Good morning everybody and welcome to this meeting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Our evidence session this morning relates to our inquiry into animal and plant health. We are delighted to be joined by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary; Sue, you are very welcome. Just for the benefit of those who are following our proceedings and for our own official record, can I please invite you and your colleagues to introduce yourselves to the Committee?

I am the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for biosecurity and borders in DEFRA.

I am the UK Chief Plant Health Officer.

I am the UK Chief Veterinary Officer.

I am the Director of the Northern Ireland, Biosecurity and Trade Programme in DEFRA.

You are all very welcome, and welcome back to the Committee, Sue and Christine. Before we start, I have to say we had really wanted to have the Paymaster General with us today.

Yes, I am aware of that.

We will be speaking later about the negotiations surrounding the SPS agreement and the reset from May this year. Obviously DEFRA will be the Department that will be charged—possibly even without a transition period—with implementing any SPS agreement that we are able to negotiate. It is going to be massively important for the food industry in this country. We are disappointed that the Paymaster General took eight weeks and four reminders to then refuse our invitation. We realise that is not your responsibility and we understand that you have been given some briefing. We will test that later in the evidence session and pursue this with Cabinet Office. I do not know if you have anything you want to say at this stage, Sue.

Yes. I understand that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has offered to have a meeting with yourselves; I would suggest that you explore those areas with him at that time. I do not have a detailed Cabinet Office briefing. I can clearly look at questions that are DEFRA-related to the SPS agreement. As we are in such early stages of the negotiations, there is actually very little I can say at this stage, but I am happy to consider questions that relate to DEFRA. When it comes to the Cabinet Office, I would suggest that you pick it up with the Minister because I would not want to inadvertently provide information or facts that were not absolutely accurate because it is not my Department.

We understand that and appreciate your position. It is an unfortunate situation for you to have been put in this position by another Government Department, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State was at pains to tell us all that you are one Government. We shall see how we get on and pursue this with Cabinet Office. Let me say on the record, for the avoidance of doubt, that we will not take a private briefing for me alone; this is an ongoing inquiry by the Committee. For me to be given evidence that is not available to other members of the Committee is not how we run this Committee. That is a matter that we will pursue with Cabinet Office. While we appreciate the offer of engagement, it has to be engagement that demonstrates the proper respect for the role that Parliament should be given in scrutinising this negotiation. That having been said and dealt with, I hear you have been travelling to Dover.

Yes, I have. I thought you were talking about yesterday. I did a visit and ended up going on five different trains yesterday, but that is another story

What did you find in Dover? What did you think of it?

I was so pleased finally to be able to get to Dover; as you are aware, I have been wanting to go down and do a visit for a while. It was incredibly interesting and the people who work there are really dedicated in the work that they are doing. Wes saw a van of illegal meat being stopped and unloaded, which was quite an eye-opener; it does not look like meat. It is quite extraordinary.

I understand from the Dover Port Health Authority that the amount of meat seized up to this morning is in excess of 338 tonnes.

Again, obviously this was something that we were discussing with the team down in Dover. I visited the Dover Port Health Authority and went to see APHA, which works with animal smuggling, so I looked at the issues around food and animals to understand both aspects of the work. The thing that struck me most about Dover was the poor facilities where they have to do the checks and the sharing arrangements with Border Force, which means that Dover PHA has very little space to work in and it is not ideal at all, so that concerned me. Of course the issue we have is that the area where all the checks are done is owned by the port, not DEFRA. We have no jurisdiction over that and cannot improve the facilities just because we want to. So having been to visit the port and seen the problems around the facilities and the space that they have to use—actually even the restroom spaces—because they have to share them with Border Force, I have asked my officials to get in touch with the Port of Dover. We need to start talking to it about how these facilities need to be made fit for purpose. A couple of weeks ago I went to Belfast to look at the new facilities over there and they are in stark contrast with what we have done in conjunction with DEFRA and what is in existence at Dover with the port being in charge. I am very keen to pick that up and see what we can do to make improvements.

Would you hazard to put a timeline on that?

I cannot put a timeline on that. We need to start having a conversation with the port and then we can start looking at timelines.

You will know that we have done the two reports. We have had Government responses to both and will look at that in a minute or two. First, looking at the legal route for import—IPAFFS—we now have African swine fever virus reported in Spain, so have closed the borders to pork imports from there. How soon after you were notified of the ASF cases in Spain were you able to update the import bans and put them in place?

We were aware that there were concerns raised by the Committee and IPAFFS over the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Germany, so we immediately initiated the steps to update the IPAFFS system. That was put into effect the following day and there were no capacity issues at the border control posts. On the same day, we also updated our approved country listings so that imports of pigs and wild boar from the regions of Spain restricted by the outbreak were no longer approved. We have kept in regular contact with all the stakeholders involved in that.

It sounds like you have learned some lessons that needed to be learned from the experience following the foot and mouth outbreak in Germany.

Absolutely.

Are you expecting to make any other changes as a consequence of this? Have you pressure tested the system a second time?

We have been pressure testing the system very recently and will be discussing the things that we can do to further improve. Biosecurity is incredibly important. There are going to be a lot of changes coming up with the SPS agreement. I take my role very seriously, and as far as I am concerned, I want to be looking at how we can improve biosecurity all the time. As we make changes, we must not inadvertently open up loopholes or cause other problems.

You have products held at the border control posts.

We have some held at the border control posts. I am trying to remember how many. Was it 30-odd? Can you remember, Christine?

Yes, they have now all been released. Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, we automatically recognise regionalisation for African swine fever virus with the EU once we have its legal regionalisation in place. The products were detained immediately; we have that regionalisation in place with the legal instrument. We have checked through them all and they are all now released.

Did that work?

Yes.

Did you have sufficient storage capacity?

Yes.

The authorities in Spain believe that the outbreak may have started through wild boar eating contaminated meat such as discarded sandwiches. You will have seen the coverage that accrued from us identifying as being only a discarded ham sandwich away from disaster. It seems that they are in this situation having seen the disease jump from Italy to Spain. Christine, do you have something to say on this?

There was actually an update from Spain over the weekend on this. It has genotyped the virus it found and it is not closely related to the African swine fever virus that is spreading slowly across the EU; it is actually genetically linked to the 2007 Georgia strain—as it is known—which is predominantly now kept in laboratories.

Georgia strain?

Yes, the country Georgia because that is where it first appeared, in the east of Europe, and that is where all the European spread has really come from. It is most closely genetically related to that. The conclusion from that would be either it has come from a laboratory as a deliberate move—there is a laboratory in Spain close to that area but other laboratories are available—or it has been spreading slowly somewhere else beyond Europe that we are not aware of.

How likely is it that it would spread in that way without being noticed?

In most developed countries where they have surveillance systems, that is unlikely because—like Spain—they would pick up dead wild boar. There are countries that have less developed systems for various reasons.

In relation to the provision that we have in place to prevent the import of products of animal origin and for personal use, we were interested to note that your quarterly attitude tracker found that 90% of people coming back from Europe knew about the ban on personal import of meat and dairy. Robert Mugabe himself would be proud of 90%. What questions do you ask to get 90% awareness?

Before I come to that, it is important to say that in order to get awareness, we worked incredibly hard with industry and Border Force in order to get people to be aware; it does not just happen by magic. I held meetings with anybody involved with people coming into this country: people from ports, airports, cruise liners, Eurostar—you name it—and we urged them to do everything they could to make people aware of the bans. That has included sending out information with tickets, emailing people and making announcements. So there has been a lot of work done by the industry that has been really helpful. We have also been encouraging Border Force to put up posters and information and share information. Regarding the actual questionnaire, I was not involved in designing that. I do not know if anyone has seen the questionnaire. We will have to send you a copy of it.

