Draft Livestock (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Livestock (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Mr Howarth, it is, as always, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 enables the Government to provide continuity and legal certainty by bringing EU legislation into UK law as retained EU law and to fix any legal deficiencies in the retained texts that exist as a consequence of EU exit.

The statutory instrument makes operability amendments to retained EU legislation on the identification and traceability of livestock, especially for cattle—all bovines—sheep and goats, so that it continues to function correctly on our statute book after the UK exits the European Union. Pigs are not mentioned in the SI, because EU legislation on pig identification and traceability has been fully transposed into UK law, as it originated in a European Community directive.

EU legislation in this area consists of an EU Council regulation for bovines, and one for sheep and goats. Underneath them sit Commission regulations or decisions that set out more technical details. In summary, the Council regulations prescribe regimes to help to control disease outbreaks by ensuring that the movements of farmed bovines, sheep and goats can be traced. To do that, they say how and when animals are identified, what records their keepers shall maintain and when they must report movements to a competent authority. The Commission regulations that sit below them address such details as criteria for selecting farms for compliance inspections, rules on ear-tagging and passports for bovines, and technical standards for electronic ID tags used for sheep.

I should make it clear that the changes being made to the retained law are technical operability changes. They include such matters as changing references to “Member States” to “the appropriate Minister” or to “the United Kingdom”, “Community rules” to

“rules set out in retained EU direct legislation”

and so on.

The EU legislation to be retained is directly applicable in each member state. As animal health policy and its delivery are a devolved competence, each territory of the UK enforces them via its own separate existing SIs, and will continue to do so with the retained law. The devolved Administrations were fully involved in the preparation of the instrument, and their Assemblies have consented to its being made.

I should also emphasise that the SI does not introduce new policies. The current rules that livestock keepers or businesses must comply with will be unchanged by the SI. The UK Administrations have plans to modernise our respective livestock traceability systems and rules over the coming years—for example, to make them more digital. That work is not affected by the content of the SI, which is about maintaining the status quo.

I will now address points made about the SI by the Committees that sifted it as a negative procedure SI in December: the Commons European Statutory Instruments Committee and the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Both Committees considered that it met the requirements to be changed to an affirmative SI, because they saw it as conferring significant new legislative functions on Ministers and allowing Ministers to charge for certain controls.

On the first point, the Committees considered amendments made by the SI as conferring new legislative functions on Ministers in the UK, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or in the UK devolved Administrations. In practice, animal health policy is a devolved competence in the UK. How that function is exercised is therefore already a matter for devolved Ministers. The changes made by the SI simply clarify that the delivery of livestock ID and movement functions will, as now, be for the appropriate Ministers in the UK: the Secretary of State at DEFRA, Welsh and Scottish Ministers, or Ministers in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.

The transfer of legislation-making functions—the ability to make policy changes in the future—from the Commission to appropriate Ministers in the area of retained animal health law is effected by a different affirmative SI, which some of us may remember, that was approved by this House on 27 February: the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I remember it!

[David Rutley]

The hon. Member for Bristol West shows how assiduous she is in her duties by remembering that SI. Excellent! That is particularly good at such an early hour in the morning in Parliament.

On the second point, both Committees noted that the draft SI contains a charging power, with the Commons sifting Committee noting that Regulation 4(12) has the effect of allowing Ministers to charge to cattle farmers the costs of systems set up to identify and register cattle and trace their movements. I simply note that although that possibility is set out in article 9 of the retained Council regulation on the identification and registration of bovines, charging for those controls is not the policy of present and past UK Administrations. There are no plans to make it so.

The power to make EU exit SIs exists to fix deficiencies in retained law that there would otherwise be as a consequence of EU exit. The existence of the charging power is not such a deficiency. The change that article 4(12) of the draft SI makes to that provision is to change the term “Member States” to “appropriate Minister”. The SI has also been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has made no observations on it.

Key stakeholders, including farming unions and sector bodies, were informed in the early stages that this instrument was being prepared. None has commented on drafts of the instrument during its preparation. Given that it is concerned simply with ensuring that the retained EU legislation is operable, and as the changes it makes entail no changes to the day-to-day rules that keepers comply with or to the systems they use to record and report movements, that is understandable. The stakeholders have been much more focused on, and involved with, our plans to develop our livestock movement tracing systems over the next few years but, again, they are not part of the SI. An impact assessment has not been produced for the draft instrument, as it will have no impact on the livestock or other sectors.

The SI will ensure that the law on livestock identification and traceability, as retained, will continue to function correctly after we leave the EU. For the reasons that I have set out, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. A number of important points have been made. Yes, these are minor technical changes but they come against a landscape of important Government policy, so I take seriously all the issues raised. I reassure Committee members that these changes are very technical: they do not change the day-to-day processes that keepers currently have to comply with.

I reassure the hon. Member for Stroud that the SI does not change powers that already exist. The Government have no plans to change the balance of funding between the taxpayer and the industry, except in the matter already announced: sampling fallen stock for transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, or TSE. That accounts for about £15 a year on average for farmers.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked why the ability to charge was being transferred across. We are trying to maintain continuity in the law and to minimise the number of changes; we want to make only changes that need to be made. I reassure the hon. Gentleman again. As I said on my opening remarks, what he mentioned is not the current policy of present or past UK Administrations and devolved Administrations, and there are no plans for it to be. The issue is continuity.

The hon. Member for Stroud was concerned about why pigs are not included in this statutory instrument. I reassure him—I did try to get this across in my opening remarks—that the operability fixes for domestic pig movement were in a negative SI that has already been approved. They have been taken care of in another piece of legislation.

The hon. Member for Stroud also asked about changes to beef labelling and timetables of bovine identification. The SI regarding changes to beef labelling references was approved yesterday. It is complicated: we are discussing several different SIs at any given point. The hon. Member for Stroud, and other Members, were concerned about a new database. We are working in partnership with the industry to improve animal health with a new database. We are working closely with industry partners on taxpayer-funded programmes, and we want to encourage our partners to share data. The system is in development. Our current systems remain in place, and both function for international trade, including with the EU.

Another issue raised by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute related to the amount of consultation. There had been an active dialogue. I meet with the National Farmers Union every week along with other food industry trade bodies. They have been engaged in the early stages of this SI, but no issues came up because it is so technical. There has been much more active engagement on new plans for the future related to livestock tracking, and that might have been confusing. That relates to future plans, and is not included in this SI.

I am seeking inspiration so that I can answer the questions from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. He will be pleased with my answer: could he please repeat the question? I think that means that I will come back to him in writing. I know that he takes these questions very seriously; rather than giving him an answer on the fly, I will give him a full answer, if that meets with his approval.

[Luke Pollard]

indicated assent.

[David Rutley]

I am very grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the date of the introduction of bovine electronic identification. The date comes from the EU Council regulation, and we have retained that date.

I think I have answered nearly all the questions—except for some; we will respond about the technical ones.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Very quickly, one question that the Minister has not answered is about the impact on the devolved Parliaments and the Welsh Assembly. Can he guarantee that there will be no impact in respect of agriculture?

[David Rutley]

That was an oversight on my part. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no impact.

I am grateful to Committee members for their valuable contributions to the debate. To summarise, these regulations are making technical changes to ensure that existing EU law operates appropriately once we leave the EU. For those reasons, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines AND RESIDUES (amendment ETC.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Austin. Most of this statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 13 February, corrects retained EU law on geographical indication schemes, or GI schemes, using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The remainder makes a small number of amendments relating to wine and spirits provisions, and to veterinary medicines.

I turn first to the provisions on GIs. GI schemes provide legal protection from imitation for local and traditional food and drink specialities. They make up 25% of UK food and drink exports by value and together were worth more than £5.5 billion in 2018. Because of the number of relevant pieces of EU legislation, there are a number of EU exit statutory instruments that deal with GIs.

The instrument we are focusing on today has a pivotal role, as it sets the frameworks for the new GI schemes for agrifoods and aromatised wine; we will have lots of conversations about some of the other GIs, but those are for another day. Further SIs will complete those frameworks. This instrument enables the Government to administer and enforce those GI schemes in the UK after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and ensures that our GIs remain protected against imitation in the UK. Parliament approved the framework for spirit drinks last week and, in the next exciting instalment of the GI story, we will be putting the framework for wine before the House very soon.

Together with other legislation on GIs, this statutory instrument will ensure that the UK continues to comply with World Trade Organisation obligations after exit—specifically the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. I know hon. Members will be interested in the detail of exactly how the instrument will do that. It will provide a UK framework to administer and enforce GI schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and aromatised wines, throughout the United Kingdom. It will enable applicants from the UK and third countries to apply for UK GI protection. It will also enable the number of UK GIs to continue to grow after we leave the EU.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Whether or not we protect GIs here in the UK, will that have any further effect in the rest of Europe? If we introduce new GIs in the UK, will the rest of Europe recognise them?

[David Rutley]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about new GIs later in my speech, but on the UK GIs that are currently in operation, our understanding is that the EU will continue to recognise those, because we are listed in its legislation.

In addition, the instrument will amend retained EU law on the method of analysis used to ensure that spirit drinks comply with the relevant rules. It also amends retained EU law concerning the documentation that must accompany the movement of wine and imported wine, the certification of wine and the registers that must be kept by wine operators relating to the wines handled by them.

The Government launched a public consultation in October 2018 to seek the views of stakeholders and the public about our proposed new UK GI rules. The majority of respondents supported the Government’s proposals. GIs are intellectual property and, as such, reserved. The relevant powers currently exercised by the European Commission will therefore be transferred to the Secretary of State. We have worked in partnership with the devolved Administrations on the whole of this instrument, and where it concerns devolved matters, they have given their consent.

I turn to the provisions on veterinary medicines. This is the second EU exit statutory instrument to cover veterinary medicines. The other, with which Opposition Members may be familiar, is the Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That instrument has already been debated in, and accepted by, both Houses.

The instrument we are debating covers three areas of veterinary medicines. It transfers powers and functions to set maximum residue limits for veterinary medicines. It provides for veterinary medicines that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency to remain on the UK market. It also makes necessary consequential changes to the fees charged by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as set out in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013.

Maximum residue limits are the maximum safe limit of a particular substance in produce from animals. These limits are used to establish withdrawal periods—the period that must elapse after the last administration of a medicine before produce from that animal may enter the food chain. The UK MRL-setting framework is necessary to ensure the safety of produce from food-producing animals.

Veterinary medicines are devolved to Northern Ireland, so the power to set MRLs is shared between the UK Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be able to act on a UK-wide basis with the consent of DAERA, and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will continue to act as the UK-wide regulator to ensure consistency. In addition, this instrument brings across from the European Medicines Agency the existing MRL application fees of £62,300 for a new MRL and £18,850 to amend an existing MRL. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, these fees will be reviewed as soon as possible.

As a cost recovery agency, the VMD recovers its assessment costs from the pharmaceutical industry. Until the data is available in a few months’ time to underpin a more accurate cost base, the VMD will administratively and significantly reduce the fee, to better reflect the actual cost of the assessment. Once a robust cost base has been established, the fee in the legislation will be amended, and that will be subject to consultation.

Medicines approved by the EMA—there are only 389 of them—account for a small percentage of all veterinary medicines in the UK, at 13%. However, they are often novel treatments and substances, so it is highly important for these medicines to remain on the UK market after we leave the EU. This instrument provides for their conversion to UK national approvals, with no charge for the conversion. Pharmaceutical companies will not need to take any immediate action to enable them to continue to market their products in the UK.

Lastly, this instrument makes minor consequential changes to the fee schedule charged by the VMD for the function it carries out. Apart from bringing over the existing MRL fees, which I have set out, these are minor corrections, and no new VMD fees are being introduced.

The amendments proposed to schedule 7 of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 are merely to correct deficiencies arising from us leaving the EU. Without these amendments, the UK would be unable to regulate the marketing and use of veterinary medicines effectively. That would have negative impacts on business, as well as on our ability to protect human and animal health and the environment. This instrument will maintain the existing high standards for the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines.

In line with the Government’s better regulation principles, and given the small costs involved, a formal impact assessment has not been carried out. The impact on business has been assessed as being well below the threshold requiring an impact assessment. Although a formal public consultation has not been carried out, the Government have proactively engaged with the animal health industry to discuss how we ensure that the regulatory regime continues to function effectively after exit day.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble has met the Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association and the National Office of Animal Health on a number of occasions, as part of our extensive engagement. Officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate continue to hold regular meetings with key industry representatives. The industry has welcomed our proactive and continued engagement with it. NOAH has expressed some concern that introducing a separate MRL-setting regime for the EU could increase burden and cost on industry. The Government recognise that MRLs are key to facilitating trade in animal produce, and will therefore look to align with international standards when setting MRLs.

