Chapter 6: A pan-UK framework
Current differences in approach
143.As Defra explained, “Animal health, plant health and invasive non-native species management are areas of devolved competency … Each part of the UK has responsibility for its own biosecurity but also contributes to the UK’s overall biosecurity.”171 The management of the UK’s external border, however, is a reserved matter.
144.This division of responsibility is currently underpinned by the UK’s EU membership. As the National Pig Association pointed out, “The approach taken to managing biosecurity risks already varies across the UK, but within the context of an overarching EU framework which ensures the same risks are identified and managed.”172 Dr Kezia Barker, Lecturer in Geography at Birkbeck, University of London, emphasised the flexibility that this approach facilitated: “There is always the aspiration to uniformity in biosecurity practice but arguably the way in which internal pest management has been devolved makes possible flexible approaches.”173 The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board gave the example of “compulsory programmes for Bovine Virus Diarrhoea elimination in Scotland and Northern Ireland but voluntary programmes in England and Wales”.174
A UK framework
145.According to Defra, the loss of the underpinning provided by EU law means that “when we are no longer subject to this EU law, we may need to introduce new frameworks to ensure consistency across the UK in some policy areas”.175
146.All witnesses who commented on this issue supported some form of UK framework for managing biosecurity post-Brexit. According to the Woodland Trust: “The development of a UK wide common biosecurity framework is essential in order for the various elements of a biosecurity strategy to function effectively.”176
147.The RSPB pointed out:
“It would be undesirable for an invasive non-native species to be legally imported and/or kept and traded in one part of the UK while these activities were restricted in another—as a lack of internal border controls could potentially undermine the goals of one or more of the UK’s administrations.”177
Similarly, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board argued that “pests, weeds and diseases do not respect borders and to not have a coherent, common framework would be foolhardy in the extreme”.178 The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquatic Science (CEFAS) noted that the same logic applies to biosecurity in the marine environment.179
148.Others justified a common biosecurity framework on commercial grounds. The Royal Horticultural Society stated: “Having a shared set of standards across UK and the devolved administrations would help and support business to operate across borders.”180 The CLA agreed: “A common biosecurity framework across the UK will be essential. It would … place vast amounts of additional costs on businesses and government to have different frameworks between devolved administrations.”181
149.Furthermore, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board noted that “it is likely that developing agreements on bilateral standards for trade in animals and animal products can only realistically be undertaken at a UK level”.182 The City of London Corporation agreed that “a common biosecurity network across the UK is essential for ease of exporting to both European and global markets”.183
150.Dr Lydgate and Dr Amos suggested that “there must be a notification procedure established so that the relevant bodies responsible for responding to sightings of invasive alien species in the devolved administrations are aware of potential threats”.184 They added: “Ideally, a common response strategy should also be adopted … There would be little point in England adopting a policy of eradication against a particular species, for example, if Scotland was only trying to contain its spread.”185 The Wildlife and Countryside Link argued that a common framework should include common rules on the release of plants and animals into the wild,186 while the RSPB underlined the importance of common rules on invasive non-native species.187
151.But a common framework might be no more than that—a framework, allowing a degree of local and regional autonomy. Fera argued that “there needs to be recognition of the distinct nature of the agricultural and environmental context that prevails in each country”.188 The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh agreed: “This framework, should, however, recognise the different priorities, assets, and susceptibilities faced by different nations within the UK.”189
152.Lesley Griffiths AM, Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs in the Welsh Government, set out a similar approach:
“The Welsh Government supports the continued close cooperation between all UK administrations to support the UK’s overall biosecurity to maintain current health status as a minimum. We will continue to work collaboratively with the other UK administrations to explore whether framework arrangements are required across the UK. These would need to be robust enough to protect the UK from animal and plant health diseases and prevent incursion of invasive non-native species and which also recognise and enable the variations required by each country.”190
153.The Scottish Government agreed:
“There will continue to be a need for close working between the Scottish Government and the other administrations in the UK, in particular those in England and Wales … However it is essential that future joint working is on a basis that fully respects devolution post-Brexit, with all powers relevant to devolved areas repatriated from the EU coming to Scotland and any UK-wide actions being by agreement and not imposition.”191
154.Defra emphasised only that, in the context of Brexit, “The Government has committed to preserve the existing decision making powers of the devolved administrations.”192 The Government’s ‘frameworks analysis’ of the areas of EU law that intersect with devolved competence acknowledged that both plant and animal health are “areas that are subject to more detailed discussion to explore whether legislative common framework arrangements might be needed”.193
155.The existence of an EU biosecurity framework helps to ensure the UK’s biosecurity measures are effective aids in establishing trade agreements to which the UK is party, and makes it easier for companies to move products within the UK without additional bureaucracy. We heard strong support for establishing a similar UK-wide framework post-Brexit.
156.It will be important for all the relevant devolved administrations to play a full role in developing a UK-wide biosecurity framework, and for the result to allow for variations between the UK’s regions—where ecological and geographical differences give rise to different biosecurity vulnerabilities and solutions—without creating internal borders.
