Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

So it could be entered into by the EU, under its law, only because it was intrinsically temporary. I did ask a very distinguished lawyer, who I shall not name, what “temporary” meant in European law; he said “Ooh, about eight years, generally”. Well, eight years are up, so, as a temporary arrangement, we ought to be moving speedily to think about some system of mutual recognition that would enable us to have a fully functioning internal market within the United Kingdom, and the most sensible arrangements across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, with the minimum of controls, none of which would take place at the border. Then we would all be happy and able to debate other things late at night.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, to some extent, as previous speakers have said of this set of regulations, it is almost preposterous that we are debating it several months after its implementation. But I would have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that there is nothing as permanent as the temporary; he will, sadly, be familiar with that phrase.

On the idea of protecting our plant life and so on, there will not be a word of discontent around the Chamber about our trying to do that; it is common sense. However, we are dealing here not simply with the regulations that are in front of us; we are dealing with the circumstances in which they have been brought forward. Other speakers have drawn attention to this.

Going back to the beginning, after the decision to leave the European Union, my party was uncomfortable with that at that time, simply because we could see that this sort of thing was going to happen. We triggered Article 50 far too soon. We had not negotiated and worked out among ourselves what we were going to do, and that showed up very quickly in the negotiating process. We accepted the fundamental top three things that the EU had agreed before we even sat down at the table. The first was leaving citizenship out of it, on which I think there would be no argument. We agreed on payment, so we decided to buy a house before we knew what it was going to cost, and we then agreed to take the Irish question out of the trade set-up and put it into a political context. That had to be done before we even got started. So, to some extent, you were fighting a losing battle from that point onwards. If anybody was to renegotiate the situation today, I do not think they would even contemplate such a proposal.

I also suspect that we are also in a totally different context from when the noble Lord, Lord Frost, put in his bid for this Motion. He referred to 19 May and the reset. However, this is a skeletal set of agreements. There is no substance or detail in any of those agreements with the EU, and anybody who knows anything about the European Union knows that it is good at the small print. So we may have these high-level ideas of reset, but the minutiae is where the European Union is at its best and we are at our worst.

I have argued for some time—I hope the Minister will look at this, and I think I have said it in other debates—that, given that the review of the trade and co-operation agreement is due next year, the United Kingdom should be working today to work out what proposals we want to put to the European Union in those negotiations. It is perfectly obvious that the European Union will want to compress that renegotiation to the minimum and the reset will play into that, but it is an opportunity. It is written into the agreement that its operation will be reviewed in 2026. We should be preparing a position now and not end up crashing in at the last minute with a few things jotted on a piece of paper. We need to know what it is that we want.

Fundamentally, the problem of us in Northern Ireland being half in the European Union and half out of it is insoluble. Even if you have all the fundamental technical solutions—there are many now that are applicable and could work, as has been referred to—if we are in one trading bloc and the European Union is in another, that is a politically insoluble position to be in, because we are under a totally different regime, subject to different laws with no impact on or say in what the laws should be.

I have to say that things are changing. All of a sudden, people in Great Britain are saying, “How awful is this? People are going to be making our laws and we’ve no say over them”. Well, I have to say, “Folks, wakey wakey”. We have had to live with this for some years. Now it appears that, in part, people in Great Britain are going to be in the same boat. Looked at that way, “dynamic alignment” is a significant term. We have had expressions of what that actually means. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that, if people are uncomfortable, since many Benches have by and large been empty when we have been discussing these issues, they may not be quite so empty in a year’s time when some people have to take a dose of their own medicine.

Personally, I believe that we as a nation could have avoided a lot of this. I think we negotiated and handled things badly after the people took a decision, and we are living with the consequences of that. Thereafter we have been mitigating, trying to ease the pressure and trying to make things easier for traders and businesses to operate. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to, not one scintilla of the Windsor Framework has been changed.

I want to ask the Minister about a particular issue that has not really got above the parapet yet: the new European Union customs processes. The European Union is undertaking a massive review. Like the Americans, it has had a situation where the movement of goods of small monetary value does not require any paperwork. I think there was a limit of about €125, and in the United States context it was about $850. That is coming to an end. Every single thing, irrespective of its value, will have to have a number and will be under the new regulations that will come in in the European Union in the next few years. That will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom in significant measure, but I have not seen or heard any comment in Parliament about it. Is the Minister aware of that? Do she and her colleagues have anything to say about it and what the implications would be for the movement of products of a very low value?