[Sandy Martin]

In addition to the additional cost of this process, is there not a real danger that it will be difficult to carry out if there is a shortage of trained and professional staff?

[David Rutley]

The good news is that we have those trained and experienced members of staff available, and we are ensuring that, whatever the eventuality, we will have the resources available for the change. As the hon. Gentleman has intervened, it is important for me to answer his previous question about whether the rest of Europe would recognise new GIs from the UK. That would not happen automatically; new UK GIs will still need to apply for EU GI status, although the Government will support them in that. However, existing ones would be protected.

The steps I have outlined will ensure high-level protection for human health. MRLs must be based on sound science and data; the UK has a proud and growing reputation in the area of food, and GIs play an important part in that. The Government are committed to protecting and celebrating the success of those products and driving further market access to make sure that they and other great British food are enjoyed around the world. For the reasons I have set out, I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank Committee members for their contributions. I will seek to answer as many questions as I can, so they should bear with me. I seem to be spending more time with the hon. Member for Stroud than my wife at the moment, along with the other three musketeers on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that I am spending more time with SNP Members as well. These are important times, however, and we need to get through these SIs because of the momentous changes happening around us—or the potential for them to happen.

The hon. Member for Stroud asked an important question about withdrawal time periods, which are individual to products and the active substances within them. Existing withdrawal periods will not be affected by EU exit. To give some examples, the withdrawal period is seven days for eggs, 28 days for meat and seven days for milk. Hopefully that gives him some assurance.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about MRL fees. The important point to recognise is that the VMD works on a cost recovery basis, so it is looking to do all it can to ensure that it reduces the costs associated with MRL fees in future. I highlighted the cost of those fees, as does the SI, and I assure him that they will be significantly lower once the cost base has been established. That will be done administratively to start with, and put into legislation in due course. They will be much lower, which will of course be welcomed by the pharmaceutical businesses and producers involved.

Another important point I made earlier was that the instrument will ensure that the conversion of the medicines approved by the EMA—there are only 389 of them—to the UK approvals process will take place and that there will be no charge for the conversion. We are taking every possible step to ensure that the transfer of powers takes place and that the costs are lowered, to be more in line with the costs associated with them. In relation to conversions, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the products would be recognised in the EU market. EMA products are already approved in the EU; all other products are authorised on a national basis in the individual member state. As now, companies will need to apply to market products in the EU.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about geographic indications and whether single-step scrutiny was sufficient. I assure him and other hon. Members that the reduction to a single step will not reduce the rigour of the process. The EU process has two phases because it needs to allow for a national and an EU-level step—that is the way it has been set up. In future, we can do the same job in a single phase, but no less diligently. In fact, having a single-step process will reduce the burden on applicants, which can be considerable. I hope that addresses some of his points.

The first-tier tribunal is administered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and was set up to handle appeals against administrative decisions made by Government regulatory bodies, among other things. Appeals on GIs are therefore part of its core business and experts can be appointed by the court. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Dr Drew]

I accept what the Minister has said, but this is very different work for the courts and tribunals system—very specialised. Will it be looking to appoint people who have particular knowledge of food and the food chain? Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult to arbitrate on some of these issues.

[David Rutley]

I will get back formally to the hon. Gentleman on that point, but my understanding is that the court can appoint experts to help with particular issues. It is important to recognise that this SI also introduces additional appeals provisions as a result of the UK assuming the responsibility and functions previously belonging to the EU. In short, a person who thinks that the Secretary of State has got a decision or application wrong can go to this first tier tribunal to appeal against that decision. The appeal processes will cover all four regimes: agri-foods, wines, spirits and aromatised wines. The appeal provisions ensure that we comply with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman on his specific point.

A number of points were made about geographical indications. The hon. Gentleman asked when the three-year period would start. It will start from the day of exit. The whole point of having a three-year period is to enable time for the producers to adjust themselves and their packaging to the new situations. Protection of UK GIs in the EU will continue automatically after exit. They have been through the EU scrutiny process and they have earned the right to their place on the EU’s registers. To remove UK GIs from its registers, the EU would have to change its rules. If the UK GIs are removed from the EU registers, the Government will support UK GI holders in reapplying for EU GI recognition.

The key point here, certainly from the Government’s perspective, is that we should not lose sight of how important securing a deal is, for some of the very reasons we are talking about here, but we have processes in place should we find ourselves in a no-deal scenario.

[Deidre Brock]

Can the Minister give us a little more information about how long reapplying to the EU to be on that register would take, and what kind of support he will give businesses to do that? Businesses have told me they are worried about the length of time and the cost involved before they can be back on that register.

[David Rutley]

With the hon. Lady’s permission, I will return to that point in a minute. I am sure I will get some inspiration to answer those points specifically, and if not, I will write to her.

I have answered several questions on the situation that we find ourselves in. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith made an important point about Scotch whisky. When I was appointed to this role, one of the first things I did was to meet with the Scotch Whisky Association in Edinburgh, to understand its views on the matter. As she rightly said, it is vital for our export business, for the Scottish economy and, of course, for the UK economy as a whole. I respect the important work that it does.

As I said, the protection of UK GIs will continue in the EU, unless and until the EU decides to change its rules to remove UK GIs.

[Deidre Brock]

I made a point about third countries in future trade deals and how protections might be dealt with in those circumstances. I am thinking particularly of evidence that we received in the Scottish Affairs Committee from Dr Maria Garcia of the University of Bath. She used Scottish whisky as an example. She said:

“Recognition of Scottish whisky and protection of that GI in trade negotiations will be much more difficult for the UK acting alone. It will have much less success, probably, in getting its demands met, than it would as part of the EU.”

What assurances can the Minister offer Scottish whisky producers and all the other people who are part of the PGI system in the UK that they will be protected in those sorts of trade deals in the manner needed?

[David Rutley]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. The Government are working with their global trading partners to transition EU free trade agreements and other sectoral agreements. That includes commitments on the recognition and protection of UK GIs. We are working to have bilateral agreements in place, ready for when we need them. If there is no deal, the Government will seek to bring into force bilateral agreements from exit day, or as soon as possible thereafter.

We have already signed a trade continuity agreement with Switzerland to continue trade worth £32.1 billion in 2017. We also signed a mutual recognition agreement for certain wines and spirits with the USA that will guarantee ongoing protection for Scotch whisky there. The UK has also signed trade continuity agreements with Chile, the Faroe Islands, Palestine, Israel and eastern and southern Africa states.

I can now answer the request for more information on the time and support available. An application could be made very quickly or old applications could be largely recycled. It is not possible to say how long the EU would take to consider an application but the UK would not charge any fees and nor does the EU. We would want to support businesses and work with them. I can talk to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith afterwards about some of the details because she has raised some important points.

To conclude, the Government are committed to ensuring effective arrangements are in place to protect GIs in the UK after we leave the European Union, enabling new registration to take place. The instrument is essential to achieve that. There are no substantive policy changes and only minimal modifications from the current EU regime. It includes the UK assuming powers that had been undertaken by the European Commission.

The instrument ensures continued levels of protection for this collection of GIs and assures consumers that they will still be able to procure products that meet the high standards to which they are accustomed. For those reasons, I commend the legislation to the Committee.

Question put.

DRAFT ZOONOTIC DISEASE ERADICATION AND CONTROL (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Zoonotic Disease Eradication and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. This statutory instrument applies to the United Kingdom and is being made under enabling powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It makes technical changes to ensure operability post EU exit, and transfers powers held by the European Commission to the appropriate Ministers in the UK. It ensures that when the UK leaves the EU, there will continue to be functioning regulatory and legislative controls to protect human health against zoonotic disease, which is—some Members were asking this earlier—disease that may transfer from animals to humans, in this case with a particular focus on salmonella.

I should make it clear, first, that the instrument does not make any changes to the standards set out in the EU regulations, and secondly, that in transferring the powers held by the Commission to appropriate Ministers in the UK, there is no intention to lower the standards that protect the public from the risk of contracting salmonella from poultry. Thirdly, we have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument, and they have given consent to it.

The current EU requirements set out in EU regulation 2160/2003 and related legislation set targets to reduce the prevalence of salmonellas of public significance in poultry. Targets are achieved through control programmes, regular sampling for the presence of salmonella and action such as culling where salmonella is found. Where poultry and hatching eggs are traded between EU member states and with other countries, the results of salmonella sampling must be shown on health certificates. Trade with countries outside the EU is permitted only if the country is on a list of approved third countries with equivalent controls.

The SI makes technical amendments; for example, it removes or amends references to EU institutions such as Community reference laboratories and the Commission —references that will no longer be appropriate after EU exit. There are no changes to the standards in the EU regulations.

Part 2—the main part of this SI—transfers powers currently held by the Commission to the appropriate Ministers in the UK. The powers that are being transferred permit procedural and technical changes relating to, for example, targets for the reduction of the prevalence of salmonella, detailed requirements for control programmes and specifying the responsibilities and tasks of laboratories.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It would be helpful to know whether anything in the regulations will address anti-microbial resistance risks. Although those risks are obviously a significant threat to human health, zoonotic diseases affect the risk of AMR in the animal population having an effect on the human population. If we are to tackle AMR, it is crucial that we have in mind problems relating to zoonotic diseases. I would be very grateful if the Minister commented on that point.

[David Rutley]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I know she has a keen interest in these issues. Overall, British Poultry Council members have reduced antibiotic use by 80 tonnes—by 85%—between 2013 and 2017. That is important. We are keen to reduce AMR across the population, and among farmed animals, over the next few years. In poultry, we already see significant reduction.

These powers also permit the Secretary of State to make changes to the list of third countries from which imports of live poultry and hatching eggs may be accepted. Part 3 makes minor consequential changes to European economic area agreements. Part 4 makes very minor consequential amendments to secondary legislation in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland; the Welsh Government have chosen to make the corresponding changes separately. Part 5 ensures that existing programmes controlling salmonella in poultry through regular testing and control methods, such as culling and restrictions on eggs from infected flocks, will remain in place after exit day, and that the reference laboratories carrying out testing and analysis are able to continue to operate without new designations.

As a result of transferring powers to the devolved Administrations, instead of having UK-wide targets for the reduction of salmonella and UK-wide national control programmes, each Administration will have their own. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to establish sensible ways of working together to maintain a coherent UK system of controlling zoonotic disease after EU exit while respecting the devolution settlements. The control programmes in the devolved Administrations will continue to function after we leave the EU much as they do now. Targets will be set at the same level, and requirements for testing, culling and other restrictions will remain unchanged.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I represent Wrexham, which is on the border, as the Minister, who comes from Cheshire, knows well. Businesses in Wrexham—food-related business, in particular—will be very interested in the fact that the regime that is being put in place in Wrexham appears to be separate from the one that will apply in, for example, Chester. Has there been any consultation on that? If so, who has carried it out?

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope his team is doing better than Macclesfield, although we are in a higher division. However, let us move on from the football.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Thanks for that.

[David Rutley]

I just wanted to rub it in. We have respect for football and many other things.

Although there will be different control programmes, the targets will be set at the same level. The point is that we want to continue to work with the devolved Administrations. They have had engagement with the process. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about consultation. I was just moving on to that, so I am grateful to him for raising it. We have not consulted formally, because that is not required. A large number of EU exit statutory instruments make minor amendments or introduce the technical fixes necessary to ensure a functioning statute book. In such cases, as with this statutory instrument, consultation is not required as there is no change to policy. Nevertheless, we and the devolved Administrations have engaged with key stakeholders about the instrument, and we have explained that there will be separate targets and control programmes in each Administration once it takes effect. That is understood by stakeholders.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Can the Minister clarify that for me? As I understand it, these regulations are currently dealt with at an EU level, and in the future they will be dealt with separately by the Welsh Government and the UK Government. Is it not the case, therefore, that by definition there is a change in policy, because there is a transfer and an introduction of different standards in Wales and the rest of the UK?

[David Rutley]

I understand that point. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his local businesses need further clarification, I will gladly pick that up separately. We want to make sure people fully understand. We are moving from a UK-wide control programme to one that is devolved, so these powers will be transferred not only to the UK but to the devolved Administrations.

