies to continue marketing much-needed veterinary medicines here in the United Kingdom.

We are maximising our ability to take appropriate action in the case that a safety concern arises about a product or an active substance—the ingredient that gives a medicine its therapeutic activity. We are doing so by introducing simple registration schemes for manufacturers, importers and distributors of active substances, for online retailers of veterinary medicines, and for manufacturers of exempted medicines for small pet animals. That will improve our regulatory oversight in those areas, without creating an unnecessary burden.

This draft regulations will require pharmaceutical companies and wholesale dealers to report information on supply shortages, which will help us to secure the supply chain and maximise our ability to take action when there is a shortage and maintain the availability of treatment options for our animals.

We are progressing the Government’s plan to tackle antimicrobial resistance through a further reduction in the unnecessary use of antibiotics in animals. The draft regulations make it clear that antibiotics must not be used routinely or to compensate for poor farming practice, while still allowing for preventive use of antibiotics in critical cases in which animal welfare is at risk.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I admire the ambition in the Minister’s statement, but does he share my view that antifungal resistance is not taken seriously enough in this country and that more could be done on prevention, especially in relation to agents that help to get rid of fungal infections, which are dangerous to animal and human health? It is just as serious an issue as antibiotic resistance.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight that point. We pay a lot of attention to antimicrobial resistance, but she is right to say that we do not always take antifungal resistance as seriously. We need to be aware that nature has the ability to mutate and change, and we need to meet the challenges head on. That is why the regulatory regime is so important: to prevent the overuse of some of these treatments, which could lead to resistance forming.

Making changes to farm infrastructure and practices takes time. The changes that we are making will allow for that, while putting trust in our farmers, who have voluntarily reduced their antibiotic use by 59% since 2014.

Finally, the draft regulations will update the fees for the regulatory services provided under the 2013 regulations, in line with the cost recovery principles in the “Managing Public Money” guidelines. They will allow us to continue the effective regulation of the veterinary medicines sector, protecting animal health, human health and the environment. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his support and co-operation. He mentioned divergence, but it is important to recognise that we do not want divergence for divergence’s sake. We want to align with the EU to make things as simple as possible for our food producers, but to maintain our ability to do things differently if we so choose.

Antibiotic use is an important part of the strategy, which I know interests a lot of hon. Members across the House. We have considered it very closely, and it is something that we are very much looking to do.

The shadow Minister asked why we do not fully ban the preventive use of antibiotics in healthy animals. We have included provision for vets to prescribe antibiotics to prevent disease in animals in exceptional circumstances, because a blanket ban might result in a risk to animal welfare and a risk of increased spread of disease.

Our position for many years has been that we do not support antibiotic use to compensate for poor animal husbandry or hygiene. That is now laid out in legislation. The way we would describe that exceptional circumstance, I suppose, is that the use of veterinary antibiotics to prevent disease would have to be prescribed by a veterinary professional. That would be permitted only where there would be a risk of infection or severe consequences if antibiotics were not applied.

The shadow Minister asked about supply in Northern Ireland. We are very conscious of that issue. The changes being made are in line with international standards and, to a large extent, with European regulations. This will encourage applications for new and innovative medicines for the whole UK, including Northern Ireland; such applications could include those for new vaccines to reduce the reliance on antibiotics. They would apply in Northern Ireland, as well as the rest of the UK.

The shadow Minister talked about shortages, which we recognise could be a challenge. The review of shortages will be on a case-by-case basis. We will work with veterinary officers, as well as suppliers and wholesalers, to ensure that there is reliable and available information as soon as an issue is known and identified. In instances of temporary supply issues, the VMD will permit the import of alternatives only until the supply issue is resolved or another suitable product is authorised.

I hope that I have answered the shadow Minister’s questions. I am grateful for the Committee’s support this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 General Committees

[The Chair]

I will call the Minister to move the first motion and speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the Question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the second motion formally.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The first instrument was laid before the House on 26 February. Following your guidance, Ms Rees, I will speak to both instruments, addressing fees on import controls on UK sanitary and phytosanitary goods under the border target operating model.

The fees and charges regulations facilitate flexibility in the application of fees and charging requirements for official controls on sanitary and phytosanitary imports arriving in Great Britain. We have designed a global risk-based import model for sanitary and phytosanitary goods that will deliver a streamlined approach that protects public, plant and animal health; boosts our economic growth; and minimises friction at the border. The instrument enables the necessary fees and charges for official controls, reflecting the new sanitary and phytosanitary border official controls regime, as published in the border target operating model.

The instrument introduces greater flexibility in the composition of fees and charges for official controls while maintaining the requirement of cost recovery. That allows for more comprehensive cost recovery and enables the application of the risk factors set out in the border target operating model to the fees.

The instrument changes the “duty to charge” to a “power to charge” by extending the circumstances in which charges may be reduced or waived. The implementation of the border target operating model relies on the flexible application of risk, ongoing financial viability of competent authorities, and proportionate financial liability across stakeholder and operators. Changing the duty facilitates that desired flexibility.

The instrument enables a consistent charging model across any Government-run border control post in GB. It will be particularly vital once border control post checks on EU imports are introduced in Wales and Scotland, to support trade continuity in all our Administrations.

Finally, the instrument enables fees and charges to be levied digitally and away from border control posts. Without this legislation, all sanitary and phytosanitary consignments entering GB would be required to visit a border control post to physically make payments. That would be administratively and operationally unworkable, because it would require all consignments, not just those selected for an inspection, to attend a border control post, which would add time and burden for hauliers. Every effort has been made to ensure that the fees and charges distribute costs fairly and proportionately for businesses of all sizes and across all sectors, while enabling the Government to fulfil their cost recovery obligations. I am pleased to state that the devolved Administrations have given their consent for the regulations to extend across Great Britain.

To summarise, the instrument facilitates the implementation of the border target operating model and is necessary to enable fees and charges to fund the new sanitary and phytosanitary border official controls regime.

The plant health and official controls regulations apply a requirement for risk-based import checks on medium-risk goods from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein from 30 April 2024, as published in the border target operating model. The instrument ensures that certain imported goods are not within scope of this change, including fruit and vegetables that are currently being treated as low-risk goods while risk assessments are being conducted. It also excludes goods entering Great Britain via a listed west coast port.

Changes are being made to the fees legislation to reflect the risk-based level of identity, physical and documentary checks on medium-risk goods, ensuring that the cost of plant health services are recovered. Fees are also updated for certain goods from non-EU countries to account for changes in the frequency of checks. Finally, two minor typographical errors regarding import checks are being corrected in the fees legislation.

