Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

The Government, as part of their reset with the European Union, must now embrace the more robust infrastructure-free border that was initially proposed way back, from within the EU, with mutual enforcement, which is now provided for by Bill proposed by the Member of Parliament for North Antrim, Jim Allister—the European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill—which is currently in another place. In doing so, the Government would very quickly restore to themselves their essential state functions in biosecurity as they relate to Northern Ireland as well as Great Britain, re-enfranchise 1.9 million UK citizens, restore the territorial integrity of the UK, and make negotiating a trade deal with the United States—something that will be virtually impossible while part of the UK has been left in the EU—possible. Most of all, the Government should stand up for the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and stop our country being torn apart. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister to the Front Bench, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, on behalf of the Opposition, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships’ House, a member of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group—which is all related to the European Union.

A very interesting YouGov poll was published in the last few days; it showed that the public in the UK wanted to join the EU again. This cannot be discounted, and I would like to leave that point with the Government. An interesting analysis was provided by Piers Morgan—who would not exactly have been seen as a remainer—who said he cannot see why the reset does not involve rejoining the European Union. Little benefit has come out of Brexit for the people of the United Kingdom, and we should make that point quite clear.

I support this statutory instrument, which is also supported by Logistics UK, which has had major problems with the border target operating model and its implementation. However, it makes the case for the single trade window, which is not reflected in this particular legislation. As I have already said to my noble friend the Minister, this is an issue which requires legislation. As my noble friend the Minister has said, there are some benefits in this statutory instrument which need to be highlighted, including amendments to provide a long-term legislative basis for the border target operating model beyond temporary powers.

The organisations involved in haulage and in bringing in and transporting plants and animals have no fundamental objection to this. However, they feel there is a risk that giving the BTOM a long-term legislative basis reduces the pressure on the Government to make a comprehensive veterinary and SPS agreement with the EU. I know my noble friend the Minister has already referred to this in her speech, and it is one of the areas that we have looked at in the Veterinary Medicine Working Group. I would be most pleased if my noble friend the Minister could confirm the ongoing situation.

This statutory instrument includes amendments to extend policies which are currently applied only to EU goods to goods from the rest of the world. This makes sense, as it will mean that rest of the world goods imports do not have an unfair advantage over EU goods regarding the border target operating model’s bureaucracy and costs. It also provides amendments to allow the BTOM to be updated more responsively to biosecurity risks. This sounds sensible if it is used only in cases of genuine biosecurity risk. It would be problematic if changing risk classifications became a way of raising more revenue for the Government.

In short, there are minor issues that are benefits in this statutory instrument. As a member of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we raised the point about administrative powers, which my noble friend the Minister addressed in her opening comments. However, there is disappointment that safety and security declarations will be made via the Government’s existing sub-optimal service, rather than the single trade window. That is why organisations such as Logistics UK—from which I have received representations and a briefing—in their spending review submissions to the Treasury have called for the development, thorough testing and introduction of a single trade window which efficiently and effectively operates as one border portal, and which is interoperable with international systems, to reduce the bureaucratic and cost burden on businesses. Can my noble friend say what the possibilities are of this happening?

In supporting this statutory instrument, I look forward to seeing the reset being promoted by the Government leading to a more enduring solution for all the people of the UK, including those in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that there is less trade friction, but that is why we have the Windsor Framework and the BTOM; they are both devices to manage the trade friction that would not have been there if we did not have Brexit. It all comes back to that horrible little subject. Many who once were Brexiteers now see that there is little value in it and that we should be reverting back to where we once were.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and explaining them in such detail. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on tabling the regret amendment, which means that the matter can be debated properly in this Chamber and given the scrutiny that it deserves. Far too many of these regulations are being laid by negative procedure and affirmative procedure and are being brought to the Grand Committee. The full scrutiny of Members in this Chamber needs to be brought to bear on the contents of these regulations, because they have significant effects. A lot of them are very technical in nature—when you listen to the Minister introduce the matter, it sounds extremely technical indeed —but when one delves into it, one can see the significant ramifications, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out in her forensic analysis of the regulations, and the effects and implications that they have.

I am sure that the Minister, having listened to her noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, will go away and say that the answer to this is to persuade the Prime Minister to come out publicly and declare his wish to rejoin the European Union. He may try to resist that, for obvious reasons, not least that it would further diminish his standing with the people of the United Kingdom. There will be those who say that the answer is to undo Brexit, but I think that that debate is long gone. The issue that we are debating is how Brexit is done. The problem that we have in Northern Ireland is not the fact that we had Brexit but the fact that Brexit has been done in a way that separates Northern Ireland, wrongly, undemocratically and unconstitutionally, from the rest of the United Kingdom. Brexit can be done and must be done, if the institutions at Stormont are to endure in the long run, in a way that does away with the current problems.

