UK Shellfish Exports

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in the Commons yesterday George Eustice once again tried to portray the fishing settlement as a good deal, whereas the truth is that it is unravelling as we speak. It is no wonder UK fishers feel angry and betrayed. You would have thought that the negotiations of the trade and co-operation agreement would have tied down the future access of live bivalve molluscs to the EU at the time of the agreement, rather than as an afterthought when damage to the sector has already been done. As a result, hundreds of tonnes of stock have had to be dumped and the multi-million-pound industry has ground to a halt.

These are more than teething problems. The future of the sector is at stake. The Minister has described the negotiations as technical discussions, but what is to stop the EU reopening other aspects of the fishing deal in return for a settlement on live molluscs? In the meantime, can the Minister clarify exactly what compensation will be made available to those whose livelihoods are affected by the loss of that EU market? Will they have access to the £23 million disruption fund made available for other fishers whose markets have been disrupted? Will the Government consider increasing this fund now that many more fishers appear to need compensation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible]—to Commissioner Kyriakides, because we want to restore the trade in undepurated live bivalve molluscs. That is the issue here. We think that the interpretation that the Commission has come to is not correct, and we wish to have discussions with the Commission about it. A 25% uplift in fishing opportunities is an important part of the trade and co-operation agreement, and we will be working on that. As the Government have announced, not only is there a £23 million fund for those who have been in difficulty in these early stages but we will invest in a £100 million fund for fishing over the next three years. There is a lot of promise and a lot of opportunity for British fishing interests and the shellfish industry as well.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is unfortunate for the Government that the BBC is currently screening its series on the Cornwall fishing industry, filmed last year. All see the dramatic effect on the Cornish crab industry of the withdrawal of the Chinese market, and now the EU is refusing to take its shellfish, which was previously acceptable. The Statement says that scallops are less affected than other bivalve molluscs. This is not the impression that I am gaining from the television coverage of the scallop fisheries in Scotland. However, can the Minister explain what the exact problem is with the class B waters around Wales and the south-west? If these waters were acceptable before 3 February, why not afterwards?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

The noble Baroness has hit on why we wish to have discussions with the Commission. It interprets the matter as being one of public health. The point is that all molluscs exported from class B waters have to be depurated. That is undertaken by businesses near to the market on the continent, and it is on that we are seeking redress. The Commission made it clear in September 2019—and I can put copies of the correspondence in the House Library along with the letter to the Commissioner—that molluscs exported for purification can be certified. We therefore think that there is an issue that we need to clarify.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, is not this and other measures taken recently by the EU to punish the UK for leaving its jurisdiction a flagrant abuse not only of the EU’s own laws but of several international laws such as the WTO SPS agreement, which states that WTO members

“shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”—

ours, of course, are identical—as well as the recent TCA, which states that each party shall ensure that SPS measures

“are not applied in a manner which would constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination against … the other Party’s territory where identical or similar SPS conditions exist”,

which they do in this case? I hope that my noble friend will make this lawlessness apparent to this House, which always maintains the importance of upholding international law.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

Again, my noble friend is correct to raise this point. It is why the Secretary of State wrote to Commissioner Kyriakides yesterday. We wish to meet her and her officials, because we simply do not understand the legal interpretation of what has come out of the Commission very recently, which is entirely contrary to what we had been told previously.

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that molluscs cannot be transferred across the United Kingdom, from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, all due to the Northern Ireland protocol. Is he aware that there is today a meeting between the European Union and the Irish Government to reach an agreement whereby all new laws introduced by the EU which may affect Northern Ireland will first have to be submitted to the Dublin Government for their approval? This is a united Ireland in operation and in practice. The approval of events in Northern Ireland is now subject to the control and decision of Dublin and not of London.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is important. The working of the Northern Ireland protocol and the fact that Northern Ireland is part, clearly, of the United Kingdom, our quartet of nations, are why the meeting that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have with the Vice-President of the Commission on Thursday is important. We wish to conduct trade as good neighbours, but within the context that we are a United Kingdom.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have recently been in touch with my friend Ronnie Norquoy, who operates boats from Orkney. He tells me that this ban is only the latest in a series of crises: first, the restriction of the China market; secondly, Covid closing the hospitality sector market; thirdly, the wave of red tape and export chaos caused by Brexit; and, now, the Seafood Producers Resilience Fund, which barely covers two weeks of his operating costs. These are not teething troubles. When will the Government get serious about rescuing this vital sector that is fast going out of business?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, that is precisely why we wish to discuss with Commissioner Kyriakides a situation that we do not think is founded on a correct interpretation of the law. It is clear that the fishing and shellfish industries are going through difficulties, as the noble Lord said, partly because of a reduction in demand due to Covid and partly because of issues that we need to resolve. However, in the long term this is a very important part of our food supply and we will support it.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is frustrating that the EU is behaving in the way it is on so many issues. Would be it possible to get the class B waters up to class A, as in Scotland? Is it economically feasible to have our own processing and cleansing plants here, so that we can produce the end product rather than having to let the Europeans do that for us?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My noble friend makes an important point, which is that we all need to work on improving water quality—it is part of the 25-year environment plan and it is addressed in the Environment Bill. We believe that the depuration capacity in GB is sufficient to depurate all oysters produced in GB, but there is insufficient cover for the depuration of mussels, for instance. The £100 million fishing fund could be used to support traders setting up, for instance, a depuration centre. We will continue to explore all those options.

[Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]]

My Lords, UK shellfish catches were valued at £393 million in 2019, so this is a very serious matter for the fishing industry, especially in the south-west. Is this not yet another example of a loose end left over from a botched negotiation with the EU over Brexit? Does the Minister now think that Brussels is trying to punish the UK for leaving the EU?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Secretary of State has written to Commissioner Kyriakides in a very friendly and a constructive spirit. This issue relates to undepurated live bivalve molluscs and we are now addressing it. I hope that the discussions will resolve this matter so that this important trade can be resumed. It is important for exports; it is also important to all those businesses on the continent that have set up depuration outlets because they wish to be close to the final destination market. I think that this is where discussions with the EU will be very important.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Genetically Modified Food

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, our legislation includes rigorous requirements for assessing health and environmental risks associated with GM food production. Approved GM crops and GM food products must pass a robust, case-by-case safety assessment reflecting independent scientific advice.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Although I have some questions about gene editing, I recognise the potential it has to revolutionise the agricultural sector. My concern is for farmers and any potential barriers to trade with the EU that this might introduce. Although the Commission has indicated its intent to review the current rules, this has been countered by the European Parliament, which signalled its objection. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the impact of gene editing on our ability to export agricultural products to EU markets?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the purpose of our consultation is principally to consider the issue of gene editing, which we think has a very strong future in assisting us in many respects in food production and the natural environment. Obviously, we shall consider the response to that consultation, and the right reverend Prelate’s remarks about the rest of the world, certainly including the European Union countries, are relevant. I know that the French Agriculture Minister has expressed concern about the European court’s view on gene editing.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister may recall that in the early days of devolution, Wales’s National Assembly passed, as was in its devolved powers so to do, orders prohibiting on precautionary principles the growth of certain genetically modified crops in Wales. That caused some cross-border dispute on the Wales-Cheshire border. If the Government are considering any new initiatives in England, will he undertake to discuss at an early stage with the Welsh and Scottish Governments whether their plans might cause any difficulties, and endeavour to find a mechanism to resolve them this time round, prior to them becoming issues of heated controversy?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we have engaged very strongly with the devolved Administrations on the consultation, for instance in advance of its publication. As the noble Lord said, GMOs are a devolved matter and decisions on marketing are a matter for the relevant devolved Administration. We will continue to keep up a very strong dialogue.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has already referred to the fact that the French Agriculture Minister has disagreed with the EU’s stance on genetic editing. I also note that the US has approved some genetically modified seeds for use, as of last year. Studies suggest that genetic editing has the potential to improve yields while using significantly fewer resources, improving soil quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and could be worth in the region of $200 billion to $300 billion per year. Have these international developments informed Defra’s thinking at all? Does the Minister agree that this science offers promising opportunities for the UK?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, many countries have been considering their approach to GMO governance and regulation in the light of technological advances. Indeed, these international dimensions have helped to inform our approach to the consultation. We recognise that innovations through technology such as gene editing can help to create new markets, support a sustainable economy, help UK businesses globally and improve agricultural productivity in a way that enhances the natural environment.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my interests are as recorded on the register. Does the Minister accept that gene editing and genetic modification are different technologies and that the Government will be considering them separately in terms of policy? Have the Government conducted any consumer research recently into the acceptability of these technologies?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the distinction. Indeed, gene editing should not be confused with gene modification. Gene-edited organisms generally do not contain DNA from different species. They contain changes that could be made more slowly using traditional breeding methods. We think there is merit in that, which is why we have consulted. Indeed, we want responses to the consultation, which closes on 17 March, and we are very keen to hear from interested parties and members of the public.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the reality is that no one knows which gene-edited or genetically modified crop might have an adverse impact on the environment. For example, pest-resistant crops can pose threats to important insect populations. The Government’s consultation is totally silent on what environmental regulatory regime would replace the current one. Can the Minister tell the House whether there will be a new regulatory system requiring a case-by-case environmental impact assessment before release? Will Natural England be given adequate resources to oversee effect EIA or are the Government simply intending to deregulate irrespective of the biodiversity risks?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