The devolved Administrations have been involved with this. I have worked with them, and visited the Scottish Government. There is an active dialogue on these really important issues. I do not think anyone is seeking to change standards in this area imminently—the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow is nodding. That is where we are, but that is not to say that, at some point in the distant future, if we were to move to this scenario, there might not be some divergence, but that is not planned right now. I assure the hon. Member for Wrexham that I will happily meet him separately or arrange meetings with his local poultry producers if required.

As the control programmes will continue to operate much as they do now, the potential impact of this SI have been estimated to be unlikely to be significant. As a result, no impact assessment has been undertaken.

The Zoonotic Disease Eradication and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 aim to ensure that there will be functioning regulatory and legislative controls for salmonella in poultry when the UK leaves the EU. For the reasons I set out, I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank members of the Committee for their contributions. As ever, I will endeavour to answer some questions, and will seek inspiration for others, before the end of the Committee.

The hon. Member for Stroud asked why the draft regulations were originally laid before the sifting Committee as being subject to the negative procedure. At that time, we did not seek to transfer functions from the Commission. Those provisions were added in as events evolved, and the procedure was changed as a result. I am sure that he is grateful that the draft regulations have been granted the degree of scrutiny to which he is accustomed.

The hon. Gentleman also asked why the regulations did not relate to zoonotic regulations more widely. Regulation 216/2003 creates a framework through which any zoonotic disease can be regulated and, at present, the EU only uses the framework to regulate salmonella.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the particular pressures on reference laboratories and others on day one. Poultry is tested on the farm at present, and there is no reason to believe that there would be any additional pressures on day one on reference laboratories or enforcement bodies. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is confident there is sufficient capacity to operate as normal.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the testing laboratories. The current laboratories in England—there is one in Weybridge—and a similar laboratory in Northern Ireland will continue to operate as normal. He mentioned resources. As I said, APHA is confident that its expertise will continue to be able to enforce salmonella controls post EU exit.

There was also some concern from the hon. Gentleman, and from the hon. Member for Wrexham, about how the devolved Administrations would work together. We are exploring options to combine the expertise of advisory agencies and committees to build on existing capability and expertise and to provide advice from day one in a no-deal scenario. We are also exploring what modifications might be needed to existing decision-making machinery, with the aim of having joined-up evidence in a flexible decision-making process, in order to operate to deliver our biosecurity needs.

Salmonella testing is carried out by UK laboratories approved by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Food Standards Agency. That will not be affected by EU exit. As I said, our current reference laboratories in England and Northern Ireland will continue to operate as normal.

I want to reassure the Committee that, although there will be an operational change in the sense that the different control programmes will be administered by the devolved Administrations instead of a single UK entity, they will continue to have a joined-up approach. That was extensively highlighted by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow raised anti-microbial resistance, which is important. We talked about what is happening with poultry trends. I am trying to keep my remarks to the point, as the hon. Member for Stroud did, but there are concerns about AMR more generally. The partnership with the livestock protectors in every profession has already reduced the sales of veterinary antibiotics by 40%, down to the lowest level seen since records began in the 1990s. The Government are working with vets and farmers and are committed to further reducing the use of antibiotics in animals by 25% between 2016 and 2020.

Some concern was expressed about international trade. I am trying to read through the inspiration that I have received—

[Dr Drew]

It is called the Norway question.

[David Rutley]

I was asked whether the US was on the third country list. It is. To get on the list, it will have had to demonstrate that it has an equivalent control programme.

I know the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is very assiduous on these Committees, and he has been very disciplined today, but I want to reassure him that this in no way seeks to water down our standards at all. In terms of chlorine-washed chicken, the existing food safety provisions from the EU will come across with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which will make sure that those protections are in place.

I hope that I have been able to answer the Committee’s questions, and I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Zoonotic Disease Eradication and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

David Rutley Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this we will consider the following motion:

That the draft Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.

[David Rutley]

These statutory instruments are made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 which incorporates EU law into UK domestic law on exit. This Act also gives powers to the UK to make amendments to the retained law to make it operative. One of the things these instruments do is take powers currently held by the Commission and transfer them to the appropriate Ministers in the UK.

These instruments are grouped as they both relate to amendments to EU organic legislation, namely Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007, with regard to organic production labelling and control, and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries.

I should make it clear that the instruments do not make any changes to policies; they are purely technical in nature. They correct technical deficiencies in organics legislation to ensure it remains operable on exit and to preserve the organic standards of the current regime. The Government are strongly supportive of organic standards, many of which were developed in the UK and adopted by the EU. The UK has a world-recognised standard of food production and labelling which we wish to see maintained.

The UK organics industry is currently regulated by EU law, which sets out standards for organic production. Regulations apply to the production of food, animal feed and livestock, including bees and farmed fish, marketed as organic. The regulations set out the requirements for organic production, processing, labelling and imports as well as the inspection systems that must be in place to ensure the requirements are met. They stipulate that organic food must be inspected and certified within the scope of a tightly regulated framework and originate from businesses registered and approved by organic control bodies on the basis of a rigorous annual inspection.

The UK has over 6,000 organic operators and the sector is worth over £2.3 billion in the UK economy. Many operators are farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises. Indeed, the Soil Association reports that in 2018 the organic sector was worth £2.3 billion to the UK economy, with organic sales increasing by 5.3% in 2018. The market is in its seventh year of growth. Home delivery of organic produce through online and box schemes is growing fastest, at 14.2%, and independent retailers maintain strong sales of organic, with sales increasing by 6.2%. Key categories driving growth in the market are beers, wines and spirits and chilled foods, and in 2017 exports are estimated to be worth £225 million, excluding food from other processing and animal feed. Ambient grocery products, which include tinned and packaged food, are the largest export.

The first instrument, the Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 makes operable retained EU legislation in Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 889/2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1235/2008 deal with reserved measures covering imports and trade in organic food, feed and vegetative propagating material or seeds for cultivation. For example, the instrument transposes powers from the Commission to the Secretary of State to recognise countries and control bodies that can operate for the purposes of export to the UK. Organic control bodies in third countries will be able to apply to the UK to be recognised to certify products from around the world to import to the UK.

The instrument also sets out minor technical amendments and maintains the status quo until 31 December 2020. To maintain the status quo, this SI gives recognition to certified organic products imported from the EU, the EEA and Switzerland for 21 months. The instrument also applies for the same period of time limit during which the UK would not require additional border checks for organic products imported from the EU, EEA and Switzerland.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will, I hope, come to this later in his speech, but how will we ensure that the standards of our organic farmers in the UK are not undermined if we are not overly attentive of what is being shipped in at the borders?

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend can be assured that we are in no way seeking to water down our standards. We will no doubt talk further about that during the rest of the debate.

The approach that I have referred to responds to industry concerns and helps to maintain continuity, ensuring a flow of products. The organic regulations will now apply to imports at UK borders rather than EU borders and will ensure the continued regulation and certification of imported organic products to the standards currently applicable in the UK—I underline that point. The import system allows traceability of each product at all stages of production, preparation and distribution. This gives consumers confidence that imported organic products have been produced to the same high standards as UK organic produce.

The draft Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that organic standards remain the same for organic operators within the UK by making operable EU legislation in Council regulation 834/2007 and Commission regulation 889/2008. Without these amendments, part of the legislation would not be operable when applied in a UK-only context—for example, references to the UK as a member state. The certification and traceability of organic food and feed products will continue and standards will remain the same. This instrument sets out minor technical amendments. It also references the time-limited period of 21 months during which we would not require additional border checks for organic products being imported from the EU, European economic area and Switzerland.

The first set of regulations concerns reserved matters, as these regulations relate to the control of imports and exports. The second set concerns devolved matters. That is why we have two SIs before us today. Although there is no formal duty to consult as there are no substantive changes to the status quo, we have engaged with the United Kingdom Organic Certifiers Group, UKOCG, and from that engagement it is clear at the outset that the UK organic control bodies are particularly concerned about continuing recognition of UK certified organic products by the EU and recognition of EU imports by the UK. Our decision to continue to recognise products from the EU, EEA and Switzerland for a time-limited period has been welcomed by the group as it provides certainty on imports for the immediate future. We continue to work closely with the group on this and on the future implementation of the UK regulations.

These statutory instruments apply to the United Kingdom, and we have worked with the devolved Administrations on their development. Officials have had very helpful discussions with their counterparts in the DAs, and we are working with them on all aspects of the organics regime to form an agreement on how we can all work together moving forward.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is probably aware that concern has been expressed by some agri-food companies in my constituency, although perhaps not those in the organic business, about packaging, labels and access to those things. There seem to be some delays either from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs here in London. They are asking what food stamp they will have to have on their packaging so that they can export their products. There is some cloudiness or mystery about exactly what that will be. Can the Minister clarify where we are?

[David Rutley]

I understand, I think, the hon. Gentleman’s point, in the sense that there are a number of labelling issues, as he appreciates—I know he is an expert in these matters. I think the point he is making is about the EU logo, which is mandatory for all products packaged in the EU. In the event of no deal, such products should not use the EU organic logo, but producers can continue to use the logos of their organic control body and certification code and sell in the UK and in countries that have agreed that the UK has sufficiently similar organic standards. That said, as he knows, there are still issues—I have no doubt that Members will speak about this—to do with the EU’s recognition of UK organics. There are issues with labelling that I can take up with him in more detail separately.

I will now wrap up my initial remarks, hear what other Members have to say and come back to these points in more detail. These measures remain essential to ensure that UK organic businesses can maintain their organic certification. These statutory instruments will ensure that the strict standards in place for organic production are maintained when we leave the European Union. I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

This debate has been interesting; I think we should do it more often at this hour. I will keep this short, because my good friends in the Whips Office are giving me the evil eye—I always want to ensure that I do what they want—and I know that Madam Deputy Speaker is keen for us to move quickly on.

We have had some fantastic contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I did not know about her involvement with “Loads More Muck and Magic”, but clearly we have some real talent and expertise on this subject in the House, for which we are grateful. We also heard the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin).

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that there will not be a free-for-all. In my brief comments, I hope I can reassure her, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) and others who raised concerns about this issue. We are committed to ensuring that the UK maintains its high standards for organic production and retains a strong testing regime for organic goods. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about control bodies. They will continue to certify operators as they do now. They are all accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service as suitable to be a certification body, and that important work will continue. Before the UK accepts any applications from third countries or control bodies, rigorous checks will be carried out to ensure that the current high organic standards in the UK will be maintained.

Comments have been made about TRACES. We are replacing the TRACES NT import system, which is different from TRACES, with a manual system for an interim period for organics, until an electronic replacement is available. The manual system mirrors the one that was in place 17 months ago. A trial with a number of importers, with support from port health authorities, is being carried out to refine guidance, and it will help to ensure a smooth transition. We are looking at autumn 2020 for the electronic replacement.

There are of course opportunities ahead, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was the Minister of State. He was an illustrious Minister of State, which is probably an understatement, given that he was in post for five years. He carried out really important work to set out the framework for the Agriculture Bill. I am really pleased to have sitting beside me his successor as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill)—another outstanding Minister—who is just back in the Chamber, hotfoot from the EU Agriculture Council meeting today. The Agriculture Bill sets out how farmers and land managers will in the future be paid for public goods, such as better air and water quality and improved soil health. All of this will help the organic sector to move further forward.

We are working with organic and control bodies, and we have been holding technical discussions with the European Commission about the UK’s organic third-country recognition and to explore routes to help to ensure that UK organic products can continue to access the EU market. I recognise the fact that we have heard from both the former Minister of State and the current Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I hope that the EU will be listening to their very wise words.

We had a wide-ranging—and wide, I would say—speech from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). [Interruption.] No, not him, but his comments. He made points about devolution, but these statutory instruments apply to the United Kingdom, and we have worked with the devolved Administrations on their development. Officials have had very helpful discussions with counterparts in the devolved Administrations, not least in the Scottish Government—I was up there speaking to one of the Ministers about this—and we are working with them on all aspects of the organics regime to form an agreement on how we will all work together. I thank them for their work on these important statutory instruments in recent months.

I conclude by saying that, for the reasons I have set out, I commend these statutory instruments to the House.

Question put.

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 March (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put,

That the draft Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.—(David Rutley.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 March (Standing Order No. 41A).

