(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this we will take the following motion:
That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.
Victoria Prentis
Both these statutory instruments amend retained EU legislation relating to the common organisation of agricultural markets and domestic secondary legislation relating to that area. The first instrument also makes some provision in respect of organic production that will ensure the operability of retained EU law. I should make it clear that the amendments made by the instruments are technical in nature. They do not introduce new policy but instead maintain continuity as far as possible.
The aim of the instruments is to ensure that the relevant retained EU legislation is fully operable at the end of the transition period. The retained EU legislation was previously made operable to the UK as a whole on the basis that the UK left the EU without an agreement. However, as we have left the EU with the withdrawal agreement in place, the retained legislation now needs to be updated to reflect this—in particular, the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. As such, the majority of the amendments made by these instruments relate to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. For example, they might remove references to Northern Ireland or replace UK references with Great Britain references, as Northern Ireland will of course remain aligned with the EU under the protocol.
Amendments are also being made to a small number of transitional provisions, either to align them with the Government’s border operating model, which introduces new border controls for the movement of goods between GB and the EU in three stages up to July 2021, or because they were introduced on the basis that the UK would leave without a deal and are therefore no longer required. Those provisions concern the import of hops and hop products, notification requirements for the import of beef and veal from third countries, and marketing requirements for hatching eggs and chicks imported from the EU. All other transitional provisions will be retained, with references to “exit day” replaced with references to “IP completion day”.
As Members are aware, agriculture is a devolved policy area and of great importance to all parts of the UK. Although one of the instruments that we are debating is reserved, we worked closely with the devolved Administrations in producing both instruments, and they have given their consent as necessary.
These statutory instruments will help to provide necessary continuity for stakeholders and beneficiaries. They will ensure that retained EU legislation relating to the common organisation of the markets and organic production functions correctly after the end of the transition period, and that we have an operable legal framework that supports farmers and traders and delivers continuity. I urge Members to agree to the amendments proposed in these regulations.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
As we are discussing agriculture, let me place on the record my traditional declaration of interest: my little sister is a farmer in Cornwall.
As these SIs appear to be technical and uncontroversial, we will not oppose them, but I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister is able to help with. I gave her advance notice of some of the most difficult ones, so I hope she has some good answers. British farmers and British farming matter, which is why Labour has consistently been so vocal on issues relating to agriculture and food standards, and I will continue that today.
These new regulations deal with technical matters relating to how food is sold, distributed and marketed, so forgive me for jumping into the detail right away. May I ask the Minister about the periods for bringing the systems contained in the regulations online? It is important that we have operable systems so that the whole framework of regulation works and people know what information is required and when it is required.
As the Minister will know, her Department told the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that it has retained a two-year transition period for fruit and vegetables
“in order to allow policy teams to deliver the necessary IT system changes and recruit additional HMI inspectors”,
but for poultry meat the period is 12 months,
“as we do not currently enforce poultrymeat marketing standards, so will need sufficient time to operationalise the regime before being in a position to conduct the associated checks.”
When these SIs were debated in the House of Lords, the Minister in the Lords, Lord Gardiner, apologised, saying that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
“did not provide sufficient context on checks relating to poultry meat marketing standards and this may have caused concern, but it has since been clarified”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC706.]
I will be grateful if the Minister mentions that clarification briefly when she gets to her feet to conclude the debate. Will she also set out the reason for the two-year delay in the implementation of those systems, and the difference between the fruit and veg and the poultry systems? I suspect that the IT system will not be ready for 1 January 2021, but I will be grateful if she confirms that.
We have been told that the Government have been engaging with businesses on a sector by sector basis. I am grateful for that, but may I ask what conversations the Department has had with businesses affected by these particular regulations and how they feel about them?
Lord Gardiner also told Members in the other place that the Government are working closely with the Animal and Plant Health Agency
“to ensure that we have the right calibre of inspectors.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC712.]