Let me be clear: our endeavours in this matter are for better regulation, not deregulation. We think that gene editing has considerable benefits for the natural environment but clearly on a precautionary basis we will be working to ensure that, case-by-case, there is an environmental assessment. We look forward to the responses in the consultation.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, organic farming has risen by 13% in the past year, but organic farms are at extreme risk of cross-contamination from genetically modified crops putting their own crops at risk. How does the Minister propose to protect organic farms from GM contamination?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, organic farmers undertake a very important role in producing great products. There are regulations about these matters and the way in which GM crops are engaged in the environment, and they will continue.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, in making assessments of health and environmental risks, which have a huge impact on conservation, biodiversity and land management, the risks and consequences of both action and inaction will be considered equally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, GMO legislation is based on a precautionary principle that states that GMO environmental assessments must be risk-based. Evidence gathered during the consultation will inform risks on both action and inaction.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest in Rothamsted Research as recorded in the register. We welcome the Government’s consultation on gene editing and the distinction drawn between genetic modification and gene editing. Can the Minister assure us that any changes in the regulation of gene editing will be balanced alongside policies to minimise the use of artificial pesticides and artificial fertilisers so that there will be a net gain for the protection of public health and the environment from any changes?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, what the noble Baroness has said is why we believe there could well be environmental benefits from gene editing, whether they are reduced use of neutron additions, reduced use of chemical pesticides, increased crop yields or crops that are more resilient to climate change. These are the areas that, in an honest endeavour, we should be looking into and why the consultation is so important as part of the first phase before any change may occur.

[Lord Krebs (CB) [V]]

My Lords, about three-quarters of the world’s soya and nearly one-third of the world’s maize and oilseed rape is GM. Europe, including the UK, is one of the world’s largest importers of GM soya. Does the Minister agree that no human health risks have been identified as a result of consuming these GM foods? Is he aware that the chair of the Food and Drink Federation organic committee recently said that the tide of opinion on genetic editing has changed and that the organic sector could end up isolated if it did not welcome this technology?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the whole thrust of what the noble Lord said. We think that science and our knowledge of gene editing have advanced since the GM framework nearly 30 years ago, and therefore we think that there are advantages to the environment. That is why we want to proceed.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that soil structure and quality have been diminishing for many years. He will also be aware of the excellent work being done by the GWTC and Harper Adams University into minimal till regimes, which are proving to have a beneficial effect, certainly on soil structure and the wider environment. Does he agree that, in tandem with emerging best practice based on the science, GM crops are an important component in enhancing yields and reducing the use of fertilisers and pesticides and therefore in protecting and feeding the consumer?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend has made a very important point: we have to feed the world’s increasing population. We think that, particularly in the area of gene editing crops, there are potentially very strong advantages in sustaining and improving the natural environment while improving the hugely important ingredient of soil health with reduced nutrient additions and chemical pesticides.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.

Brexit: Farmers

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that farmers continue to receive financial support following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. In 2019 the Government made a manifesto commitment to maintain the current annual budget to UK farmers of £3.6 billion. This was honoured in the 2021-22 spending review. The commitment is being achieved through a combination of Exchequer funding and remaining EU funding.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, could the Minister give a commitment that there will be adequate and sufficient funding for farmers to develop their enterprises for the purposes of economic and environmental sustainability over the next five to 10 years, way beyond the 2021-22 financial year, thus allowing farmers to adapt and plan for the future?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

That is very important. We seek in the agriculture transitional plan to ensure that there is certainty and a vibrant future. Our manifesto commitment takes us up to 2024; obviously, we cannot bind further Parliaments but that is a sign of our bona fides. I think any incoming Government would clearly want to continue to enable that important agricultural production, as well as environmental enhancement.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers’ Union. For many years, the delivery of single farm payments has been fraught with problems. Is my noble friend able to provide an assurance to British farmers that, having left the bungling bureaucracy of the EU, every opportunity and effort will be taken to maximise the efficiency and punctual delivery of support payments to farmers?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

Yes, my Lords, punctuality is very important, which is why I am very pleased that the RPA achieved a 98% payment last December. Going forward, it is important to codesign the schemes with farmers so that there is a modern approach to assurance and regulation with streamlining but no undue bureaucracy.

[Lord Palmer (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I farm in the Scottish borders. What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations, in that agriculture is indeed devolved?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, there is not only considerable dialogue between Defra Ministers and devolved Administration Ministers as part of the regular inter-ministerial group for EFRA meetings but, on funding matters, there is consideration by the devolved Administrations’ Finance Ministers and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. These matters have been on the agenda at the recent Finance Ministers quadrilateral meetings.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, can I try again to get a little more clarity on the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie? We all agree with the statement behind “public money for public good” with regards to farming. Planting trees and nurturing wildlife should be commended, but surely the Government’s primary duty must be our ability to feed our nation and to do that healthily. These are not mutually exclusive, so can the Minister outline Her Majesty’s Government’s plan to ensure that, at the end of the transition period, there is proper balance between those two priorities?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

Not only at the end of the transition period but throughout this process, it is essential that farmers in this country produce very good food for the nation and for abroad, while working in collaboration to enhance the environment. That is our purpose throughout the transition and beyond.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, biodiversity is key to ensuring the success of ELMS and the Government’s whole strategy, as set out in the 25-year environment plan. There is, however, no clear rationale for how ELMS will provide financial recompense for those farmers changing from the countryside stewardship scheme to that scheme. Can the Minister now provide some badly needed clarity to reassure farmers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to provide that certainty. For instance, the national pilot on ELM will be available for applications during this year. Information on payments and supporting guidance will be a key part of that because, clearly, we want eventually to have a very considerable number of farmers engaged in agri- environmental schemes, and for those farmers to be paid properly, adequately and punctually for them.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s new approach to sustainable farming. Does the Minister agree that it is quite possible to farm in a way that produces good food and protects welfare? Will he look at the Countryside Restoration Trust, which has successfully pioneered farming for food and wildlife over the last 27 years? Perhaps he could use his influence to ask the Secretary of State to visit Lark Rise Farm in Cambridgeshire to see for himself just how easy it is to make that happen.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, what has been done on that farm in Cambridgeshire, where Robin Page has been so strongly engaged for such a long time, is about the essential nature of the harmony between farming and the environment. I am very pleased that, as part of our forward plans, we are establishing an animal health and welfare pathway so that we improve the husbandry and welfare of our farm animals. That is a key part of our reforms.

[Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the common agricultural policy is an extraordinary testament to waste and inefficiency. However, there are plenty of challenges facing British farmers after Brexit. We encourage —we almost insist—that our farmers become more competitive and productive, squeezing more out of the land, yet at the same time they are supposed to protect and enhance our environment, so we need to square that circle. May I pursue some of the questions we heard earlier and ask whether my noble friend is satisfied that we already have an advisory and support system that is fit for purpose in this area, or whether there is more work to be done? Can he tell us what specific help might be available to older farmers, who may decide the time has come to step aside and make way for the next generation?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is important that we have new entrants coming into farming. That is why we will consult and work on plans to introduce exit schemes for farmers who wish to retire, along with schemes to support new entrants. As part of the much wider advice and guidance, we will enhance the support to farmers, particularly as we champion skills and innovation. Many schemes are coming forward and it is very important that farmers understand what is available.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, when launching the sustainable farming statement in December, the Government said:

“The changes will be designed to ensure that by 2028, farmers in England can sustainably produce healthy food profitably without subsidy”.


Is it this Government’s intention that 2028 will mark the end of subsidies for English farming, to be replaced by reliance on the market?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

What we said was that that would be the end of the direct payments system. We are now concentrating on a system of agri-environment and other support mechanisms, which we think are value for money. They will reward farmers for the provision of public goods.

[Lord Carrington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. I am comforted by the Minister’s response but, sadly, the world does not stand still as we await details. Bearing in mind the topical issue of flooding, I am concerned that, without specific government support, farming profitability will be insufficient to finance the renewal of field drains that are reaching the end of their life. These are so important to flood prevention and farm productivity. Please can the Minister confirm that this necessary expenditure will be covered by ELMS?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, on flooding, particularly of agricultural land, a lot of work is going on and I will look into that matter.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

I do not think we have the noble Earl, in which case the time allowed for this Question has—ah, he is there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

Thank you very much. At what exchange rate are the payments being made, and does the 10% cut in the CAP budget mean that our farmers are going to get a 10% cut?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

That is an interesting point. We decided that we would use the 2019 exchange rates; against the 2015 exchange rates, there is a 22% advantage in using the 2019 exchange rates and I suggest that that is a very good thing for our farmers. I would also say that my noble friend is absolutely right: the EU CAP budget for 2021 to 2027 is going to be cut by 10%. Our manifesto pledge was to maintain £3.6 billion for UK farmers. That is our commitment and we continue with that.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, that we did not have time for his question.

Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The content of this SI is reserved, but a draft version was shared with devolved Administrations for comment; only minor drafting points were raised, which we addressed in full. I make it clear that these regulations do not change our policy or make new policy; instead, they principally amend retained EU legislation to ensure that the relevant regulations operate in Great Britain.

The amendments made by this instrument primarily concern geographical indications, or GIs. They also include transitioning obligations in EU wines and spirits agreements and extend to trade between the UK and the EU in wine and organic products. GIs are a form of intellectual property protection for the names of food, drink and agricultural products with qualities attributable to the place where they are produced or to the traditional methods by which they are made.

Until the end of the transition period, we operated under the EU’s GI schemes. The EU and the UK have not included a section on GIs in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This means that UK GIs which were on the EU register at the end of the transition period remain protected in the EU and vice versa, but there is no automatic protection for names registered after the end of the transition period. We have instead included a review clause which allows us to agree rules on the protection of GIs in future, should we so wish. The UK retains full autonomy over its own GI regimes.

As of 1 January, the UK has had an independent, fully functioning GI regime. As the competent authority, Defra manages the schemes with the devolved Administrations and handles domestic and international applications. Guidance on the application process is online. The schemes cover spirits, wines, aromatised wines, and food and agricultural products. Examples range from Wensleydale cheese to products such as native Shetland wool. There are many more; I am sure that many noble Lords have GIs of their own that are special to them.

This instrument amends existing GI regulations to ensure that they are fit for purpose and work as intended. It also allows the UK to use bridging arrangements to continue to protect GIs from countries where a trade deal was agreed but is not yet ratified, at the end of the transition period. This will ensure that GIs already protected in the UK do not lose their protection due to a long ratification process.

This instrument also adds an additional category of GI to ensure that the Japanese GI Kumamoto rush remains protected in the UK. This is a long-stemmed grass that is traditionally dried and woven into mats in the Kumamoto region of Japan. It can be grown only in that region. This was previously protected in the EU under the EU-Japan trade agreement, but it did not fit within any of the GI product categories which the UK inherited from the EU. The addition of this category provides a clear basis on which to continue to protect the GI under the UK-Japan agreement. This does not change our policy; we are simply correcting a deficiency in EU legislation.

On spirit drinks, this instrument provides for the ongoing protection of US product names, and Mexican names once transitioned in the UK, to reflect the transitional EU agreements. It also enables the retained EU spirit drinks regulations for GIs to function correctly in relation to protection and enforcement. For wines, this instrument amends retained EU regulations that provide a basis for protecting US wine names of origin in the UK to make them operable. In doing that, it also creates the necessary basis for enforcement in the UK.

This instrument also includes several non-GI provisions. It introduces a six-month easement on the new requirement for EU wines imported to the UK to be accompanied by a VI-1 certificate. This certificate provides information on the type and analytical composition of a wine. We worked with the wine trade to assess the impacts of this certification requirement on the industry. As a result, we have introduced this easement to minimise the potential for disruption to the UK market by allowing EU imports to arrive under the same commercial documents used while the UK was a member state. New and simplified certification arrangements are set out in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement to cover movements of EU and UK origin wines.

On organics, we have extended our recognition of the EU and EEA states as equivalent and updated their list of control bodies. We have also ensured that organic products from the EU, EEA and Switzerland are able to continue to flow smoothly into Great Britain by providing a six-month easement on the requirement for certificates of inspection for such products.

The amendments made by this instrument are essential for a smooth transition. Without them, international obligations would not be met, retained EU legislation would not be operable and vital transitional provisions would not be in place. For those reasons, I commend the instrument to your Lordships. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner (Con) [V]]

Yet again, we have had a thought-provoking debate. In the time I have, I am not going to be able to address some of the more detailed and technical questions, but I shall write very fully on all outstanding points.

I thought the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, at the very beginning about the importance of the protection of the public and, indeed, producers, was very important. I can certainly give the Government’s commitment to the GI system. It is a very important feature, and an indicator. All noble Lords have raised so many products, and I have no time to talk about them or many more, but the GI system plays an important role as an exemplar of our quality produce.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, mentioned farmers who, in difficult weather are, thank goodness, producing food for the nation. All I would say is that our diet has become much more varied. Noble Lords have expressed the need for imports, and I agree with that, but may I plug the importance of eating seasonally as well? There are some very good UK products that I think are very satisfactory. We might think about that in terms of the point made by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft about sustainability, which is about many of these things and how we work sustainably.

The other point raised by many noble Lords was about border issues. I am very conscious of that, which is why not a single day goes by, probably not a single hour, when officials at Defra and Ministers are not engaged with individual businesses. Rightly, people want to import and export between parts of the United Kingdom. No one could be more fervent in their view on that than me, and I say that particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I will take back again the points that have been raised, as well as the points raised about the Lough Neagh eels and, obviously, jellied eels. I do not want to fall out with jellied eel consumers. I have a feeling that they have a very strong feeling about products such as Lough Neagh eels, so I take that very seriously indeed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about time limits on bridging arrangements. There is no time limit on how long bridging arrangements last, but it would not be in the interests of either party to extend the bridging arrangements longer than necessary.

On the point of Kumamoto rush and the category, the reason why we came forward with the category was that it was very loose ended and we wanted to signify the importance of that rush in terms of the UK-Japan agreement, so I will take that back.

I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that I would be the first to say that we should keep the number of SIs to a direct purpose and try to co-ordinate them. Some of the provisions, including those on bridging arrangements, amending previous GI SIs, and others, were subject to negotiations concluding, so could not be raised earlier. I think that is a legitimate point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement on a piecemeal basis and whether the agreement needs to be phased in over separate pieces of legislation. Our view is that, when an agreement requires changes to legislation in a number of sectors, it is normal for these changes to be made within the relevant sectoral legislation. This ensures that those affected by them know where to find the rules, but it does not mean that implementation is unco-ordinated. That is very important.

One point that I made a note of was when my noble friend Lord Empey asked what the differences were in the compendium. All we are seeking to do is to make all parts of the United Kingdom trade freely, well and prosperously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about the UK Organic Certifiers Group. We in Defra meet it fortnightly and, obviously, this instrument was discussed with the group. I can confirm that it agreed to the instrument.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about consultations with the devolved Administrations, which have been and continue to be very dynamic. They attend the UK Organic Certifiers Group, and we regularly discuss in that forum ways in which to take the UK’s world-class standards to a further level. I will take back and write about the minor drafting points; I do not have them to hand.

I had a number of points about Northern Ireland. GB applications can now be made to the EU scheme, so long as they are first protected in GB, while Northern Ireland applications can be made directly to the EU schemes as well as to the GB schemes.

My noble friend Lord Kirkhope asked about EU GIs. The UK schemes welcome new applications from around the world as long as they are first protected as a GI in their own country of origin—there is more on that, which I shall write about to my noble friend.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about wine and the VI-1. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association welcomed our plans to issue an easement on the need for VI-1 certificates to accompany imports of wines from the EU, as set out in agreements. Similarly, it also welcomed the introduction of simplified VI-1 certification arrangements for the EU and UK.

There was a question on electronics. I absolutely agree that we need to find ways in which to ensure that anything that we can do digitally, we do in that way.

I should say, on eels, that nothing in this instrument prevents the sale of eels in the UK. As I have said, I shall look into that.

The USA wine trade agreement has been carried over and is in force to cover trade between the US and the UK. Again on the question of VI-1 requirement, which my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord German, raised, we will be able to look critically at the laws that we have inherited through retained regulations to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. In due course, we will consider whether there is a case to revisit the requirement for VI-1 certification. The requirement was retained as indications were that the EU would require VI-1 forms to accompany UK exports. Furthermore, VI-1s are already established for imports of wines for other non-EU sources. We will look at that, and I shall come back to noble Lords with further details.

On the Northern Ireland protocol, NI producers will continue to apply to the EU schemes to have new products protected in Northern Ireland across the UK. To protect their new product names in GB, Northern Ireland producers will need to apply separately under the UK GI schemes, and I would of course encourage that.

I have to conclude soon. However, while on the subject of Northern Ireland, I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that we have introduced an easement, as she knows. We are monitoring the situation and investigating all options to ensure smooth movements from GB to Northern Ireland.

I can take away many points from today’s debate. Frankly, in the time I have, I have not dealt with some of the technical points, but it may be better if I answer them in long form in letters. I am very conscious of some of the key points that have been made on some of the technical points on wines and other matters. However, I hope that this instrument commands support.

Motion agreed.

Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this instrument ensured that current organic standards were in force for the end of the transition period. I should make it clear that the instrument does not make any changes to our policies; it is purely technical in nature. The Government strongly support organic standards, many of which were developed in the UK and adopted by the EU. The UK has world-recognised standards of food production and labelling, which we wish to see maintained.

There are 6,000 predominantly small and medium-sized UK organic businesses, which in 2019 contributed over £2.5 billion to the UK economy, including exports worth £250 million. These businesses are flourishing. Over the past year, as healthy and nutritious food has risen up the menu, organic sales have grown by 12.9%. This reflects a global trend for sustainable food, with countries such as the United States of America and Germany also seeing significant growth in organics.