On the issue at the heart of these regulations—the biosecurity of Great Britain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, explained at length—we had a recent example of the problem that is being created. On 16 January, the Defra Minister in the other place, Daniel Zeichner, told Members of Parliament about the steps being taken by His Majesty’s Government to protect people from foot and mouth disease in Great Britain. He said:

“The Government have taken decisive and immediate action. The import of cattle, pigs and sheep from Germany has been stopped to protect farmers and their livelihoods”.


The Minister did not talk about Northern Ireland voluntarily, but, when he was challenged, he said:

“Northern Ireland farms are just as important. In Northern Ireland, the controls will apply to meat and live animals moving from a 3 km protection zone and a 10 km surveillance zone surrounding the affected premises in Germany. Those products cannot be moved to Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; cols. 331, 336.]


The biosecurity of Great Britain was so important that the import of all cattle, pigs and sheep from Germany had to be stopped immediately. By contrast, cattle, pigs or sheep could come to Northern Ireland from anywhere in Germany, so long as they did not come from a 10 kilometre surveillance zone surrounding the affected premises.

The levels of protection the UK Government insisted on for Great Britain, and rightly so, could not have been more different from those the EU provided for Northern Ireland, the UK having abdicated its biosecurity responsibilities in relation to Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness said. In this context, the claim by the Minister in the other place that Northern Ireland farms are just as important looks limp, pathetic and absurd.

Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the instrument before us. I support its contents but I want to clarify a couple of issues.

Can the Minister clarify the situation in Wales? I understand her to say that the scheme will not be offered in Wales and that the Government are no longer engaging with Wales. Do they have a commitment from Wales? I just want to clarify that because, obviously, the situation in Scotland is welcome.

I am grateful to both Coca-Cola and the Food and Drink Federation for their briefings and preparation for today; I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Food and Drink, which is why I asked them for a briefing. They welcome the concept but, in their view, it is important that it is rolled out across the United Kingdom.

The Minister referred to other jurisdictions. I am familiar with how the scheme operates in Denmark; it has had rather perverse consequences. I sometimes feel as though I could pay for my whole Danish holiday if I went around collecting all the bottles and cans left after picnics in parks across Copenhagen and took them back. The deposit—it is called Pant—is actually set at quite a high level, so it would be helpful to know what level the Minister and the Government have in mind. Obviously, it has to be set at a level that is affordable for the consumer, ensuring that they are willing to go back and return a container to the place where it was bought.

Obviously, we must have a deposit management organisation on side. Who will be the deposit management organisation in England? Will it be the supermarket? As consumers, we are concerned about the impact this will have on small convenience stores, which will perhaps not have the facilities to take these returned bottles or whatever after use. It would be helpful to have clarification on what the costs will be and who will provide the service, because they are going to require a very large facility to accommodate the containers being returned.

Coca-Cola is keen to see the DRS—the deposit return scheme—considered as part of the extended producer responsibility. Is that something the Minister can confirm this afternoon?

The Minister concluded by saying that the monitoring and enforcement will be done by, among others, trading standards and local authorities. Are the Government convinced that they will have the resources to do this? Obviously, it is an additional responsibility over and above what they are currently doing in relation to food standards and other commitments.

Finally, if glass is to be excluded at this time, when do the Government envisage glass being included? As I understand it, glass is included in most other jurisdictions, so a big chunk of deposit returns will be excluded if glass is not included.

With those few queries, I lend my support to the scheme.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for presenting the case for the deposit return scheme. I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships’ House. I welcome this SI and agree with my noble friend that it will make a major contribution to the reduction of littering. Numerous cans and other types of litter are strewn across the countryside and nobody appears to take responsibility, apart from local neighbourhoods that engage in their own collection schemes. I laud them for doing so.

I have some questions in relation to Northern Ireland. Normally this would be a devolved measure. I suppose that the UK Government were trying to ensure that there was a collective approach on the part of the Government and the devolved nations and regions. Perhaps my noble friend could explain the purpose of including the devolved nations and regions. Also, will the money collected from this scheme in Northern Ireland go to the Treasury, or will it go to the Department of Finance, where it can be invested in local schemes, and into the general exchequer for the delivery of lots of different types of service? I am well aware of the value of the plastic bag scheme in reducing litter but also in terms of the money. It has added to the portfolio of money available for the enhancement of services.