Draft Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Rutley Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Gapes. This statutory instrument applies to the UK, and is made under the enabling power in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to transfer powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate UK Ministers. The instrument is technical in nature, and is to ensure a smooth transfer of powers from the EU to the UK. I first make it clear that this instrument does not make any change to policy, except in relation to the recognition of EU-authorised slaughterers; I will set out those changes later.

Secondly, I also make it clear that this instrument in no way diminishes our controls in the critical area of animal welfare. The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, which will continue to apply through existing UK legislation and, indeed, retained EU law. There is no intention to use any powers transferred through this instrument from the EU to appropriate Ministers in the UK to reduce animal welfare standards. In fact, that transfer of powers will enable animal welfare regulation in the UK to be further strengthened as new research and evidence emerges.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Can the Minister give me some reassurance—he may have gone some way towards doing so in his opening comments—that post Brexit, his Department will carry out a review of animal welfare protections, giving consideration to how we can improve this country’s animal welfare standards where it is practical and correct to do so?

[David Rutley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know he has a keen interest in this issue, and I assure him that through the statutory instruments we have been debating over recent weeks, we will make sure that current EU law is brought into the UK. We are committed to going further: we will address the issue of animal sentience, increase sentences for animal cruelty and ban wild animals in circuses, all through primary legislation. We will also ban third-party puppy and kitten sales, which I know is an issue of real interest, not least to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. We have a very full agenda.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Could the Minister tell us in his opening remarks how much his Department has spent on these statutory instruments in this week alone, let alone the past few months?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I will seek some inspiration during the course of my opening speech. It will be difficult to give specific details, but obviously this SI is part of a broader package of preparing for all eventualities, whether a no-deal scenario or a deal. Of course, within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, bringing environmental, agricultural and fisheries legislation into the UK represents a huge, transformational change.

I also assure members of the Committee that, in transferring powers over animal welfare from the EU, we have the expertise and capability within agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Food Standards Agency to robustly enforce animal welfare requirements and ensure that the regulations are strengthened sustainably over time. Animal welfare is a devolved policy area, and frameworks are in place to ensure close collaboration with devolved Administrations in this area, including a consensus that high standards should be retained as we leave the EU.

The instrument primarily makes minor operability changes to three pieces of legislation to ensure that retained direct EU legislation protecting the welfare of animals kept at control posts, while being transported, and at the time of their killing will continue to operate effectively once the UK has left the EU. The first piece of legislation, EC regulation 1255/97, relates to control posts—that is, approved areas for animals to be unloaded, fed, watered and rested for at least 12 hours during long journeys. There are currently 11 designated control posts in the UK, and the EC regulation sets out the health and hygiene requirements for control posts and details how they should be constructed, operated and approved. The SI makes a number of minor operability changes, including updating references and definitions. As is currently the case, the power to designate or suspend control posts will remain devolved to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations. The SI will not alter the current requirements or standards for control posts; those will be maintained after exit.

The second piece of legislation, EC regulation 12005, relates to the welfare of animals during transport and sets out the standards to be applied when moving live vertebrate animals for commercial purposes, as well as the necessary documentation to accompany the journey and the checks to be carried out on consignments leaving or entering the EU. The regulation also sets out the requirement for transporters, drivers and vehicles to be authorised. The regulations before us will enable such authorisation, issued by an EU member state, to continue to be recognised in the UK, an approach that will help to minimise friction at the border and prevent potential animal welfare issues arising from delays in animals entering the UK from the EU.

Finally, the instrument makes technical changes to EC regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, to ensure that it remains operable after the UK exits the EU. The regulation requires that animals shall be spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering during both their killing and any related operations. It sets out detailed rules on the accepted methods of stunning and killing, as well as the layout, construction, equipment, handling and restraining operations at slaughterhouses. The draft instrument will not alter the current requirements or standards, maintaining them after exit.

I draw the attention of hon. Members to one policy change in the regulations. EC regulation 1099/2009 requires all slaughterers to be trained and competent in the task they undertake, with certificates of competence issued by a competent authority. Currently, a certificate of competence issued by an EU member state must be recognised in the UK. The regulations will end that requirement because the continued recognition of certificates issued by other member states would open up potential enforcement issues. We would be unable to suspend or revoke a certificate if a slaughterer breached the requirements of the retained EU, or domestic, legislation.

The impact on businesses in all parts of the UK will be minimal. By not continuing to recognise certificates of competence from EU member states, a limited number of slaughterhouse employees will need to apply for a certificate from a competent authority in the UK to continue to work here after exit. Applying will cost about £225, and we expect fewer than 200 individuals in the UK to be affected—about 3% of all slaughterers.

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

The Minister will know from other Statutory Instrument Committees that I pay close attention to impact assessments, and on page 6 of the explanatory memorandum, it states:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as there are limited impacts on business”.

However, the Minister just told us that the measure will have an impact on 200 people. What confidence can we have that it will be only 200, if no impact assessment has been prepared? This sounds like a severe and important change, and I would expect an impact assessment to have been prepared. Does the Minister not agree?

[David Rutley]

I agree that it is an important issue, but on whether there should be a fully scaled-up impact assessment, clear criteria are set out under the Treasury’s better regulation guidance. Because the measure affects only a small number of slaughterers, and the amount of money is small—£225, which, as I was about to say, is often picked up by employers—it falls well below the requirement for a full impact assessment. What I have wanted to do with this statutory instrument, as I know the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have been keen to see, is, where possible, to set out what the costs could be, even if they are small.

I want to reiterate that in many cases employers pick up the costs. In line with the better regulation framework and in accordance with the Treasury Green Book guidance on impact assessments, an assessment was not required for this statutory instrument. Although there was no formal duty to consult because the changes are so minimal, we have engaged directly with industry representative bodies, and more widely, and have received no expressions of concern. The devolved Administrations have been consulted on the instrument and they support this approach.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far. The functions are vital if UK Ministers are to carry on their functions relating to animal welfare. Without those powers in UK law, respective UK Ministers would be unable to introduce measures that the EU Commission currently has the authority to introduce on behalf of member states.

It is therefore necessary for the operability of our animal welfare regulations, and to ensure that we can further strengthen those regulations sustainably over time, that we pass the statutory instrument. For the reasons that I have set out, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Member for Stroud for—as always—his thoughtful contributions on a number of issues, and I will do all I can to address his points. There may be one or two issues on which I will need to get back to him in writing after this meeting; I hope he will understand, given everything we are trying to deal with today.

[Dr Drew]

I am still waiting for some written bits.

[David Rutley]

Again, I will pick that up afterwards, but I understand.

The hon. Gentleman’s first question, which has come up several times, is why we are not doing more within this SI. It is important for me to say at the beginning that under the withdrawal Act, we do not have the power to make changes to the current legal regime for live exports, welfare at slaughter, journey times, and the other things we have talked about. This SI is not the place to make those changes. However, the hon. Gentleman regularly holds my feet—and those of other Ministers—to the fire on those topics, and he is aware that we have made commitments to bring about changes and are absolutely committed to moving those things forward.

The Government’s manifesto made it clear that we will take early steps to control the export of live animals for slaughter once we leave the European Union. Last year, we sought evidence on how we could achieve that, including through a possible ban. We are currently awaiting advice on that issue from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, as well as its advice on how we can improve welfare more generally for animals in transport. That advice will be available shortly, and will address both live exports and the transport issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of which body will authorise the slaughter certificates: the Food Standards Agency will continue to do so post exit. He also understandably raised issues about slaughter, particularly religious slaughter. He and I were both at the BVA’s annual dinner recently—at which he was a welcome guest, given his contribution to that organisation—and he will remember that at that dinner, I was clear that the Government’s long-standing position is that we would prefer to see animals stunned before they are slaughtered. We accept the right of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat slaughtered in accordance with their religious beliefs; however, the Government believe that consumers should have available the information necessary to make an informed choice about their food. We will consider that issue more fully, and actively work on it, once we have left the EU.

[Dr Drew]

Given that so much halal meat, in particular, is exported—it is an important export trade—what additional requirements does that put on the Government to make sure that they effectively deal with this issue?

[David Rutley]

Clearly, we will need to assess the whole issue of food labelling more fully once we leave. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are already working on allergens, which are an important dimension. While we are in the EU, we are limited in what we can do, but when we have left, we can look at this issue in the round. This is not just about religious slaughter, although that is one key dimension, or the method of slaughter, which could include CO₂ concentrations; we need to think more broadly about sustainability and the welfare standards that are involved. All of those things will be reviewed fully once we have left the EU. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of CO₂ concentrations as a method of slaughtering pigs. We are aware of that issue; we will focus on it, and trials are underway on potential alternatives, such as low atmospheric pressure stunning.

I will try to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s more detailed questions. He asked about the geographic split of slaughterers who might be affected, prompted, I think, by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—they were an amazing double act today. Unfortunately, at the moment, we do not have a breakdown of that concentration, but I will take a closer look at what information we might be able to provide to the hon. Member for Stroud.

[Luke Pollard]

I am interested in the parallel between the fees that the Minister has mentioned and the settled status application. On 21 January, the Prime Minister said:

“I can confirm today that, when we roll out the scheme in full on 30 March, the Government will waive the application fee so that there is no financial barrier for any EU nationals who wish to stay”—[Official Report, 21 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 28.]—

unless, of course, they work in a slaughterhouse. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at whether now is the right time to waive that fee, so that there is no financial barrier to any EU citizen continuing their employment in the UK. The loss of that £225 times 200 would cost the Department about £45,000 but it would send out an important message. Will the Minister consider waiving the fee, or explain why he disagrees with the Prime Minister about financial impediments to EU nationals continuing to work here?

[David Rutley]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is a formidable Opposition spokesperson. He seeks to tempt me down paths. All I can say is that I completely agree with the Prime Minister. What the hon. Gentleman mentions is a broader issue about ensuring that EU nationals are welcome and that their contributions are recognised in this country. This is about a technical skill—

[Luke Pollard]

It is about cost.

[David Rutley]

If I can finish my answer, we also need to be aware of the fact that the EU has not recognised our certificates either. We have also to bear in mind that we do not have unlimited funds with which to address such issues and that, in most cases, it would be down to the businesses involved to take on the costs. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but our assessment is that it will not be an impediment for the individuals, so he cannot take too far the argument that I am at odds with the Prime Minister—that is a step too far, even though he tempts me down that path.

I think I have addressed most of the other issues that have been raised. As for border inspection posts and the RSPCA’s concerns, they are commercial entities and we are working with commercial bodies to determine what the future requirements might be. The hon. Member for Stroud made an important point about adult dogs, which I will pick up separately as I do not have all the answers. I think he knows, because we share a commitment to doing all we can to tackle illegal puppy smuggling and its disease and welfare implications—not just for the dogs but for humans—that we will make that a priority.

I hope I have answered most of the questions to the satisfaction of members of the Committee. I reiterate that the regulations will not amend current welfare standards but will make operability changes to ensure that existing EU law works appropriately once we leave the EU. I also wish to make it clear that the Government have no intention of reducing animal welfare standards; in fact, we will look to strengthen them, over time, in light of evidence. For the reasons I have set out, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Once again, it is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. The regulations group elements of six policy regimes for natural mineral waters, spirit drinks, food labelling, wines, genetically modified organisms and animal imports. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sought agreement to group the regulations on a thematic basis to ensure that each policy regime would be subject to the required scrutiny. That is particularly valuable when regulations are inter-related, as in this instrument, where each regime includes a transfer of functions, which is the key element to all these regulations. The purpose of the statutory instrument is to make purely technical or operability corrections to ensure that the regimes continue to function as intended. The corrections remove or amend references to EU directives, remove or amend EU references, convert EU procedures to UK procedures, and transfer EU functions to the UK.

The instrument also allows existing recognition of natural mineral waters from the EU, Iceland and Norway to continue on a transitional provision for at least six months, thereby maintaining the status quo immediately before exit day. It provides the Secretary of State with the power to withdraw recognition of EU natural mineral waters after a period of notice if certain conditions are not met. That relates to EU directive 2009/54 on the marketing of natural mineral waters.

With the exception of the Secretary of State’s powers over the recognition of natural mineral waters, the instrument makes no further substantive changes. Although it represents a change of policy with respect to natural mineral waters, that change is only to retain the status quo, so that EU natural mineral waters are recognised in England. Without that provision, the natural mineral waters that obtained recognition in or by a member state in the European economic area would not have the right to be legally sold in England, irrespective of the Secretary of State’s power to regulate the field. That would lead both to restricted consumer choice in the UK, where one in three bottles of natural mineral water are of EU origin, and to changes in the price of the products because of market forces.