Currently, checks are carried out on high-risk consignments of plants, plant products and other objects imported into Great Britain from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Checks are also being conducted on regulated goods imported from all other third countries on a risk basis. GB plant health services carry out these checks and charge for the services accordingly to prevent the introduction and spread of organisms harmful to plants or plant products.

This instrument removes the temporary easement that applied after exiting the EU from import checks of medium-risk plants and plant products imported from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. These goods will become subject to risk-based checks and the associated fees. I am pleased that the devolved Administrations have given their consent for the regulations to extend across Great Britain, with the exception of regulations 2 and 3, which relate to fees and apply to England only. Welsh and Scottish Government Ministers laid their equivalent fees legislation earlier this year.

I emphasise that the regulations ensure that checks are in place from 30 April 2024 to mitigate any biosecurity risks against certain goods from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Protecting our biosecurity is of paramount importance. By facilitating the implementation of the border target operating model and enabling fees and charges for the relevant import controls, the instruments enhance the operation of the biosecurity regime in Great Britain. I hope hon. Members will support the measures and their objectives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for their interventions and thoughts. First, I will say that we have worked closely with businesses to get this right—in the design phase, through the graduated implementation, and with practical tips to make importing as smooth as possible where checks are needed. Businesses indicated that they needed time to prepare for these changes, so we revised the timeline for introducing controls on EU goods, and our phased approach gives them the time to adapt.

We continue to engage with stakeholders across all sanitary and phytosanitary sectors within the UK and across the EU, and with trading partners around the world, to raise awareness of the border target operating model. Information is being shared through a series of live and virtual engagement events and communications detailing the actions required. Online guidance is available at gov.uk. We will, of course, adapt a carefully calibrated approach to enforcement of the new controls that minimises the risk of disrupting trade flows, with an emphasis on educating and supporting businesses to comply rather than enforcing over-vigorously in the first instances.

One of the questions raised was why checks cannot continue at the point of destination, given the impact on the horticultural sector. The place of destination scheme was always intended to be a temporary measure to facilitate the EU exit transition for EU goods. New controls have been phased in over time to give businesses time to adapt their supply chains and import pathways accordingly. The draft border target operating model was produced and developed in collaboration with those stakeholders, and therefore the proposals and timelines have had industry input.

From 30 April, the place of destination scheme will come to an end. High and medium-risk plants and plant products must come through a border control post or designated control point where identity and physical checks will be carried out. Border control posts have long since been used to manage import inspections of goods from non-EU countries, and are an essential component of our biosecurity regime.

Turning to the question about what resources we put in to deal with the plant health checks at the border, import checks of high-risk plants and plant products imported into Great Britain from the EU were introduced on 1 January 2021, recognising the relevant biosecurity risk that such goods pose. More than 55,000 high-risk plants were imported from the EU in the past six months, which were subject to a risk-based import check, including more than 10,000—about 19%—that received physical checks. More than 350 consignments of EU high-risk plants were intercepted, including 131 due to the presence of a quarantine pest or disease, and the remainder related to incorrect health documentation. We will continue to work closely with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to ensure that we get those regulations right as we move forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover asked about Sevington, which is 22 miles away from the Port of Dover. The legislation allows for border control posts to be located away from the point of entry in specific circumstances, and processes will be put in place to mitigate appropriately any additional biosecurity risks that result from Sevington’s inland location. Where a physical check is required, goods cannot be legally placed on the UK market until the load has been taken to the border control post, inspected and cleared. An instruction to attend the border control post for an inspection constitutes a legal requirement, and should a vehicle fail to attend the border control post, officials can require the return or destruction of the goods, or for the relevant local authority to carry out controls such as an identity or physical check. Any placing of the goods on the market would be illegal, and the relevant local authority would be able to take the appropriate action, such as a recall from sale and potential legal action.

[Mr Perkins]

Before the Minister moves on, he has explained what will happen, but he has not really explained why. The hon. Member for Dover made a number of points about why she felt the move might be a bad idea for security and the facilities at Dover. Will the Minister expand a little more on why that has happened, rather than just on what will happen?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

There has been a lot of discussion with industry and the sector to get to the right point. What matters is not the location of where those goods are inspected, but that they are definitely inspected and that we tackle this on a risk-based basis. Where there is high risk, clearly we need to ensure that those checks are physically taking place at a location within the UK before they reach the open market; where there is low risk, we try not to intervene too much, so that we allow trade to flow. I think that the debate over where that check takes place is less important than the fact that those checks do take place and that UK phytosanitary security is kept at its maximum level.

Turning to costs, there is a commitment to cost recovery. The existing provisions of the official controls regulation still specify that charges should not exceed costs. That remains untouched. We can only recover costs; we should not be able to make a profit from doing so. The rates will be reviewed quarterly and recalibrated annually to address any over-recovery. The Government will keep the rates under review and will continue to consider the context of the charge on businesses of all sizes across the sectors through policy evaluation. Quarterly reviews will be undertaken in the first year of implementation to monitor the import notification volumes, levels of payment compliance and import flow through planned Government-run BCP facilities. It is something that we have thought about a lot. That is why we introduced the cap. We were conscious of the impact on SMEs, and that is why we put in the cap.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield, asked about the impact that this might have on food inflation. Our calculation is such that over three years, we anticipate a 0.2% impact on food inflation. As we become more efficient and businesses understand how this will operate, we hope that the impact will be mitigated over time.

In closing, I say that we continue to have our ears open and to listen to industry, and we will continue to work with them.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way before he sits down. He said that he will continue to listen to industry. The hon. Member for Dover and I both asked why there had not been an impact assessment. It might have better enabled him to listen to industry had he done an impact assessment. Will he explain why there was no impact assessment?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

There has been a huge amount of consultation and working with the sector to get to this point. I think that that was the right way of doing this, of listening and building the model together, trying to understand the challenges that the sector faces. My commitment is that we will continue to have those discussions and to listen to industry, working with them to ensure that this works as efficiently as possible. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

DRAFT PLANT HEALTH (FEES) (ENGLAND) AND OFFICIAL CONTROLS (FREQUENCY OF CHECKS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.—(Sir Mark Spencer.)

Draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 General Committees

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

I begin by saying how proud I am to support the UK’s dairy sector, from the hardworking farmers to the innovative processors and manufacturers which produce the multitude of world-renowned products so dearly loved by consumers. The regulations safeguard the future of the UK’s dairy sector by ensuring that those involved in it are treated fairly. Although there are some fantastic examples of working relationships in the sector, we know that wherever there are commercial imbalances in supply chains, unfair practices sometimes emerge. Farmers are often the victims of such unfairness.

The Government introduced new powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 that allow us to address unfairness with new rules to govern the relationships between buyers and sellers. This statutory instrument, concentrating on the dairy sector, represents the first exercise of those powers. To inform our approach, we conducted a public consultation and have subsequently maintained a close working relationship with industry stakeholders to ensure that the rules are workable and proportionate. I am happy to report that since we introduced the regulations, the broad industry sentiment is that we have achieved that goal.

The regulations establish a framework for fair and balanced contracts; within those broad parameters, we have maintained flexibility for contractual arrangements that reflect different business practices, as long as all expressed terms are clear and transparent. The rules therefore support freedom to contract, introducing additional parameters only where necessary.

The regulations begin by establishing a legal requirement for written contracts. Although these are already commonplace, they are often the starting point for enshrining the rights and responsibilities of farmers and processors in a clear, unambiguous fashion. Importantly, the regulations prohibit unilateral changes to the contracts; once signed, the terms and conditions cannot be changed without consent. Clearly, businesses must adapt and occasionally changes may be needed, but when they are, they should be discussed and agreed, never imposed.

The regulations also introduce a new approach to pricing, requiring processors to be more open about how price is determined and promoting transparency. There are many good examples of where processors openly communicate to suppliers how market conditions and other factors influence the milk price, and we want that kind of openness to become the norm, so that farmers are assured that their price is calculated fairly.

Where appropriate, we have accounted for the fact that where farmers are genuinely represented, either by representative groups or via structures in the company, those relationships can be regulated more lightly. As such, exemptions from the regulations are available: from the pricing provision where balanced negotiations take place, and from the rules on contract variations where amendments are agreed on farmers’ behalf by their elected representatives.

The regulations also introduce new rules addressing other problems farmers have experienced, including in the process of contract termination. The details of any process will still be a matter of negotiation, but will now be subject to some broad restrictions to avoid unfair practices. We want to encourage stable, constructive relationships and avoid short-termism; as such, all contracts must include clear notice terms, with farmers receiving a minimum of one year’s notice of termination by a processor. To ensure that a farmer never feels unfairly trapped in contract, it must also be clear how farmers themselves can request cancellation.

The regulations establish new rules on contractual exclusivity. Although we are not preventing this where it works well, it has occasionally been used in a way that disadvantages the farmer. Some of the practices used alongside exclusive arrangements, such as volume caps and A and B pricing, are no longer permitted in such circumstances. All processors must write into their contracts a clear dispute resolution procedure, setting out how a farmer can raise an issue and how it will be dealt with. That will mean better communication between the parties, which has sometimes been lacking, and could prevent many of the issues we have seen emerging.

We know that ensuring compliance will be critical to the success of the regulations. We are in the process of recruiting the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, who will be in post before the regulations come into force. The individual will be responsible for investigating any complaints related to the regulations and has the power to issue substantial fines to anyone found to be in breach.

I hope I have provided the Committee with the reassurance that this instrument is necessary, effective and welcome. The regulations do not interrupt what is already working well, but instead will ensure that the whole industry operates at the same standard, benefiting the entire supply chain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for those questions. What I will say to him for a start is that we talked to the Groceries Code Adjudicator quite a lot and sought its advice. The GCA has a very good working relationship with retailers, including the major retailers. We did not want to break that system up. We want to allow it to continue, because, as I say, the GCA has the sort of working relationship whereby it is able to snuff out challenges and problems quite quickly, because of that close working relationship. I think that to expand that office would have diluted its effectiveness.

Of course, we want to keep the adjudicator within DEFRA. I know that the shadow Minister has been critical in the past that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was the Department overseeing the GCA; it now sits within the Department for Business and Trade, of course, but the DBT consults with those of us in DEFRA. I also know that he has been critical of the fact that BEIS conducted a review of the GCA at one time. Of course, we want to try to retain control of the adjudicator and ensure that it sits neatly within DEFRA, so that we can continue to watch it very closely.

The shadow Minister also talked about timescales, asking when the new adjudicator will be in place. I cannot stand here today and guarantee when they will be in place, because, of course, we are going through a recruitment process. We need to make sure we get the right person; I would rather have the right person than just get anybody quickly. But I am confident that we have a broad pool of quality people to choose from and hopefully the right person will come through that process, although I do not want to prejudge that process until it is complete.

Finally, the shadow Minister talked about food waste. That is something that we have looked at, of course, and we are very keen to reduce food waste wherever we can. Actually, the dairy sector is very good at not wasting food; it is very good at putting milk into cheese and yoghurt if there is an over-supply of liquid milk, rather than just producing more liquid milk. I think that the greatest amount of milk that is wasted is wasted from domestic fridges, rather than within the sector itself. I am sure there is more that we can do on food waste, but that will require another vehicle or another method.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Obviously, this is a cyclical industry and it is particularly distressing when we hear stories of milk being poured into ditches, which of course it should not be, or being disposed of in other inappropriate ways, because of some of the imbalances in the supply chain. Is the Minister confident that the new system will lead to less milk being wasted in that way?

[Mark Spencer]

I actually am. I think this measure will help, because it will mean that there is much more fairness in those supply chains and that those contracts are much more robust in how they are formed. So, I think we will be able to avoid such wastage of milk in the future.

The shadow Minister mentioned devolved Administrations. Of course, we have consulted very closely with the devolved Administrations and they are very supportive of the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Thames Water: Contingency Plans

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I am delighted to respond on behalf of the Government.

Water is what makes life possible on our planet. It is essential for our health and wellbeing, our economy, the production of food and, of course, clean energy. I want to make it clear from the outset that no matter the individual circumstances of their water or waste water company, the public will always continue to receive those vital services. The Government are committed to ensuring that water companies deliver the performance and environmental outcomes bill payers expect and deserve. Our plan for water will transform our management of the water system, delivering cleaner water for nature and people, as well as securing plentiful supply. The plan is delivering more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement, with water companies investing £7.1 billion in environmental improvements between 2020 and 2025, and an estimated £60 million in capital investment by 2050 to meet storm overflow reduction plan targets.

