Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister but she has not really answered the question. If goods coming from the Republic through Northern Ireland into Great Britain have to be security-checked for phytosanitary and all the other reasons, why are people in Northern Ireland then left with nothing? How does the Minister know that we are not going to be poisoned or threatened by some kind of problem that she feels will come through to Great Britain?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely get the point that the noble Baroness is making. Our international commitments, and the trade and co-operation agreement, require us to treat EU goods equally, regardless of the entry point. As she is aware, there is a lot of legislation already in place. There are issues within the Windsor Framework. There are matters that we need to discuss with the EU as we go forward with the EU reset that has been discussed. These more complex issues are where we need to dig into the detail in our meetings outside of the legislation, and the whole point of me wanting to meet noble Lords is so we can do that. We can dig into those details and I can better understand the concerns, and we can look at whether there are things that we can do to manage this better. I hope the noble Baroness is happy that I am not trying to dodge it; I just need to understand it better, so that we can discuss it properly.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked about electronic systems for paperwork. We have been looking at this; it is quite complicated, but we are exploring whether it might be possible, to answer that specific question.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the potential SPS and veterinary agreements with the EU. I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her work as part of the veterinary medicines working group. This is a critical part of taking that work forward, and a way that we are working in collaboration and consultation to ensure that we get the best deal we can. It is quite difficult because it is early stages, and we want to get this right, so I cannot say anything formally at present. I assure noble Lords that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes on looking to get the best outcomes that we can for both SPS and veterinary agreements.

I conclude by summarising what we consider to be the benefits of these regulations. They strengthen Great Britain’s biosecurity by delivering alignment in the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. We believe it is right that goods from the European Union and the rest of the world are treated differently from goods moving within the UK’s internal market. Additionally, the consequential amendments to the qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition in existing legislation ensures that the updated definition, which focuses the benefits of unfettered access more squarely on Northern Ireland traders, applies to the direct and indirect movement of these goods into Great Britain. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that there will be further statutory instruments to come on very similar areas—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, assured us that this will be the case.

I am aware that the noble Lord, Lords Dodds, may well be minded to divide the House on these regulations. As I mentioned at the start of my response, I have invited noble Lords from Northern Ireland to come, in January, to another meeting, as a follow-up to our previous one, and I very much hope that they will accept. I reassure noble Lords, who clearly have very real concerns about statutory instruments regarding the Windsor Framework and the implementation of the new BTOM, that I am listening. I want to have the opportunity to consider wider concerns in more depth, so that I can properly understand them and see if there are ways that we can move forward together on this. I do not pretend to have all the answers or a magic wand to resolve what is, in many areas, a pretty impossible position, but I am genuine in wanting to work with noble Lords on this. With that having been said, I once again thank everyone for their contributions. I commend the regulations to the House.

Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I apologise; I know that the noble Lord raised this in his speech. I am more than happy to speak to ministerial colleagues on those matters.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I want to say, as usual when this kind of statutory instrument is being discussed, that it goes much wider than the actual SI. I kept my remarks specifically to pets, and a number of questions were asked which it was very difficult for the Minister to answer. I very much appreciate her genuine sympathy and concern. We will go through Hansard to see what more needs to be answered, because one of the things that has come out of tonight’s debate is that there is genuine confusion, much more within the departments than even with the Minister. That has to be sorted.

I thank those noble Lords who supported my regret amendment. The two noble Lords who opposed it did not say anything specific about what was wrong with the issues that I raised; they tended to go wider than that. I am sorry if I pre-empted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I always know that she will say that it is all Brexit’s fault. However, I thank her very much for asking some questions that were very relevant to the debate.

Scrutiny is the reason that we are here tonight and why these SIs always take a long time; I know that there are many frustrated colleagues here tonight wishing that this had gone through in a quick hour. It is because there is no real scrutiny in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, many MLAs now say that quite a lot of what is going on there is a farce in terms of scrutiny. The scrutiny for this part of the United Kingdom is more and more having to come in this Chamber, which is why we have these debates.

I am still not at all satisfied and feel very strongly that all those animal lovers out there watching this tonight—many knew that it was happening, particularly the Kennel Club, which I mentioned earlier—will not feel satisfied about any of the answers and will not understand why our Governments have allowed this to happen. I keep tabling regret amendments. I am getting fed up with regret. I would like to press this amendment to a vote.

Fisheries Bill

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman]

Well, of course, any kind of regeneration needs to cover a number of different areas, but we know that fishing would regenerate many, many coastal communities if we were able to land more fish into British ports and if we were able to change quotas. The Secretary of State has said that we have a huge opportunity here to regenerate our coastal communities through investing in fishing, but, obviously, we must have other funding as well, which is why I mentioned earlier the importance of tourism.

Let me turn now to trade. I understand that around 80% of what we catch, we export, and that 70% of the fish that we eat, we import, yet in the Bill there is no mention of trade, customs or tariffs. Labour’s commitment to membership of a customs union would reassure both processors and catchers that they could invest in their industry safe in the knowledge that they would have tariff-free access to the European markets.

I want to talk briefly about the marine environment. Labour welcomes the language in the Bill about reducing the environmental impacts of fishing, but the Bill provides only a vague future framework and does little to explain exactly what this would look like.

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the marine environment. She knows that the EU banned electric pulse fishing and then gave a 10-year derogation for Dutch boats—I think, 100 of them—to carry on with it. This really is ruining the ecosystem and the Bill does not ban it. Is this something that my hon. Friend might seek to put into the Bill in Committee?

[Sue Hayman]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I can confirm that we will absolutely look at this matter in Committee.

We are asking for more detail about discard charges as well as the environmental and sustainability objectives around maximum sustainable yield fisheries management. Labour would go further on environmental protections than the provisions outlined in the Bill and would categorically oppose any move away from a science-led, ecosystems-based approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) mentioned, there is only a vague reference to MSY in the Bill, and no clear roadmap on when and how this can be achieved. We would like to know whether Ministers are still committed to it as we leave the EU. We believe that stocks should at least meet this standard by 2020 and will seek to bring that into the Bill if the Government do not.

Will the Secretary of State respond to the concerns of environmental groups such as Sustain that are worried that the Bill’s objective to gradually eliminate discards is far weaker and slower than the EU’s commitment to end discarding completely within a set deadline? This is an important point.