The SI will also ensure that we have a fully functioning scheme for the geographical indications of spirit drinks that allows us to register and amend indications. That is particularly important for Scotch whisky, which in 2018, accounted for a record £4.7 billion in exports. Although those exports would not be directly threatened without the SI, the industry would lose the ability to amend the Scotch whisky technical file to better reflect industry practice. That document provides the technical specifications for products that use the Scotch whisky GI name—production process, geographical area, specific labelling rules and so on. In that respect, the SI amends EU regulation 110/2008 to transfer functions from the European Commission to the Secretary of State.

On food labelling, the SI will transfer a series of legislative functions that are currently conferred on the European Commission so that they will instead be exercisable by public authorities in the UK. Those functions will allow the appropriate authorities to make important changes relating to how certain pieces of information can be presented to the consumer. Currently, those powers sit with the EU Commission and their transfer will ensure that we would not require new primary legislation to update, for example, the list of allergens that must be labelled on pre-packed food, or to change the way that nutritional values are presented.

On wine and aromatised wine, the SI will transfer the power to make rules on the production processes used to make aromatised wines, as well as rules on methods of analysis and administrative and physical checks, and transfer powers on wine relating to GI applications from the EU to the Secretary of State. That will enable us to consider applications for new wine GIs and deal with applications to amend and cancel wine GIs on the UK wines GI register. Without doing that, key aspects of our wine quality policy would become inoperable, which would put us in breach of World Trade Organisation provisions. The SI will roll over the framework for producers to protect geographical indications for aromatised wines, as well as the mechanisms to control their production and use.

In respect of the regime for genetically modified organisms, the SI will make operability changes to transfer existing powers from the EU to the Secretary of State, allowing the Secretary of State to develop technical statutory guidance on sampling and testing for the presence of GMOs, amend the threshold above which products must comply with traceability and labelling requirements, and apply unique identifying codes to GMOs. That will ensure that we can continue to enforce the rules on releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment, although it is important to state that no GM crops are grown in the UK, nor is it anticipated that any will be.

Finally, the SI includes animal health provisions to make operable European decisions on the import of cattle semen, pig semen, horse semen, ova and embryos. They also retain an historic health certificate and inspection report that remains in use when certain disease restrictions are in place.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has consulted with the devolved Administrations on the amendments that the SI will make, and they have consented to its coming into force. Its territorial extent is the United Kingdom, except as regards natural mineral waters and decisions to release GMOs. As the natural mineral waters amendments apply only to England, each devolved Administration would have to make equivalent amendments to its own natural mineral waters regulations to mirror that policy position; the devolved Administrations are currently deciding whether to follow England in that policy option. The amendments made to EC regulation 1830/2003 on the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms will apply to the UK, but the amendments to reflect and respect decisions on their release and marketing are a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales and a transferred matter in Northern Ireland.

We have consulted extensively, listened to stakeholders and reflected their views in the SI. Policy decisions on natural mineral waters were subject to a public consultation, which ran from 16 October to 13 November last year. DEFRA engaged all major stakeholders in the process throughout 2018, from individual companies to industry bodies. We have also written to the main stakeholders to explain the instrument’s implications.

With respect to spirit drinks, DEFRA maintains ongoing engagement with key stakeholders such as the Scotch Whisky Association and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. A four-week public consultation on geographical indications, including for spirit drinks, ran from 4 October to 1 November last year. DEFRA has raised stakeholder awareness of the food labelling technical notice published on 24 September 2018 and has undertaken a consultation on amending food labelling laws. We have also consulted on new GI scheme rules, including for wine.

In January, DEFRA engaged with parties with an interest in genetically modified organisms on the amendments contained in the instrument. We have carried out extensive engagement on animal trade and pet travel. To date, the Department has engaged with more than 300 importers, covering 50 events; it will continue that engagement in the coming weeks.

These measures are essential to ensuring that the six policy regimes I have set out remain able to operate once the UK leaves the EU. For all regimes except natural mineral waters, the instrument will make technical or operability corrections to ensure that those regimes continue to function as intended. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud for his characteristically thoughtful contribution. I mentioned that the SI is purely technical and operability correction oriented, and it is important to recognise that. Although he raised concerns about bundling, I think he appreciates the sheer weight of SIs we need to get through. Certainly, both Opposition and Government Members have very kindly helped to facilitate that. The good news is that we are making good progress.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

The Minister says we have to get through these SIs. We had some time to get through them. They were all utterly predictable, but the Government have left them all until the very last minute. We are trying to get through 27 in the next 14 days, which in my view is utterly reprehensible.

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Lady for setting out her views so clearly. I just wish she would speak a bit more clearly so we could understand her views completely. Her concerns are understood, but we are in challenging circumstances. All I can do is commend, as I have before, the incredibly hard work of officials in the devolved Administrations and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know she does not suggest this is not the case, but they have been working at pace. I have been working with them—sometimes trying to encourage greater speed and sometimes trying to keep up with them. The good news is that we are definitely through the vast majority of the SIs. There are several more to do, as she says, over the next few weeks, but when you are having this much fun, you just want to carry on, surely?

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

Given the concern that we could see statutory instruments referring to, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, issues as broad as the production of wine and of horse semen, and the import and export of both, does the Minister not recognise that sometimes “more haste, less speed” is a worthwhile principle in making good legislation, even on something as difficult as this, and therefore that the problem with trying to push through so many statutory instruments at short notice is that we could miss things that are important to vital industries in this country, including equine and vinery services?

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I understand we are covering a lot today, but—perhaps I need to do better at communicating this; I will try once more—the draft regulations are about transferring powers. There is a clear theme. The regulations are about technical operations, and I hope that has come through at least to some degree in the comments that have been made.

With the Committee’s permission, I will move on to some of the more detailed points that the hon. Member for Stroud raised. On animal imports in relation to the effect of leaving the EU on the animal trade and pet travel more generally, I want to reassure him that DEFRA has carried out extensive engagement on imports of animals and animal products. Even where consultation has not been required, there has been extensive engagement: the Department has engaged with over 300 stakeholders to date, with 50 events on this, so there has been close co-operation.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about impact assessments. As he knows, because we have been through this many times before—I am getting a glare from the hon. Member for Bristol West—

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am smiling.

[David Rutley]

No, it was a glare. Yesterday we had an SI Committee and were able to set out clearly what the costs were—very minimal, in that situation—regarding veterinary medicines. In this situation, these changes are minimal.

On food labelling, there will be changes, but through representation and our engagement with the food and drink sector it was clear that we needed to find a sensible transition to the new arrangements, where there would be at least 21 months and, with GI, three years to transition. As a result, the costs involved are very minor.

Based on guidelines, there was no need to conduct a formal impact assessments, but once again I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there was maximum engagement with those bodies. Indeed, I meet the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium, UKHospitality and the National Farmers Union every week to ensure that I am fully aware of their concerns about issues such as this and many others.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I have been listening to the Minister with interest and concentration, but the truth is that cathartic change always brings about challenge, and it is a cathartic change that we are going through. He is right to say that in the particular case of this SI, the change is minimal, and the future will look much like the past. On the issue of cost, however, it may be that the reconcentration on what we do allows us to think through the cost-effectiveness of that. Over time, we may be able to do all kinds of things, in my hon. Friend’s Department and others, that will be more cost-effective and efficient and will save money. All this discussion about costing money must be balanced against the advantage of that re-examination of how to do things best and most efficiently.

[David Rutley]

I completely agree that there are opportunities to see how we can do things better and in a more cost-effective way. We will have that opportunity once we leave the EU. At the moment, this is very much about continuity; we can look forward to those opportunities, but I wanted to reassure colleagues that for now, this is about continuity and keeping things as they are. In future there will be opportunities to review, obviously with parliamentary scrutiny.

A number of concerns were raised about GM crops, but again, all we are talking about here is transferring powers. No GM crops are grown in the UK, as I said in my remarks at the beginning. I want to ensure my words are on record clearly: no GM crops are grown in the UK at the moment and none is anticipated. Decisions to approve the commercial cultivation of GM crops are based on a robust and independent science-based assessment, with the planting of GM crops agreed to only when it is clear that people and the environment will not be harmed. We do not have any intention to relax the regulations after we have left the EU. As I said before, no future GM crop is anticipated in the UK. I hope the hon. Member for Stroud is reassured on that. The good news is that we have the scientific expertise to ensure that all the required analysis can be conducted.

With regard to border inspection posts and the concerns raised by the British Veterinary Association, with whom the hon. Member for Stroud has a clear and trusted relationship, we are working closely with BVA, seeking its feedback, input and support to ensure it is ready for the extra volume of export health certificates and preparations for the border inspection posts. There will be no import controls or checks at the border for live animals and animal products directly from the EU on the day the UK leaves the EU. The exception to that rule is animals, animal products and high-risk food and feed not of animal origin coming from third countries that travel through the EU before arrival in the UK.

Clearly, we will continue to monitor the situation, but on day one the risks do not change because we trust the EU regime. We have been part of it for many years, which is why I believe we are in good shape. By transferring these powers, we will be in the right position come EU exit day. Overall, the six regimes will continue to function in a similar way to before and, for the reasons I have set out, I trust the Committee will support the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his late, but powerful, intervention. I know he feels passionately about such issues. I agree that we do need a wider review of food labelling and we are committed to doing that once we have left the EU. He will know, because he follows these issues with interest, that we are already looking to reassert and strengthen our approach with allergen labelling, following the recent tragic cases. That will help during the period we are entering, whether that is no deal or a transitional implementation period. There is a commitment once we leave the EU to a much wider review of labelling, which will focus on food safety, sustainability and welfare standards, and will address many of the issues that concern him. I welcome the chance to talk to him further on that. With that, I again commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is an honour to serve when you are in the Chair, Mrs Ryan. Veterinary medicines are tightly regulated, both here in the UK and in Europe. They are essential for the treatment of animals and ensuring animal welfare, but can also present a risk to human health and the environment. If misused, they can affect human health directly, or may enter the natural environment, causing long-lasting damage. The existing Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 set out the requirements for the manufacture, authorisation, supply, possession and administration of veterinary medicines in the UK. Separately, the surveillance of residues from veterinary medicines in animal produce is an important safeguard, providing assurance that any meat, eggs or milk consumed is free from harmful residues of medicines used in animals.

The Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 provide for a surveillance programme for residues in England and Scotland. Those regulations adopt the level of permissible residues set by the EU, and prohibit the use of certain substances as growth promoters. As residue surveillance is a devolved matter, there is equivalent secondary legislation covering Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Government share the British public’s high regard for animal welfare, and understand the need for safe and effective veterinary medicines. This instrument addresses operability issues in our veterinary medicines legislation to ensure that such legislation continues to operate effectively when we leave the EU. The instrument will make sure that the legal framework continues to provide an effective regime for the regulation of veterinary medicines through which we can safeguard the wellbeing of our animals, and does not diminish the high standards of the established veterinary medicines and residues surveillance regimes. Notwithstanding the concerns raised by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords and the European Statutory Instruments Committee in the House of Commons, I emphasise that the amendments in this instrument are to ensure operability, and are very technical in nature. The high safety standards that are in place will continue, and will not be watered down.

The current UK legislation is designed to work in the context of EU membership, and therefore some existing elements will not work sensibly in a national context. Part 3 of the instrument amends the existing national legislation; for example, the mutual recognition provisions for medicine approvals between member states are no longer relevant. Similarly, as approvals of generic marketing authorisations rely on sharing of information between member states, they cannot continue to operate in the same way. Minor corrections are also made to the text to address references concerning EU membership that are no longer accurate or appropriate.

This instrument introduces one change that is necessary as a consequence of leaving the EU. It relates to the location of holders of marketing authorisations for veterinary medicines. Marketing authorisation holders must be established in the UK. As set out in the explanatory memorandum, that may result in a small increase in costs for those marketing authorisation holders currently based outside the UK, in the order of £100 initially and £40 annually. That cost increase is necessary to make sure that there are appropriate regulatory controls to ensure full compliance with UK law and standards, and that all marketing authorisation holders are treated equally.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister refers to UK law, but as I understand it there is going to be separate legislation for Wales and Scotland, because this is a devolved matter. I do not quite understand how those two things match.

[David Rutley]

The arrangements that I am talking about are UK-wide; we are bringing what currently sits in EU law into, and across, the UK. If the hon. Gentleman wants further clarification, I can seek some inspiration, but it is a UK-wide statutory instrument.