I want to reassure the House that the Government are prepared for a range of scenarios across all our regulated industries, including across all water companies, as any Government should be. The Government’s key priority is the ongoing provision of water and waste water services. There are plans in place to ensure that there will be no disruption to customers’ water or waste water services, and that any incidents that may occur will continue to be quickly addressed, no matter the financial situation of one’s water or waste water company.

Regarding contingency plans as they specifically relate to Thames Water, as noted to the House previously, Ofwat monitors the financial position of all water companies, including Thames Water, and takes action when water companies and their investors need to strengthen their long-term financial resilience. However, it is important to make clear that it is for the company and its investors to manage the company’s financial resilience within the context of its licence and broader statutory obligations. The Government are confident that Ofwat, as the economic regulator of the water industry, is working closely with all water companies, including Thames Water, and ensuring that action is taken when financial resilience needs to be improved.

Although a wide range of options is available to water companies, such as the injection of new equity when they are required to strengthen their financial resilience, I know that both Parliament and the public will want reassurance that should the worst happen regarding any water company, water and waste water services will continue to be provided. Should a water company become insolvent—when it is unable to pay its debts, or when its liabilities are greater than its assets, or when a company is in such serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order—it would enter special administration following a court application. Should a special administration order ever be needed for any water company, the statutory purpose of the order would be to ensure that the company continues to operate and that customers continue to receive their water and waste water services.

The existence of the water industry special administration regime is not a secret. It is set out in statute, and there are similar regimes in place for other regulated sectors such as banking and energy. These powers were agreed by Parliament over 30 years ago in the Water Industry Act 1991. I hope the existence of the water industry special administration regime will provide reassurance that, no matter the circumstances of their water company or waste water company, customers will continue to receive these vital public services.

[Sarah Olney]

The Minister says it is not a secret that these regulations exist, but what is currently a secret is Project Timber, which I understand is a contingency plan should Thames Water be unable to operate. Could he say a little more about that?

[Mark Spencer]

I do not want to be drawn into the specific cases of specific companies because there are market sensitivities, but it is clear that these regulations exist for all bodies that provide us with energy, banking, water and all those vital services that our constituents expect not to fall over. The Government have a plan to support those vital sectors in moments of distress. The Government’s priority is the ongoing provision of water and waste water services.

[Matt Rodda]

Can the Minister advise me on the course of action where a water company appears not to be offering compensation where there has been an interruption in supply? Will he perhaps write to me on this matter? A large number of my constituents—several hundred people— have recently had a supply interruption. I inquired with Thames Water some weeks ago as to whether it will pay compensation, but I have not yet had a reply. We are in some distress about this matter. Many residents were affected for two days and were unable to have a shower, do their washing or perform other domestic tasks.

[Mark Spencer]

I am aware of the distress that being without water will have caused to the hon. Gentleman’s residents. Of course, I will write to him formally to set out what he can do.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the House that Ofwat continues to work closely with the water companies and their investors. Where it has been determined that financial resilience needs to be strengthened, a wide range of options is available to all water companies.

By highlighting the existence of the water industry special administration regime, I hope that I have provided reassurance that the Government have a transparent plan and are prepared for all eventualities when it comes to the provision of vital public services.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Mark Spencer Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention, and I know the Minister will reply fully later.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

indicated assent.

[Mrs Wheeler]

The Minister is nodding as I say that.

The stipulations in this Bill are clear and will be effective. It will ban the import of puppies, kittens and ferrets under the age of six months, ensuring that they are not taken from their mothers too young and, crucially, that they are old enough to travel safely, potentially for long distances. It will ban the import of heavily pregnant dogs, cats and ferrets, to which the same concerns apply. It will ban the importation of dogs and cats that have been mutilated by having their tails docked or ears cropped or, in the case of cats, by having been declawed, all of which are extremely painful procedures. Most crucially, it will reduce the number of animals that can travel under the non-commercial rules from five in the vehicle to three. That closes a loophole currently being exploited by many unscrupulous traders—[Interruption.] I am nearly finished, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill will significantly disrupt the methods of pet smugglers and their activities, and will help prevent low animal welfare breeding operations from supplying the Great Britain pet market. It will give owners the assurance that the dogs, cats and ferrets they are buying and allowing into their families have not been sourced illegally nor treated inhumanely. That is undoubtedly a good thing and should be celebrated.

What is crucial is that the Bill removes the suffering of those animals; it must never be allowed to be turned into profit by those who are breaking the law. The situation is tragic, and I fully commend the Bill to the House. I hope all colleagues on both sides of the House are willing to do the same. If we wish to maintain our position as a leader on animal welfare, which we pride ourselves on, it is crucial that this Bill becomes law as soon as possible. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon for introducing it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early. It is much appreciated.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and thank her for bringing forward this important Bill for Parliament? I hope that Members from across the House will agree that the UK has some of the highest welfare standards anywhere in the world, and that we have a proud history of being at the forefront of protecting animals.

I am confident that Members of all parties will agree that animals have been of great support to individuals and families, particularly during covid-19, when my pets were certainly of great support to me. Pets often help to keep people sane when they are under pressure in their everyday pursuits, so it would be remiss of me not to put on the record the names of my three dogs, Tessa, Barney and Maisie, and the name of my cat, Parsnip. There has been a proud tradition this morning of mentioning various pets, including: Harry, George, Henry, Bruce, Snowy, Maisie, Scamp, Becky 1, Becky 2, Tiny, Tilly, Pippin, Kenneth, Roger, Poppy, Juno, Lucky, Lulu, Brooke, Lucy, Marcus and Toby, who are the dogs; and not forgetting Perdita, Nala, Colin, who is sadly no longer with us, Frank, two Smudges, Attlee, Orna, Hetty, Stanley, Mia Cat, Sue, Sulekha, Cassio, Othello, Clapton, Tigger, who is sadly no longer with us, and Pixie, who are the cats.

[Peter Gibson]

Earlier, I omitted the names of my own dogs, which I would like to put on the record: Clemmie, Peppy and Ebony. As we all know, Clemmie came third in the Westminster dog of the year show in 2022.

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend has corrected the record.

There were two ferrets mentioned, one of which has passed away: Roulette and Oscar. Of course, the House will want to advise my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) as he thinks about naming his next cat after a rock star; I put it to him that the name Chesney was not on his list.