I thought that was a curious turn of phrase, so I will be grateful if the Minister sets out whether we have the right numbers of inspectors and, perhaps as hinted at by the Minister in the other place, whether they have all received the right level of training in order to be operational as well as present.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also drew our attention to the fact that the UK does not currently enforce poultry meat marketing standards. Does that mean that if poultry meat and other products were imported from a third country, they could still be described as free range or organic and that would not be checked? Is that what enforcement of those standards means? I would be grateful if the Minister reassured us that that will not be the case. She knows my concern—I do not want to see any back doors for chlorine-washed chicken being marketed as anything else—so will she set out clearly that that is not one of those back doors? Could unregulated poultry meat be mixed with other products and given a misleading description? I do not believe that that is the case here, but will the Minister set that out? Also, the explanatory memorandum refers to the organic certifiers group having been consulted. I would be grateful if she set out whether it is now content with the regulations.
The Minister was correct that a great deal of the amendments in the draft regulations seek to change the designation of “United Kingdom” to “Great Britain”. Will she reassure us that all conversations with counterparts in Northern Ireland have been successful in respect of that, and that no issues are outstanding? Looking at the debate in the other place when that point was made, Lord Goldsmith had previously stated that there are now 72 planned border posts for inspections. As we are dealing with the inspection of agricultural products, which can cross the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland a number of times in the lifespan of a food product being made, will the Minister address some of the issues that Lord Gardiner may have omitted in his response to questions in the other place about whether the planned locations of those border posts have all been identified and published, and whether staff have been fully trained and will be operational by the end of the transition period, in particular in relation to the inspection of agricultural products, which the regulations deal with?
The Minister made mention in her remarks of the need to have fully operable regulations by the end of the Brexit transition period. The Opposition would like to see them in place, but we are here today because the original regulations were not properly transposed and a series of mistakes were made. That is why we are revisiting the regulations. I am of course grateful for the Minister laying statutory instruments to correct the mistakes and omissions of the previous SIs, but passing bad laws wastes the time of everybody here and is particularly frustrating when brilliant Bills such as the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill struggle to find parliamentary time. We are using a large period on Monday evening that could have been used to pass that important legislation.
When we look at the enormous volumes of secondary legislation and new regulations that will come from DEFRA in the next couple of weeks to deal with our exit from the transition period, it is important to ensure against any more pollution of our statute books with bad regulation that will subsequently need to be changed. It should concern us all that bad laws have been passed, and I will be grateful if the Minister sets out what lessons have been learned from the first time the SI was considered to ensure that we are not in a similar place again. Having had to present the SI twice, I know she probably shares my frustration.
The Minister knows that that is not the first time that this has happened. Indeed, regular watchers of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SIs will recall the debate on the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, from 21 October last year, when the same problem was brought before this House. I stress the importance of ensuring that we get such regulations right the first time around. However, I am grateful to the Government business managers for bringing this draft SI before the House, so that the thousands of people who are clearly watching this debate will know what is going on, rather than hiding it away in a dusty Committee Room, for which the viewing figures on parliamentlive.tv might not be as profound as I am sure they are for this evening’s debate.
In all seriousness, there is a route to ensure that such regulations are gotten correct the first time around. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether any lessons have been learned in relation to that, because a bewildering scale of new secondary legislation is about to come on to the statute books for farmers and for industry. It is important that farmers and the farming community have confidence that when the House passes regulations, they have been passed after detailed scrutiny and are correct.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know, because you have probably sat through me saying this a few times before, that I am concerned that the Government still use the phraseology in its impact assessments of “no impact” and “no significant impact” as similar terms. The Minister knows that, because she and I have sat in many statutory instrument Committees where I have bemoaned such usage. “No impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things. The lack of an impact assessment for these statutory instruments concerns me, when there is potentially such a difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact”, and especially given that we are looking at these regulations for the second time and are having to correct errors from the first time. I know that the Minister will say that this is a House matter, but I would be grateful if she could confirm that she will be taking up that point with the Leader of the House to ensure that it is addressed for future statutory instruments.
Labour stands with our farmers, and we want our food and farming standards kept high after we leave the Brexit transition period. We want to keep high-quality food on our children’s plates, and to ensure that there is a level playing field for British farmers to stop them being undercut by food produced to lower standards from abroad.