Secondly, I have a couple of questions in relation to Wales, which, I note, has not signed up to this scheme. How can the interoperability of the four UK schemes and the avoidance of unique identifiers in the Welsh market be assured? With Welsh proposals not yet published, how can the October 2027 introduction date be assured to avoid material switching under the EPR scheme? Will the Government ensure that the divergence of the Welsh scheme does not impact the governance of the UK, Northern Ireland and Scotland deposit return scheme and the appointment of a scheme administrator?

Those are the issues that most interest me in this SI, which I strongly support.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the comments made by the two previous contributors on compliance for small businesses, which is crucial. It is all very well for large companies to say, “Yes, we support these schemes”, but the burden will often fall heavily on the small retailer, in one form or another. I should start with a mea culpa, in that I was head of personnel for Coca-Cola when it introduced the first ever plastic bottles into this country, so it is all my fault. For the benefit of my noble friend next to me, in particular, the first plastic bottles produced in this country were made in a factory in Leeds—a bottling plant in Pudsey.

I therefore also have a memory of glass bottles and the system that worked then. The glass bottle return system had gone out of operation in most parts of the country when plastic bottles were introduced. At the risk of being accused of regionalism or being rude about the Scots, that system lasted longer in Scotland because that part of the country returned their products to the retailers to reclaim the deposits available.

Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks an important question. I met APHA yesterday to discuss exactly this issue because, when there are outbreaks of more than one disease, it has to look at how it will manage all the different aspects. It has assured me that it is confident that it has the resources to manage the response currently, and I am pleased that the Government have awarded funding to Weybridge to ensure that our future capability will be there.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on her wonderful work with the devolved Administrations, in meeting the various Ministers and organisations in the agricultural field. Whenever she next meets the Minister in Northern Ireland, will she ask him what joint work can be done to address disease in not only poultry flocks but animals such as TB reactors? That is a major problem for our farming industry.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I actually met with the Minister in Northern Ireland only yesterday, and we have very regular meetings. Biosecurity is incredibly important, and it is important that we work right across all our devolved Administrations as well as with our European colleagues. I am more than happy to discuss this—I have discussed it when I have gone over to Northern Ireland. I have met farming communities over there and looked at the biosecurity measures at ports for things such as African swine fever. We are being very proactive about this.

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

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

I conclude by thanking all who have attended. I look forward to hearing the contributions on all sides and to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my registered interests, including my membership of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group and of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. I also declare that I support the Windsor Framework, I supported the protocol and I believe, like many others in Northern Ireland, that the Windsor Framework is a means of managing the friction of the trade in goods on the island of Ireland. It is about managing the delicate relationship that exists.

I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock is on the Front Bench. I must congratulate her on all the work she has been doing with the farming community in Northern Ireland. The latest such work was last week during her last visit, which I was told was very successful by the Ulster Farmers Union. They told me to say that they were very pleased that you visited the farm in Glenanne in County Armagh, which is an example of good farming practice in Northern Ireland.

This is the third debate in the last five weeks on regret amendments to Windsor Framework statutory instruments. Only last Friday in the House of Commons there was a debate on a Private Member’s Bill from Jim Allister, the Member for North Antrim. This sought to cancel the Windsor Framework and replace it with mutual recognition—maybe, in shorthand, the Liz Truss protocol Bill—which could impact on Article 2 of the framework on equality and human rights, as required by the Good Friday agreement, and even jeopardise our access to the single electricity market, which is protected by the Windsor Framework.

I ask my noble friends—I call them my noble friends because they are from Northern Ireland—do you really want to wreck our delicate political arrangements? Do you really want to wreck our special trading arrangements—that unique dual access for goods to the EU single market and the UK internal market? Those political arrangements reflect our unique political balance in Northern Ireland between unionists and nationalists and others. In turn, that could also jeopardise our economy and potential for growth.

Today in the Assembly—I do not know the result yet, but I can predict it—there was a debate on the democratic scrutiny committee on the Windsor Framework. I would say, “What have all of all these debates achieved?” but I imagine that today’s vote in the Assembly will result in a review of arrangements of the Windsor Framework. That would afford businesses, communities and individuals across Northern Ireland the opportunity to correct deficiencies and avail themselves of the benefits of two important global markets. This point was made this morning on “Good Morning Ulster” by the chief executive of the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, Roger Pollen.