The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which includes an annexe on the organics trade, provides a platform to build on this strong growth. British businesses will be able to continue to export organic products—whether organic Welsh lamb or key ingredients for organic food processing that happens in the EU such as milk for baby food destined for China—until 31 December 2023, while EU organic products, also including ingredients for the supply chain, will be able to continue to flow into GB.

We have removed the requirements for a certificate of inspection for organic products coming from the EU, EEA and Switzerland for six months until 1 July 2021. This means that ports and local authorities will have time to become familiar with the new manual importing system when checking organic products from other third countries. Meanwhile, consumers will continue to have access to a wide choice of organic food.

Together with the powers set out in the Agriculture Act, and while working closely with representatives from the sector and the devolved Administrations, we will seek to modernise how we regulate the production of organic food, animals and livestock. Our organic legislation sets out the requirements for organic production, processing, labelling and imports, as well as the control systems that must be in place to ensure that the requirements are met. It stipulates 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 rigorous annual inspections.

The instrument amended this legislation as it applies to the labelling of organic products. How organic products are labelled is an important part of organic certification, giving consumers confidence that they can trust that the organic products they buy in supermarkets and smaller retailers are organic. That is why this is a “made affirmative” instrument. We had to ensure that the UK’s organic labelling regulations were updated for the end of the transition period.

The specific amendments in the instrument removed the mandatory requirement for the EU organic logo to be featured on organic products sold in GB, and provided the legal framework for a new UK organic logo when it is developed. They amended the requirement to include an EU statement of agricultural origin, so that such statements reference the UK rather than the EU. For example, where the organic product has been farmed in the UK, organic operators should now use “UK agriculture” on the product’s packaging; or, where it has been partly farmed in a third country, including countries in the EU, and partly farmed in the UK, organic operators should use “UK/non-UK agriculture”.

The trade and co-operation agreement means that organic businesses now have the option to use the EU organic logo. If the EU logo is used, the relevant EU statement of agricultural origin must also be included, as required by the relevant EU rules. This logo is well recognised and will help grow UK organic exports to the EU.

The instrument contains devolved matters, so the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in its development and gave their consent for it to be made.

Although the instrument is relatively straightforward, the amendments were vital for the UK’s organic legislation and for what we all desire: for the organic sector to prosper under our future arrangements, at home and in this important export market. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. If I do not fully pick up any matters of detail, I will, of course, write. I am grateful for the general welcome of the instrument. I should say in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who raised this first, that the SI was made under the emergency procedure to correct operability issues and to ensure that the current organic standards were in force at the end of the transition period. The emergency procedure allowed us to ensure that the legislation was in force on 1 January. We believe it is important to make sure that the amendments, which are, I agree, uncontroversial corrections to efficiencies, take effect promptly.

On that, the whole point of the instrument was to make the retained EU organic regime operable. It ensured that strict regulations for organics were maintained at the end of the transition period.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised dates. I will spend a little time on this because it is important. There are two key dates in the instrument. The first, 1 July 2021, relates to the six-month easement that we have introduced on the requirement for certificates of inspection for organic products coming into Great Britain from the EU, EEA and Switzerland. Imports from other third countries require a GB COI from 1 January 2021, which is a manual process until an electronic system is available. I will mention that in a moment. This six-month waiver was a pragmatic decision, which allowed EU businesses time to adjust to the new system and therefore reduced the risk of congestion at ports.

The second date, 31 December 2021, relates to the one-year extension to the UK’s recognition of the EU as equivalent for organics that we unilaterally provided. This was to ensure that organic products could continue to be imported into GB after 1 January this year without a trade deal in place. It has been included in this instrument and not in any previous instruments due to the sensitivities around the negotiations with the EU leading up to the end of the transition period.

The big “however” is that, of course, on 24 December we signed the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. We agreed mutual recognition for organics as an annexe in the “technical barriers to trade” section. This means that we can continue to trade organic food and feed with the EU as equivalent until 31 December 2023. Later this year we will bring in a new piece of legislation to update this recognition date. There was insufficient time to amend the instrument after the trade and co-operation agreement was signed.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised the UK organic certifiers group. We meet this group fortnightly and we previously discussed the instrument. It was very supportive of this legislative change. We regularly engage with key stakeholders because we want to make the organics legislation work for the UK organics sector.

The noble Baronesses raised the UK organics logo, with slightly different emphasis. Our consideration was that organic operators and consumers face a number of substantial changes, so we felt that it was not the right time to bring forward an early introduction of a new organic logo. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly asked about consultation, which feeds into this point. In my view and that of the Government, it would be a mistake to introduce a UK organic logo just like that. It needs to have full and proper consultation across a very wide range of interested parties. In an earlier debate, we mentioned 6,000 SMEs. We need to do this properly for it to stand the test of time, and obviously we need to work with the devolved Administrations in the widest sense. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, we are very proud of our organic food, so when we come forward with a UK organic logo we need to make sure we have worked on this basis.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about paperwork. My heart sinks on paperwork, of course. We are in very strong dialogue with all interested parties as we seek to ensure that the changing arrangements work successfully for businesses. This instrument will not lead to a significant impact on organic businesses as it merely updates existing rules on labelling to reference the UK rather than the EU. Labelling is a crucial part of the certification and gives consumers confidence. Again, we will work with businesses, because it is very important that that is practical.

In terms of the inspections, again, this does not introduce any new policy, but we have put in place, and are extending to the end of 2021, temporary easements to the process of verifying organic products to support the organic sector. This is pragmatic during this terrible pandemic.

On the importance of trade between the UK and EU, like in many parts of the economy, the UK and the EU share a close trading partnership and relationship in organic products. EU organic ingredients are incredibly important for GB organic producers, such as those making organic yoghurt, so this is a key interest. UK organic produce is also hugely important for EU organic producers, which is why we need to work closely on this.

In terms of work on the Agriculture Act 2020, which the Minister, Victoria Prentis, and I both raised, and which my noble friend Lady McIntosh and others have mentioned, this Act sets out how farmers and land managers will be paid for public goods through the environmental land management scheme. Organic farmers will be well placed to benefit from the new system and the provision of environmental benefits and services, such as biodiversity and habitats. The ELMS will have a strong connection with organic production and we will be engaged in tests and trials as we bring forward its full rollout in 2024.

We are working collaboratively with the devolved Administrations on this instrument. Indeed, they attend the United Kingdom Organic Certifiers Group where we work very closely. We are meeting fortnightly with the devolved Administrations to ensure that all issues and development in this sector are well understood.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised a point about agricultural land, extending organic farming and the EU’s own ambition. We believe that this is a new chapter for UK agriculture and the Agriculture Act 2020 provides a strong reason for that. We currently support organic production through the Countryside Stewardship scheme.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about Northern Ireland. Where organic products are from GB, or originate in the EU but have been cleared for use in GB, an EU certificate of inspection is required to move the products to Northern Ireland. However, we have introduced an easement so that some organic products, including those moving to Northern Ireland retailers and their trusted suppliers, will not require a certificate of inspection until 1 April 2021. We are working closely with all interested parties to make sure that Northern Ireland traffic is smooth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the impact on businesses. This instrument maintains existing regulatory standards, so there is no direct financial impact on businesses from these instruments. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised the issue of what happens after 31 December 2023. We remain committed to securing a more permanent arrangement in the interim and will start discussions with the EU in due course. This is obviously a matter that is in progress and I am well seized of the points made by the noble Baronesses.

Regarding enforcement across all parts of the UK, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, supervision in GB is performed by organic control bodies appointed by Defra acting as the GB competent authority. There are currently six control bodies operating in GB. They are approved to certify GB organic operators. It is the same in Northern Ireland, with Defra acting as the NI competent authority and appointing organic control bodies to operate in the territory. This includes two from the Republic of Ireland.

I will look at Hansard to see if there are any other points that I may not have covered sufficiently because of technical detail. In the meantime, I beg to move.

Motion agreed

Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.

This instrument has two main purposes. It makes technical amendments to the Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which I will refer to as the exit SI, to correct deficiencies that have arisen in light of the Northern Ireland protocol. It also applies the provisions of the retained EU law version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003 to Northern Ireland, subject to modifications. This will enable the marketing of UK fertilisers in Northern Ireland, which was the original intention of the exit SI before the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed. The exit SI made in 2019 amended the retained version of EU Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003, so it operates effectively in the UK now, after EU exit. It replaced the “EC fertiliser” label with a new “UK fertiliser” label, which will function in the same way.

The UK fertiliser regime would have operated across the whole of the United Kingdom from the end of the transition period. However, it was made in February 2019, before the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed. As a consequence of the protocol, the EU law version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003 and the EC fertiliser regime it provides for will continue to apply in Northern Ireland, and the UK fertiliser regime provided for in the retained EU law version of this regulation will not. I hope it will be helpful if I say that, to remedy this, this instrument applies the provisions of the retained EU law version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003 in GB to Northern Ireland, subject to modifications, in order to enable UK fertilisers to continue to be marketed in Northern Ireland.