It might be one that you can get back to us on. When we looked at this, we started it really as one inquiry. When it came to writing our report, it was obvious there were in fact two distinct streams of work here and that illegal meat imports was a stream that stood on its own. Part of your response to that says that you cannot really deal with the illegal meat imports until you have the completion of the SPS agreement. Talk us through your thinking on that because you are talking about different subjects here.

In what way?

The SPS agreement will regulate the legal commercial import of foodstuffs. The illegal meat imports are a completely different situation altogether. What difference will it make to somebody importing illegal meat that we have to fill out this form, that form or another to do it legally?

I would say first getting a closer working relationship should help in the amount of illegal meat actually making it to our borders in the first place.

Will it?

It should, because a lot of this should not be getting to us in the first place; it should be stopped.

We had illegal meat imports when we were a full member state of the European Union. In fact, we believe that that was what led to the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. Why do you think that this closer relationship will stop people from importing meat illegally?

Mainly because it helps us to share information. It helps with data sharing and gives us access to further EU information. If we are going to be opening borders more for trade, the EU will also want to be very secure that our borders are secure. It gives us a much greater opportunity to work more proactively and constructively with it to actually try to stop this more at source, which is what we want to do. We know a lot of it comes in from Eastern Europe. It gives us that kind of opportunity. That is one aspect of it.

I am sorry but I do not understand what difference it is going to make to somebody who butchers a pig and sticks it in a suitcase to know that if they were doing it legally they would be filling in different forms.

You are talking about someone just bringing in a very small amount; I was referring more to the bigger vans.

Are you telling me that the sort of trade that you saw when you were in Dover will diminish as a consequence of SPS?

It has the opportunity to. Something that I learned from Dover was that it often sees the same vans with the same number plates coming over again and again. So if you are able to share that information, it gives you more opportunity to work with the EU to stop it at the source.

As part of the system, the member state will be able to take clear legal action against the people who are doing that trade where that product originates from.

That would be a minor disincentive, but is it honestly going to make that much difference?

Hopefully.

What data do you have on the demand side?

As I said, something that was said to me when we were in Dover was that it keeps seeing the same vans coming over and over. So you have an illegal trade that is running there that—at the moment—nothing seems to be happening in Europe to stop. What we would hope for is that once we have an agreement with Europe and access to its databases and vice versa, we can work more closely with it to stop this at source. Surely it is better to do everything we can to stop the illegal traffic at source before it reaches our borders.

Absolutely, and with some urgency is the point that the Committee should probably have made.

We are already starting to do that.

This is not just me being difficult. The National Pig Association chief executive said the Government are burying their head in the sand and kicking the problem down the road.

I would not agree with that. What people have to realise is that when we finalise the SPS agreement with Europe, the systems that we currently use will change. They changed when we left Europe and will change when we realign. There is only so much we are able to say at the moment but that does not mean that we are going to reduce our biosecurity at the border.

Do we have any assessment of what the likely reduction will be as a consequence of the SPS agreement?

Unfortunately, because it is such an early stage and we have not even finalised the scope, I am just not able to give that sort of information.

Just on that point, one of the biggest issues is that these illegal meat imports are largely coming from countries where ASF may be rampant and they are unable to export, which obviously encourages that illegal exportation. But when it gets to this country and is seized at, say, Dover, they just take it, dispose of it and send them on their way; there is no proper investigation or criminal charges brought. There ought to be a more co-ordinated operation to try to work out where this stuff is going, who is organising it and so on. Could you at least today pledge to work with other agencies to ensure we actually get to the bottom of who is doing it?

I absolutely acknowledge that. Something that we have done that I have asked to be set up again is the cross-ministerial working group on borders—made up of DEFRA, Home Office, Department for Transport, Cabinet Office and HMT—in order to start to co-ordinate a response to do exactly what you are talking about. At the moment, what concerns me is Border Force is here, DEFRA is there and Department for Transport is over there. There is no co-ordination in our response and if we are going to truly tackle this, then that has to be the case. We were looking to do this pre-reshuffle. We had one meeting, then the reshuffle happened, and I have asked for that to be set up again. I understand that that will be happening fairly soon.

Just going back a step towards the education piece around bringing meat and dairy products into this country. This Committee went to Brussels for meetings there on the Eurostar, and on the way back you can freely buy a ham sandwich in the Eurostar terminal, hop on the train and come back, and there is no signage or announcements. My own personal experience over the summer when flying on a well-known low-cost airline carrier was that there was no announcement made. Yet ironically, on the way back from Beirut on Middle East Airlines, there was an announcement telling me I could not bring meat into the country. I suspect Lebanon is not top of our risk list for illegal pork imports. Can I urge you to please keep pushing that? It is patchy at best.

I am continuing to work with stakeholders on this. I am slightly obsessive whenever I go anywhere; I am actually checking to see if signs are up.

If you leave this until the implementation of the SPS, then at best you are looking at another 18 months.

What I could suggest to the Committee—the first time I did this was following the foot and mouth outbreak—is that I could reconvene the roundtable with stakeholders following the ASF outbreak and again urge them to redouble their efforts.

Mark, do you have something to add from the Northern Ireland perspective?

Obviously we are talking about the SPS agreement but the other thing we are doing is looking at further funding for Dover to tackle this at the port. The early conversation is there. Obviously we cannot commit to actual amounts at this stage but that is a conversation we are having very regularly with Dover.

When I was at Dover, we discussed the fact that it would like the ability to be able to seize imports itself, not just bring in Border Force. That would take legislation. I am very happy to look at the possibility of legislation in this area but, as I am sure all members of the Committee know, legislation takes time. I also discussed with Dover what would make the biggest difference that we could do without legislation and the answer was for manifests to be shared. That is something I am going to be exploring with the different companies involved.

We actually have a shopping list from Dover Port Health Authority, including stock powers and the rest of it. We will perhaps pick that up in correspondence with you as well.

Just quickly on the intelligence point, when we went to Dover we were told that it was already getting intelligence about which vans were coming in and were given numbers and so on. What would change with the SPS? How much more intelligence would there be? We could not see huge amounts of evidence of that to be honest. It told us that there were so many when they came in and the Dover Port Health Authority was only there two mornings a week so just did not have the capacity to stop the vans even if it knew of them.

I am aware of that. The point I was trying to make is that it is to stop it getting to Dover in the first place, to actually get it stopped earlier and tackled much more at source. Some countries I saw were Moldova, Ukraine and Romania; these are countries from which the vans should be stopped in Europe before they get to Dover. Again, it is working to stop that before it gets to us. It strikes me that there is an awful lot more that we could do on this working with Europe.

I just want to really stress about the notification on when people are travelling. I ran my own little poll and it certainly was not 90% of constituents who knew what this rule was. Previously you have said you are relying on the goodwill of the travel agents and companies to essentially work with you on this. But given that we are not seeing it publicly, there are no announcements on the planes and signs are being hidden away, if there are any; is that not a reflection on the relationship with the Government at this point, that they are not really putting this into place?

I would say that some actually advertise it very well and perhaps others less well. I have travelled to a few places where it has been extremely clear and others where it has not been so clear. Again, what we need to do is encourage the whole of industry to follow really good practice.

Just to say though a lot of people are coming through because Christmas is coming up.

That is why we have actually upped our communications with industry: to encourage it to do more because of Christmas.

I represent Suffolk Coastal. We have the Port of Felixstowe, which is not Ro/Ro but we have a history of intercepting illegal meat smuggling from containers on lorries. How does the discussion that we have had apply to non-Ro/Ro vans? Because in the Port of Felixstowe’s case, we are not talking about vans; we are talking about lorries that are being intercepted.

A certain number of lorries are intercepted; again, I saw that at Dover. Again, sharing manifests helps with who to stop; that would make a big difference. A problem is the sheer volume of lorries and vans coming in, so it is about how we can most effectively use the resources we have to make sure we are stopping the people who are most likely to be trying to break the law. That is something we absolutely need to work more on, which again is why I want to get this shared ministerial group back up and running; so that we can share best practice with Border Force as well. Again, having the manifests so you actually know what is coming across and where the lorries are coming from means that you can be nimbler about who you stop and why you are stopping them. We need to learn as we go forward.