Of course, that will hit the very small businesses. It will make life more difficult for individuals who may be bringing things in online, or in whatever mechanism that is used. As the Minister knows, we have a parcel issue. We are in the process of spending £200 million on border inspection posts. People are saying, “The new reset means we don’t need them”, but that is not the case. We will continue to need them, and the European Union is insisting that we have them.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this up. I am sure he will be able to remind me of the clause in the Northern Ireland protocol—to which the EU signed up—that says the EU will use its best endeavours to ensure that there is no need for checks and border posts at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland. Now it is insisting that they exist, rather than trying to find ways of doing without them.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I suspect that the answer will be, “We need them there just in case there’s an outbreak of disease and we have to inspect animals and get back to crawling under tractors to see if there is any Scottish soil underneath”, and so on. There will be an answer. As the noble Lord is aware, there is always an answer.

Can the Minister tell us what the implications of the new customs rules that are coming down the track—which our committee is aware of and looking at—will be for the situations we are facing tonight? I think they mean that intrusive interference will be coming down to a very low level—to the level of an individual. Maybe Members do not realise that the Select Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred—and of which he and I are members—is the only committee in this Parliament that is looking at EU regulations and laws that apply to Northern Ireland. Nobody else is looking at them. There is nothing down at the other end. I think that is an outrage; the House of Commons should be looking at these things. Ours is the only committee in Parliament that is looking at these matters; maybe that says a lot about what people’s priorities are.

I ask the Minister to refer to the customs issue, because I think that is going to come very much to the fore. Can she also tell us what preparations are being made for the 2026 renegotiation of the trade and co-operation agreement? Are the Government preparing and working with other interested parties to decide the best way forward and to see whether, while we cannot solve these problems in their entirety—and certainly not constitutionally—we can perhaps mitigate them further to at least alleviate some of the obstacles that are in the way of business?

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, it is with considerable regret that I rise to oppose the regret Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, because I respect enormously the work that the noble Lord did on this question when he was in government. I wish to stress in particular tonight that the introduction of unilateral grace periods was the beginning of the fight-back against the authoritarian implications of the 2017 EU-UK agreement. That was of considerable importance and helped to give us space for further developments—developments with which, I understand from listening to him, he is now radically dissatisfied. I am not satisfied; I am rather less dissatisfied.

It is crucial to understand that the 2017 EU-UK agreement is the core of the ideas that are then to be found in the protocol—that is absolutely clear. It is important to understand also that that agreement involved a flouting of key elements in the Good Friday agreement. Strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement insists that there be harmonious mutually beneficial relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Nobody could see how those mutually beneficial relationships could remain in the full implementation of the 2017 EU-UK agreement. One of the key themes of that agreement is that the British Government were compelled to commit themselves to supporting an island economy.

Look at the Good Friday agreement and the frame- work document that precedes it: it is explicitly about co-operation between two economies on the island of Ireland. To the surprise of many economists who believed that there should be more of an island economy in the early years of the 20th century, suddenly there was a thing called the island economy. By the way, in certain respects there is: in electricity, the dairy industry and so on. But there is not, overall, an island economy—there is absolutely no question about that—and the two economies on the island of Ireland remain a profound reality.

Funnily enough, in recent weeks, as a result of Donald Trump’s probings—is that the right word?—of the Irish economy, the indignant insistence all over the Irish press and media that there are two economies on the island of Ireland has become explosive. But the island economy, and the British Government’s commitment to support it, was one of the great problems in the 2017 agreement and the protocols—both the May and the Johnson versions. It is based on a very unrealistic assessment of the realities of the island economy. In the Gallimard edition of Michel Barnier’s memoir, around pages 137 to 140, there is a discussion of Ireland that is largely mythical. None the less, these mythical concepts became the heart of policy and, more importantly, a British Government were compelled to support that.

If the Windsor Framework has been treated very dustily tonight, there is one thing it does: it calls a stop to that. It says no, and the European Union agrees. It is absolutely explicit. The island economy driver of policy for the British Government and the dynamic alignment that people have talked about are dispelled by the Windsor Framework. That is one of the achievements of the Windsor Framework and why it played a role in the return of Stormont.