By way of context, the regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of fertilisers is unusual, compared to other agricultural products, as fertilisers are partially harmonised at EU level. This means that member states can operate their own domestic regulatory regimes alongside the European regulation of the EC fertiliser regime provided for in the EU regulation. Accordingly, alongside the EC fertiliser regime, Great Britain and Northern Ireland have historically operated separate domestic regulatory regimes under the Fertilisers Regulations 1991 and the Fertilisers Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992, respectively. Manufacturers in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland are free to choose which framework they use to market their products, although they must comply with the requirements of that regime—for example, they would need to be established within the EU or Northern Ireland to sell EC fertilisers in Northern Ireland.

The key provision of this instrument is to ensure that the retained GB version of EU Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003, which allows products to be marketed as a UK fertiliser, applies in Northern Ireland, as was originally intended in the exit SI made in 2019. Because of the partial harmonisation of fertiliser legislation, making the UK fertiliser regime applicable in Northern Ireland does not affect the continued application of the EU version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003, which will continue to apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the protocol.

This statutory instrument is important, as a common route to market across the UK for fertilisers is required so that a manufacturer in Great Britain who trades only in the UK can market products across Great Britain and Northern Ireland and use one label to do this. If products labelled as UK fertiliser could no longer be marketed in Northern Ireland, there could be significant costs for businesses in an industry with low profit margins. There are particular concerns that, without this SI, the supply of certain products that are specifically regulated under this regime—for example, DMPSA, a nitrification inhibitor—would reduce, and this could impact on the sustainability of food production. Failure to provide for this may also result in a general reduction in the supply of fertiliser products to Northern Ireland from manufacturers who are established in Great Britain and who are no longer able to place EC fertilisers on the market. It is therefore necessary to ensure that UK fertilisers can be marketed in both Great Britain and in Northern Ireland.

In summary, the technical amendments this instrument makes relating to the Northern Ireland protocol are straightforward. Under the protocol, the EU law version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003 continues to apply in Northern Ireland following the end of the transition period. This instrument reflects its GB application by removing references to Northern Ireland that are no longer relevant from the retained EU law version, such as in the definitions of “appropriate authority” and “enforcement authority”. The remaining provisions in this instrument enable the marketing of UK fertilisers in Northern Ireland.

We worked with the devolved Administrations on this statutory instrument, and they have given their consent. This instrument is necessary because it makes technical amendments in light of the Northern Ireland protocol and will ensure that we can continue to operate a unified fertiliser regime across the UK. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for a compelling debate. I agree with the Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, that it is complicated and intricate.

Clearly, we are dealing with materials that we need to treat extremely cautiously, so I wanted to take the opportunity to address the safety of ammonium nitrate and its storage. Ammonium nitrate is classed by the Government as a controlled good, which means that there are extremely strict rules on its handling in GB. Its import and handling are covered by the Ammonium Nitrate Materials (High Nitrogen Content) Safety Regulations 2020.

The noble Lord also asked about fertiliser shipped from GB to Northern Ireland and labelling, if it were to end up in the Republic. We have updated the published guidance to reflect the changes and new actions needed to market fertilisers in GB, Northern Ireland and Europe from 1 January this year, and circulated the changes to industry before publication. The Agricultural Industries Confederation published guidance for its members based on our updated GOV.UK guidance. On this basis, there is clarity over labelling and where fertilising products can be sold.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Bakewell, raised environmental issues. Again, I should like to address a key point. In having fertilisers to enhance agricultural production, feed the nation and feed the world, we need to be extremely conscious of the environmental issues. Although it is essential to maintain and, wherever we can, increase yields for both food and non-food use, fertilisers can have a significant negative impact on air quality, water quality and emissions, as well as habitats and soils.

That is why the Government are very clear about the need to uphold high standards now that we have left. This will be reflected in any new regulatory regime for fertilisers introduced under the new powers included in the Agriculture Act 2020. The powers in the Act allow for the establishment of an assessment, monitoring and enforcement regime to ensure fertilisers’ compliance with composition, content and function requirements that will be set out in regulations, and for otherwise mitigating risks to human, animal or plant health or the environment presented by fertilisers. I absolutely recognise the dynamics of what we need to do and that, as has been said, the careful monitoring of fertilisers’ use is well known by those who will use them.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned cost. The whole purpose of the GB, Northern Ireland and UK fertiliser label was to minimise manufacturing costs. She mentioned, as I have, the Agricultural Industries Confederation. It is very much aware of and content with the provisions of the original exit SI that created the UK fertiliser label. As I said, the policy objective of this SI is to maintain that common route to market across the UK in the light of the Northern Ireland protocol.

I am also very conscious of what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said about the difficulties. That is why not just Defra but the Government as a collective are doing everything we can, case by case, in the Defra areas and beyond, to work with producers, hauliers and Governments to ensure that these issues are resolved company by company. I know, as will noble Lords, from the work we have done on many Northern Ireland regulations over time, of the very strong relationship that Defra has with DAERA. I register for all noble Lords, particularly those from Northern Ireland, that I am acutely aware of some of the difficulties. Yes, we want a smooth passage of trade, but we need to recognise —as we do—that there are requirements because of the protocol. We seek to ensure a pragmatic approach within the principles of the protocol so that businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom can thrive and consumers get the goods that they need and get them speedily.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, mentioned the importance of UK standards and asked about any differences with what may be EU standards. At the moment, the retained UK fertiliser regime will adopt the same standards as the EU. That is our position. The EU is implementing a new fertiliser products regulation to improve standards, and this new law will become fully operational in July 2022. As I mentioned, we have taken powers under the Agriculture Act to ensure that we, too, can modernise our domestic system and improve standards in fertiliser regulation.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned, there is a consultation on urea fertiliser that will close today. We launched a consultation on reducing ammonia emissions from the use of solid urea fertilisers because ammonia emissions are harmful to sensitive habitats as well as to human health, with 87% of ammonia emissions coming from farming. We need to address that, and the farming industry is very conscious of it. I do not have any further detail, I am afraid, because the consultation closed today.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised a point on labelling. This SI will implement a unifying label for the UK. Both Northern Ireland and GB can trade under EU regulation as long as they comply with those requirements.

On any new system of assessment under the regulations, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others, we have already started moving towards adopting conformity assessment for fertilisers, a risk-based system commonly used for manufactured products. This means that we can use appropriate testing standards depending on the risk posed to the consumer and the environment. It offers regulatory assurance for consumers that fertilisers deliver the nutrient efficiency claimed by manufacturers, but also allows us to set limits for contaminants, such as plastics, in organic products. This will ensure that products not currently regulated, such as soil improvers, will be safe for the consumer and the environment. It should stimulate both demand and development for less polluting types of fertilisers, such as biostimulants.

I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we will use every opportunity we can in a new Session of Parliament to get the Environment Bill before your Lordships as soon as possible. We will be working to reduce peat. I will take that away and work on all other points that were made. As I said, the role of DAERA is extremely important, and it will be for the Northern Ireland Administration to work on these matters, but we will co-operate on matters such as the reduction of use of urea.

I fear my Whip is sending me a message that means I may have gone beyond the time allocated, but noble Lords raised some very important points. I will write fully on some of the more detailed points but, in the meantime, I commend the regulations. They are important for the whole purpose of what we want to do within the United Kingdom and working with our Northern Ireland colleagues.

Motion agreed.

Heritage Organisations: Coal Supplies

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible]—of the heritage sector. The legislation, which will come into force from May 2021, will end the sale of bituminous coal to households in England and lead to significant health benefits. While we acknowledge the indirect impact that this may have on the supply of coal to businesses, it is vital that the Government and the sector continue to work together to transition to cleaner alternatives.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister appreciates the value of the heritage rail sector, but how does he envisage that heritage steam will continue to have access to high-quality bituminous coal if no UK-mined coal is available after next year? Transporting coal great distances from countries such as Russia or Australia adds to CO₂ emissions and is expensive. Would it not make more sense for the mining of modest amounts of steam coal to continue in areas such as the north-east and south Wales?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the legislation that Defra is bringing forward relates to households, and therefore we are working with the sector. It is important that we work with it not only through policy development but in looking at alternatives. Also, I understand that heritage rail has taken steps to improve efficiency and mitigate emissions. Therefore, as I said in my earlier reply, it is important that we work together on this, but this legislation relates to domestic consumption.

[Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as someone from whose land in Northumberland coal was being extracted until last year, including for heritage railways. The Minister will know that the Government refused permission for a further surface mine at Highthorn in Northumberland, disagreeing in the process with the county council, the planning inspector and the courts. I had no interest in that project, but I know some of the men who lost their jobs as a result. Given that this country has a continuing need for 5 million tonnes of coal a year, mostly for the cement and steel industries, as well as for the heritage rail industry, and that more of it now comes from Russia than any other country, with a far higher carbon footprint, why do the Government prefer to give jobs to people in western Siberia and take them away from people in Northumberland, and to increase emissions as a result while rewarding the persecutors of Alexei Navalny and Sergei Skripal?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that planning permission should not be granted for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable or, if it is not environmentally acceptable, provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts. Clearly we are moving into a situation where in this country we are reducing the use of coal for the very important reason of human health.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft. Craft industries have long prided themselves on their commitment to a green economy. However, coal is required for the firing of certain heritage bricks which have a unique quality. Does the Minister agree that such uses, including coal for steam, are the exceptions proving the rule for the future green economy, and are necessary if we are to preserve our industrial and architectural heritage?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, again, we are working across departments with the heritage sector, because we want to have a long-term future for it. However, we need to find alternative ways of securing the heritage sector while having a cleaner and greener economy and reducing emissions, which are making a significant impact on people’s health.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we have heard concerns about the importation of coal, and I understand that some heritage rail organisations are currently importing coal, including from Germany. Can the Minister clarify how much coal is currently imported for this purpose, whether the amount is expected to increase, and what the impact of new border controls will be now that we have left the European Union?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My understanding is that, of the 26,000 tonnes of coal used for heritage rail, 90% comes from four British open-cast mines, and therefore any requirements will be about negotiating a suitable ongoing domestic supply. As I said, we want to work with the heritage sector on these matters. My understanding is also that coal imports are overwhelmingly not from EU countries.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the Great Little Trains of Wales, Snowdonia, Talyllyn, Llangollen and others, are critical for the hospitality offer, yet heritage trains as a whole emit only just about half of the CO₂ that people use in their domestic barbeque charcoal briquettes. The challenge is to find a solution to this problem to keep the trains running. I note that in his responses so far the Minister has not yet offered what the potential solutions might be. So will he support research into this matter and, in particular, into whether the residue steam coal in our unsafe, above-ground coal tips can be manufactured into the lump coal needed to ensure that these trains and the jobs they support survive into the future?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have been very clear that we are working with the heritage sector. Indeed, the legislation that relates to domestic consumption is being phased in so that we can work not only with consumers but with the heritage sector. So I reject the tone of the noble Lord’s question, because this is an area we want to work on. I remind your Lordships that we are doing this because fine particulate matter is very damaging to people whose health is vulnerable. To work on a cleaner health agenda, we need to apply our minds to how we can find alternatives.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Has the Minister ever travelled behind a steam locomotive? Has he no sense of soul about Britain’s steam heritage? Is he not aware that steam locomotives are temperamental creatures that depend on a certain supply of bituminous coal to work effectively and efficiently? Is he, as a member of a Government who have frozen fuel duties for the past 11 years and done far more damage to the environment than any steam locomotive, really trying to tell us that 35,000 tonnes of coal will damage the environment to such an extent?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord heard my first reply. This legislation is about domestic consumption. In people’s houses the increase in fine particulate matter from domestic consumption has caused concern, and we will not meet our legal and binding obligations unless we attend to this. I should also say that two villages away from where I am sitting is the Mid-Suffolk Light Railway, affectionally known as the “Middy”. I am well aware of it, I have travelled on it and I enjoy it very much, but we need to work across the heritage sector, not only with the rail sector, because this is a very important health issue.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, while I have genuine sympathy with heritage railways and others, such as the owners of traction engines and the like, does my noble friend agree that this should certainly not be a reason for opening any new coal mines in this country while importing the type of coal required is still possible? As my noble friend said, it is worth reminding other noble Lords that this is being done for health reasons.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

I have said what the National Planning Policy Framework states, and I agree with my noble friend on why we need to do this and why we also need to work with the heritage sector.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

Does the Minister not realise that if you go to places such as the north of England on a weekend and see thousands of people stood around, waiting, you know that a steam locomotive is going to be travelling through and people are waiting to view it? Does the Minister agree that there is no finer sight in this country than such a vision? Will he guarantee that it will be there for my grandchildren?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, that is absolutely what we are working on with the heritage sector because we want a viable future for these great heritage assets of our country. However, I go back to the fact that this is legislation reducing and changing our requirements for domestic consumption. I fear that some noble Lords are misinterpreting that. We are working with the heritage sector because we want a long-term, viable future for it.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to those noble Lords I was unable to call. We now come to the third Oral Question.

Rural Landlords and Land Letting: Reform

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I start by declaring my farming interests as set out in the register. With agricultural tenancy matters being devolved, I speak from an English perspective. I express my gratitude, along with other noble Lords, to my noble friend Lady Rock for raising this matter for debate as we start the transition towards a new domestic agriculture policy—a transition that we believe will help our farmers to stay competitive and produce high-quality food, for which they are renowned, while protecting and enhancing the environment, on which a sustainable and productive future depends.

To put the importance of the debate in context, as has been said, a third of all farmland in England is tenanted, with 13% of farms wholly tenanted and 33% with a mixed tenure, both owning and renting land. This variety in land tenure and the ability to rent land flexibly is important, because it enables tenants and owners to expand, responding to market changes by renting out additional parcels of land. It also provides a route into farming for new entrants, bringing new skills and ideas into the sector.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood that I am fully seized of the points made about Newton Rigg. I am in dialogue with the Department for Education and I understand that feelings are running high in Cumbria.

The Government believe that a vibrant and flourishing tenant farming sector is vital. The legislative framework for agricultural tenancies must enable the development of successful farm businesses for tenants and an appropriate rental return for owners. This is how we will maintain confidence in the let sector and ensure ongoing opportunities for tenants and new entrants to land.

As many will recall, we discussed during the passage of the Agriculture Bill the importance of new entrants and the role that renting land through the county farm system has played in facilitating that. In the agricultural transition plan, the Government have set out plans for a new funding scheme to create lasting opportunities for new entrants to access land, infrastructure and support to establish successful and innovative businesses, working with county farm estates and other landowners. We have started work to develop this new entrants scheme through a co-design process, with the aim to provide further details by September and introduce the scheme in 2022.

My noble friend Lady Rock highlighted the role of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. Defra has regular meetings with TRIG to discuss tenancy policy and legislation. I express my personal thanks to all TRIG members for their work over many years in providing expert insights and advice, but it is the responsibility of government to decide policy.

I hope everyone would agree that developing consensus is the best way forward. A number of points have been made on this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Curry, raised partnership. No contractual arrangement flourishes if one or both parties are unhappy. That is why having the confidence to let more land is key to the route to getting more entrants into the let farming sector. If confidence is undermined, what is to prevent owners withdrawing let land and reducing the opportunities we all dearly want for existing and future tenants to come into the sector?

The tenancy reforms the Government delivered through the Agriculture Act 2020 had widespread support from TRIG and other respondents to our 2019 public consultation. These reforms have helped to modernise and update the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. They give tenants greater flexibility on when to apply for succession on retirement, modernise the suitability test for incoming tenants, and provide a balanced dispute process for tenants who would be unreasonably prevented from varying outdated, restrictive terms that might be a barrier to entering into future schemes.

The focus of these tenancy reforms is specifically on the older, 1986 legislation, not on the more modern farm business tenancies. This is because agreements under the 1986 Act were negotiated more than 30 to 40 years ago in a very different commercial and policy environment. My understanding is that, with 19,400 AHA holdings and 17,600 FBT holdings, we are seeing a reduction in AHA holdings and an increase in FBT holdings. Of course, we want modern commercial agreements, which the FBTs can provide, negotiated more recently with freedom of contract. They are reviewed more regularly, giving tenants the opportunity to renegotiate terms if that is deemed necessary. That is why the responses to our public consultation, in terms of reform of dispute provisions, for example, were very much concentrated on AHA holdings tenancies.

The Government are working with TRIG to develop the supporting regulations to implement the 1986 Act dispute reforms and to modernise the suitability test criteria for tenants who apply for succession. This will make sure that a fair dispute process is put in place that considers the interests of the tenant and the landlord and that incoming succession tenants show that they have the farming and business skills needed to build viable businesses in future. Following two recent constructive meetings with TRIG, we are making good progress with developing these regulations and, subject to parliamentary time, we intend to implement them later this year. When this focused work on the new tenancy regulations is completed, we will continue our engagement with TRIG to explore whether there is industry consensus on the need for further legislative reform and to consider whether non-legislative options might be effective.

I turn to taxation. One of the first things that I was told when I went on the Front Bench was, “Be very cautious if engaging in taxation matters and always say, ‘This is a matter for the Chancellor’”. I would say to noble Lords that, in my briefing for this debate, I was very pleased to be joined by, as well as my officials, Treasury officials. I will be passing back to the Treasury and assessing the points that have been made in this debate on taxation and I am grateful to all noble Lords for raising those matters. I recognise that the fiscal framework plays an essential role in owners’ decisions whether to let land and on the length of tenancy terms offered. However, I think that other factors are important, too, such as the size, quality and location of the land and personal motivations for owning it.

I am aware of the work that TRIG has done to investigate tax issues, suggesting that tax changes might help to incentivise the letting of agricultural land and encourage longer-term tenancies—for example, through limited income tax relief on farmland rents. The Government are committed to a fair and sustainable tax system and keep all taxes under review as a matter of course—that is the Treasury bit. The impact and potential unintended consequences of tax reform need careful analysis, as I hope everyone would agree.

For example, the proposal from the Tenant Farmers Association to limit the availability of agricultural property relief to owners who let land for 10 years or longer could result in owners instead using other ways—for instance, contract farming or taking the land back in hand—to retain the benefits of that relief. I am mindful of wanting to have the right climate for owners—I think particularly of smaller parcels of land. Unfortunately, there is a historical feeling that this is always about the big estates and small tenant farmers. I think that the opportunities for more land coming on to let will be from medium and smaller-size farmers who no longer want to farm and want to have someone, possibly a neighbour or a new entrant, coming into the industry. Relationships are again essential.