We are going to move on to questions around the science-based biosecurity checks. Sarah, you lead our questioning here.

What we need to do is make sure that we maintain our biosecurity protections through the agreement. It is worth noting that the EU and the UK both have similarly high standards so we are working to a common standard here. The agreement allows for the UK to take the same actions to protect our biosecurity as EU member states can and to access the EU databases and other systems so we can continue to do this and do it better. The SPS agreement means that we will be able to work jointly with the EU to manage threats to biosecurity but also to public health, which is helped by the UK's access to the EU agencies, systems and databases. As we have talked about movement, it helps with transparency of movement and what is being moved, and it strengthens that information sharing. That is the really important thing to get across. It should actually enable us to strengthen that biosecurity in the long term.

I would hope that we work on relevant science at the moment. The actual controls that are done are very scientific and so are the Europeans, so I do not see there being an issue with using up-to-date scientific evidence. A problem we have at the moment is we do not have that shared information. We do not necessarily have the up-to-date science that the EU is working with, so it is important that we are able to work together and have that transparency and access to databases and scientific information going forward.

I could not agree more.

Would that be a priority in negotiations?

Obviously we do not know what it is going to look like; we are still negotiating at the moment. Nicola would like to come in on plants because we have talked a lot about meat, but actually biosecurity for plants is just as important.

We are coming to that.

I just wanted to give you an example of how the common understanding and targeted actions could work in practice if that is helpful. It means that where there is a risk basis around a certain pest or a certain commodity, that is based on science and evidence. For example, Xylella fastidiosa—a bacterial pest that is in Europe—is one of our biggest threats. We have invested many millions in research and preparedness around this pest. As part of the negotiations, we would be seeking to make sure that we have sufficient controls and an evidence-based approach around any imports. There is a protected zone system in Europe: so where there is a pest that is present there, we can provide evidence that we do not have that pest and therefore claim a protected zone. That means that any imported plants that are hosts will have additional requirements and provisions made so that we can manage that. We will be part of decision making, and again, the science and evidence from the UK will be really important to present that to the EU to make sure it is doing everything it can to manage the threats.

Our whole basis of plant biosecurity is based on the UK Plant Health Risk Register, which is a publicly available register of all threats. There are 1,400 on there. We look at each one in turn through the UK Plant Health Risk Group and prioritise for action. For example, Xylella fastidiosa is one of the high risks as well as a pest called Emerald Ash Borer. Again, building that evidence base, we use that for the basis of our current regulatory system and my expectation is that that becomes part of our negotiation on the SPS agreement. We expect that there will no longer be phytosanitary certificates exchanged between GB and Europe but we will retain the passport system. There is an EU plant passport system and we have a UK plant passport system, which gives us full traceability. We can have additional provisions that require things like testing or things coming from a pest-free area and that is declared. That will allow us to still have that very strong plant biosecurity.

It is partly what the Minister was talking about: the systems in Europe, its databases and intelligence sharing, can help stop things arriving in the first place through rigorous controls. Of course we will still have inland surveillance. The Animal and Plant Health Agency has plant health and seed inspectors who carry out not only checks around borders but nursery and in-season inspections. Again, the passport system means we have full traceability so we can follow up, visit a nursery or a premises, do some checks and tests, check what the traceability is, and if there are any problems we can still take action.

Yes, we are already dealing with several current incidents, such as Ips typographus, the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle, and oak processionary moths. We usually have several incidents in various stages so are very experienced at dealing with them.

The EU has its own regime in relation to Xylella and we introduced national measures in 2021. It is one of our most important threats that we want to keep out so as part of the negotiation we will be seeking to look at what additional controls and measures we can have as part of that. That is very much part of our thinking and the negotiation.

When you speak about having an expectation that maintaining the strengths of the current system would be a priority for the negotiation, is that an expectation that is shared by Cabinet Office?

We discuss very closely with Cabinet Office what our key concerns are and the areas that we want them to focus on. Cabinet Office is extremely aware of our concerns in this area and we have asked to discuss it.

Is that a yes?

It is a yes as much as I can say a yes.

If only we could have somebody here to give a better answer.

I am sure if Cabinet Office were here, it would say that yes, it was very aware of DEFRA’s priority concerns and areas that we wanted to be able to have flexibility to work on going forward.

Moving on, we are going to look at some border controls and infrastructure.

There have been a lot of policy changes and changes at the border in recent years, four in the last six years, and the Port Health Authorities have been struggling with the clarity of those changes and the time to prepare for them. We are obviously all looking forward to a new border system when the SPS comes in. How significant do you foresee that will be and when will that happen? Are you thinking there will be a transition period?

Regarding the SPS agreement, obviously again I cannot give any details about what changes might be made while we are still so early in the negotiations. We are aware that there are some areas where a transition period would be helpful and we will certainly be discussing that going forward. We are also very aware that businesses have had a number of challenges—really since Brexit—in the amount of hoops they have had to jump through, the number of changes to how they operate at borders, the different things that they have to produce and paperwork they have to do, and the impacts, both resources and otherwise, that there have been on business. Something we have already started discussing is how to work with business and how to give business and ports sufficient notice. What I do not want is for things to move forward in a muddle as has happened in the past where there has not been clear information; it has been contradictory and not helped businesses or the ports. I am very keen to work with my team to ensure that does not happen going forward and we are already working with business. I might hand over to Mark who has been doing a lot of work with business and the ports on preparation.

I would echo that. I meet with the port and border stakeholders very regularly; we had a session a couple of weeks ago on exactly this and they were echoing exactly what the Minister said. As long as they know what they have to do in good time, the transition is not easy, but relatively straightforward for them. Obviously we are talking about removing checks rather than introducing them through the SPS agreement, so by its nature that is a more straightforward thing than obviously what we had to do with the introduction of the Border Target Operating Model. We also paused the rollout of the further tranches of the Border Target Operating Model to give them some respite so that we could obviously again negotiate the SPS agreement and manage that accordingly.

If implementation were to happen in, say, mid-2027, do you think that we would have given businesses and ports enough notice for the changes to happen immediately or would we have a transition period after that?

As the Minister said, the transition period is a thing that would have to be discussed in the negotiations, but giving businesses a year to 18 months—particularly for the port sector—is a pretty good lead-in time from what they were telling me the other week.

Since Brexit, our checks have changed for the rest of the world. We are looking at risk-based checks now rather than what we had before. When we have a common SPS area, will that change those border checks for the rest of the world and the sectors that rely on them—such as fresh fruit—or will we go back to the EU regime?

Our strong expectation is that the EU will require us to follow its external border regime. That is a pretty common thing on the common SPS area that we are talking about, so that would mean a return to the levels of checks that we had around the rest of the world goods.

How will that impact on our ports, airports and seaports? Will they have to build that inspection capacity, and how will we stop it adversely impacting on trade?

It will depend by location. Obviously the port sector is pretty diverse and a lot of the EU traffic comes through the south-east, but a lot of the rest of the world’s traffic tends to come through other ports, particularly around the east and west coast. Many are already set up for that sort of thing. There will be staffing changes and requirements. Obviously the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which checks plants coming in, will have to potentially shift people around and train up different staff in different places. That is why we want to give that year to 18 months of time for people to make those changes.

Some local authorities particularly have invested in infrastructure that is now likely to become redundant bearing in mind the new burdens doctrine. Will those local authorities that cannot now recover their costs be compensated?

At the moment we are very aware that some local authorities have clearly invested in the new systems. We are discussing and working with those local authorities and talking to the Treasury about how we can work going forward in order to resolve their concerns. I cannot go into details around compensation today; I can only say we are looking at this and are very aware that we are talking to them and the Treasury.