This was followed by the Safeguarding the Union document, the importance of which was to demonstrate, on the subject of the Irish Sea border, that, for large parts of the history of the union—for many decades—there has been an Irish Sea border of one sort or another. It is absolutely explicit—it reproduces the documents. You cannot say that the Irish Sea border as such is corrosive of the union; the union somehow survives. The phenomenon known as the Irish Sea border is in a different form today, but what is not in doubt is that it is not corrosive of the union as such. That, again, is one of the important things about the Safeguarding the Union document.

The other important thing is that it lays out the first declaration of something that is now commonplace in debate in this House: the necessary role of the Northern Ireland defence industries in the protection of the United Kingdom. It makes this absolutely clear, and it is the first signal of something that this Government have taken up very strongly. One of the reasons why I mention this is: where is the dynamic alignment with the Irish Republic, when we are emphasising above all the importance of the defence industries of Northern Ireland in the defence of the United Kingdom? It is important to remember these realities.

As I listened, I pictured the frustrations of life with the Windsor Framework. There are many such frustrations. The new SPS agreement may help, and I hope it does. One thing is clear, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the point: one can no longer say in Northern Ireland that we alone are rule takers from the EU. The whole of the rest of the United Kingdom will now be rule takers from the whole of the EU in a different sense. The reason why it is fundamentally democratic is that this Parliament has a right to make these decisions.

Traditional unionism always accepted that. In the 1930s, when traditional unionism disliked the 1938 agreement, it still said, “Nothing to do with Stormont’s decisions. It is up to this Parliament to make these decisions, even if we are uneasy and dislike the various provisions of a particular trade agreement”. That is what traditional unionism stands for: the idea that this Parliament has a right to make these decisions. They are often very difficult and, it so happens, often very unsatisfactory in Northern Ireland.

There are difficulties. The University of Ulster economist Dr Esmond Birnie has been quite right to insist—other speakers have mentioned it tonight—about the fall-off in trade from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, particularly smaller concerns. The paperwork has put off smaller concerns exporting from the rest of the United Kingdom into Northern Ireland. There is absolutely no question that this is a problem, but there is also no doubt, for example, that many Northern Ireland businesses enjoy dual access and enjoy the access to the Irish Republic. There is no doubt that the Ulster Farmers’ Union seems increasingly relaxed, especially in the context of possible new SPS arrangements, about the Windsor Framework.

So, while it is perfectly correct that there are many unsatisfactory aspects of the current reality—Dr Esmond Birnie in particular has drawn careful and precise attention to this, and I hope the Government will pay attention to the various scholarly papers that he has produced—and while there is no doubt that these possibilities exist, there are also areas of success. The services industry in Northern Ireland is doing far better than anybody expected at this point. It is protected in the Windsor Framework quite explicitly and is doing far better than anybody—certainly myself—expected at this particular point in history.

Finally, I will say something on the point of phytosanitary arrangements. Back in the days of the BSE crisis, Dr Ian Paisley, leader of the DUP, went into No. 10 and said to Tony Blair, “I need to tell you that my farmers are British but my cattle are Irish”, because he wanted to make special arrangements. BSE was not so marked a feature in Northern Ireland as it was in the rest of the United Kingdom and, basically, he wanted a privileged relationship for Northern Irish farmers—“My farmers are British, but my cattle are Irish; respect that they currently do not have the same levels of BSE as they have in Derbyshire”. The logic behind this legislation is, “My gardeners are British but my plants are Irish”. It is hard to dispute or argue with it.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, talked about those who suggest that you have to live with ambiguity and compromise in Northern Ireland. He expressed doubt and said that some of these compromises had been very unsatisfactory in the past 25 years. I am absolutely certain that there is no way that Northern Ireland can survive as part of the United Kingdom without compromise of the sort that has been made. He mentioned, for example, the logic of the Good Friday agreement. I am also clear in my mind that the union is never going to be available on exclusively unionist terms. That does not mean that the union is not available—the union has, at this point, a strong future ahead of it—but it is not going to be available on exclusively unionist terms. This is the point that we all have to accept.

There is irreducibly an element here. I have criticised the Irish negotiators of that agreement in 2017; they overplayed their hand, and the best Irish officials, in my view, now accept that. It left a lot of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, had to struggle with, and in the first instance dealt with successfully. It left lots of problems, but the truth of the matter is that there are these two identities and Northern Ireland does face both ways. This cannot be avoided in the settlement, which must involve, at some level, a compromise. The protocol was definitely unfair to the mainstream unionist community, but the idea that we can just drop the Windsor Framework now—which, as I pointed out, has significant elements that work well for the unionist community—is not realistic.