I understand the point made by many noble Lords about longer-term tenancies. It is recognised that they provide security for many tenants to invest and grow their businesses. It is also important to understand that shorter-term tenancies can sometimes be more suitable for businesses—I have heard that from certain quarters, including my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who is engaged in a number of these matters. Short-term lets may be more appropriate for some new entrants looking to rent land on a short-term basis to gain experience without committing to long-term potential risks. Short-term lets can also be more suitable for some seasonal horticultural businesses. The flexibility over the length of tenancy and maintaining owners’ confidence in the let sector can only encourage more agricultural land into the let sector. However, I understand the points that have been made about longer tenancies and their dynamic.

Turning to ELM, raised by many noble Lords—my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Redesdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, among others—what we are doing here is co-designing. It is essential that we work across the piece with tenant farmers and those working on common land. As part of our co-design process with industry, we are considering questions about the need for landlord consent to tenants entering schemes and the length of scheme agreements to ensure that our future schemes are broadly accessible, as well as providing the stability needed to support the delivery of public goods, such as environmental improvements. Indeed, one of the tests and trials includes six areas where landowners and tenants are working together. An example is an estate in County Durham and North Yorkshire covering an area of more than 7,000 acres. This is about a collaborative system of planning and delivering environmental management on land that encompasses a variety of farming systems and a tapestry of habitats. We want to ensure that the collaboration between tenants and owners can be supported and incentivised.

Many noble Lords asked about further legislation. I would not be straightforward with your Lordships if I did not say that the pressure on primary legislation at the moment across Whitehall is intense. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to make a promise to my noble friend Lady Rock on the timing of any further legislative proposals. We want to get through what we have said we will do with the Agriculture Act 2020 and see how that works. We want to work with TRIG and all interested parties to see how we can have a dynamic tenanted relationship and system. It would be wrong of me to say that I can promise primary legislation in the foreseeable future. I say that candidly because I simply do not have command of the legislative programme. We want to find ways to resolve the points that have been raised today so that there is a genuinely benign and dynamic relationship between owners and what I hope will be an increasing number of new entrants. That is why the work that we are doing with the county farms is so important.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of trees. Obviously, we want to ensure, whether on owned or tenanted land, that it is the person engaged in the outcome of this, whether the tenant or the landlord, and the person who will be undertaking the work who should have the reward. Where tenants are undertaking that, of course they should be rewarded.

I am starting to get messages of concern from our gallant Whip about the time that I am taking. I assure all noble Lords that these matters are current and live. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important matter, as reflected by the considerable number of your Lordships who have participated in the debate, and I will follow it up with a letter in the usual manner to cover some of these important points in further detail.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

As this debate has now concluded, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind Members to ensure that they have sanitised their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fishing Industry

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, would the Minister like to join me in condemning Jacob Rees-Mogg’s flippant comment about fish being happier in the UK at a time when the fishers’ jobs are once more on the line? Does he understand the sense of betrayal they feel now that the reality of the Government’s broken promises becomes apparent? As they say, they are furious that the Government have tried to present the agreement as a major success, when it is patently clear that it is not. To begin to make amends, would the Minister like to clarify how much compensation in total will be made available to them? When will the fishers currently tied up in port or delayed in getting their fish to market start to receive the compensation they deserve for this shambles?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Prime Minister announced that £23 million of funding is being made available to support the seafood sector. It will support those parts of the sector that have suffered genuine loss, through no fault of their own, as a result of disruption and delays of seafood exports to Europe. Details will follow shortly. I would say to the noble Baroness that I think there is an uplift in quota for UK fishers equivalent to 25% of the total value taken by EU vessels from UK waters over the five-and-a-half-year period, and 15% of that uplift is in the first year, so I do not identify with her view. What we want to do is work with all parties to ensure there is a smooth passage for this very important sector, and that is what we are doing, with very regular communication and meetings.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I note that the one area where Brexit could have been a real success, and important to one of our important industrial sectors, has been a complete failure in its negotiation. I have two very brief questions for the Minister. First, is it true that EU fleets will continue to have unfettered access to our EEZ to fish species for which there is no quota? Secondly, given the urgency and the crisis there is at the moment for the fishing industry and its exports, have the Government called a meeting of the specialised committee on fisheries with the EU? Has it already done that to resolve these issues urgently?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, on the specialised committee on fisheries, those matters are being worked through and there will be an update on that in due course. What I would I say to the noble Lord is that we have been working with industry and also, particularly, with Dutch, French and Irish officials to resolves issues with documentation, which is the key point. On the issue of the trade agreement, I disagree with him. With a 25% uplift in quota, what we want to do is to work with industry, and that is why we have said there is this £100 million fund programme to modernise fleets and the fish processing industry, precisely because we think there is a great future for UK fishing.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]]

It seemed very odd at the time, but maybe it is just as well that the Prime Minister chose to focus on fish not finance. The City survives, while the fishing industry is on its knees. I really would not advise the laid-back Mr Rees-Mogg to repeat his uncaring quips on the pierhead at Peterhead. In my day, the UK team in Brussels Fisheries Councils always included an expert Scottish Minister. The autumn negotiations might not have ended in such a disaster if that precedent had been followed. Why was it not followed?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, my experience, having been at Fisheries Councils where I have been with the Scottish Fishing Minister—and, indeed, the Welsh and Northern Irish—is the close collaboration that we have with all part of the United Kingdom as we, in this case, work towards a more successful future for fishing. All I can say is that my experience is precisely that: that there is a very close dialogue across the United Kingdom.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I ask my noble friend the Minister what urgent work the Government are undertaking to roll out a digital solution to this largely paper-caused crisis. We have the technology, and it is on public record that the EU is prepared to accept digital certification, not least for capture and other requirements. If it is good enough for other nations, what digital means currently available to us can we put in to unblock the border?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we will look at all ways to improve the passage of goods from this country to the EU and for a digital solution wherever possible. I understand that there will be requirements for paperwork, but this is a sensible way forward and I am grateful to my noble friend. We should be working on this area, as we all want an improved flow.

[Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, but his answers on this real crisis in the fishing industry at the moment are inadequate. When Michael Gove introduced the Government’s negotiating strategy for Brexit, in the House of Commons last spring, he said, with great enthusiasm, that Brexit would bring tens of thousands of new jobs in fishing to Britain. Does the Minister now regret that those promises were made?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I said that there would be a £100 million programme to modernise fleets and improve and increase the fish-processing industry. I also said that the agreement involved the equivalent of 25% of the total value taken by EU vessels from UK waters going to UK fishers. This is a feature of the first section, of five and a half years, of our new relationship as a sovereign state. I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that my answers are not adequate, but the investment we intend to undertake is because we think there is a very strong future for British fishing.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

Will my noble friend join me in regretting that fish are going to rot, having made their way to a French port? Will he join me in pressing for training, so that the computer problems experienced on both sides of the channel can be resolved as soon as possible? Does he agree with me that, once again, inshore fishermen are the poor relations? They do not have exclusive access up to 12 nautical miles, as they were promised; nor have they been given an additional quota, which we did not need to leave the European Union for them to receive.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My noble friend is right that we should bear down on any waste, particularly on this issue. That is why, at official and ministerial level, there have been meetings with the Dutch, Irish and French to ensure that there is flow of food from this important sector, as well as a recognition that we need to ensure that companies know what documentation is required. On the issue of six to 12 nautical miles, access by EU vessels to the UK is limited to a number of ICES areas—the southern North Sea, the channel and the Bristol Channel. We want a vibrant future for all parts, but we understand that the inshore sector is important and will work with it on this.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]]

My Lords, we were promised that Brexit would free the UK from EU red tape. Having seen the troubles of our fishing industry, the New York Times describes that promise as “a macabre joke.” The chief executive of the Scottish Seafood Association describes the situation now as “red tape gone crazy.” The Minister acknowledges that there will be continuing requirements for paperwork, so could he tell the House how he equates the former promises with the current reality?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

As I have already said, there is obviously work to be done on this side of the channel and with our neighbours to improve some early problems, which we need to resolve. Officials are working with individual companies to ensure that the situation improves rapidly, and I have already said that there will be a compensation package. Pulse trawling, for instance, is no longer permitted in the UK EEZ from 31 December. As a sovereign country, we will be able to resolve issues such as these now that we are able to make our own decisions about sustainable fishing in our waters.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

My Lords, I am afraid that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.

Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak to both instruments, given that both deliver legislation addressing requirements for the movements of UK sanitary and phytosanitary goods.

The first instrument completes the suite of EU exit amendments set out in the Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were debated on 2 December and came into force on 31 December. As with the earlier official controls instrument, this further instrument amends EU retained regulations governing official controls on imports to Great Britain of animals, animal products, plants and plant products, including food and other imports relevant to the agri-food chain.

The EU regulatory structure being retained and made operable by these amendments is complex and extensive. Due to the intricacy of the amendments required and a requirement set by the European Commission—that we should make and publish the first official controls instrument before mid-December, as a condition of it considering listing the United Kingdom as a third country for export to the EU—we took the decision to divide the necessary legislation into two instruments.