I know that perhaps the real purpose of the proposers —the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and on previous occasions the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—is that they want to cancel the Windsor Framework because they see it as causing certain constitutional jeopardy. I remind them that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain. In the last poll some weeks ago, 57% of the population in Northern Ireland support the Windsor Framework.

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

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is—

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

It is this side, thank you.

My Lords, I refer to the register of Members’ interests, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House and of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. We had a similar debate on the Windsor Framework some weeks ago and I suppose that we have had debates like this on other statutory instruments in relation to the Windsor Framework. It is an issue that divides communities in Northern Ireland along broadly political constitutional lines. However, we must not forget that the Windsor Framework is a result of Brexit. It would not be here if we did not have Brexit. That is the political reality that we all face and must countenance.

I for one support the Windsor Framework and I supported the protocol, which I believed was the best means of dealing with the challenges that were presented by Brexit for trade in goods on the island of Ireland, both north and south. Before Brexit, goods moved freely across the island, helping to sustain and underpin our economies, both north and south. That fact was recognised in the Good Friday agreement, which was referred to earlier today, and in the three-stranded relationships as a result of that agreement, whether it was the Northern Ireland Executive, the Assembly, the North/South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council.

Prior to and since the vote on the Brexit referendum, many of us have insisted that there was a need for a special status for Northern Ireland because of those unique trading and political relationships on the island. That fact has not diminished and now manifests itself in the Windsor Framework, which exists to manage those challenging relationships that exist—there is no doubt they are challenging. I believe that where there are imperfections with some areas of trade within the Windsor Framework, they need resolution through dialogue and negotiation between the UK and the EU.

On veterinary medicines, my noble friend on the Front Bench very ably chairs our Veterinary Medicine Working Group, which is trying to understand and deal with the challenges presented to our agri-food industry in Northern Ireland and to resolve with the EU those challenges with the supply of medicines to our veterinarians in Northern Ireland, as well as looking at an SPS veterinary agreement. I believe the same applies with pets and companion animals; it requires sensible management of this issue to ensure that there are no impediments.

I say to those who supported Brexit and who bring forward these regret amendments to your Lordships’ House to challenge every piece of secondary legislation on the Windsor Framework as an attack on the constitutional sovereignty of the UK and Northern Ireland that I believe that is disingenuous. I recognise their reasons for doing so, but I do not agree with them. At the end of the day, those same people and those same representatives argued for the hardest possible Brexit, and sometimes you get what you argued for. Put simply, I believe we would have been better to remain in the EU, and I am pleased that my colleagues in the new Labour Government, via the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers, are working with the EU on a reset of those relationships, notwithstanding the realities of the situation. For my part, I have my own political identity as a democratic Irish nationalist, but I recognise the difficulties that my colleagues on the Front Bench are presented with.

The purpose of the instrument under discussion this evening is to ensure the smooth movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets from GB to Northern Ireland, while ensuring that any pet movements from GB and Ireland or other EU member states remain subject to the relevant EU requirements. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, considered that this instrument

“is an example of where wider consultation would have been desirable”.

Our role in that Committee is largely process-driven, and effective engagement and communication through a publicity campaign and notices in veterinary surgeries will definitely be vital to improve public understanding of how the scheme will operate in practice.

Therefore, can my noble friend say whether there are any plans to do such publicity, and will she talk to ministerial colleagues, maybe through the usual channels, about the necessity for more consultation in relation to statutory instruments as per the Windsor Framework? That would help in explaining the detail not only to public representatives but to wider business and the communities throughout Northern Ireland.

Businesses want to see a resolution to all the challenges presented by Brexit and the bureaucracy of the Windsor Framework, and many businesses have said to me that they welcomed any agreement when faced with the catastrophic alternative of a no-deal Brexit. Business and trade in Northern Ireland welcomed an agreement that provided continued access to the all-Ireland market, which many businesses in Northern Ireland relied on. Furthermore, it welcomes a unique solution for a unique place with trade, social, family and emotive ties with both Britain and Ireland. It is also worth noting that in the assessment of the recent Queen’s University survey, most respondents—around 57%—again want MLAs to vote in favour of the continued application of Articles 5 to 10 of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That vote is expected by the Secretary of State to take place before the Christmas Recess of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In wanting the dismantling of the Windsor Framework, I wonder whether those who object realise that their fervour for opposition could result in tampering with the human rights and equality provisions of the Good Friday agreement that the Windsor Framework seeks to protect, as well as the single electricity market which exists on the island?