In line with the Government’s better regulation principles, a formal impact assessment has not been carried out because the costs involved are small. The impact on businesses has been assessed as well below the threshold requiring an impact assessment. It is vital that marketing authorisation holders can be held accountable for their products, and this regulation provides for that.

Part 4 of the instrument sets out the necessary amendments to retained EU regulations that become UK law as provided by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is linked to another instrument: the Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which transfers the power to set maximum residue limits to the UK from the European Commission, and is yet to be debated in this House.

European regulation 470/2009 sets out how maximum residue limits for substances used as veterinary medicines are set. MRLs are the maximum safe limit of a particular substance in produce from animals. These limits are used to establish withdrawal periods—the period that must elapse after the last administration of a medicine before produce from that animal may enter the food chain. Without these amendments, the UK would be unable to regulate the marketing and use of veterinary medicines effectively. That would have negative impacts on businesses and our ability to protect human and animal health and the environment.

Although a formal public consultation has not been carried out, and has not been required under existing guidelines, the Government have proactively engaged with the animal health industry to discuss how we ensure that the regulatory regime continues to function effectively after exit day. Lord Gardiner of Kimble has met the veterinary pharmaceutical industry association, the National Office of Animal Health, on a number of occasions as part of our extensive engagement. Officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate continue to hold regular meetings with key industry representatives. The industry has welcomed our proactive and continued engagement with it. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on this instrument, and where it relates to devolved matters they have given their consent.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I would like to ask about the different standards in different UK devolved areas and when it comes to trading with other countries. Is there not a risk that we will have different standards as time goes on? We therefore need co-operation to ensure that we can continue to trade effectively.

[David Rutley]

Well, we will be leaving the EU, so we need our own mechanisms in place to validate veterinary medicines. That is primarily what we are talking about here. We are bringing back to the UK powers by which medicines are authorised. We will carry on doing that. As it happens, most authorisations already take place in the UK. Unlike for some medicines used for humans, veterinary medicine authorisations often take place in the national states themselves. It will be important to maintain high standards. The hon. Lady and I have exchanged views on that matter in other situations, and I know that she will continue to hold me and the Government to account on these matters. The steps that we are taking in this legislation will bring across powers that are currently in the EU so that we can do what currently takes place. The only thing that is different is the market authorisations. We are requiring those entities to have a market presence in the UK, but at a very low cost. That is the approach we felt was most appropriate to get the balance right.

The Government are committed to ensuring continued levels of protection for human and animal health, as well as making it straightforward for businesses to put medicines and relevant food products on the market, ensuring that UK businesses and individuals continue to have access to a range of veterinary medicines. This instrument will help to maintain the established veterinary medicines and residues surveillance regimes, and will ensure that an effective regulatory framework for veterinary medicines is in place. This instrument does no more than is appropriate to remedy deficiencies in law arising from leaving the EU. For the reasons I have set out, I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Member for Workington for her contribution, which as usual was thoughtful and thorough. I will respond to some of the points she made. It is obviously vital that we continue to access science. The good news is that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is regarded as an EU leader in veterinary medicines assessment and has considerable expertise already. We will make sure that it continues to meet that high standard—regardless of what we decide in Parliament today, or over the next few days—so that we have access to the very best.

It is also important to recognise antimicrobial resistance, which the hon. Lady rightly highlighted. As she knows, because we have talked about this in other debates, there will have been an overall reduction in antibiotics sales of 25% between 2016 and 2020, owing to the implementation of livestock-specific targets, which is good. New objectives will be defined by 2021, to sustain longer-term progress. Good progress is being made there.

The hon. Lady asked some challenging questions about the effect of all the legislative changes. I have to say that I do not have the answers to all of them.

[Sue Hayman]

Is the Minister prepared to write to me, to reassure me on certain issues I have raised? I am happy to receive that information in writing if he does not have it now.

[David Rutley]

I will do my very best to give the best possible estimates in answer to those questions. I was going to say that a lot of different factors need to be brought into play here. It is not just about the legislation but about market risk and people’s appetite for the changes that are going on and for the things that we will vote on in just a few hours’ time.

However, I assure the hon. Lady that I have been working closely with the Department for Transport and other Government Departments to ensure the continued supply of vet meds, which will be vital not only for pet owners but for agriculture as well. In the prioritisation that has taken place, medicines for human consumption stand out as key, but right next to that is veterinary medicines. They have a strong place in our priorities, and the Government have been working to ensure their continued supply, which I hope reassures the hon. Lady and many others. Again, we will have to wait and see what the House decides today, which will have quite an influence on what goes on.

I hope I have dealt with most of the issues that the hon. Lady raised. With her permission, I will come back to her on the wider concerns and with an estimate of the wider costs. I hope that Committee members now more fully understand the need for the draft regulations and the need to maintain the operability and consistency of our legislation after leaving the EU. For the reasons I have set out, I once again commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Dangerous Dogs

David Rutley Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for determining as the subject of the debate the EFRA Committee’s report on controlling dangerous dogs and the Government response to it. I am also grateful for the thoughtful and considered contributions that have been made in this debate, which although not one of quantity, has certainly been one of quality. I know that those contributions have been made with conviction, first-hand experience and considerable passion, not least that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Paris), which is characteristic of him.

I will provide some information on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Government’s position on breed-specific legislation. The 1991 Act does two things: it provides offences in connection with fighting dogs and offences in connection with dog attacks on people and other animals. Section 1 prohibits four types of fighting dogs: pit bull terriers, Japanese tosa, Fila Brasileiro and Dogo Argentino.

Pit bulls have been associated with a number of serious attacks on people and it was decided that action should be taken against their ownership. Fundamentally, the 1991 Act is about public safety. Under that Act, it is an offence to breed from, sell or exchange those dogs. Courts can allow owners to keep prohibited dogs if they are not a danger to public safety, taking account of the dog’s temperament and of the intended keeper, who must have had substantial prior responsibility for the dog.

[Neil Parish]

The Minister is addressing the crux of the matter. When courts deal with dangerous dogs that have owners, they look at the temperament of the dog and say, “That dog can be kept by the owner as long as it is properly muzzled, leashed and handled.” The problem occurs when the same type of dog, with the same temperament, turns up in a rehoming centre that can no longer look after it. It has to be checked, but nobody will actually take the case to court, meaning that the dog will potentially be destroyed. That is exactly the type of dog that could be saved if it still had an owner. Instead, it is put down because it has gone into a rehoming centre. That is the real problem.

[David Rutley]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying. He spelled that out very well in his speech and, with his permission, I will come to that specific point later, but I think it is important to set the context before getting into the meat of the issues that have been raised.

Prohibited dogs that owners are allowed to keep are placed on the index of exempted dogs, which is managed by DEFRA. In addition to restrictions on certain fighting dogs, under section 3 of the 1991 Act it is an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. Severe penalties are in place for allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control. Those penalties were increased in 2014 to three years for allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog, five years if a dog injures someone and 14 years if someone is killed. We realised from the tragic cases that we had seen that the sentences needed to be more in line with the crimes committed.

Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) were absolutely right to raise the issue of postal workers. We need to get the balance right between public safety and animal welfare. The number of attacks on postal workers is absolutely to be regretted. It is unacceptable that people are unable to go about their business because of fear or actual attacks. We therefore work closely with police and local authorities to see how we can best respond to those attacks. I am sure that many MPs have worked with their local postal workers at Christmas or at other times of the year to better understand those situations and to make representations.

The Government are committed to public safety and to tackling the issue of dangerous dogs. We believe that communication and co-operation between the police and local authorities is vital. That is why we have endorsed initiatives such as the early intervention and partnership working scheme, Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs, or LEAD—that is not one of my hon. Friend’s puns, but the name of the scheme.

The scheme encourages police and local authorities to co-operate and share information when there has been a minor incident, provide advice to a dog owner on dog control issues, improve public safety around dogs and help to improve dog welfare. There have been strong endorsements of the initiative. The then deputy chief constable of North Wales police and recently retired National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on dangerous dogs, Gareth Pritchard, said:

“Problems regarding dogs can cause a great deal of anxiety in some communities. The new LEAD initiative aims to allay some of these fears to help educate dog owners and residents further by promoting responsible dog ownership.”

The Government also support an increase in awareness at all levels across society. We are aware, for example, that many police forces and welfare charities, such as the Dogs Trust, visit schools to raise awareness of responsible dog ownership. We fully endorse that work and I will come to how we will do more on the back of the EFRA Committee’s excellent report. I want to make it clear that the Government are keen to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. As I have explained, a number of changes were made to the laws and powers available to enforcement agencies in an attempt to improve responsible ownership of dogs. The Government acknowledge that the number of people admitted to hospital as a result of being bitten by a dog has risen from 6,836 in 2013-14 to 8,014 in 2017-18.

A number of concerns have been raised about whether it is fair to put particular focus on pit bulls, but as a nation we are not alone in doing so: France, Spain and Germany have also put restrictions on keeping a number of types of dog, including pit bulls. It is also worth looking at some of the evidence that I have seen and that has been submitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton in his capacity as Chair of the Select Committee, about section 3 incidents—the particularly difficult ones—involving pit bulls. There were 92 such cases in 2015-16, and those pit bulls were not on the dangerous dogs index. In comparison, there were 84 attacks by Staffordshire bull terriers.

We could say, “Well, there is not much difference,” but I think we would all accept that the number of Staffordshire bull terriers in the UK is sizeable—around 300,000, according to the latest estimates—whereas, although we do not know the exact number of pit bulls, there are about 3,000 on the DDI. We probably need to get more evidence, but the evidence that is to hand points to the fact that there is a greater likelihood of incidents involving pit bulls.

[Gordon Marsden]

That is what the Department says, but is it not ludicrous that it does not openly address the issue—it is an issue, and one that was put forcefully to the Committee—that it is very difficult for police on the ground to determine genetically what is a pit bull and what is not? The Minister spoke about Staffordshire bull terriers. What is the logic for having an investigation into attacks by pit bulls, which are covered by the Act—albeit many of us dispute that—and not into attacks by Staffordshire bull terriers?

[Gordon Marsden]

If the Minister looks only at the issue of the breeds in the 1991 Act, he will of course come to the same conclusion, because he is not examining the broader evidence.

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. When I appeared before the Select Committee, I said that we should remember that the Dangerous Dogs Act is trying to deal with two things: fighting types, which are bred specifically to fight, and dangerous dogs. That is my worry. The hon. Gentleman might have had cases of this in his constituency and, as I said at the meeting, I certainly did in Macclesfield, where a few years ago pit bulls were being trained to hang from tree branches. That is not what most people do with a normal dog. Certain types of dog are bred for a specific purpose, and that needs to be tackled, because there are people who carry out that practice, which I abhor. Dog fighting is a separate issue, and we could have a separate debate on it. The legislation tries to recognise both those aspects. I understand his point, but I hope that he understands at least that there are differences in why dogs are being bred. As long as dog fighting goes on, there will be such challenges.

We understand the concern about dog control and the need to reduce the number of dog attacks. People are of course not the only victims of dog attacks; other dogs and animals can be the victims of such attacks. Dog attacks on livestock have caused suffering to animals and misery for farmers, and we want to reduce all such attacks and to improve responsible ownership of dogs. That point was made well by the hon. Member for Workington and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton.

I emphasise that section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 also applies to attacks on other dogs, livestock and any other animal, and the High Court and the Crown Prosecution Service have made that clear. There has been a lot of talk about amending the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, but our advice is to use the Dangerous Dogs Act because it is more up to date and applies anywhere. We are working with the CPS and the police to ensure a universally accepted position on that, which we will promote.

The Government do not want to reduce dog ownership. Dogs have been a part of our lives for hundreds of years, and we certainly do not want to change that. However, owning a dog comes with responsibilities. Ownership means that we have to provide a dog with its welfare needs—at all times—and that a dog must be trained. The owner is responsible for looking after the dog as well as its behaviour. The more irresponsible ownership of dogs we have, the more calls we and local authorities receive to introduce restrictions such as banning dogs from parks and beaches. The Government therefore agree with the vast majority of good, proper owners and stakeholders that we need more responsible ownership of dogs if we are to see a reduction in the number of dog attacks.

Last year, the EFRA Committee conducted its review into controlling dangerous dogs. The review focused on section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The report was welcomed by the Government and, again, I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend, the Select Committee Chair, and the rest of the Committee for publishing the report. We are all in agreement that we are not looking to increase the number of types of dogs that are named in the legislation, nor are we looking to remove any types.