Of course so much money was spent post-Brexit.

We are very aware of the implications of changing the system for those authorities that have invested.

We see Portsmouth is £6 million out of pocket. For an authority of that size, that is a lot of money.

It is not just Portsmouth; there are others as well. I have met with a number of port health authorities and local authorities. This is something we are looking at and taking very seriously.

In the meantime, DEFRA rejected our proposals for a hybrid point of destination and border control point inspection for plants. The industry has been really struggling and saying that some inspections are damaging plants. Is this going to go on until the SPS agreement comes in? What immediate steps could we take to reduce that? It is causing a lot of delay, cost implications and damage for the horticulture sector, so are we going to do anything about that now?

On points of destination, this was a temporary arrangement before the border control posts were built. The Animal and Plant Health Agency was servicing more than 6,000 points of destination, which was operationally difficult and actually did not have the best outcomes from a biosecurity point of view. We do not propose to reintroduce those. We understand that there have been some problems with some plants. What happens is that the port operator has staff who unload and present goods for inspection by the plant health and seed inspectors and there have been some examples of damage there. We have been working closely with Horticultural Trades Association and individual businesses and encouraging them to report those complaints. We have investigated complaints with the ports and particularly the inspectors are now very vigilant to try to make sure that there is no damage taking place and that things are appropriately packed. We have also been working with industry around its packing procedures so that high-risk goods can be presented. We are aware that this is an issue and have been working closely with all parties so that we can resolve this. We will be continuing to inspect at borders until the negotiations are concluded.

Belfast has increased the height of the inspection area in order that taller plants do not get damaged.

And Sevington.

We have invested some money to change the setup in order to make it less likely that plants would be damaged.

People are bringing in large trees that are difficult to inspect and easily damaged, so there is now a dedicated area for that at Sevington so that the trees can be removed and repacked. But it is a challenge for everyone.

Have the people who were removing them and inspecting them had extra training? Part of the problem was that the people were not really aware of the exact specifics of those plants and were damaging them unintentionally.

The stevedores who do the unloading and loading have been working closely with the plant health and seed inspectors. At this time of the year, we are ramping up to imports of young tomato, cucumber and pepper plants for our horticulture industry. We have been working closely with the Tomato Growers Association and those industries to make sure that we have some very careful inspections going on—supervised by our plant health and seed inspectors—so that those plants come in undamaged.

When we went to Sevington, to be honest there was not a huge amount of activity going on. There were not a lot of lorries coming in and out. We asked some questions about Sevington and non-attendance was a problem initially. You said to us that non-attendance had gone down so we asked for attendance data to show that. We have not had that data yet and it would be good to have it. If non-attendance has gone down, what factors have contributed to that? If it is 22 miles inland, it seems easy for people to just not go there.

I am sure you are aware that if the lorries fail to attend at Sevington, then that means they have not gone through customs, and where that happens, the competent authority always follows that up. We have committed to sharing the data you refer to with the Committee and we will do so by the end of next month, January 2026.

Why the delay?

It is just to do with the systems and making sure that we have accurate information and it has been properly checked. That is when I can commit to providing it, by the end of next month. A lot of the reason for checks coming down is that we just got the system working better, to be honest. It was very new and still being completed when we came as a Government. We have worked hard to make the systems work better.

We will move on to the question of dynamic alignment with the EU. Henry, you are going to start with this.

I appreciate that some questions you may have addressed in your previous answers and the difficulties you have faced. You will be aware that there has been active and passive divergence from the EU. If you look particularly at issues such as plant protection products and biopesticides, there is a potential impact on areas of the country that have wetter conditions, for example Pembrokeshire or Scotland. If you are looking at mycotoxin levels on which the EU has updated its regulations, that might have a big impact on places that I have just mentioned. I was wondering how you will ensure that these differences in climates and pest controls will be recognised when entering into this SPS agreement?

Clearly we are aware that there has been divergence, particularly around pesticides. The EU has changed a lot of its rules since we left and we have also made some changes, as you are aware. I am so sorry that I cannot go into details, but what I can say is that we are working very closely with industry to fully understand the impact of full alignment in certain areas regarding pesticides. My colleague, Minister Hardy, is particularly involved in this and has been working with industry to understand the impact if we stopped certain pesticides immediately. All I can say is we are very aware that certain pesticides are being used in the UK that are not being used in the EU, and that stopping them immediately could cause difficulties for some farmers and growers.

Is that an awareness that is shared with Cabinet Office?

Of course.

You say of course, but it does not always follow.

The SPS negotiations are being led by Cabinet Office. It does not mean that it is only Cabinet Office that actually decides what is being discussed. We have long meetings and discussions about what we think are the priorities within our Department, as do other Departments, and work hard to ensure that Cabinet Office understands our concerns as well. It is not just about telling the Cabinet Office; it is getting it to understand. Mark works very closely with the Cabinet Office and is very involved with the negotiations, so he might want to come in.

I guess there is obviously the bit about dynamically aligning now or at the end of negotiations, but once we are part of the common area, we will have decision-shaping rights in the forums that make these decisions for the longer term. We will be able to introduce UK-specific information both on animals but also in the pesticides area. That is really important because that is what shapes the choices about future pesticides and other substances for our climatic and environmental conditions. Obviously we are not a full member of the club in that sense but that will carry a lot of sway in those technical meetings. Certainly when we were a member state, we carried a lot of sway there because of the quality of the evidence and science that we can bring.

That was going to be my second part of the question. Can I just push you a little on the first part? You are feeding into Cabinet Office and we are at a place now where the UK has not been feeding in that data, therefore EU regulations have been formed and morphed without reference to specific UK conditions, whether that is pest control or climate.

Absolutely, and we meet jointly with a lot of the stakeholders with the Cabinet Office in the room so it is very much a joint endeavour. Obviously Christine is part of the negotiating team that is led by DEFRA jointly with Cabinet Office so it is hand in glove.

On that second bit that you were just mentioning, the EU understanding is that there are currently reforms looking at the simplification of pesticide regulations. I am getting from your answer earlier that it is the end of this process in terms of the UK feeding into those reforms.

That is right. Once the agreement is in place, then we will be part of those committees and things that make the decisions. The UK and UK stakeholders are providing information to the EU as it shapes its reforms in the same way the EU and its businesses provide information to us. There are lots of third countries providing information on those consultations and other things. There is no information passing now but once you are in the committees, it is a much more influential position to be in.

Does that take place once the agreement is in place?

Yes.

Baroness Hayman, I appreciate that you said that this is not your position; again, we are very disappointed that the Paymaster General is not here because he is the one who can answer these questions. Can I just send an urgent message to the Cabinet Office that there must absolutely be a transition period for the implementation of any SPS agreement? Because the Prime Minister has suggested to industry that there will not be and that is absolute insanity. Earlier on, you just said that it would be helpful that we have a transition period. It is more than helpful; it is absolutely essential. Clearly some messaging is not getting across to the Cabinet Office. We have done a stakeholder investigation and CropLife is suggesting that it would need at least three years to make sure that growers are prepared if they cannot use certain plant protection. We have had the London Port Health Authority, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Food and Drink Federation all saying they need at least 24 months. It is absolute insanity that the Prime Minister can say there is absolutely no transition period. I know you cannot say it for sure, but can you undertake to industry that you will do all in your power and advocate that there will be no cliff edge?

I do not want industry to suffer any consequences that are going to cause problems from the reset. I said earlier that we are working very closely with businesses, industry and the ports. DEFRA has been approaching that in exactly the right way. We also work very closely with Cabinet Office on the SPS agreements and represent our position very strongly in those discussions.

I might suggest a bit stronger still if the Prime Minister has come out and said no transition period.

We will continue to represent our concerns very strongly and discuss our priorities with Cabinet Office.