Over the years, the number of owners travelling with their pets has increased significantly, with the number of non-commercial pet movements into the UK rising from approximately 100,000 in 2011 to over 320,000 in 2023. The number of dogs, cats and ferrets imported under the commercial rules has also increased significantly in recent years. In 2016, more than 37,000 cats, dogs and ferrets were imported into the UK, but by 2023 the figure had risen to 44,000, the vast majority of which were dogs. Alongside that growth in genuine pet movements, there is an increase in the number of unscrupulous people who are abusing the pet travel system to import dogs and cats illegally.

The Government take the issue of puppy smuggling and other illegal imports and low-welfare movements of pets very seriously, because it is an abhorrent trade that causes suffering to animals. Measures to tackle puppy smuggling were originally included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but in May 2023 the Government decided to withdraw that Bill because its scope had been extended beyond the original manifesto commitments and the action plan for animal welfare. At that time, we committed ourselves to ensuring that all the measures in the Bill would be delivered through other means, and I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government will fully support this Bill today. I am also delighted to say that this is the last legislative measure within the kept animals Bill to be brought forward, fulfilling the promise made when it was withdrawn less than a year ago.

This Bill will go further than the kept animals Bill. It will crack down on pet smuggling by closing loopholes in the current pet travel rules. It will reduce the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can enter Great Britain under the non-commercial pet travel rules from five per person to five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger. That will lead to a significant decrease in the volume of animals with which one person can travel, and will also help to prevent deceitful traders from cramming their vans with tens of dogs.

[Maria Eagle]

I hesitate to say “ferrets” again, but the Minister may recall that I asked him whether there was an issue of abuse with ferrets, of the same kind that we see with dogs and cats. This might be an opportune moment for him to tell the House about that.

[Mark Spencer]

I was about to come to this point, to try to satisfy the hon. Lady’s curiosity. I am tempted to say that ferrets were included purely because of the love for them expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), but the honest truth is that they were included simply because they are at risk of carrying rabies.

The Bill will also ensure that the movement of dogs, cats and ferrets into Great Britain must be linked with the movement of the owner to fall under the non-commercial pet travel rules. To move under the pet travel rules, the pet and its owner must travel within five days of each other. The Bill will make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to bring dogs, cats and ferrets fraudulently into Great Britain for sale under the guise of owners travelling with their pets. It will also provide further powers to tackle the problem of low-welfare imports of dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom, and will ensure that those powers will be used to ban the bringing into Great Britain of puppies and kittens under six months old, and dogs and cats that are heavily pregnant or mutilated.

Introducing these measures through secondary legislation allows the Government time to work with industry, enforcement bodies and stakeholders to develop robust measures with appropriate exemptions that can be enforced effectively. The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made a number of points about that. The Government are committed to delivering the secondary legislation as soon as possible following Royal Assent, but I hope the right hon. Lady will be assured that, as introduced by this Government, the maximum sentence for abuse of animals has risen to five years in prison, which is a huge deterrent for those who would abuse animals. Those working in Border Force and our ports—championed regularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke)— will do all they can to stop those imports and ensure that we are in the right place.

Let me thank my hon. Friend the Member from North Devon again for introducing this important Bill. I look forward to seeing it progress through its remaining stages in this House and the other place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to encourage supermarkets to promote British produce.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I welcome the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and the action taken by some supermarkets to introduce a “buy British” button online, and I strongly support their efforts to encourage consumers to pick high-quality British produce. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a consultation on fairer food labelling to help promote British produce and statutory codes that ensure that British farmers get a fair price for their goods.

[Mr Hollobone]

One of the best ways we can support British farmers is by choosing to buy British food. It is good for the environment, reduces food miles and improves our food security, because we are importing less produce. Will my right hon. Friend the Farming Minister join me in specifically congratulating Morrisons, Aldi, Sainsbury’s and Ocado, which all now have the “buy British” button online so that consumers can easily find British food to buy?

[Mark Spencer]

What we see is that consumers want to buy top-quality British food. I congratulate those supermarkets, and I encourage others to consider whether they may want to introduce a “buy British” button for online sales.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the cleanliness of England’s waterways.

--- Later in debate ---

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

9. What recent assessment he has made of UK food security.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

Food security is a top priority for the Government and we are committed to continuing to grow 60% of our food here in the UK. To back up those plans, we are introducing an annual food security index and we are currently developing the content of that index. We want to strike the right balance between food production and the natural environment, which is why all the actions in the sustainable farming incentive work to support food production and the environment.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Does the Minister share my concerns that a perfect storm may be brewing? With grain prices on the floor, a third of the wheat crop either not being drilled or flooded out, and rape being increasingly difficult to establish, some of the long-term, multi-annual stewardship options are becoming increasingly attractive. And that is not to mention those idiots in Wales taking 20% of land out of production. Does he share my concerns?

[Mark Spencer]

That is something we consistently and constantly review to make sure that we are striking that right balance between food production and the environment. We will continue to do that to make sure that we do not see such perverse incentives. Certainly, given the challenge of the weather this season and the difficulties with planting cereal crops, we will continue to look at whether that balance is right. What I do not want is people abusing the system and putting in too much wild bird mix or pollinator mix; we will continue to review whether that is having an impact on the market.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Can the Minister explain how his Department’s policy of taking good agricultural land out of food production is compatible with improving UK food security?

[Mark Spencer]

I can. The sustainable farming incentive motivates farmers to improve their soil quality, which is good for the production of food, and incentivises farmers to look after pollinators, which is good for the pollination of crops. The environment and food production are two sides of the same coin. We, as farmers, want to encourage farmers to look after the environment, so that we can continue to produce top-quality food on highly productive land.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on food prices in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T4. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries. I welcome the limited help that the Department is giving to a few pollack-catching hand-liners, but it will not help the vast majority of fishermen in my constituency who rely on that stock. Will the Minister speak to the Treasury to see whether there is any way to look at compensation for those boats, or at least at decommissioning help?

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

The Government recognise the huge challenge faced by pollack fishers. We are trying to offer funding to help those most affected. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s campaign and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) in raising the issues. We are helping those fishermen through the fisheries and seafood scheme, as well as with a new scientific study, but the Secretary of State and I are personally looking at what other options may be available to help and support. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) will continue her pursuit of this issue and support for her constituents.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

T2. The public have the right to access just 8% of land in England, including thousands of access islands that can only be reached by trespassing. With polling now showing that 62% of the public support the extension of the right to roam through England, are the Government now prepared to commit to overhauling our outdated system of access rights and to follow Scotland in enshrining the right to roam in law?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister is very aware of the concerns raised by the seafood processing and catching sectors about recent proposals by the Migration Advisory Committee to remove key occupations from shortage occupation lists. What engagement has he had with the Home Office to ensure that the occupations on which our food security and coastal communities depend are adequately and meaningfully supported?

[Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaigning again on behalf of his constituents. We continue to work with our friends in the Home Office to ensure that the fishing sector in Scotland and around the UK gets the labour that it requires to deliver top-quality British fish to the marketplace. I will continue to have those discussions with the Home Office to ensure that we get to the right place.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was pleased to play a small part in passing the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023, but the Government continue to delay its implementation, while 550,000 captive wild animals suffer in tourist entertainment around the world. One example is that of elephants in Thailand, many of which suffer complex post-traumatic stress disorder because of the psychological and physical abuse that they endure daily. UK companies may still advertise and sell tickets for activities that involve elephants that are forced to perform for tourists. Will the Minister assure me that the conversation will be launched as soon as possible and that the regulations will include a ban on the advertising and selling of elephant tourism?

[Mark Spencer]

Future decisions on which animal activities will fall into the scope of the legislation will need to be evidence-based and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Government continue to make animal welfare a priority. We are currently exploring a number of options to ensure that there is progress as soon as is practicable.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is bringing forward a system of extended producer responsibility to obligate brand owners, including food suppliers, to bear the cost of recycling the packaging that they place on the market. However, in some estimates, the cost to obligated businesses will be 10 times higher than under the current packaging waste recycling note system. Given that the cost will need to be passed to consumers, does the Minister share the concern that it will contribute to food price inflation?

Draft Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 General Committees

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 12 December 2023. The purpose of the instrument is to make provision to ensure that the United Kingdom, as a member of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, which I will refer to as ICCAT from now on, can continue to meet the full range of its international obligations in relation to the convention that governs ICCAT.

The UK has an obligation under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea to co-operate on the management of shared fish stocks, including through appropriate regional and sub-regional organisations. ICCAT is one example of such an organisation and is responsible for ensuring that fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species, such as swordfish, in the Atlantic ocean are managed sustainably. The UK became an independent contracting party to the convention—in other words, a member of ICCAT—on 1 January 2021 after depositing an instrument of accession following EU exit.

As a member of ICCAT, the UK must ensure that we are able to implement and enforce binding measures, known as recommendations, which are agreed by contracting parties under the convention. The UK must ensure that our domestic laws fulfil those international obligations and this instrument updates and amends various regulations of retained EU law to implement recommendations adopted by the commission immediately prior to and since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Where appropriate, the instrument also makes amendments to reflect the UK’s status as an independent coastal state. I will now go through each element of the regulation in turn to briefly explain the amendments being made to retained EU law.

Regulation 2 of the instrument removes provisions from Council Regulation 1936/2001, which laid down controlled measures applicable to fishing for certain stocks of highly migratory fish. It also included provisions that regulated the farming of bluefin tuna. The UK, however, does not farm bluefin tuna and the provisions have therefore been removed as they are not relevant to the UK.

Regulation 3 of the instrument amends Council Regulation 1984/2003. It now correctly reflects the convention’s requirement for a statistical document to accompany imports of swordfish and bigeye tuna into the UK. Other amendments are made for clarity to ensure the amended provisions are enforceable. For example, amendments to the description of fish captured no longer references the 1984 version of the EU’s combined nomenclature. They are instead replaced with references to the UK’s commodity codes, used in the UK’s customs tariff.

Regulation 4 of the instrument updates Regulation (EU) 640/2010 to mandate the use of an electronic catch documentation system for bluefin tuna, replacing the use of clerical documents. Further amendments are made to ensure that the new requirements are clear and enforceable, as well as outlining the limited circumstances in which a paper catch document may be used instead of the electronic system. Regulation 4 also amends the descriptions of fish captured within Regulation (EU) 640/2010. The descriptions have been updated with reference to the commodity codes found in the UK’s customs tariff. The amendment makes the description of the fish clear and ensures that the regulation is enforceable.

Regulation 5 of the instrument removes provisions in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 that established derogations from landing obligations in order to fulfil ICCAT requirements. Instead, the provisions are covered in Regulation (EU) 2016/162. Removing those provisions from the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 avoids duplication and provides clarity.

Regulation 6 of the instrument amends Regulation (EU) 2016/1627, which implemented ICCAT’s multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Since the recovery plan was introduced, I am pleased to say that stocks of bluefin tuna have improved significantly. The recovery plan has now been replaced with a multiannual management plan. Regulation 6 therefore comprehensively amends Regulation (EU) 2016/1627 to ensure that it correctly reflects the UK’s obligations under ICCAT in relation to the management plan of the UK’s catch quota. A multiannual recovery plan was also developed for the management of swordfish in the Mediterranean. The EU gave effect to the recovery plan in Regulation (EU) 2019/1154, which was retained in our domestic legislation at the point of EU exit. As these provisions relate to swordfish in the Mediterranean, however, regulation 7 of the instrument revokes the substantive provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019/1154, as they are not relevant to the UK.

Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 sets technical measures for the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems. Regulation 8 of the instrument amends that Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 to insert minimum conservation reference sizes of bluefin tuna specified under the convention. By making that amendment, all minimum conservation reference sizes will be specified within one regulation, rather than contained in different pieces of retained EU law, ensuring clarity within our domestic regulation.

In addition to amending retained EU law, regulation 9 of this instrument amends the common fisheries policy and aquaculture regulations 2019, to remove references to obsolete legislation. Specifically, amendments have been made to remove provisions relating to retained EU law, which have been removed and replaced with Regulation (EU) 2017/2107, which lays down management conservation and control measures within the convention of ICCAT.

Devolved Administrations are supportive of the amendments made by this instrument, ensuring the UK can continue to meet its full obligations as an independent contracting party to ICCAT. If the instrument is not passed the UK will not only fail to meet its international obligations under that convention, but, by not implementing enforceable management and traceability systems, risk undermining efforts made over the past 17 years to ensure sustainable management of Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks.

I hope that is clear to everybody, and that I have reassured Members about the aims of the regulations.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Graham. The return of bluefin tuna in their thousands to British waters in the past few years, after such a long period of absence, has been widely welcomed. These iconic fish are no longer listed as an endangered species and are now often spotted hunting close to shore.

Although it is not entirely clear why stocks have been replenished so remarkably, experts have suggested that environmental factors, particularly the warming of the waters around the UK, have played a role, as has the increase in the supply of sardines and other pelagic fish prey that they feed on. Credit should also go to international interventions to ensure careful management of numbers. Those efforts must be joined up and international because the fish are highly migratory and mobile. We must learn the lessons of the absence of these important fish for so long from our waters and take every appropriate measure to prevent a reversal, through overfishing, of those successful interventions. We must ensure that the revival of the species continues.

