– in the House of Lords at 8:26 pm on 29 January 2025.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
My Lords, this SI is required as part of the implementation of the border target operating model, which aims to deliver a streamlined approach to imports that protects public, plant and animal health and minimises friction at the border. The instrument uses powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, also known as the REUL Act. The changes it implements fall into three main categories.
The first category of measures provides a long-term legislative framework for sanitary and phytosanitary controls that have already introduced, but takes this beyond the reliance on temporary powers such as the transitional staging period. I will give some examples of how the instrument does this. It amends the definition of an official certificate to include digital documents, which will facilitate fully electronic and digital import documentation. It expands the definition of a documentary check to include remote examination or by automated means. We are also making it possible to remove the requirement to carry out documentary checks on all imports, so that checks can be made based on risk. The instrument also provides the power to allow for inland border control posts for reasons other than geographical constraints, and gives government the power to determine whether to designate allowing greater control to place border control facilities and resources with biosecurity, trade and food security priorities.
The second category of measures allows for a response to risk so that conditions governing the import of animals and animal products can be updated administratively. This will uphold our obligations to protect biosecurity and public health while facilitating trade, and will mean that competent authorities, devolved Governments, the Food Standards Agency and Defra will be able to amend and manage biosecurity controls in response to changing risks. Additionally, animals and animal products can be categorised based on risk, including the ability to exempt low-risk categories from unnecessary checks, which will align our animal control measures with plants and plant products.
The third category of measures allows policies to reduce burdens and allows the extension of policies to non-EU goods. Implementation of these future policies would require further legislative change, but we propose to have the powers in place now in order to provide for future flexibility so that we can respond quickly to risk.
However, there are two policies that have impact from the date this instrument will come into force. First, it allows diagnostic testing of plants and plant products to be undertaken at a border control post, instead of such tests needing to take place at official laboratories. This will significantly reduce the time that certain perishable goods will be held.
The second is the use of enhanced enforcement powers to require and pursue full cost recovery of the common user charge for goods entering through government-run border control posts. This is vital to ensure full cost recovery of the operating costs and ensure that businesses pay charges for their import activity.
These changes will have no impact on the Windsor Framework and do not bring in additional checks on the west coast of Great Britain. The Scottish and Welsh Governments has consented to these amendments.
I now draw the House’s attention to a submission that we received from Friends of the Earth. It shared its concerns about checks being made away from BCPs, the frequency of checks being based on risk, how misdeclaration would be handled, performance monitoring and whether we are acting within the powers in the REUL Act. In our response, we explained that this instrument only provides provision to be made for documentary, identity and physical controls to be undertaken at places other than border control posts or control points, and that we have robust, evidence-based risk modelling that can place SPS into categories based on the inherent risk that the product poses to animal, food, biosecurity and public health.
For animals and animal products, the default documentary rate remains at 100% and, while low-risk goods do not require certification or routine checks under the new approach, we are still able to detain these goods for checks based on intelligence. By next year, we will be regularly reviewing the risk categories and we have existing surveillance programmes to ensure that any emerging risks are detected and dealt with in a timely manner. Finally, the REUL Act is being used within its powers to replace the provisions under assimilated law that was inherited from the EU, and to create new provisions that achieve the same or similar objectives.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked about the use of administrative rather than legislative powers in other areas of import controls. Our response explained that, while powers exist to control imports through statutory instruments, administrative powers are required to ensure that changes to import conditions can be made rapidly in response to emerging biosecurity and food safety risks with trading partners that are approved to export into Great Britain. The amendments reflect and build on changes already made since the United Kingdom left the EU to refine our listing procedures for imports of animals and animal products in ways that provide the flexibility and responsiveness needed to protect biosecurity and facilitate trade. The committee noted Defra’s explanation and was reassured about the use of administrative rather than legislative powers in this specific policy area.
The Government are committed to removing trade barriers, including through looking to negotiate an SPS agreement with the EU, but this will clearly take some time. This instrument therefore is needed to implement the policy that industry has been preparing for and, importantly, to ensure that biosecurity is maintained between now and any agreement taking place.
These regulations will ensure that the controls already in place are enduring. They implement a responsive border to protect the United Kingdom from emerging pests and disease, while at the same time supporting businesses with processes that are as simple and effective as possible.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