Can we think of any recent examples where a Prime Minister might have rushed a negotiation for a political imperative from which we could possibly learn some lessons here? I am thinking around Christmas 2020.

I am sure we can all think of some examples.

Basically that was a case where there was a political imperative to get a deal. All sorts of things were agreed at the last minute and we have spent the succeeding five years trying to unpick them. If you do not learn from your mistakes then you will repeat them. Is that not the danger here?

I would completely agree with that.

We shall look forward to watching this space and who knows, one day we may actually get to ask the Paymaster General himself about this. The next area of questioning is around animal welfare and labelling. Josh, you are going to lead us on this.

It is good to see you again, Baroness Hayman. Clearly improving animal welfare was a key manifesto commitment for the Government. Advancing animal welfare is something that Labour Governments do but it is fair to say that since last July, progress seems to have been quite slow. We understand that the bans on trail hunting and hunting trophies are in train but we do not know when the legislation might come forward. Bans on snare traps and puppy farming do not appear to have any timeline at all. In a minute we will come on to animal testing separately, but the puppy imports ban has only been possible because of a private member’s Bill and credit to Dr Danny Chambers for doing that. I know that—like me—you are very passionate about animal welfare; your record speaks for itself. Do you share the disappointment of some of my constituents that the pace of progress we have made has been quite slow in some areas?

What I would say is when I came into Government and was given the role of Animal Welfare Minister, I was very keen to review where the previous Government had got to on animal welfare. There had been a document, a lot of talk, a lot of Bills that had stopped and started and a lot of PMBs that seemed to have disappeared. I just wanted a really clear picture of what work had started on what and where we were on various animal welfare issues. I was really taken aback when the team produced this enormous spreadsheet with all sorts of bits. At that point, I determined I was not going to approach animal welfare like that; I was going to approach it holistically and look at producing an animal welfare strategy that would make the biggest difference to the welfare of animals rather than answering the latest campaign or scoring political points. That is what I have been working to do and why it has taken time: it is more complicated. I am really pleased to be able to say that the animal welfare strategy will be published this year. Watch this space is my response to that. Many issues that you have raised will be in the animal welfare strategy, outlining our next actions and what we are looking to do. Just to pick up on trail hunting, we are looking to start the consultation on that in the new year. I have had a recent meeting with officials to discuss what that consultation could look like and that is currently being prepared. On the trophy hunting import ban, I have had meetings with FCDO because it has an interest through the Africa connection. Again we are designing what that ban would look like and that is also making good progress. Of course there are some things that will not be in the animal welfare strategy but that does not mean we are not doing work on them. There is a lot going on. I know something that you are interested in—Committee and Chair—is the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which again is important to me. It is really important that we bring that up to date in order that veterinary practices can work properly and efficiently and actually attract people to come into the industry. We will be looking to start a consultation around that as well. I feel that I have been pushing a boulder uphill for the last 15 months and it is about to go over the top. Fingers crossed, there will be plenty for you to look at and discuss, and I will be more than happy to come back to a future session to discuss the details once that has been published.

That is great to hear. You previously indicated that you were exploring non-legislative routes to improve animal welfare outcomes because, as you have rightly pointed out again, it is a very packed legislative programme. What are those alternatives that you are considering and could you give us a timeline on any of those?

Again, a lot of that will be in the strategy because the strategy is not just about legislation; it is about improving animal welfare. There is a certain tendency that you go and see a Minister about animal welfare and all you want them to do is bring in legislation, whereas actually Government, local authority and NGOs working together more effectively can make a bigger difference. We need to listen to NGOs and listen to what the issues are on the ground. Something we have done that is non-legislative and will hopefully start making a difference is set up the Responsible Dog Ownership Working Group, which will be reporting fairly soon. We can take some learning points for that on how we can support dog ownership. That will inevitably also consider issues around dangerous dogs, which again is not just improving animal welfare; it is improving human welfare. Actually human health and welfare are often impacted by the way animals are treated, so it all comes together. I have also been working on welfare issues more broadly.

We really look forward to seeing the strategy and are glad that it will be published very soon.

Yes, I hope you like it.

The next question will be how quickly the legislation could come forward because of course the trail hunting ban was in the King’s Speech and we know that we may not have long left on this session. I will move on if I may to labelling, which is another area that I am quite keen on. It has been around 18 months since the previous Government held a consultation on proposals for more robust country of origin and welfare labelling. The Government’s response back in June was quite non-committal—it is fair to say—possibly because of the negotiations that we have been talking about this morning. Given the impact of the potential SPS agreement, is it still the Government’s intention to pursue reforms on animal welfare and country of origin labelling or is that uncertain now?

You may find that this is in a strategy that is about to be published. This is something I have been discussing with Minister Eagle, the Farming Minister. Clearly once you start looking at method of production, origin and so on, it is very much a matter for the Farming Minister. I have been in a lot of negotiations with the previous Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, and the current Farming Minister, Angela Eagle, about what this could look like. We have also held some roundtables both with animal welfare organisations and industry and it is something that we have discussed. So it is in the animal welfare strategy and is an area that we need to develop more. I also recently met with Waitrose, which has some very good labels. I asked it to share a paper with me, which it has, and I have shared that with the Farming Minister so that it can inform our discussions going forward.

That is reassuring to hear because another concern that we have is that there is a lot of anxiety in the industry about moving quite quickly, so if it is being brought on the journey, that is really encouraging.

You have to bring industry if you are going to get agreement and buy-in on these. There are so many misleading labels on food. It is really important that we ensure that any labelling that is brought in is clear to understand and accurate because people need to make decisions when they are buying food and actually make decisions quite quickly. I spend my time shopping with my specs on, staring at labels. It would be nice if you had clearer information up front.

Absolutely. There is a potential for us to crowd a packet with too much information and so it is fair that it needs to be looked at in the round.

It needs to be clear, simple and easily understood.

Again on the negotiations, I appreciate that you cannot give us any specifics but could you reassure us that the UK will be able to at least maintain—if not raise—animal welfare standards through the negotiations? We know this is something that Switzerland was able to do because it mattered there and we know it matters to a lot of people here.

The EU is very aware that this is very important to us; we have made it absolutely crystal clear that animal welfare is something of great importance. Of course there are some areas where the EU has moved on further than us and realigning will actually help us to improve our animal welfare standards, but it knows that this is a critical part of discussions.

Of course the other side of it is that there is a potential for British farmers to be undercut by imports that are produced to lower standards. What can you say on that?

The soon-to-be-published strategy has a section on trade and we are very keen that our farmers are not undercut, particularly by standards on welfare.

That is really reassuring. Finally, given that we know the EU is looking at its own legislation around on-farm welfare—it has a public consultation that is open until Friday—how are we engaging with that review? Is this something that the British Government are making representations on?

The answer to that is we are just very carefully keeping a watching eye on what is happening while we are going through the negotiations because outcomes of negotiations will determine how we interact with those sorts of things. There are a number of consultations that have taken place in this area in the EU recently that I am watching very closely to see how we might want to engage going forward.

You said watching; as a Committee, we recently went out to Brussels and were actually quite struck by how keen many of our European counterparts were to engage with us as a delegation for the Parliament, not even Ministers. We felt quite strongly that this is a previously quite well-trodden path to Brussels that we used to engage with quite often and now it does not happen so often. If we are going to dynamically align, for example, we need to do a much better job of trying to influence EU legislation before it reaches completion. Is that something that is on your mind?

I absolutely agree with you. But it is difficult to actually proactively get involved while the SPS negotiations are going on because animal welfare is going to be part of those discussions. What I cannot do is anything that might muddy the waters in the discussions. The reason I am watching it closely is that if the negotiations move on quickly, I will be in a place to actually go and meet, discuss and look at how we can get involved because that is something I am very keen on.

Is it your intention as a Minister to perhaps be in Brussels more often and engage with early legislation once the negotiations are concluded and we are clear on what that relationship will look like?