The report made 16 recommendations to improve dog ownership and reduce dog attacks. The Government responded positively to the recommendations, which reflects how in tune the Government, the Committee and most stakeholders are on the issue of dangerous dogs. There are, obviously, a few exceptions, which came out in the debate today, but on the vast majority of issues we all want to see positive progress. The EFRA Committee’s report was published in September 2018 and the Government’s response was published by the Select Committee in January this year. Last month, the Committee had another sitting, also on dangerous dogs.

I will take this opportunity to update hon. Members on the Government’s progress with some of the recommendations. Rehoming of pit bulls is an emotive and difficult issue. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton—instead of Tiverton, I keep almost saying Tytherington, which is in my constituency—I do not want to see healthy and well-adjusted dogs being put to sleep. For the reasons I have set out, however, we are subject to what is legally possible. Recent case law has interpreted the legislation, so the court may decide to give possession of a pit bull to a person who has had some contact with it, such as taking the dog for a walk. Ultimately, the courts will make the decision on whether the dog is safe, and the prospective person is fit and proper.

The difficulty is putting a stray dog that has no owner with a person the dog has not met before the court case. That is not feasible under the law. We continue to discuss with stakeholders what can be done, and we will involve my hon. Friend in those discussions, as I promised following my recent evidence to the Committee. We are happy to meet him and relevant welfare groups for further discussion and greater clarity. It is a tricky area, but the case law needs to be explored fully. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the invitation to meet as sincere. He knows that I want us to do all we can to address the concerns that he has expressed.

In the course of the debate, a number of specific issues were raised. If the owner of a dog dies, it can be transferred under article 12 of the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015. If an owner moves and abandons a dog, it can be rehomed to a person who can be considered the person in charge of that dog for the time being—but remember that abandoning a dog is in the first place a criminal act. If someone got to know the dog before the owner moved—this is important, with an educational aspect—that person could apply to be the person in charge of the dog, and the new person would need to be considered fit and proper by the court. There are opportunities therefore for such dogs to be rehomed. We need to look through all such opportunities.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) asked why we are not recommending a change in the law. That would require primary legislation and, as I said, there are concerns about public safety. We need to explore the issues that we have just discussed. However, I point out that while there may be disagreement on that issue, the Government are absolutely committed to the welfare of dogs and cats: we have looked to increase sentences for animal cruelty, and are trying to find the right legislative vehicle to do so quickly; third-party sale has been banned; and we are reviewing our approach to the licensing of rehoming centres. All those issues are being taken forward with conviction.

Continuing the theme of preventive action, the EFRA Committee recommended more research on the causes of dog attacks. In December 2018, therefore, DEFRA in collaboration with Middlesex University commissioned further research into responsible ownership across all dog breeds, with a budget of more than £70,000. Middlesex has five main researchers to consider different approaches and the effectiveness of existing dog control measures.

The research seeks to identify and examine factors and situations that might cause dog attacks, and how to promote responsible dog ownership. The initial stage of the project, which is a literature review, is nearly complete. Middlesex has started initial stakeholder engagement to inform a number of focus groups, which is the next phase. We expect an interim report at the beginning of September, with a final report at the end of the year. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. The project, as I said, will include a review of dog control measures.

Related to that research is the need to educate children in particular, and the public more widely, about safety around dogs. The Government are committed to developing a plan of action with stakeholders on the most effective way to reach children across the country, in order to make them aware of dog safety. We have had early discussions with stakeholders and are developing the delivery plan, which is due later this year. We are working with the Department for Education, and are keen to ensure that that links with our wider work on communications and engagement about how to take forward responsible ownership and purchasing of dogs, and education regarding them.

Hon. Members can be assured that the Government will continue to take forward the actions I set out in response to the EFRA Committee with speed and conviction. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for bringing this debate forward and giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position and proposals.

No-deal EU Exit: Public Sector Catering

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate, for her contribution and for all the hard work she does in Parliament on these and related matters.

Let me reassure hon. Members that the continued provision of nutritious, high-quality and safe food in the public sector is a top priority for Departments across Government and for the devolved Administrations. I shall go on to explain the steps that are being taken to ensure that is the case. The best way to avoid a no-deal exit is to secure a deal, and hon. Members will have an opportunity to have our say on that next week. Securing a deal with the EU remains the Government’s top priority. However, as a responsible Government we have a responsibility to actively prepare for the possibility of a no-deal exit and to look at other scenarios as well, as has been recognised by Members of different parties in this debate.

We have a highly resilient food supply chain in the UK, with access to a range of sources of food. That will continue whether we leave the EU with or without a deal. There would continue to be an adequate supply of food to ensure people continue to have a balanced diet. The food industry in the UK is highly diverse, competitive and well versed in dealing with scenarios that can affect food supply, from adverse weather damaging crops in other countries to transport issues abroad. It is a resilient sector.

Prior to this life, I used to run Asda’s home shopping business. As a Minister, I work with the industry and attend high-level meetings with representatives every week—I will do so after this debate—to ensure that we are prepared for any eventuality. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been contributing to cross-Government contingency planning, which has involved working with the food industry to understand the potential impacts of a no-deal scenario and to support such planning by the industry.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) asked about contingency planning, and I can assure him that there is a lot of it going on. We are working very closely with industry, which has led most of the contingency planning—we are providing support and direction. The industry has the expertise and capacity to help ensure that we minimise any potential disruption to supply.

We have been working through various forums, including DEFRA’s long-standing food chain emergency liaison group, which has been through many experiences in the past. As a result of extensive engagement with the food industry and cross-Government discussions, as previously stated, in a worst-case no-deal scenario consumers and businesses will continue to have access to a wide range of food products. We are working to mitigate possible disruption in availability and choice of certain seasonal products in that case, which I think it is fair to say would indeed be a worst-case scenario.

DEFRA is working with the Department for Transport and with industry to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal scenario, goods can continue to be transported on existing trade routes, including across the Dover straits, as quickly as possible. That includes securing extra freight capacity across the English channel, and ensuring a functioning customs, VAT and excise system from day one, to facilitate the flow of goods. To have that consistent supply is vital.

We are working closely with the industry and across Government through the border delivery group—a co-ordinated effort across Government to tackle that vital issue. We have also been working with the Cabinet Office and lead Departments in their work to ensure the resilience of food supply in public sector settings, including schools, hospitals and social care settings, as well as prisons and the military. Some of those have been mentioned in the debate. The lead Departments include the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence. We have been working flat out to ensure that we have robust contingency plans in place for public sector food provision. We are reviewing catering services and contracts and have engaged with providers of food, such as hospital trusts and schools, to identify the risks and contingency measures for their sectors.

That has included working closely with catering suppliers to ensure that contingency plans are in place. Suppliers have been looking at a variety of contingency measures to ensure the continued provision of food that meets standards—for example, looking at alternative suppliers and adjusting menus in line with product availability while continuing to meet school and hospital food standards. It is vital to continue to meet the requirements of those standards. Lead Departments are confident that the public will continue to receive nutritious meals in public sector settings. If time permits, I will go into some more detail about the various sectors.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked about prioritising between public and private sectors. In the contingency plan, we want to ensure that food is available to all sectors but, as he rightly stated, for many public sector services and vulnerable groups we need to ensure food provision. We believe that, even in a worst case scenario, customers will continue to have access to a broad range of food, and that will extend to those services as well. Different choices of food types might be necessary, but there will be enough food to ensure the balanced diet that people need.

Another question was about food prices. Clearly the best way to ensure against any impact on food prices is to get the deal, but in a no-deal scenario it is again to minimise the disruption to food supply. We therefore need to work across Government to find ways of ensuring that the food supply is available. DEFRA officials are working with the DFT to find ways over potential hurdles and challenges to ensure that continuity of supply. As we do that, we will ensure that any potential price rises are kept to a minimum, and of course we have mechanisms in place to help those who are most needy if prices were to rise significantly. Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions are aware of the potential impacts, and we are working with them on that. I hope that addresses some of the concerns expressed today.

Moving on to the Department for Education and schools in particular, a number of points were made about schools. The DFE is confident that schools will continue to be able to provide pupils with nutritious school meals no matter what the outcome of EU exit is. It expects schools still to meet the school food standards in a no-deal scenario. Schools have a great deal of flexibility in the foods that they can deliver under those standards. If a particular product is not readily available for any reason, the standards allow schools a wide range of freedoms to substitute similar foods that are available.

In January, the Department for Education published a technical notice on no-deal preparations for schools in England, including information on food supplies. The DFE is also engaging with leading school food suppliers, local authorities and schools as part of its preparations. We will continue to monitor that and work with the Department.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked about school meals. Schools and their suppliers have considerable freedom to source food that offers the best value for money. When considering the potential for any price rises, it is important to note that the UK has a high level of food security built into a diverse range of sources, including strong domestic production and imports from other countries, as I said before. We do not envisage a scenario in which the Government would need to provide additional funding to support schools with rising food costs, for the reason I set out earlier: the UK has a high level of food security. We are confident that schools, colleges and other settings will continue to be able to provide pupils with nutritious school meals whatever the outcome of Brexit.

Another hon. Member asked about the Civil Contingencies Act. It does cover food supply, but it is designed for a national emergency. In a worst case Brexit scenario, we do not believe that overall food shortages would be such that it is necessary to invoke the Act. In the scenarios that we are working to, that would not be required. None the less, as I have said several times, we are working with and speaking to colleagues across Government to minimise disruption and to consider the possible impacts on vulnerable groups.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned the potential impact on food banks. Again, we do not expect overall shortages of food, but we speak regularly to retailers—in fact, I will be speaking with a group of them after the debate, so I can re-emphasise concerns expressed in this Chamber—and our aim is to ensure that we can continue the food supply so that consumers do not need to alter their shopping patterns.

The hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) mentioned watering down standards. The hon. Member for Bristol East holds my feet to the fire on this issue regularly, and she has a consistent record on it across Government. We respect her views—no question—and she knows that, but it is important to recognise that, no matter the future challenges, there are also opportunities. However, we do not want to see the watering down of food standards in any way. I think she is aware that protections are in place as far as chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef are concerned—I cannot resist mentioning that.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister is appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee tomorrow afternoon, so he can expect a little more of that treatment then.

[David Rutley]

I look forward to it with glee. I am sure that I will get more of that treatment. We can talk in more detail then, but I hope the hon. Lady understands the reassurances given consistently in various settings in the House.

I will move on to health and social care. The DHSC is confident that its contingency plans for ensuring the seamless supply of products and services after we leave the EU are comprehensive and robust, and that food supply for patients will be protected in a no-deal scenario. The Department is working with food providers and suppliers to understand their contingency planning and mitigation activities. That work covers both social care and NHS providers.

The DHSC is working closely with Public Health England and nutritional specialists to ensure that nutritional standards are maintained in hospitals and care homes. Standard guidelines are being finalised for health and adult social care providers to support the continued provision of a balanced diet, in line with the Government’s “eatwell” guide. The DHSC is also working to ensure that it has the necessary resources and contingencies in place to continue to protect patients and to have uninterrupted supplies of any specialist nutritional products, including infant formula. It is important to note that, because a lot of the focus has been on ensuring the continued supply of vital medicines—or vet meds, for that matter—but we will also protect key nutritional products such as infant formula.

We are working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that local authorities are able to support vulnerable people such as the elderly and vulnerable families. Hon. Members are probably aware that we are working very actively with local resilience forums. Local authorities need to work with their local resilience forums to plan and prepare for localised incidents, identify potential risks and produce emergency plans to prevent or mitigate the impact of any incident on their local communities. We are doing that at a local level. We meet regularly with key contacts in LRFs to share intelligence on the impacts that a no-deal EU exit would have on local areas. DEFRA and MHCLG have provided advice to LRFs on food supply impacts, to support their preparedness for a no-deal exit, and particularly to consider any impacts on vulnerable groups if they should arise. We are working closely to mitigate issues with vulnerable groups at a local level.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West was assiduous in mentioning workforce retention, which is vital across Government. We rely very heavily on those citizens in many public services, and in services that are provided in the public sector for the public. I share her concern; we want to continue to make them feel welcome, whatever the scenario might be.