In conclusion, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I totally support this statutory instrument. I support the Windsor Framework because it is a necessary legal device to deal with the complexities that were presented to us in Ireland, north and south, on the issue of Brexit. We need a pragmatic solution rather than choosing to have political contests and duels simply for the sake of them.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that debate is necessary in a democratic society, but that all of us have to ask whether this is in the best interests of our businesses and economy? Perhaps my noble friend could also tell us how this statutory instrument can be progressed to full implementation stage and what she sees as evolving and developing as part of that full implementation?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving her amendment and securing this important debate. She made a very powerful and detailed speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on his excellent contribution. As I know the Minister appreciates, there are many noble Lords who feel very strongly about the Windsor Framework. I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously as they work to deliver a fair settlement for Northern Ireland now that we have left the EU.

In particular, the Government’s stated policy of seeking closer ties with our partners in the European Union is concerning to many in Northern Ireland, and we on these Benches are clear that the Government must not do anything that undermines Northern Ireland’s access to the UK internal market.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, we understand farmers’ anxiety at changes to agricultural property relief. However, the vast majority of those claiming relief will not be affected by the changes. The latest data available shows that the top 7% of claims for agricultural property relief in 2021-22 accounted for 40% of the cost of the tax relief, with the top 2% accounting for 22% of the cost. Most families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have always done.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, farmers in Northern Ireland greatly appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has met the devolved Minister on a fairly regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues. When she next meets the Minister of Agriculture, the Ulster Farmers Union and the agricultural producers in the region, will she discuss the need for tax amelioration measures to provide for succession planning, to encourage young people into farming and protect farm families? There is a unique issue in Northern Ireland which needs to be addressed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness said, I meet the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland regularly and met the Ulster Farmers Union very recently, as well as the noble Baroness, to discuss these issues, and I know that my officials meet various organisations regularly to discuss them. I will be back in Belfast towards the end of this month and hope to meet the Ulster Farmers Union again shortly. As she pointed out, tax and succession planning is incredibly important. There is an issue with getting young people into farming, and I recommend that people talk to professionals about what is available to them for tax purposes going forward.

Rural Communities

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for securing this important debate on rural priorities. I also acknowledge and congratulate my colleague from Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard. He has served as a district councillor in Fermanagh District Council and as a Member in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to which we were elected at the same time in November 2003 and then re-elected on several occasions. We were leaders of our political parties at the same time, and we met regularly on a range of issues. We also served in the other place and now we serve in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and I are also similar in age, although I edge upwards by being a few years older than he is. On a very personal level, I give him my best wishes and my congratulations on making his maiden speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and I served and represented rural communities in fairly different parts of Northern Ireland, and we also have different perspectives on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland; he is an Ulster Unionist and I am a democratic Irish nationalist. But that does not prevent us working together on the issues that matter to the people; that has always been the case and will continue to be the case, and I am in no doubt about that.

Moving swiftly on to the Motion, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, want to give a perspective from Northern Ireland, where the local department is implementing the rural policy framework, the objective of which is to ensure that rural dwellers enjoy the same quality of life and opportunities as those in urban areas. Various rural priorities need to be addressed, undoubtedly. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock is on the Front Bench and has already met the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment on numerous occasions. She can report that in her response. No doubt she will have heard the various issues that confront rural communities, thereby necessitating a higher level of budget for farming and rural communities throughout the UK, but I would also say particularly in Northern Ireland.

The priorities for rural communities that need to be addressed, along with farming, are food production and food security, as well as better access and provision of sustainable services such as schools, broadband internet, mobile phone accessibility, the provision of banking hubs—we are all challenged in rural communities by the decrease and reduction in the number of bank branches—the provision and sustainability of shops and business development enterprises allied to the needs of those farming families, the restrictions on rural planning policy, and the provision of new housebuilding. None of us can gainsay that the issues in rural communities are different. There are many similarities and those need to be addressed.

Another factor is the potential for youth migration to urban areas. An important factor in knitting together rural communities is the continuing need for accessibility to good quality healthcare and allied services of acute hospitals. This also involves looking at the post-Covid-19 future and embracing the opportunities that green growth, climate change impacts, globalisation and technological innovation present. Therefore, a holistic approach to rural development is required to secure and underpin such communities and encompass many of the priorities that have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her introduction.