Once the negotiations have concluded and we have a better idea about where we are and how we are going to operate in this area, I would very much welcome going to Brussels to meet with my counterparts over there to look at how we can move forward together. It is really important.

We had excellent engagement from the various institutions and will send a note on it to Cabinet Office as an exemplar.

I appreciate that Josh has covered quite a lot of ground there but I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points if I may. I am obviously very pleased to hear about the welfare strategy being published this year. We all have some Christmas reading with the strategy and the profitability review; it is going to be a busy period over Christmas reading all these different documents. The manifesto talks about lots of different aspects including trail hunting and puppy smuggling. Will the strategy include specific aspects related to farmed animals? There was a big gap in the manifesto around chickens, pigs and cows; I am talking millions of animals here.

I cannot give you any detail of the strategy because it is not published. It would be fair for me to be able to say that there are four sections to it: pets and companion animals, farmed animals, wild animals and our international influence. I hope I will not get shot for saying that.

That is really useful actually because we are talking hundreds of millions of farmed animals in this country and if we are looking at animal welfare we cannot exclude them so I find that reassuring. I often find farmers are the best conservationists and they really want to improve animal welfare. When I go and see my next farmer next week—he is a big pig farmer—he will say, “Look, Terry, I want to do more but I can’t afford it.” I appreciate this is potentially elsewhere in DEFRA but are you engaged in conversations about financial support for farmers on animal welfare? I am thinking specifically maybe the re-launched SFI scheme. We have to think holistically across the Department.

Absolutely. You are not going to bring about change by beating people over the head with a big stick; you actually need to bring people with you and understand the challenges as well. Clearly different sized farms have different challenges based on where they are in the country and so on. When we were discussing the farmed aspects of the animal welfare strategy, we met with industry representatives, and I actually find that most representatives in the farming industry want to go further on animal welfare but what they want is time and support, and we need to look at how we do that.

Under the SFI scheme, we have been providing funding through the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway for farmers to have visits from their own vets, but not the “Oh my gosh, something might be going wrong here”—the fire brigade. It is time to look at how the business runs, what the risk factors are and how they want to improve, and attached to that is a small grant scheme, which has provided over 5,000 small grants to a variety of farms.

It has actually been one of the most cost-effective things DEFRA has done in terms of outcomes; it has been very successful.

I am glad you mentioned that because it has been really exciting to see almost the pilots, if you like. My concern is how we roll that out and make it more mainstream because it is relatively small in the grand scheme of things.

Obviously every Department has been under huge pressure as far as our budgets are concerned, and the main thing for me is to keep this going so that we can continue to develop it as we move forward.

The last point I wanted to make is there has been a huge increase in intensive farming practices, particularly in my county of Norfolk; we are referred to as the mega-farm capital of Europe. I have been quite concerned about the different Departments and roles when it comes to the inspections, enforcement and role of local councils that often do not have the resources to help with the enforcement or the APHA around the legislation. You spoke earlier about non-legislative changes. Is there an opportunity to streamline some functions to improve capacity? Because it is quite messy around animal welfare and enforcement, and with this increase in intensive farming I worry that we do not have the capacity to actually really make sure animal welfare is at the centre of this.

APHA—the Animal and Plant Health Agency—is responsible for much of this. We had a new chief executive come in a few months ago, Richard Lewis, who is very impressive. I have had some meetings with him to discuss how we can better manage resourcing going forward because there are so many pressures on the organisation, but enforcement is incredibly important because there is no point in having anything if you cannot enforce it. He is working really hard to look at how we can make the best use of resources in order to manage the sorts of situations that you are talking about, and Christine with the vets as well. Again, it is making best use of vets, and part of what we are discussing is how we can make better use of the vets that we have, but also how we encourage vets to come in to work for Government. Again, this is part of the bigger piece of work that we are doing around the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, working with the CMA and so on. We need to be able to encourage people who want to come into practice in Government because that will also help with some issues around enforcement.

We shall be coming to vets but first, let us go to replacing animals in research. Jenny?

The Government have ambitious targets for replacing the use of animals in science and testing. How are you ensuring that we are not going to simply be outsourcing that problem to countries with lower animal welfare standards?

I have to say, I was very proud of that report. We worked on it with the Home Office and DSIT. DSIT was the lead. This has always been a question; when the Government banned animal testing for cosmetics a long time ago, we were told, “Oh yes, everyone will just get their cosmetics through China. It’s utterly, utterly pointless.” We cannot stop people outsourcing, but what we can do is take a lead on what is right. That is really important as a country: to be a global leader on something that is scientifically exciting, making these new moves forward. It is excellent for animal welfare, it is what we want to do, and it is the right thing to do. I do not see any reason why you would stop doing something that is going to improve animal welfare and put your country as a leader in a particular area of science, just because somebody thinks it might be outsourced to China.

You explained the challenge very well. The strategy also defines the vision of replacing animals in research and development in, “All but exceptional circumstances.” What does that mean, and how do we define exceptional circumstances?

Exceptional circumstances basically means if there absolutely is not any other way to get the information that you need. You have explored every other possibility, and there is no other way of doing it.

Could you give me an example?

Off the top of my head, no, I cannot because I am not a scientist.

How are we assessing for those exceptional circumstances?

The document laid it out quite clearly. It is in three baskets, and the last basket laid it out quite clearly. As I said, DSIT was leading on that and it has the scientists. If you would like specific information, I am very happy to go to DSIT and get some more detailed information for you, but as someone who is not a scientist, I would not want to mislead you.

Finally, what safeguards exist to prevent the premature phase-out of tests that protect environment and health?

Well, that will be part of any monitoring that goes forward, which obviously you have to do. If you are changing your systems, you need to make sure that they are being properly monitored and managed, and that if there are any issues around safeguarding, they are picked up very quickly. I pass any issues that are flagged with me around safeguarding on to both Home Office and DSIT so that we can work together to look at ways to manage it. Safeguarding could come in different aspects; it depends on what it is. If it is an animal welfare aspect, if it is something in a Home Office building, for example, or if it is something to do with, say a drug, then you have different Departments, which is why it is so important that we have all come together to work on this. That is what has made the big difference.

Okay, our next round of questions concerns the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and workforce retention. It was my intention to remind the Committee at the top of this session of my registered interests as a landowner and farmer on the island of Islay. I have vaccinated my stock for bluetongue because we are 12 miles north of the north coast of Rathlin there. It is a non-registrable interest, but my wife and my younger son are both practising members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as, respectively, a director and employee of independent veterinary practices. That being declared, I will move to Charlie.

In March, you told us that Ministers were supportive of a new Act. We have heard today from the Minister that support remains. Can I just ask what progress has been made towards bringing forward the legislation?

There has been a huge amount of consultation with stakeholders across the profession, looking at what a new Act needs to cover and working up to a proposed consultation.

As you bring those consultees together, what are your priorities in terms of what you want to see in that legislation?

My priorities are very much thinking about vet-led teams. People with suitable training and supervision, who are able to support veterinary surgeons in their job to improve animal health and welfare, are key. Veterinary nurses are a good example and their title has not been protected. In that, we absolutely need for the profession to look at the regulation of us as individuals. At the moment, we rely on the 1966 Act. I am not supporting lots of action against vets; it is hugely terrifying if you are reported to Royal College for bringing the profession into disrepute, but it is the only way that action can be taken against vets at the moment.

I am just going back to expand on the technicians and the role of nurses. I get a lot of feedback locally, particularly from, say, pig specialists and so on. There is a huge amount of frustration because the veterinary surgeons are required to undertake so much of the work that the technicians could do. Is your vision going forward that you can expand those roles so the pressure is taken off the veterinary surgeons and there is more work for the technicians and nurses?