The Government have been clear that we will protect EU citizens’ rights, including in a no-deal scenario. All EU citizens resident in the UK by 29 March will be able to stay. They will have until 31 December 2020 to apply for settled status. We want them to feel welcome and we recognise the contribution they make. DEFRA will continue to work with the Home Office as the future immigration system is fully developed, to ensure that we have a clear strategy for those who work so hard in the food supply chain, often in critical sectors—slaughterhouses, meat processing and vets. It is uppermost in our mind.

As we leave the EU, the Government are committed to securing the best possible deal for Britain that works for farmers, food producers and consumers, and ensures strong public services. Although we do not want or expect a no deal, the Government are taking sensible measures to prepare for all scenarios.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister will know from the no-deal impact assessment summary that one particular concern is that, despite communications from the Government, there is little evidence that businesses are preparing in earnest for a no-deal scenario. Does the Minister have a sense of whether the public catering industry suppliers and providers are responding to the Government’s call to prepare themselves, or whether the industry is lagging behind, as others clearly are?

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. I meet the National Farmers Union, the Food and Drink Federation, UKHospitality and the British Retail Consortium every week to review their concerns and considerations. We have established a good dialogue at a senior level with those trade bodies and their members, but it is fair to say there is still more work required with small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly our smaller and microbusinesses. Some are prepared and some need further information. I hope that he recognises that across Government a far greater weight of activity is being put out to encourage people to find out more about what is going on and to engage in the processes. We are working very hard on that but there is more work to do.

The UK has a high degree of overall food security, and that will remain the case, deal or no deal. As well as DEFRA’s work to support contingency planning by the food industry, and the industry’s proven capability to respond to supply chain disruptions, steps are being taken by my colleagues across other Government Departments. We are all working to ensure the resilience of food supplies in the public sector. Across Government, Departments are putting into place the necessary steps to ensure that patients, school children and others who are reliant on the public sector will be supplied with nutritious, high-quality and safe food in all exit scenarios.

Draft Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[David Rutley]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. There are two sets of regulations for members of the Committee to consider. These statutory instruments are made under the enabling power in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to take powers currently held by the European Commission and transfer them to the appropriate Ministers in the UK.

I should first make it clear that neither instrument makes any change to policy. The instruments are technical and ensure a smooth transfer of powers from the EU to the UK. I should secondly make it clear that the instruments in no way diminish our controls in the important subject areas covered. There is no proposal to alter or reduce our biosecurity controls for animals or plants, our animal welfare standards or our capacity to protect public health.

Thirdly, Ministers will be able only to make negative resolution statutory instruments on specific procedural or technical matters—I stress that it will be technical matters—that are laid down in the various legislative functions currently exercisable by the Commission. The new enabling powers in these SIs will therefore be confined to only those matters that the EU Parliament and Council have delegated to the Commission to implement by way of tertiary legislation, with input from relevant experts.

Legislative functions are currently conferred on the Commission by EU legislation. They enable the Commission to set out the technical details of the regimes in what is known as tertiary legislation. These two instruments take the powers currently held by the Commission and transfer them to the appropriate UK Ministers. Therefore, the instruments are correcting measures enabled by the 2018 Act. The crucial point is that they do not introduce new policy. They preserve the current animal, fish and plant health regimes and simply ensure that we will continue to operate effectively when we leave the European Union.

The Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—the first instrument we are considering —cover animal health and welfare. They provide for legislative functions to be exercisable by UK authorities. The exercise of those functions will principally be by way of domestic secondary legislation by the appropriate authorities that is made under the negative resolution procedure because it will involve minor technical amendments to the EU retained law. This instrument transfers existing functions currently conferred on the Commission in the areas of animal transport, which is regulations 2 and 6; livestock identification, which is regulations 3 and 5; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies —TSEs—which is regulation 4; seal products, which is regulation 7; animal slaughter, which is regulation 9; animal by-products—ABPs—which is regulations 8 and 10; and zootechnical conditions, which is regulation 11. That allows us to react and develop the legislation in line with changes in technical requirements and in response to any relevant developments in the future.

The functions include such matters as amending implementation rules and procedures when amending detailed rules in respect of sampling and laboratory methods; approval of new scientific disease-related tests; revisions to disease monitoring and surveillance; setting down rules for breeding programmes to recognise disease resistance in livestock; determining feed safety practices; amendment of training and educational programmes; and the uniform application of disease contingency plans. The functions also include the powers to amend the welfare requirements for transporting live animals and to amend animal slaughter methods to take account of scientific and technical progress.

Regulation 12 is a cross-cutting regulation applying across this instrument generally. It contains transitional and saving provisions relating to standard form documents. For example, new forms will be introduced for the UK, but under these regulations it will be permissible to use the current EU forms after exit day for a period of time, so that the movement of products can continue unhindered in a pragmatic way while new forms are being considered and published.

Turning to the Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—the second statutory instrument before us—I wish to draw to hon. Members’ attention to one matter relating to the explanatory memorandum, which has been amended. The amended version, which was published last week on 18 February, merely deletes incorrect references to powers not included in the SI, and therefore does not affect the content of the SI itself.

The first of these powers—to edit the criteria of listing diseases—was not included in the SI because the focus of the instrument is to ensure day one readiness. The power to amend the criteria, as listed in directive 2006/88, does not require being transferred at this stage, as the current criteria are well established and effective. The power to edit the criteria may be transferred to UK Ministers in future, but it is not required in the short term.

The second change involves the power to set out detailed rules for the introduction into the EU from third countries of aquaculture animals and related products. This was moved from this instrument and covered in the Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated in the House on 19 February, which contains a number of similar amendments. I apologise to members of the Committee for the inconvenience that might have caused.

The second instrument ensures that a series of legislative functions currently conferred by EU legislation upon the European Commission will be exercisable instead by Governments in the United Kingdom. The difference is that this instrument relates to EU directives, while the previous instrument—the first one we discussed—covers EU regulation brought into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Directives in this SI are transposed into domestic law by UK regulations and, in some cases, primary legislation when they come forward, so they are already on the UK statute book. However, the functions conferred on the Commission in those directives were not transposed, as it would not have been appropriate to do so, because they refer to EU institutions. They are now being brought in by these regulations to the appropriate Ministers in the UK.

I reiterate my earlier point that Ministers will only be able to make negative resolution statutory instruments on the various legislative functions currently exercisable by the European Commission in specific procedural or technical matters that are laid down. The new enabling powers will therefore be confined to only those matters that the European Parliament and Council have delegated to the European Commission to implement by way of tertiary legislation with input from relevant experts. As with the previous instrument, there is no change in policy.

Part 2 of the second instrument relates to aquatic animal health and part 3 relates to plant health. The regulations relating to plant health do not extend to Scotland—plant health is devolved and Scottish Ministers have chosen to bring forward their own legislation to deal with technical operability issues solely arising from EU exit from plant health legislation.

In part 2, which transfers functions relating to aquatic animal health, the instrument transfers existing European Commission legislation functions to appropriate UK Ministers. It will enable them to amend the list of diseases for disease control purposes, and draw up and, importantly, update this for third countries or parts of third countries, from which aquaculture animals and related products can be introduced into the UK post-exit.

In part 3, which deals with transferring functions in relation to plant health, this instrument transfers the legislative functions to appropriate Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to make amendments, keeping pace with developments in scientific knowledge or changes in risks in plant health. The appropriate Ministers will also be able to specify import conditions that apply to plants and plant products originating in a third country. This is important in enabling international trade based on an assessment of the risk. It also enables appropriate Ministers to put in place temporary emergency measures for the purposes of preventing the introduction or spread of a plant pest. As I have said, there is no lessening of our prior security controls and these measures will enable us to respond to emerging threats.

These instruments will ensure that an operable legal framework is in place for exit day. They make no policy changes. For the reasons set out, I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically in-depth and thoughtful contributions and his extensive questions, which I will endeavour to address to his satisfaction. I also thank hon. Members for their presence on the Committee.

As we have discussed, the two instruments transfer specified functions to the UK Minister. Without establishing those powers in United Kingdom law, respective UK Ministers would be unable to bring forward measures for which the European Commission currently has authority on behalf of member states.

The hon. Gentleman kindly referred to the fact that DEFRA is under a lot of pressure with respect to SIs. Let us be absolutely clear: as part of leaving the EU, we are onshoring environmental, agricultural and fisheries policy in one go, so there will inevitably be a lot of SIs on the back of that. I am grateful to him and his team for bearing with us, which they have generally done in good spirit in the light of the amount of work going on, as has the ministerial team. I should more than anything pay tribute to officials at DEFRA for the huge amount of work that they do to make this possible.

We have laid out the SIs that are required for day-one exit. Final scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments determines what needs to happen, and the final few SIs are passing that hurdle as we speak. We are getting most of the SIs into the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments’ hopper, so we are well through the programme and making good progress. We sorted instruments that are legislative in nature into the affirmative procedure and decided that it was more efficient to pass others via the negative procedure, as hon. Members would expect. The drafts are considered in detail by the JCSI and are published several weeks before the parliamentary debate, so there is time to consider them, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman says.

A huge amount of work is going on, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with us. I have not personally come across what he calls stakeholder fatigue, but I am conscious that there is a lot going on, and we are working very closely with stakeholders to try to provide the information that is required to help them.

It is important to recognise that, given the amount of work that is going on, we are trying to focus on the right piece of legislation at the right time. The policies within the SIs we have brought forward remain unchanged. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was little or no significant change. I do not want to dance on the head of a pin, but I assure him that these are incredibly minor technical amendments. I know he has gone through them in great detail, and I am sure he can see that they are incredibly technical.

The hon. Gentleman requested further clarity on the appropriate authorities. They are the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department. The definition of “other responsible authorities” depends partly on which part of the SIs we are talking about, but in the aquatic animal health and plant health SI they are simply other Ministers or the Northern Ireland Department.

As I said, these are minor technical amendments to retained EU legislation. The hon. Gentleman talked about sequencing. I think—I hope I have got this right—he is concerned about when the future negative SIs that are referred to in the two instruments would come into place. They would come forward when there was a need. We are transferring powers so that the Minister—the UK Minister or the Minister in a devolved Administration —can recognise that there has been a change in circumstances and update the technical requirements as a result. That is what we are talking about. We are not looking at a tsunami of future SIs all in one go. We are transferring powers to respond. At the moment we are in a very good place—we have good positions in place on plant and aquatic health and animal welfare—but we want to ensure that we have the power to make amendments in the future.

The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation and impact assessments. There was no consultation because there is no policy change. These changes are very technical and forward looking. For similar reasons, there was no impact assessment either.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of very important questions about science. We have outstanding science, which is supported by the Government and the taxpayer, and we are considering how best to allocate resources. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of our demands, or suggestions, and no doubt of those of other stakeholders.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned our science agencies. We are very fortunate to have outstanding Government agencies and expert committees, which have genuinely worldwide recognition for undertaking risk assessments and advising the Government. They have been doing that work for many years, and we will be able to retain that expertise. We have the expertise of the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. We want to ensure that we retain that and, in time, build on it.

I think I have already answered the hon. Gentleman’s question about the various authorities that would be passed on to different Ministers, and about who those Ministers would be. I hope I did so to his satisfaction. He also talked about ensuring that we have the necessary resources in place. In debates on previous SIs, I have discussed with some of his counterparts what we are doing to support vets, for example. That includes ensuring that there is enough training to enable vets to step up and do what will be required on export health certificates, and we have also made strong representations to the Migration Advisory Committee about returning veterinary surgeons to the shortage occupation list, which I know the hon. Gentleman strongly supports.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fish husbandry. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 made it an offence to cause animals, including fish, avoidable pain or suffering. There are mechanisms to ensure that welfare standards are in place. We have no current plans to extend animal welfare legislation to cover specific husbandry requirements for fish, but we do not rule out making such additions in the future.

The hon. Gentleman also made important points about TSEs. I can assure him and other members of the Committee that the TSE monitoring programme will not be watered down by the amendments and will continue unchanged after EU exit. The regulations exactly reflect the current EU programme, and the Government have no plans to revise our existing annual monitoring programme for TSEs, which will remain at pre-EU exit levels for the foreseeable future.

I hope that I have answered just about all the questions. Of course, the hon. Gentleman and I have a good relationship, and I can answer any other questions afterwards—or it can be done in writing. I hope that hon. Members are now more fully aware of why the regulations are needed. Overall, the regimes will continue to function similarly to how they did before. For the reasons that I have set out, I trust that members of the Committee will give the regulations their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(David Rutley.)