In Northern Ireland, our agriculture sector faces immense pressures due to rising production costs, the uncertainties of post-Brexit trade and the increasing impact of climate change. The 670,000 people living in rural communities in Northern Ireland and the 113,000 jobs in the food supply chain rely heavily on farming. There are also jobs linked indirectly to farms that rely on them for business. Northern Ireland’s farmers need increased financial support from the Treasury; and I know that, quite recently, the Ulster Farmers Union has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, regarding these matters, because its members wish to remain competitive, sustainable and resilient, as they have lost the EU Pillar 2 funding. I wonder if my noble friend could say something about the replacement for Pillar 2 funding and how the funding that could be provided could underpin and sustain rural communities.

In the post-Brexit world, it is important that, as part of the reset with the EU, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defra Secretary of State develop clear policies to facilitate smooth trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, and between GB and Northern Ireland, through the provision of funding for mitigating market disruptions caused by Brexit. It is important to increase investment in local food production and sustainable farming, and to promote renewable energy sources and energy efficiency within the agriculture sector. Undoubtedly agriculture is a holistic industry, along with rural development and rural services.

Therefore, in advance of the forthcoming Budget, it is important to recognise the economic pressures which the Government have told us about, but modest increases in agricultural funding will deliver substantial returns in food security and for the development of rural communities. I hope that my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock could detail some of those in turn, notwithstanding the budget pressures and the comprehensive spending review, because, at the end of the day, I want to see what joint working there is with the community, the voluntary sector and other government departments in the UK and the devolved nations and regions.

Peatlands

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in restoring peatlands, and by what date they expect all degraded peatlands to be restored.

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

My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land management, as set out in the register, and draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that I have been involved in numerous peatland restoration projects. The Government have made good progress in restoring our peatlands; we have accelerated the rate of peatland restoration in England through the Nature for Climate Fund, launched in 2020. Through this fund, we have so far provided £35 million for peatland restoration projects, financially committing us to restoring approximately 27,000 hectares of peatland. This represents significant progress against our ambitious commitment, made in the net-zero strategy, to restore 280,000 hectares of peatland by 2050.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. We all know that well-managed peatlands can sequester carbon and mitigate flood risks, but about 80% of UK peatlands are in a degraded condition, and we are still selling it for horticultural use. Can the Minister go a little further and tell the House when the threshold of 35,000 hectares, which the Government committed to restore by 2025, will be restored—he already mentioned 27,000—and what the plan is for the remaining 245,000 hectares they committed to restore through the net-zero strategy by 2050?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the important issue of peatland restoration. We are making good progress to deliver the commitments to restore the 35,000 hectares of peatlands by 2025. She alluded to the fact that we are aiming for about 27,000 at the moment. It is fair to say that we are slightly behind the target, but also that there have been some good reasons for that—namely the pandemic, which slowed everybody up, but also that it is quite difficult to plan and organise these things. They tend to be back-loaded rather than front-loaded in their completion. Since making that commitment, restoration activity has been delivered through our agri-environment schemes, and most significantly through the Nature for Climate Fund, as I said. This fund has already financially committed the Government to restoring the 27,000 hectares of peatland, and 11,000 hectares of that have already been delivered. We are also fully committed to restoring the 240,000 hectares of remaining peatland by 2050.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench and to the Second Reading of his first Bill in your Lordships’ House. Obviously, on some of the issues in the Bill, I take a different view from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

I want to talk from a Northern Ireland perspective, which may seem rather odd since Northern Ireland is not covered by this legislation, but there are very good reasons for that. The provisions in the Bill, as the Minister said, seek to prohibit the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and equines for slaughter, including fattening for subsequent slaughter, beginning in or transiting through GB to EU member states and other third countries. This in itself does not apply to Northern Ireland.

For practical, agricultural, trading, political and animal health reasons, that is the right decision. That fact was recognised by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, on 15 January, when he stated, in response to the debate, that the Bill must not jeopardise the access that Northern Ireland farmers have to the Republic of Ireland. I hope that all noble Lords recognise the economic and trading importance of agriculture to both parts of Ireland and the fact that farmers and those involved in trading try to adhere to animal health standards.

There is another feature. The island of Ireland, both north and south, is treated as a single animal health epidemiological unit. That has persisted for many years because of the nature of the trade on an ongoing daily basis, to and fro. That is essential for the agri-food industry and its success. Agri-food on the island of Ireland is interlinked. Northern Ireland’s farmers have invested much time and energy in maintaining very good, world-leading animal welfare practices, including in how animals are transported. The farming unions in Northern Ireland would refute any claims or suggestions that anti-animal welfare conditions exist. I am also mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has said, which is absolutely correct: with all these movements there have to be proper monitoring procedures in place. Much of that is covered by the fact that it is a single animal health epidemiological unit.