Flooding

Lord Empey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks what we are looking at beyond flood defences—the actual physical barriers. There was quite a discussion during the Water (Special Measures) Bill about natural flood management and the work we are doing and promoting in that area. She may recall that we amended the Bill to ensure that we looked at more natural flood management schemes—nature-based solutions, as she suggested. We are doing that not just through the Water (Special Measures) Bill; we have made a number of announcements on this issue because we see it as an important part of the long-term solution. We need to look at long-term solutions, particularly, as the noble Lord said, because of the climate change pressures. In a way, building a flood barrier is a short-term solution because we do not know how long it is going to last for, so we need to combine that with longer-term solutions. Recently, for example, some balancing ponds have been developed with a grant near where I live. That is the way forward: barriers and longer-term nature-based solutions hand in hand.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, a number of Members have raised the question of flood plains and building houses. There will already be a number of planning applications approved yet not activated by a number of those who own the land—they have their planning approvals and maybe five years to do something about them. Is it possible to seek a review of those to see that we are not putting more people into high-risk situations as a result of the applications that have already been approved?

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a very good point about slowing down the flow. That may mean some form of additional forestation, or it may mean providing variations to certain waterways and so on. Is an attempt being made to combine the two things together? At the end of the day, we are facing change, and there is virtually nothing more debilitating than seeing people flooded out. Anyone who has had to go out and look after constituents in this situation knows there is nothing like the misery they face and how appalling the situation is, because it is not just water that goes into their houses. That is something that I think is often overlooked.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

If a planning application has been approved in a flooding area, I would expect it to have been granted alongside mitigation measures that the developer would have had to provide to get planning permission in the first place from a local authority. Clearly, I do not know the detail of every single planning application that the noble Lord is talking about, but whether that would be available for review would be a matter for policy development through MHCLG as well as for local authorities, because it is local authorities’ responsibility to provide planning grants and look at applications.

On some of the other matters that the noble Lord raised—this is probably relevant to some of the other questions too—I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we are reviewing the flood funding formula. A lot of the issues that have been raised are down to the fact that the existing formula follows a complex process and risks slowing down the development of the kinds of schemes that perhaps many noble Lords would like to see. We are aiming to bring in a new approach from April this year, and that is important. Where I live in Cumbria, the existing formula certainly did not work for us when we were badly flooded, and the Government had to provide an extra top-up amount of money. That is not the way to go forward. We need to ensure that communities are properly supported with the kinds of budgets that can bring in the long-term solutions that will be needed to protect them against potential future floods.

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

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I support the statutory instrument because it follows logically from the Windsor Framework, which is complex and, in many respects, inevitably unsatisfactory in certain details but a necessary compromise with the European Union and one that is part of the process by which devolution was restored to Northern Ireland. Underneath everything that lies in the statutory instrument is the concept that Ireland is one eco unit. That is what is in the Windsor Framework and what underlies this legislation. It is the most fundamental point underlying it.

However, the Windsor Framework does not say that Ireland is one economic unit. This is an important point to make while we address this subject. Page 5 of the Windsor Framework says:

“Inherent in this new way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland—from food and drink to plants and pets, building on the existing differences in every area of economic and political life such as services”—


which, by the way, appear to be very strong now in Northern Ireland—

“migration, currency and taxation”.

That is the Windsor Framework. That is the international law that the Government, who give a very strong emphasis to their commitment to international law, are committed to.

Yet today I listened to the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson—at Question Time giving excellent answers, for which I am extremely grateful, to a number of searching questions, but on this point, she said something that is open to misinterpretation. She said there is an island economy. I agree. There is no question that there is an island economy and that for some activity, whether it be dairy products or the single electricity market, which has been mentioned already tonight, as well as a handful of individual companies that operate on an all-Ireland basis, there is an island economy, but there are many more individual companies operating across the UK’s internal market.