We were pleased to see concessions from the Minister in relation to the campaign led by Labour and the National Farmers Union to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory basis to allow more scrutiny of trade deals. There is still a long way to go, but many of those trade deals will be enacted by secondary legislation, and it is important that they are properly looked at. The market for agricultural products should matter to every one of us because a market tilted against the interests of consumers harms families, one tilted in favour of supermarkets harms consumer pockets, and one tilted in favour of importers over domestic production risks signing the death warrant for British farmers.
Labour will not oppose these regulations. However, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out how we can ensure that we get regulations right the first time round. Particularly for regulations dealing with Northern Ireland, we must ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive are comfortable with the proposals that the Minister has set out.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Minister described the instruments as technical and largely ensuring continuity in their scope and measure. There have been discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Government have given their consent for them, so on that basis we will not oppose them.
I seek one key assurance from the Minister, which I hope she will address. She will understand the huge importance to producers of provenance, especially in Scotland, where the ability to identify Scottish produce as such is of enormous value in all parts of the value chain. I seek from the Minister an assurance that there is nothing at all in either of these instruments that might prevent Scottish produce from being identified as such in the export process, either now or in the future.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for their contributions. They asked a large number of questions, and if I do not answer them all, I apologise; it is merely an oversight, and I am happy to take them up offline outside the Chamber.
On the poultry meat issue, I am always happy to confirm that there is no possibility of chlorine-washed chicken entering our food chain unless this House votes for that to be the case, and I really do not see that happening—do you, Mr Deputy Speaker? As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place drew the other place’s attention to the Department’s explanation on poultry meat. I apologise; our explanation did not provide sufficient context on the checks relating to poultry meat marketing standards, and that might have caused concern because it was not sufficiently clear. The reason is that on these particular operational indicators, no third country currently uses the standards, so there is no current need to have an operational enforceable system for checking that they are there. That is the reason that that has not been an issue to date. I assure all Members that although the specific matters are not covered by these regulations, the Government remain absolutely committed to high standards, as we said many times during the passage of the Agriculture Bill.
The difference between the poultry meat transition period, which is 12 months, and the fruit and vegetable transition period, which is two years, is to enable us, in a very pragmatic and practical way, to upgrade our IT systems and recruit the right sort of inspectors to do the checks. We are working closely with the EU Commission on that, and nobody should be afraid of the difference between the two. This is merely a pragmatic and appropriate response to an operational issue.
On Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors, again I would not read too much into the word “calibre”. These are specialist staff, so of course they have to be of the right type. We are working hard to increase their numbers at the moment.
On border control posts, we have always been clear that following the Northern Ireland protocol there would be an expansion of facilities at some entry points where certain controls already take place. We are very much in touch with the Northern Ireland Minister. Indeed, I spoke to him twice last week and I expect to do so repeatedly in the next few weeks.
On the devolved Administrations, we have worked collaboratively with them on these statutory instruments. We have sought formal agreement from them on areas that intersect with devolved policy.
There are of course many ways of describing our produce. We frequently describe produce as being from Oxfordshire, for example. In brief, we expect to use the different terms GB, UK and UK(NI) following Brexit, but this is a very complicated issue. As we reach the end of the transition period, we will set out far more detail about labelling. There is some context in these statutory instruments, but not a great deal that needs to concern the devolved Administrations at this point on the labelling front. Discussions with the devolved Administrations have confirmed our mutual understanding of the UK’s alignment on marketing standards. They have always been very keen to align them, so we can work the internal market properly following the end of the transition period.
On lessons learned, as I said in my opening remarks the good thing that happened last year is that we have left the EU with the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol in place. The statutory instruments, which were done in something of a hurry at the end of last year, included the whole of the UK instead of carving out Northern Ireland, because the Northern Ireland protocol did not exist at that point. It is true that in the rush to have a functioning statute book for the proposed exit day at the end of last year, mistakes were made and references were missed. I think it is right that we take the opportunity to correct those mistakes wherever possible and that is what we have done.
To end, producers and consumers will be well served by the passing of these statutory instruments. They help to ensure that retained EU legislation, which protects our standards and supports our farming industries, remains operable at the end of the transition period. They are technical, but nevertheless crucial in ensuring the effectiveness and continuity of that retained legislation. I therefore commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
Resolved,
That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The sitting is suspended for three minutes.