The bottom line is that Northern Ireland farmers need access to the markets. They need access to the Republic of Ireland and to mainland EU for live animals, particularly the sheep sector. Reference has already been made to this. In 2022, the last year for which statistics are available, 337,000 sheep moved from Northern Ireland to the Republic for slaughter and fattening, and about 3,500 cattle and 17,000 pigs were moved for slaughter. The dairy sector needs this avenue maintained for dairy-bred bull calves, as a limited market exists for them in Northern Ireland.

In 2018, in evidence to a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry in the other place into live animals, the farmers’ union in Northern Ireland stated that the two agri-food industries on the island of Ireland

“are highly integrated and they move both ways … That two-way movement is a historic thing and it is essential”.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board also highlighted to that committee’s inquiry the importance of processing capacity in the Republic to the red meat sectors. For example, in the pig industry, sows go across the border for slaughter and then back again.

Cross-border movement is important not only for Northern Ireland’s trade with the Republic but with other countries. Calves from Northern Ireland destined for France are regularly transported through ports in the Republic of Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, have referred to the influence of the Windsor Framework. I am glad that the Windsor Framework is in place, because it will ensure that the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland is protected, as there will be the free movement of livestock for export purposes and for fattening and slaughter on the island of Ireland.

The Bill recognises that trade in live animals from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland should be allowed to continue—and I hope it will be. The Ulster Farmers’ Union and farming organisations asked for this to happen in 2018. Thankfully, this legislation recognises the need to leave Northern Ireland out of its provisions.

I have a question for the Minister about a more pertinent issue. We need to turn our attention to the EU proposals on animal transport that will apply in Northern Ireland. It is important that, in negotiations with the EU on behalf of Northern Ireland farmers, the UK Government ensure that the transport of live animals to the EU, with all the proper animal welfare conditions in place, is maintained. This is vital for the safeguarding and protection of our agri-food industry on the island, which is highly integrated. In that regard, can the Minister indicate what discussions have been held with the EU regarding the need to ensure that the transport of live animals to the mainland EU is retained? If he is not able to provide that information in his wind-up, can he write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library of your Lordships’ House?

I support this legislation. Animal welfare regulations and standards are vital to the agri-food industry, but equally important is the need to ensure that we have that free movement of animals for slaughter and fattening purposes on the island of Ireland. So, although I welcome the legislation, I am glad it does not include Northern Ireland.

Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Grand Committee

Finally, I note in passing that, as well as being the subject of the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023, enforcement is also completely central to the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulation 2023, Regulation 11 of which requires the competent authorities to assess goods coming into Northern Ireland on the basis of potential risks, such as disease. However, Regulation 11(2)(b) and (d) to (f) then bizarrely define risk in terms of capacity to conduct checks with respect to available staff and facilities. An enforcement requirement is thus made and effectively withdrawn in the same regulation on grounds of lack of capacity. Is this not a cynical device for encouraging people to conclude in the aftermath of 1 October that Windsor has been a lot less disruptive than usual because this will prevent us seeing what it is really like until July 2025 when the border control posts are ready? Have His Majesty’s Government discussed with the EU the implications of Regulation 11(2)(b) and (d) to (f) on the capacity of the border to meet both the demands of EU Regulation 2023/1231 and the demands of the red lane between 1 October 2023 and 31 July 2025? Have His Majesty’s Government been forced to give an assurance to the EU that Regulation 11 will be repealed, in whole or in part, on 1 August 2025 on completion of the border control posts at Larne, Warrenpoint, Foyle and Belfast?

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of these Windsor Framework regulations. I have to declare an interest as a member of two of your Lordships’ House’s committees, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the European Affairs Committee’s Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Last week in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee we considered these regulations.

I come to this debate as someone who supports the Windsor Framework and wants to see it implemented for the good of business development, so that people and businesses can avail themselves of access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. There needs to be a driver for that process. I note rather sadly that we do not have political institutions as per the Good Friday agreement up and running at the moment. I also note an indication on BBC Radio Ulster that the UK Government intend to drive on with the implementation, from their perspective, of the Windsor Framework. Can the Minister confirm that in summing up and whether that indicates that the Government have a little confidence in the resumption or restoration of political institutions?

Although I have indicated my support for the Windsor Framework, there are certain issues with the regulations, which were raised last week in our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. There is a pattern across a lot of these SIs; there is a lack of a proper Explanatory Memorandum in some instances and of a proper impact assessment. The Explanatory Memorandum says:

“A De Minimis Assessment for this instrument has been completed”.