The Government are in a position where they cannot leave any ambiguity. This is part of the process by which Stormont was returned, and the Good Friday agreement was returned to operation. The “island economy” is a complex and slippery phrase. I have just said that I can understand completely why somebody might say there is one, but it is also very important to notice the very strong commitment in the Windsor Framework to there being two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. I suppose you can say that the island economy is a fact; it is just not as significant as the fact there are two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. There is a danger here that if we do not get this right, the whole compromise which has led to the re-establishment of Stormont will start to unravel. This is a commitment the Government have entered into in international law.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I cannot fault virtually anything the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said in her eloquent analysis from a technical point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made a very important point that there is going to be a conveyor belt of these regulations as far as the eye can see at this time. Every time one of these comes along, there will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth, and we will complain, and quite rightly so, because it is an affront to our status as citizens of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned the future and how things can be changed. I think we have to shift our focus to how we change things in a permanent and much more beneficial way.

In 2026, there is a review pencilled in of the trade and co-operation agreement. I believe that we should be putting our heads together now to develop a series of proposals that can rectify, in as far as it is possible, the situation we are in. While politicians do not like to say it, the truth is that this problem is fundamentally insoluble because we are half in and half out of the single market and half in and half of the United Kingdom’s single market. So, ultimately, we are fiddling around with these sorts of things and tweaking them, and tonight the Minister can justifiably say that this instrument is less bad than the one before it and that is true, but, as was pointed by the noble Baroness, what do we do with tourists? Does somebody bring their pet with them and have no intention of staying in Northern Ireland? We can all find ways to chip away at these things, and that is true.

However, we must now focus on working up an alternative that at least would begin to restore some of the sovereignty and remove some of the friction. I have to say that if people had done their homework some years ago, all of this was foreseen and foreseeable. There are no surprises here. The minutiae might be different. We might see something here that we had not quite seen, but we all knew and were told and were warned—we had debates galore in this House and in other places—that when the negotiation on Brexit was taking place, it was probably the worst piece of United Kingdom statecraft that many of us have ever witnessed. It was a bad negotiation and, ironically, some of those who negotiated it who are sitting on their Benches are getting up and attacking the negotiation. The individual who led it is attacking the outcome of his own negotiation, but that is neither here nor there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the many contributions we have had this evening and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As a number of noble Lords have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, it is important to have opportunities to debate these issues in some depth, because they are complex issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for appreciating that I am doing my best to work through these complex issues and understand all the different perspectives and points of view, so that I can do my job as effectively, efficiently and transparently as possible as we move forward on some quite complicated—and, in some quarters, controversial—regulations.

Regarding the Windsor Framework, there has been a lot of discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, made some very pertinent points and referenced some things that have been previously mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anderson. I have got a lot of questions to answer and I do not want to get bogged down in wider discussions about the Windsor Framework at this point—I will come back to them. However, one thing I do want to say, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned this, is that we are trying to work more constructively with the European Union; we are trying to reset that relationship. I have heard a number of criticisms of the European Union’s attitude towards discussions and negotiations and I am hoping that, with a more constructive approach to working with the EU, we may be able to make some progress in how we manage things going forward.

A number of questions were asked around checks. To be completely clear, Northern Ireland pet owners will not face any checks and there will be no checks for pets travelling from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I will go on to a few other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about unfettered trade and whether the Government were still committed to it. I can confirm that the Government have long-standing commitments to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s businesses have unfettered access to their most important market, which is of course Great Britain. That was legislated for in the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and is reflected in the border target operating model, which this Government are continuing.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked whether there had been an impact assessment. I can confirm that a de minimis assessment was completed for this statutory instrument, which is in line with standard practices and thresholds for the evaluation of impacts where these are expected to fall under the de minimis threshold. The assessment is that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme will deliver large net benefits, particularly to UK pet owners.

Consultation, and the lack of it, was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. While there may not have been a formal consultation, the Government engaged comprehensively with interested stakeholders—including pet owners, ferry and airline companies that operate the travel routes between GB and Northern Ireland, and commercially owned pet microchip database operators—when the regulations were drafted.

Assistance dogs were mentioned. Guide Dogs UK has specifically highlighted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dog owners who are travelling to Northern Ireland. The British Veterinary Association outlined that the arrangement will reduce paperwork and health treatments for vets.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the information being provided. I can confirm to her that there will be a public communications campaign; it is currently being planned. Officials are working with stakeholders, including vets, on that communications plan.