Absolutely. The Act at the moment says that farmers, people in the employ of farmers, and vets can do things; there is no space for these other roles. We have used veterinary nurses, as an example, as lay TB testers. There is a huge group of people who are very experienced working with animals, who are trained to a high standard. As part of the veterinary team providing care on a farm, it is a really good way of working, but the legislation is not flexible enough to make that a really strong, consistent part of practising.

That would be very welcome. Finally, in terms of that wider piece about retention in the industry, or attracting people into it and then retaining them, what is your vision?

We need to work as a profession to understand it; there is no silver bullet and there is no one reason it is happening and one clear solution to it. We need to better understand the current workforce and the workforce going forward. We know that there is a lot of fallout from the profession in younger years, particularly. We are attracting really good people into vet school, they come out ready to practise, and then the current model of practice, ways of working and increased customer demand are not helping. Greater support for people in practice through other roles will be part of it, but we really need to understand that workforce. The Royal College has worked really hard on that, but when people fall out of the profession we do not always know why. We have lots of individual stories, but we do not have a systematic way of understanding why. That is something we have been working on as a whole profession.

It is a shame, having put all that work in to train for many years, to then give it up. Are they going abroad, or are they giving up the practice completely?

A variety. A lot are falling out of the profession. It is not just us; we talk to Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. We have been looking at this with them because it is something we are all seeing.

Might it have something to do with the people you are taking into the degree courses in the first place?

Potentially. Chair, you will know that SRUC, in its approach in Aberdeen, is looking at this and how we can find ways to support people particularly from rural and farming areas, who might not always have access to the exam levels that they might need to get into vet school. That is really helpful. The level of training and the expectation for being only competent nowadays is very high.

The answer might lie within the profession itself rather than Government, but that is informed speculation on my part.

I just have a quick question really, because it seems surprising that people have gone through that level of training and decide to leave the profession. Is there a particular profession they are going to, or is it something about the type of work that they are having to do and progression within the role?

I am not aware that there is any specific profession they are turning to. As I said, it is a whole host of things: it is the type of work, it is client expectation, it is the changes in how practices are structured and run. There are myriad different reasons.

I hugely commend my colleagues at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the wider profession for the work they have done on this. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has taken a real lead in trying to understand the issue, also through the Vetlife charity, which it is intimately involved with providing that 24/7 support for those who need it. It also now has a competency training support process for new graduates, recognising that, with all the best will in the world, you cannot have all the training you need in five years of vet school. It provides that support, mentoring and oversight as you go through. In the last, particularly five, or 10 years, there has been a huge overall profession gearing up and support for these kinds of changes.

This comes linked to timelines. I have been a member of Parliament for 24 and a half years; we have been talking about a new Veterinary Surgeons Act for as long as I have been a member of Parliament and I suspect quite some time before that. Minister, how are you going to get this over the line? What sort of timeline are you looking at? Do you anticipate that the final report to the CMA when we get it—we are coming on to that in a second—might finally be the catalyst for some legislative action here?

Well, on the reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, when I first got the job as a Minister and Christine came in to introduce herself, the first thing I said to her was, “You have to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act.” I have had a bee in my bonnet about this for some time, having friends who are vets. I knew that this was something that I really wanted to try to do, fundamentally. We have had an excellent team in DEFRA that have done a huge amount of work, not only on the policy and what legislation could look at, but on actually pushing it up the agenda and getting it noticed as an issue. One of the problems with Government is that there are always the sexy issues that people talk about at election time, and then there are things that really need sorting out and really need doing. One of the challenges for me was, “How do I get this pushed right up the agenda?” This is really important, but obviously it was not a manifesto commitment, so you need to make it really important. I got this really good team together, and they have been absolutely brilliant. Christine has been fantastic. We have worked a lot with stakeholders. We met with the CMA as well. I do not know if it is fate, but its report fell into place at just the right time for me to be able to demonstrate that actually there are a number of reasons why we need to reform the Act. First, there is animal welfare. Secondly, there is improving the whole issue around veterinary practices and encouraging more vets to come in. Thirdly, there is looking at the whole way veterinary practices are set up has changed dramatically since the ’60s. You now have these huge organisations running veterinary practices. Finally, there are the issues around pricing, which of course is what the CMA is looking at. It then becomes a cost of living issue; the vet I go to has put their prices up in order to manage the number of people who cannot pay their bills. That then has that knock-on effect. From that, we worked really hard. We then also lobbied the Treasury very, very hard to say that this was the CMA report, we explained why it was really important to invest in this as well. I was really, really pleased that the Treasury put looking at reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act into the Red Book. I know that the book said that we were going to do the consultation this year because that was the original plan, but as Terry mentioned, there are an awful lot of consultations and things. It has become a bit congested. We will be looking to do that in the new year. That is what I am expecting: that we would do that in the new year. As far as getting it across the line, Chair, all I can say is I will do absolutely everything I possibly can as the Minister.

Surely, the mere act of the CMA investigation is an indication of the fact that this is having an impact not just on vets, but also on our constituents as consumers and as clients?

Yes, absolutely.

I have one small example. Here is a down payment for you. Apparently, the RCVS needs powers granted to get a statutory instrument to revise the statutory examination. I have no idea what the statutory examination is, but it is one thing to get legislative time in the timetable for a piece of primary legislation, but you could get an SI through, surely?

There have been a number of statutory instruments over the years that have updated it in different ways. I am happy to look at that and consider it, but my focus should be on actually sorting the whole Act out. That is what I am focusing on.

Henry, you were going to talk us through the CMA.

Well, you have touched on it a lot already, and particularly in respect to the cost of living issue with domestic pets. It is something like a 63% increase since 2016. The other issue that we raised with the CMA that we have not touched upon is the change in the practices. I have stats that show that 89% of the veterinary industry in 2015 was accounted for by independent practices, but by 2021 that is down to 45%. You have had a consolidation of the market. I was wondering whether you thought that was one of the reasons why you might have price increases?

Potentially, but it is very difficult to make broad brush assessments like that. I have met with the CMA about its report, and we are taking its recommendations and outcomes very, very seriously as part of what we are planning to move forward. The main thing is to look right across the board at the report for the reasons that it thinks prices have gone up and where it thinks that improvements can be made, which is what we are doing. It may well be because practice has changed, but it may also be because—as I said earlier—vets are having to offset non-payment as well. That can be for an independent vet just as much as a business. It is slightly more complex than just because you have big businesses now running vets.

Well, if we take some recommendations that the CMA said, we have: provide itemised bills; treatments, and services; provide a list—

Transparency. It is all about transparency, and I absolutely support that.

Sure. Provide a written estimate; inform pet owners; cap the fee; provide information; make it clear that the practice is owned. That is a lot of stuff to do for a veterinary practice, is it not?

I do not think so, actually. It is all about transparency. When our dog went in for an operation, the vets were very clear and up front with us about what was going to happen, how much it was going to cost, what the options were for follow-on treatment and what those costs were.

That is already happening.

But not in every vet practice; that is the point. That was one of the points when I met with the CMA, that lots of veterinary practices were not providing that information in advance so that people can make choices and discuss finance ahead of committing to treatment for their pet. The whole transparency side of it is really important.

First, do you think that that increased burden on independent practices will result in further consolidation of the market? Secondly, what do you think the impact will be on the workforce as a result of that, which are already under stress as we discussed previously?

First, we have not agreed to bring in any of the CMA’s recommendations; what we are doing is looking at them and looking at them in the context of revising the Veterinary Surgeons Act. We will be discussing all this with industry. We have a consultation coming up. We will not make any changes that industry is going to struggle to implement. We want to bring industry with us, but at the same time we want to look at how we can ensure that pets get the treatment they need and that their owners can afford it.

What about the second part of what I was suggesting?

Can you say it again?

You have the added pressure on the veterinary practices, which we just discussed, and you said you would bring industry with you. I also referenced the potential impact on the workforce, which we have already discussed, as a result of these measures that are brought in by the CMA.