We recognise that it is important for the UK to comply with rules and obligations relating to our membership of ICCAT. We recognise that this statutory instrument is necessary to amend retained EU law, as it is now out of date, and to ensure the clarity and enforceability of the provisions in relation to bluefin tuna. We will not oppose it. I also appreciate that current ambiguities surrounding offence, penalty and enforcement provisions require clarification, and this statutory instrument presents the opportunity to do so. It is also right to prohibit farming and the use of traps in UK waters, or by UK vessels in the convention area for bluefin tuna.

I understand that traders in bluefin tuna already use the catch documentation system, as it is considerably less cumbersome that the alternative paper-based system. More importantly, it is much less vulnerable to inaccuracies and fraud. Ensuring that the relevant authorities have the appropriate powers to enforce the eBCD should not necessitate any procedural change for the traders or incur additional cost. We are moving effectively from a voluntary to a mandatory use.

I see no substantive objections to this legislation, but I have some questions for the Minister, of course. I cannot resist commenting on paragraph 8 of the impact assessment. I do so because in the discussions that we often have about public money for public goods, I often fall back on the economists’ definition: non-rivalrous and non-excludable. That generally draws blank looks from any audience, so I really enjoyed this paragraph:

“Government intervention is required as fish stocks are a common pool resource. That is…they are non-excludable, yet rivalrous. Rivalrous here means anyone can catch a fish but once a fish is caught and retained it cannot be caught again. They are non-excludable because it is not possible for one actor to exclude another from catching fish. Market agents would only consider the benefits of catching and not weigh it against the impact it will have on the stock health, overall, leading to overexploitation of the stock. As such, only government intervention would be able to effectively manage fish stocks as incentives of market agents do not align appropriately.”

[Mark Spencer]

indicated assent.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Quite—the Minister nods. It is an excellent account, marred only slightly because my understanding from the discussion in the House of Lords is that the recreational part of the quota will be put back. The Minister there said:

“The current plan is that all the recreational fishery will be catch and release.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2024; Vol. 836, c. GC17-18.]

Therefore the fish can actually be caught more than once—non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The Minister may care to explain paragraph 8, but I do not think that it alters the rationale for intervention.

Paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the tuna catch quota. The UK now has a quota for bluefin tuna, which is in line with the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. Can the Minister explain the process by which we were allocated 65 tonnes? Perhaps he can give an outline of the negotiations that took place. Can he also explain how he and colleagues arrived at the distribution of the UK’s quota between commercial and recreational fishing? What is the rationale underpinning the allocation of 39 tonnes of our quota to trial a new, small-scale commercial fishery and 26 tonnes of bluefin tuna to be distributed between a possible 10 available licensed authorisations? It is good that stocks are sufficiently replenished that we are permitted a quota, but can the Minister give a bit more detail about the ways in which this whole process is scrutinised to ensure that the numbers of bluefin tuna continue to grow and do not diminish?

I understand that many responses to the consultation exercise mentioned in paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum requested training in catch-and-release techniques. I am not surprised by that, as tuna is a large fish and clearly it is sometimes extremely challenging to perform a catch-and-release operation properly. It is important that we do not damage fish in the process of releasing them, and I am told that without clear instructions and possibly training, that could happen. Can the Minister reassure me on this point? Are there any plans to issue clearer guidance and/or training on catch and release?

Having asked those questions, I am very happy for us to proceed.

[Mark Spencer]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for asking those questions. They are quite closely linked, of course.

The shadow Minister is right to identify the quota that we have been allocated. It is actually 66 tonnes: 63 that we have negotiated with our colleagues under ICCAT and 3 tonnes that we have been able to roll forward from the previous iteration. As he said, we have divided that up.

There are 39 tonnes for commercial fishing—for people to go out, catch fish and process tuna caught in UK waters, to be sold in little tins—and 16 tonnes for the recreational fishing sector, which is new and is a developing market. As he has identified, there is 1 tonne of quota that we have used for science, as in tagging. That is to develop the recreational tuna market, where people will pay to go and catch a tuna fish. We have been documenting that and doing scientific studies, and it is quite commercially advantageous to the fishermen, who can have, often, foreign nationals, or UK nationals, pay quite a lot of money to go and catch one of these fish and then release it back into the water.

Of course, occasionally, there is an accident and one of the fish does not survive that process, which is why the 1 tonne of quota is available, to ensure that the fish is not wasted but goes into the food chain. And 10 tonnes are available for by-catch, so if someone is trying to catch another species of fish but accidentally catches a tuna in the net, they can land that fish and it goes into the food chain rather than being wasted. We have tried to pitch those figures where we think right, but of course we are always open to further conversations with the sector to tweak those numbers, if we are minded to do that following its direct feedback.

I hope that that answers the shadow Minister’s questions about how we got there and how the process works. I am tempted to go back through the various amendments and regulations, for the interest of members of the Committee—but on this occasion I will refrain and accept that they were listening intently the first time.

Question put and agreed to.

Zero Total Allowable Catch: Pollack

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double]

When those fishermen put that to the MMO, it said, “Oh, there’s no need for that. We are not concerned. We don’t think those measures are necessary.” But it looks like the fishermen were right all along, because if these measures had been brought in gradually over the past few years, we may have had sustainable quota for pollack without this sudden drop to zero.

I know the Minister has been looking at ways to support those who have been affected severely by this decision. I welcome the steps he has taken, the work he has been doing and the measures he has brought forward through the fisheries and seafood scheme to expedite applications from those who have been affected by the reduction in pollack stock to help them diversify. That is very welcome, but will he clarify the letter sent out on 23 February, which said the scheme will be available to all those affected by the reduction in pollack quota, including netters? The press release that went out later that day seemed to suggest it was only available to handliners and boats under 10 metres. If the Minister could clarify exactly who the expedited FaSS is available to, that would be welcome.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I can do that while my hon. Friend is on his feet. I was trying to establish a priority list, so boats under 10 metres and handliners will be prioritised over boats over 10 meters and those that are netting. That does not mean those boats are excluded; it just means that we will prioritise the others.

[Steve Double]

I am very grateful to the Minister. It is very helpful to have that clarification.