The earlier official controls instrument focused on operability amendments to the main body of EU official controls regulations. The instrument before your Lordships today makes similar operability amendments to more than 30 separate tertiary regulations, covering procedural aspects of the official controls regime. For example, Part 3 of the instrument amends the EU tertiary regulation governing the information management system for official controls, known as IMSOC. This amendment removes references to complying with EU-wide standards, which are mandated to enable member states to integrate their IT systems across the EU as a whole. The amendments do not change the policy requirement for the UK to maintain computerised information management systems to the standard necessary to deliver official controls information and processes.

This legislation ensures that we can continue to deliver robust, effective controls and checks on all food, animal and plant imports. As previously announced, we have now started to phase in border controls on imports from the European Economic Area. Our purpose is to ensure that, without compromising our biosecurity, we maintain the flow of import activity at the border and give business and industry longer to prepare for the full controls regime. Phasing is a temporary, pragmatic step to support international trade and mitigate border disruption, made necessary by the unprecedented impact of Covid-19.

From April, pre-notification and health documentation will be introduced for imports of EU products of animal origin and for all regulated plants and plant products. From July 2021, we will have controls in place for all imports of European Union SPS goods.

I turn to the second instrument, the Plant Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Delivering unfettered market access for Northern Irish businesses moving goods into Great Britain is one of the key commitments in the Northern Ireland protocol and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. The measures in this instrument reflect those commitments. They specify the mechanism to allow regulated plants and plant materials to move from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. This instrument does not introduce any policy changes.

The purpose of this instrument is to protect biosecurity and to support trade by ensuring that effective phytosanitary controls continue to operate between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and within Great Britain, in relation to Northern Ireland qualifying goods. The instrument makes amendments to retained EU law to allow movements of qualifying goods into Great Britain under an EU plant passport. This means that for Northern Irish businesses trading with Great Britain nothing will change compared with the situation before 1 January.

Once in Great Britain, an EU plant passport can continue to accompany the qualifying goods, but an authorised operator will also have the option, as for other regulated plants being moved in Great Britain, to replace the plant passport with a UK plant passport where appropriate. An EU plant passport on qualifying goods may be replaced by an authorised operator if they choose to replace the plant passport for business reasons—for example, to include their own business details—or split a consignment where each trade unit, be it a pot, box, trolley or similar, is not already covered by an individual plant passport. In these circumstances, the provisions allow GB operators to replace the original EU plant passport with a UK plant passport if the characteristics of the qualifying goods have not changed, but they also ensure that the traceability requirements in relation to the goods are maintained. Provision is also made for the goods to be assessed against GB plant health standards where these are different from those of the EU, and for the authorised operator to have the option to issue a UK plant passport where the goods are assessed as meeting GB plant health requirements.

Under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland will maintain alignment with the EU plant health regime rather than that of Great Britain. This instrument makes amendments to allow identification of qualifying goods on the GB market to ensure traceability in the event of any biosecurity issues arising which need to be addressed.

The format of UK plant passports is amended to include a country code of GB(NI) for all qualifying goods where replacement UK plant passports are issued once within GB. This will allow the goods concerned to continue to be identified as qualifying goods and will facilitate effective enforcement.

Devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales have formally consented to both instruments and the Northern Ireland devolved Administration have also consented to the plant health instrument.

The basis of these instruments—and my concern—is to protect biosecurity, which is of supreme importance to the Government and to all, as well as to deliver on our commitment to provide unfettered market access for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords. Inevitably, with the time factor, there is much that I would like to say. I am going to send a substantial letter, and I will include the Government’s response to the points made by Friends of the Earth, because then one can see some of that in context. But I will run through some of the points made by noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked about reference laboratories. Defra’s global animal health team has worked closely with the UK CVO, the devolved Administrations, the Pirbright Institute, Cefas, the APHA and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute—AFBI—in Northern Ireland to ensure that the UK’s animal health national reference laboratories are prepared for withdrawal from the EURL. The noble Lord also asked about vet training. Defra is working with port health authorities, the APHA and the Food Standards Agency to ensure that recruitment and training of the additional staff required is completed for each stage of the new import regime.

My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about communications on the work of the plant health risk group. This group publishes all pest risk assessments on the UK Plant Health Information Portal. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about, on plants, the definition of “acceptable level”, and I should say, because these are matters of great importance, that the UK intends to ensure that its SPS regime remains appropriate to address the risk it faces. Defra has a dedicated team of specialists, plant health risk analysts and managers working with the devolved Administrations.

I should also say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the UK plant health risk group identifies, assesses and manages plant health threats. As part of the process of withdrawing from the EU, we have bolstered this group. The plant health risk group includes key experts from Defra and the devolved Administrations, and its outputs are published for scrutiny and comment and to help information making. I shall take back some of the points that have been made about how best to communicate that.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—affirmative and negative—and we now and again have discussions about this in the House and with legislation. We believe that many of these issues are technical and many of the needs we have to face are where speed is of the essence, but that is why we said to Friends of the Earth, and I will say now, that we thought it was appropriate to have that measure. But I will send all the details of Friends of the Earth’s comments to noble Lords.

I should also say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that, on the issue of the Northern Ireland back door, everything from the rest of the world coming through either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland must complete border checks in the first place they enter—either the EU or Northern Ireland. We therefore believe that there is no increased risk compared with the position before the end of the transition period.

On diseases, whether they are in Ireland or here—or, indeed, in separate parts of Great Britain, where we have pests and diseases—we have our own systems, which ensure that we bear down so that we do not allow the spread of pests and diseases. I place great importance on that.

Another point was made about communications. Again, there were issues here. I understand why, in a period of change, it is essential for all businesses that communication is speedy and any necessary updates are made speedily. We have maintained regular engagement with industry on post-transition planning, both with individual operators and through key stakeholder groups. We have undertaken a series of feasibility sessions with more than 300 participants, and equivalent export sessions. Communications, especially regarding Northern Ireland-GB trade, have been shared with the Plant Health Advisory Forum as well as with key stakeholders such as the Horticultural Trades Association, the National Farmers’ Union and the Fresh Produce Consortium.

That work must continue. I am absolutely aware that there will be issues that continue and need to be resolved for people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that we need to resolve these matters pragmatically and quickly. Speed is of the essence at both ministerial and official level. I know from talking to the Secretary of State and the farming and fisheries Minister only yesterday that all these matters are being addressed daily. Whether it is discussions with the French, the Dutch or the Irish—as noble Lords may have heard about during the exchange on fish—we need dialogue to raise all these points.

On antibiotics, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. Resistance to antibiotics is of huge imperative for human and animal health, which is why I am proud that we have seen in this country significant reductions in the use of antibiotics in the animal world. That particularly goes for farmed animals; we must continue that through improved husbandry, vaccines and research. On that point— I picked this up only in the paper, so I caveat it—I noticed that, only today, the University of Oxford has made a significant investment in antibiotics. This is where that science hub, of which we should be proud and where we need to invest, will be an important part of our global approach.

I understand what my noble friend Lady Fookes said about the technicalities of changes to passports. I will write to her so that, in some detail, my noble friend and I can work together on why these changes are happening and why we need, again, to work pragmatically on these matters.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell: yes, by definition, these regulations apply to both food for humans and feed for animals. Again, that is really important. There is specific reference to animal feed in these regulations.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the infrastructure of border control posts, that as of 13 January, Defra has approved expressions of interest for 29 new capacity BCP applications from providers in England and Wales. These have been passed to APHA to progress. We are currently aware of expressions of interest from 14 Scottish BCPs.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned recruitment, which is also very important. We are working with port health authorities, the APHA and the Food Standards Agency to ensure that the recruitment and training of the additional staff required is completed for each stage of the new import regime.

On computers, I should tell my noble friend Lady McIntosh that I am not very good with IT. As a general rule, we never use traces for parts. We will therefore continue to use the existing national IT systems of eDomero and PEACH. Indeed, new systems—IPAFFS and ECHO—will replace eDomero later in the year. Again, I agree that it will be imperative that the changes we bring forward are communicated early and that businesses are comfortable with them because—again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, here—we want to minimise burdens in the changes that will take place.

There were expressions of concern about Northern Ireland. I agree that we always want to take any concerns about that part of the United Kingdom very seriously. My understanding as of today is that the flow of goods between GB and Northern Ireland has been smooth—and remains so—and supermarkets are reporting healthy supplies into their Northern Ireland stores. Supermarkets and other authorised traders are exempt from certification requirements for three months. The Movement Assistance Scheme provides detailed online guidance for traders, a helpline for practical advice and reimbursements to cover the costs of certification. We will work with businesses because they need to be aware and need to do a lot themselves, and we want to be a helping hand rather than a heavy hand in all these matters.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made points about communication and the timescale of performance. I will send a note about all that because those things are very important.

On the derogation of neonicotinoids, it was an emerging authorisation with very considerable requirements for not using other crops thereafter, so it was a very distinct emergency derogation.

I much regret that my time is up, unfortunately, when there is so much more to say. I will therefore write fully to noble Lords.

Motion agreed.