I turn to the SI’s requirement that pet owners apply for pet travel documents, because a number of questions were asked about that. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, dog owners in Great Britain would have to go to the vet and be checked for EU animal health certificates, rabies vaccinations or tapeworm treatments. That would cost the pet owner a considerable amount of money every time they wanted to travel into Northern Ireland. In practice, there are currently no routine checks on pets travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course this was only a temporary arrangement while the Windsor Framework pet travel scheme was being agreed. Officials have always reserved the right to undertake checks, should there be any suspicion of illegal activity or any welfare concerns.

The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme is designed to greatly simplify pet movements to Northern Ireland. There are no health treatment requirements; instead, the pet travel document requires more basic information. It is free. It can be applied for very easily and quickly online, and you do not need to visit a vet to do that. I also want to confirm that Northern Ireland-based pet owners will not need any pet travel documentation or be subject to any process when they return home with their pets. The scheme needs to ensure that GB pet owners have a valid pet travel document, because we need to mitigate against any abuse of the scheme. We believe that the new arrangement will involve a smoother experience than the current legal requirements.

Microchipping was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I confirm that microchipping is already a legal requirement in England, Scotland and Wales for all dogs. It is now a requirement for cats in England—that came into force in June of this year. Microchipping is considered good practice, and it is also part of the Government’s commitment to world-leading standards in companion animal welfare. We believe that this approach to microchipping reflects existing requirements and practice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether there would be exemption certificates for microchipping on the basis that a dog might not be able to be microchipped if a vet said that that was the case. I have been assured that if the pet cannot be microchipped with a UK chip, the pet owner can still travel with the pet animal from GB to Northern Ireland under the existing pet passport scheme.

There were mentions about how burdensome the scheme could be; the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to burdens. Clearly, the scheme needs to be adhered to, but the new arrangements will create a cheaper and smoother experience for those travelling with their pet from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, because it removes the need for pet health treatments, as I mentioned. This is because the scheme recognises, for example, the rabies-free status of the UK. As other noble Lords have said, the benefit is that it also lasts for the entire lifetime of the pet.

I turn to some other questions. How will things be enforced? One thing that is important to say is that I am sure the vast majority of people will comply with the scheme and the rules. The Government intend to provide comprehensive support to those travelling with their pets to ensure that they can do so. I cannot remember now who asked about pets being taken to facilities. We need something in place, because you cannot have something that is open to abuse. You have to have some kinds of checks in place and something that happens if people do not comply. But we do expect this to be very rare. If any pet is taken to a facility, we expect that to be extremely rare—but, clearly, it is a new scheme that will be monitored and we will check progress.

Another question that the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked was why the scheme covers only cats, dogs and ferrets. It is for the very simple reason that these pets make up the vast majority of movements and it is about keeping things simple and manageable. It is in line with relevant applicable regulations that have grouped these animals together. Also, they are those most susceptible to rabies. That is that is the other reason for having that in place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether everyone travelling with pets would have to be checked to identify whether people are not resident in the UK: are they travelling to Northern Ireland via GB in transit from another country? Onward travel to the EU was mentioned. There are no new requirements applied by the Windsor Framework concerning movements into Ireland, the EU or for those who are not resident in the UK, or otherwise not covered by the pet travel scheme. What is required in these circumstances is unchanged by the Windsor Framework. If pet owners wish to travel with their pet on to Ireland, provided the same rules that have applied throughout Ireland’s membership of the EU are adhered to, that option remains available to them.

I will conclude. It has been a long debate, so if I have not answered anything, I will go through Hansard carefully and write to noble Lords. I just want to summarise. The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme certainly has benefits. It is new, sustainable, durable and will support non-commercial pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and secure the smooth movement of pets within the UK. It will also remove costs, pet health treatments and red tape.

I want to make one point before I conclude. I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised during the debate on this SI. I am aware that similar concerns were raised on previous SIs and I am sure that, as further SIs come forward, we will return to these discussions and debates. I want to reassure noble Lords who have expressed concerns that I am continuing to engage constructively with DAERA and relevant organisations in Northern Ireland. It is important that we start to rebuild trust in these areas. In fact, I am going to Belfast next week for a couple of days and intend to do that regularly as part of my portfolio. I know that a number of broader issues that have been discussed. I very much appreciated the meeting I had with noble Lords representing Northern Ireland some weeks ago and look forward to continuing that ongoing engagement, where we can get more into the depth of these broader concerns. Having said that, I thank once again all noble Lords for their contributions.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Can the Minister discuss with her ministerial colleagues, looking towards the review in 2026 of the trade and co-operation agreement, work which can be undertaken to find a way out of this as best as possible? It would at least be reassuring to Members. I hope that work has already started but, if it has not, it ought to.