The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—I will call it CEFAS, which is a lot easier to say—is working with fishermen to gather accurate data about the current stocks of pollack, which will hopefully inform future decisions. Paying fishermen who have lost their catch due to this decision to gather data is very welcome, but we should acknowledge that the scheme will assist only a relatively small number of vessels. Both schemes are welcome, but they do not go far enough and will not help anywhere near the number of boats that have been affected or mitigate the losses that are being experienced.

We need to focus on two things. First, we must help and support now those who have been so badly affected by this decision, and protect their livelihoods in the immediate future from the loss of income that they experienced virtually overnight with no time to prepare. Secondly, we should lay out a pathway to return pollack quota sustainably as quickly as possible.

I urge the Minister to prioritise work with the specialised committee on fisheries, where I understand that the UK and the EU will be discussing pollack as a priority topic later this month. This is the first chance to review the data and make requests of ICES for refinement of the science and management, particularly of recreational fishers. As the Minister knows, that is a real concern of many commercial fishermen: there seem to be no restrictions or regulations around recreational fishers when it comes to pollack. Those fishermen want to see the UK engaging robustly and confidently as the independent seafaring nation that we are, and to make the most of that opportunity. I also understand that the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has a meeting with DEFRA and CEFAS later this month, ahead of the SCF meeting. I hope the Minister and his officials will take that opportunity to really listen to the concerns of our fishing representatives and understand the impact that this decision is having, and to work with them to find a way forward.

What we need is urgent help now. Fishermen have lost a major part of their income overnight through no fault of their own. They have ongoing business costs, mortgages to pay and families to support, and it is unrealistic to expect them to adjust at such short notice—they really need some help now. I urge the Minister to continue to do all he can to find a way of getting help to those fishermen as soon as we can, and to work with fishermen in Cornwall and elsewhere towards seeing a pollack quota return as soon as possible, so we can have sustainable fisheries for pollack going forward. I thank the Minister again for all he has been doing. I look forward to his response to this debate, and I will continue to work with him and colleagues to find solutions to these challenges, to help the fishermen I represent and to ensure they have a viable future.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), not only for tonight’s debate but for the work he continues to do to support his constituents. I also put on record my recognition of the efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who have been equally tenacious in their pursuit of support for their constituents.

To begin with the scientific advice, back in June 2023, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas provided advice that the total allowable catch for pollack in western waters for 2024 should be set at zero tonnes for the first time. This followed a benchmark for pollack—a process whereby assessment methods for a stock are reviewed and best available methods are selected. That benchmark led to a change in the assessment from a data-limited method, which was mostly reliant on landings data only, to a category 2 assessment that includes fisheries survey data. The recent benchmark suggested that the stock went below safe biological limits in 2015-16. The ICES advice received in June 2023 is the best available scientific advice, and was the basis on which DEFRA negotiated a EU-UK bycatch TAC of 832 tonnes. That bycatch TAC aims to avoid choking other healthy fisheries in the south-west, where pollack is caught; however, it does not allow vessels to target pollack. I recognise the difficulties that that is causing, particularly for those who predominantly target pollack and have done for some time.

In addition to securing the bycatch of pollack, my Department has been working hard to find ways to assist and support those most affected, while of course keeping the long-term sustainability of the fishery in mind. With that in mind, on 23 February, we announced the reopening of the fisheries and seafood scheme, which is providing up to £6 million in funding to support projects in a variety of areas, including health and safety, processing and—importantly—business diversification. We are also expediting FaSS applications for hand and pole line fishers on under 10 metre vessels, bringing the application processing time down from eight weeks to four weeks. That will mean that we will be able to get support to the most affected the quickest.

In addition, on 23 February I announced that affected fishermen will have the opportunity to take part in a new scientific study led by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. This study will see a collaboration between scientists and fishermen to increase our understanding of the stock structure of pollack. Fishers will be engaged in the project to collect generic samples from around 3,000 pollack, receiving payments for initial training and participation. They will still be able to sell at market the pollack they have caught as part of that study. Applications, along with detailed eligibility criteria, will be open as soon as possible, encouraging the most affected pollack fishers to apply for that study.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcements on 23 February, but did he see the comments made by Andy Read in Fishing News, where he asked a very salient question: could this not all have been predicted and could it not have been done earlier?

[Mark Spencer]

We do of course continue to monitor fish stocks, and we do follow ICES advice. It is a fair criticism that we have seen a decline in pollack over many years—over the last 20 years—but certainly the ICES advice continued to recognise that pollack could be caught until last June, when we were forced into the position where we had to take action. I am truly sorry for the impact that is having on the fishermen who have relied on that stock. We want to follow that advice to the best of our ability to try to recover that stock. I want fishermen to be able to catch pollack in those waters, so we do need to manage it in the most responsible way possible.

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

I genuinely thank the Minister for his continued engagement on this, which really is very much appreciated. He may like to know that, following his announcement a couple of weeks ago on the schemes he was presenting, I wrote to the Chancellor to ask him for a bit more in the budget—not in the Budget we have just had, but in the budget—to help the Minister with a scheme he might have. We really do need some financial support for these guys now. It really is critical.

[Mark Spencer]

Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tenacious pursuit of support for her constituents.

I will turn to the long-term outlook for pollack, which is important. We will work with the EU on the longer-term management of pollack, via the specialised committee on fisheries, to drive towards an improved stock assessment on which ICES can base future advice. I want to see a recovery of this important pollack fishery, and I believe the measures described will help support that sector through a very challenging time.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned recreational fishing, which I know has caused some frustration, with social media posts almost taunting the commercial fishermen. There is an active recreational pollack fishery, and although the evidence base is limited, the recreational catch is likely to represent a large component of the total pollack catch. Clearly, given the zero catch advice, there is a need to explore the potential to reduce pressure on the stock through management of the recreational fishery. As this is a jointly managed stock with the EU, the UK has committed to take forward work on this issue with the specialised committee on fisheries as a matter of urgency in 2024. We will work closely with relevant stakeholders throughout this process. My officials have started discussions with the recreational sector, and we are looking to take this work forward as soon as we can.

In closing, I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic. Pollack is a key stock, and it is crucial to the south-west community. The Government will do all we can to support the industry, to improve the stock science and to drive the stock towards long-term sustainable management, which is of course in the interests of everyone, particularly the committed fishers of the south-west of England. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that this is not the end of the discussions I seek to have with colleagues. My door is very much open to further discussions to see how we may be able to assist, and I look forward to working with him to support his constituents, as he seeks to do.

Question put and agreed to.