Do you mean the veterinary workforce?

Yes.

Yes, well, again, we will be discussing any changes going forward as part of the consultation. The CMA has produced an excellent paper with a lot of recommendations that we are considering. We will consider those recommendations, alongside the responses to the consultation that we will be running in the new year. We will bring all that together and look to see first, what is achievable; secondly, what is practicable; and thirdly, what is affordable. We need to work together to reach that outcome.

We have talked a lot about the delay or potential delay and difficulty of finding parliamentary time for the Veterinary Services Act. My understanding is the proposals from the CMA envisage an expanded role for the RCVS, which would require additional powers. What are you going to do in the meantime?

You are talking about regulation?

Yes.

Well, at the moment the RCVS manages regulation, so as part of the consultation—

How can you enforce the proposals?

Enforce which proposals?

From the CMA, if you require additional powers.

Well, we will not be enforcing proposals from the CMA; we will be taking its recommendations and proposals forward, alongside responses to the consultation, and bringing that together will inform what our new Veterinary Surgeons Bill will look like. We will do that in consultation with industry, with the general public and so on. Those issues that you have raised will be part of those discussions going forward.

Are you aware that there is a widely held view among independent veterinary practices that their voices have not been properly heard by the CMA?

I am very aware of it. I have a friend who has an independent veterinary practice, and it is very important that we bring them forward. I know that Christine has been working with independent vets.

We have to remember the CMA report is about the small animal, the pet part of practice. Many practices—not all, but many—are still mixed practices and in rural areas. We have to be aware of any unintended consequences on practice models, on how they work and the provision of animal health and welfare, not just around the pet part of it.

Do you think that the CMA processes could have been better handled, with the benefit of hindsight?

It is complicated. We have the advantage of understanding those complications.

The CMA is a city organisation, run by city people who are used to talking to big corporates. The six big corporates speak the same language; the independent veterinary practices do not speak the same language. Now, if the price inflation has come from corporates, if the concern about moving traffic towards online pharmacies, for example, ignores the fact that many of these online pharmacies have financial interests that come from the six corporates, that suggests that this is maybe an area where there might be some room for improvement between the interim and the final report, does it not?

As the Minister said, we have to consider its recommendations in the context of all animal health and welfare provision.

We are still awaiting the final report, obviously. Good luck with that one when it lands.

It is quite timely that we are expecting its final report to be published around the time that we are doing our consultation. Timing-wise, it actually fits in quite nicely for moving forward to try to get a legislative slot, as you say.

In terms of you deploying arguments with Government business managers—I previously was one in a different life—you would have to say that the CMA report makes it impossible to argue that you do not need a new Veterinary Surgeons Act.

Let us just say it was incredibly helpful and the timing has worked out beautifully.

Good. The final round of questioning relates to veterinary medicines access in Northern Ireland. Juliet, welcome to the Committee; you are going to lead our questioning here.

Bluetongue disease has recently been detected in Northern Ireland; what impact will the end of the veterinary medicines grace period have on the ability to respond to disease outbreaks such as this?

Well, the end of the grace period, obviously, as you are aware, is on the 31st of this month. For just over a year now—about 15 months—we have had a veterinary medicines working group. It was set up to look at how we could manage things going forward to ensure that once the grace period was reached, veterinary practices in Northern Ireland, people with pets, and farmers, would still be able to access the medication they needed. When we came in, it was not in a good place. There has been an enormous amount of work done, including with the pharmaceutical industry and with vets. I go to Belfast regularly and to Northern Ireland regularly. I meet with the chief veterinary officer over in Northern Ireland, with other vets, and with farming industries to look at what they need, in order to ensure that they have the medication they need. Initially, it looked like there were going to be a large number of medicines that were going to be delisted, and we were very worried about that. I have met regularly with all the large pharmaceutical industries that supply those medications to look at how we can bring down the number of medications that would no longer be supplied. We have done that, and we believe that the number of medications that will no longer be available after the end of the grace period will be between 10% and 15%. In order for them to still be available to vets, farmers and so forth in Northern Ireland, we have set up two schemes that can then be used to get those medications supplied, rather than through the channels will that exist at the end of the grace period. We are going to be building on those two schemes. There is an existing cascade system that vets know about and already use. What we are going to do to make it easier for vets is remove the requirement for a special import certificate for products that are sourced from under that cascade. Not vaccines: this is about medication that is not vaccines. It will also provide guidance to show how vets will be able to source medicines under the new scheme. The VMD—the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—has done a huge amount work on this. It has produced a comprehensive, simple-to-explain guidance; an explainer. It gives practical examples as to how the schemes will work so that people will be able to understand that. It has worked very closely with vets in Northern Ireland. With the new schemes there should not be a problem. With the two new schemes in place, with the work that we have done to reduce the number of medications that are likely to be delisted, things should work okay. In your example, they should be able to get the medication they need when they need it. We have set up careful monitoring from 1 January. Of course, there will not be a cliff edge because medicine that they have already bought will not go up in smoke on 1 January. There will be a certain amount, and we know that some people are buying medicines up front so they have extra. We have worked really hard to reduce the number of delisted products. We have worked really hard to come up with a couple of schemes that people can access to get medications if they cannot get it through the usual channels. For me now, I want to be reassured that these schemes are working. We need to monitor it really, really carefully. If there are any sticky moments, glitches or unexpected consequences, we need to know about them as early as possible in order that we can act and ensure that people continue to get the medication that they need.

You are feeling confident that there will not be any negative impact?

Well, the thing to say is that we have done as much as we can in this space. It was in a very, very, very difficult space when we came into Government. A very difficult space, with everyone predicting complete disaster and huge numbers of medicines being delisted. There has been an enormous amount of work done. I have to credit the VMD—the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—and Christine here, for a huge amount of work to get us where we are. We are in a good place, and we now just need to be sure that it is working. But we will not know that until after the grace period.

What assessment has been made of the cost to farmers and pet owners in Northern Ireland from the potential restrictions of choice and loss of online veterinary pharmacy services?

First, there will be no loss of online veterinary pharmacy services. We have been working with industry and there are now four companies that are setting up online services, one of which has invested around £250,000 in order to be able to continue to supply, as you have suggested. That is something that we have worked on and are very pleased to have in place. There should be no drop-off in medications that are available online. We have been working with the Ulster Farmers Union and with Niva, the veterinary services organisation in Northern Ireland, in order to ensure that costs are managed as best they can be. Most of the pharmaceutical companies I have spoken to say that they do not anticipate price increases.

Is consideration being given to a veterinary medicines agreement with the EU as part of its ongoing EU-UK reset, given that the SPS deal does not include veterinary medicine within its scope?

Yes, that is something that we are discussing with the EU.

Is that work that you are leading, or does that tie back to the Cabinet Office?

The Cabinet Office leads the discussions, but we are very, very much connected to the discussion. In fact, Mark has been working on the veterinary medicine side of things with the Cabinet Office.

It is not a good way of doing negotiations.

It is how it is being done.

I know it is how it is done.

I could not possibly comment.

It involves quite a number of Departments.

Yes. There is a lot of cross-Departmental work. Cabinet is leading, but that does not mean that the other Departments are not completely plugged into those discussions.

But it means that there is another layer of insulation and another filter through which arguments have to be processed. I do not honestly understand, but then again, I do not honestly understand why we always introduce these things on 1 January as well, which seems another recipe for disaster.

That was not my choice.

That is maybe just something to do with where I come from and what we are doing on 1 January. Unless anybody has anything else to bring in, can I thank you, Minister, and your colleagues for your attendance here and for your engagement? It is another exemplar that we will hold up to people elsewhere in Government of engagement with the Select Committee. We appreciate it, as we appreciate the ongoing engagement outside these sessions as well. But for the moment, that concludes our proceedings today, so thank you.