However, the advice given to our committee stated that there was a lack of a proper impact assessment. Maybe the Minister can advise us on why that was the case.

Can the Minister also indicate what consultation took place with stakeholders? We were told that there was consultation with businesses, but what businesses and how many, and who was consulted? I do not think the wider community would have taken part in this consultation. However, I talked to a business representative last Friday and they were most anxious that the simple detail was provided to businesses. When our protocol committee undertook our assessment and evidence-taking on the Windsor Framework in the spring and early summer of last year, and when we published our report at the end of July, there was a clear indication from all businesses that gave us evidence that there was a lack of detail regarding labelling and the implementation framework. That implementation framework enforcement is in these regulations, so it is sad to say that only some six to seven months later do we have the legislative framework. If that had been in place earlier, we would not have had the same level of complaints from the business community. We simply want to get on with proceedings.

Today in our protocol committee we were giving consideration to future short inquiries. One area where there has been a lack of information, and simply an extension of the grace period, is the whole area of the SPS agreement for veterinary medicines to the end of 2025. Can he say, as a Defra Minister, when there will be final negotiations and a final decision on that SPS agreement for veterinary medicines? After all, the agri-food industry is vital to Northern Ireland and our economy. I fully accept and agree with the point that, as regards animal health, Ireland is considered as a single epidemiological unit. I believe in the protection of food safety, so I want to see these regulations implemented as quickly as possible. It is sad that they were not available earlier in the year for businesses to answer their many queries on labelling and enforcement. Perhaps the Minister can also indicate when the permanent SPS infrastructure at the ports of Belfast, Larne and Warrenpoint will be completed.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, with whom I have the pleasure to serve on the Northern Ireland protocol Select Committee, to which she referred. I endorse what she said about the need to get resolution on veterinary medicines. We heard evidence last week, from the Ulster Farmers Union and others, about the serious implications of the failure to resolve that issue. The indications coming out of Brussels are that it is not interested in a solution that would guarantee the continued flow of Great Britain vaccines and other medicines for veterinary purposes to Northern Ireland. I would like a timescale from the Minister of when he expects farmers and the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland to be reassured that that matter will be resolved so that they can continue to access British veterinary vaccines and other medicines in the same way that they do now.

Unlike the noble Baroness who just spoke, I do not regard the Windsor Framework/Northern Ireland protocol as a fair and balanced resolution to our problems with the free flow of trade between parts of the United Kingdom. This is very much a process that has protected certain parts of the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement—namely, the north-south arrangement—but that has completely trashed the east-west relationship and the strand 1 relationship at Stormont. We can see that because there are no functioning institutions of strands 1, 2 or 3. People say that the Windsor Framework and the protocol are designed to protect the Belfast agreement, but show me the evidence of that. It has trashed the Belfast agreement and its institutions.

The Windsor Framework is now being implemented by a series of statutory instruments, through both negative and affirmative resolution. The noble Baroness referred to news reports about the Government taking further powers—that may well be. It sometimes makes you wonder why they talk about wanting to get the Assembly back so much, because all they do is keep taking powers from it and devolved Ministers. There is not much regard for the Sewel convention or any of that, and then they ask people to go back and administer less and less of what they should be administering. For vast swathes of our economy and the agri-food industry, no Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly of any party—unionist, nationalist or whatever—or any MP from Northern Ireland has any powers to make any laws in those areas. We are told that the Assembly must get back to administer Northern Ireland, but those powers have been taken away from Northern Ireland and from elected representatives in the other place and this House.

These are fundamental issues; they are not small matters but fundamental constitutional, political and economic issues. That is why we feel so strongly about these areas, and we will continue to expose a Government who claim to uphold the union but continue, as my noble friend Lord Morrow exposed in considerable detail, to implement EU laws over part of the United Kingdom. That is the nub of the problem.

This statutory instrument is one of those related to the Windsor Framework/Northern Ireland protocol, and it requires an affirmative vote in Parliament. The retail movement scheme statutory instrument, which was laid during the Summer Recess, is being implemented under the negative resolution procedure. Other important statutory instruments required to build the Irish Sea border and conform internal UK trade arrangements— I stress “internal”—with EU law are also being tabled by this Government under the negative resolution procedure.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has examined the regulations in front of us, as well as others. They are interlinked, as has been said, yet we have not been able to debate them—so far, that is; I am sure that we will find ways of getting them debated in due course. Up to now, the Government have not sought a debate on some of the most important regulations, including on the retail movement scheme itself. That is deeply regrettable.