Action so far
157.Extensive biosecurity coordination already takes place between the nations and regions of the UK. Professor Nicola Spence, Defra’s Chief Plant Health Officer, said:
“In the Chief Veterinary Officer’s network and in the Chief Plant Health Officer’s network, we work together to coordinate biosecurity arrangements. While policy is devolved to England, Wales and Scotland, we work closely to ensure a co-ordinated position in terms of plant disease controls. We do have those arrangements already in place and we would anticipate continuing to do that.”194
158.Defra detailed additional existing coordination activities:
“Policy officials across all of the administrations have developed joint working groups and joint strategies for disease control, including a published UK Contingency plan. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) is an executive agency, sponsored by Defra in England and also works on behalf of the Scottish Government and Welsh Government. The Food Standards Agency is responsible for public health protection in relation to food in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.”195
159.Welsh Government Minister Ms Griffiths stated:
“We are already working collaboratively with the other UK administrations to explore the need for a collaborative framework that will enable adjustments to certain aspects of the EU approach to biosecurity … Mechanisms which allow a shared approach to biosecurity between the UK … in terms of sharing information on food safety and food-borne disease outbreak post Brexit are currently being considered.”196
160.Lord Gardiner described further work undertaken on invasive species within the British-Irish Council, which includes all devolved nations and regions, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey.197 Defra confirmed that discussions regarding post-Brexit biosecurity included the Crown Dependencies, “to identify where Defra can support them on the work needed to ensure their operational readiness”, and “to deliver to maintain or improve biosecurity standards and facilitate the fullest possible trade”.198
Island of Ireland
161.Northern Ireland may, for some purposes at least, need to stand outside a ‘UK framework’ for biosecurity. As the Equine Disease Coalition and British Equine Veterinary Association pointed out, “GB is a single epidemiological unit and NI/ROI is a single epidemiological unit with disease outbreaks reflecting that.”199 This was confirmed by Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs:
“As Northern Ireland (NI) and Ireland (IE) share a single island land mass, protected by water, it is sensible for certain animal diseases and in certain circumstances, for both NI and IE to adopt a similar approach to disease surveillance, prevention and control. The same approach applies to plant diseases and to tackling potentially environmentally damaging issues and protecting habitats and species native to the island.”200
162.The Environmental Law Implementation Group at the Irish Environmental Network pointed out: “While there has been substantial rhetoric on the matter of not-treating NI any differently to the rest of the UK—the simple fact is—it already is treated differently from a regulatory and access point of view to the rest of the UK and has had devolved powers.”201
163.Witnesses identified a number of existing cross-island biosecurity initiatives, including the joint ‘Invasive Species Ireland’ project,202 cooperation on diagnostic testing facilities,203 intergovernmental cooperation on an all-island disease surveillance report,204 the Marine Pathways group,205 and an all-island approach to plant health.206
164.The question of how to avoid a ‘hard border’ on the island of Ireland, of which biosecurity is one component, is central to the Brexit negotiations, and was explored in our report Brexit: UK-Irish relations.207 Dr Emily Lydgate, Lecturer in Environmental Law at the University of Sussex, explained:
“EU law requires that all live animals from third countries be subject to veterinary checks at designated border posts. There are thousands of live animals moving freely across the intra-Irish border now. How would we avoid the need for veterinary checks and other types of sanitary and phytosanitary inspection? This is an area of significant disagreement between the UK and the EU.”208
165.The British Veterinary Association believed that the imposition of biosecurity inspections on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland “could reduce the efficiency of traffic moving across the border”.209 Dr Robert Black from the Natural Resources Institute was concerned that the requirement for phytosanitary and veterinary certificates “could affect the trade in live animals, fresh meat, dairy, semen for animal rearing and also be a threat to the UK’s horseracing industry because at the moment there is free movement of horses from Ireland”.210
166.The Environmental Law Implementation Group at the Irish Environmental Network also raised concerns about the equine industry, including horse racing and breeding:
“These involve not just the transit of animals across the Irish Sea, but the transit of the associated actors and paraphernalia. So people, boots, straw, vehicles move over and back between the UK and ROI and indeed elsewhere. All of which can present and carry risks from one jurisdiction to another. Any change or diminution in the UK’s regulatory approach could have fatal consequences for such interactions, equally with dog racing, dog shows, show jumping etc.”211
167.The Microbiology Society therefore concluded:
“Members in both the UK and Republic of Ireland stress links between the countries must remain strong to ensure that bilateral scientific collaboration, including in animal and plant health, continues to thrive. Coordinated information sharing and collaborative research programmes will remain vital for biosecurity on the island of Ireland.”212
168.We urge the Government to reach an arrangement which maintains the treatment of the island of Ireland as a single epidemiological unit.
177 Written evidence from RSPB (PAB0024); also written evidence from Anglian Water Services (PAB0006), Confor (PAB0011), the British Veterinary Association (PAB0013), the Equine Disease Control and British Equine Veterinary Association (PAB0015), Wildlife and Countryside Link (PAB0025), Prof James Brown (PAB0027)
181 Written evidence from Country Land and Business Association (PAB0004); also written evidence from the Horticultural Trades Association (PAB0022)
185 Ibid.
193 Cabinet Office, Frameworks Analysis: Breakdown of areas of EU law that intersect with devolved competence in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (March 2018), pp 22 and 33: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/frameworks-analysis [accessed 21 August]
199 Written evidence from Equine Disease Coalition and British Equine Veterinary Association (PAB0015)
200 Written evidence from Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (PAB0041); also written evidence from Dogs Trust (PAB0016), Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (PAB0017), City of London Corporation (PAB0021), RSPB (PAB0024), Wildlife and Countryside Link (PAB0025), Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (PAB0038), Centre for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (PAB0044), Environmental Law Implementation Group at the Irish Environmental Network (PAB0045)
201 Written evidence from Environmental Law Implementation Group at the Irish Environmental Network (PAB0045)
207 European Union Committee. Brexit: UK-Irish relations (6th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 76)