[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.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I assure noble Lords that I will not hold business up for very long. I particularly assure the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that I am very much in favour of the Bill. But it is very important that noble Lords understand that, while we may be patting our backs and saying that it is wonderful that we have gone ahead with banning the live export of animals for slaughter, this is not a United Kingdom Bill; it is a Great Britain Bill. Once again, Northern Ireland has been left out. It has been left out, of course, because Northern Ireland has been left in the European Union single market.

There will be more discussion of the repercussions of that on the Rwanda Act. Whatever you think of the Rwanda Act, it was meant to be a United Kingdom Act. As we saw yesterday, the High Court has now said that it is disapplied in Northern Ireland.

As far as this Bill is concerned, the noble Lord who has been taking it through has been extremely kind and helpful in trying to placate me and some others on this issue, making it clear that when animals move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, they will have to stay for some time—30 days—before they can be moved over the border. Let us be honest: there is a frontier. The Republic of Ireland is a foreign country. Therefore, there would be no incentive for people to move animals to Northern Ireland in order to send them on to the Republic of Ireland.

Therefore, what concerns us is not that specific movement but the fact that there is no guarantee that animals from Northern Ireland, which are under no restriction whatever, will not be moved to the Republic of Ireland and then onwards on a long journey down to the south of Ireland and across the sea to France and then Morocco, with loads of sheep packed together. Yet we are saying that this is wonderful, that we have changed things and that leaving the European Union has allowed us to ban live exports. I just hope noble Lords realise that this is one of many provisions that now cannot be applied to Northern Ireland, because this Government have basically sold out Northern Ireland and left it under the European Union for so many regulations. Unless we wake up and start to realise that, this will be the very beginning of the end of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of points. The Minister got Scottish and Welsh legislative consent for this legislation, but the Northern Ireland Assembly was not asked to give its consent, even though a lot of this area is devolved under existing legislation. The Minister went on to say that there would be potential repercussions to extending the ban to Northern Ireland—for example, under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement. In effect, the issue here is: is this matter a policy choice or a legal necessity under the trade and co-operation agreement? It would be most helpful to get clarification.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, we had a very significant court decision yesterday. It was dismissed out of hand in the Safeguarding the Union document at paragraph 46, which made very clear that this was only a matter of trade. It specified—in black and white —that immigration would be excluded; that is what the Government said. It went on to say that those suggesting that there would be an issue with immigration were entirely wrong, and that all of the United Kingdom would be treated as an individual unit in the UK’s policy on immigration. We have not only a trade border up the Irish Sea but an immigration border and now an animal export border. Is it not time that people were told the truth, instead of being misled?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his engagement during the passage of the Bill and for the letter he sent me, which I read this afternoon. I echo the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness opposite, because I raised the concerns expressed by the NFU and others that there is still a potential loophole that my noble friend and his department might like to address.

I press my noble friend on reaching a phytosanitary agreement with the EU, the absence of which has meant that poultry producers have lost £85 million in chicken exports to the EU. Poultry exports decreased in value by 69% in the first quarter of 2021. The additional costs and burdens that they had to meet amounted to £60 million in 2021 alone. Those costs are not met by the EU producers, as there are no border controls.

I applaud my noble friend for taking up the issue of labelling, which we discussed on Report. I urge him to ensure that, at the very least, consumers will be made aware that the food they might be about to purchase has been produced in an EU country or a third country and does not meet the standards imposed on our home producers.

Finally, I ask him to use his good offices to ensure that the potential of a first border control post on the EU continental mainland will be achieved at Hook of Holland, using and converting the equine facilities there. Can he use his good offices to ensure that the port of Harwich can be identified as a reciprocal port, to make sure that we have the possibility of a border post and that our food exports reach the EU in a timely and affordable manner? Can he also ensure that we have an SPS agreement with the EU at the earliest possible opportunity?

Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee Report

Lord Empey Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, I too was privileged to be a member of this committee and, like other noble Lords, I put on record my appreciation of the sterling chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the excellent support the committee received from its clerk, analysts, administrative assistants and special advisers. I believe that the committee was held at the right time. Clearly, huge issues are building up and they have all been exacerbated by subsequent events, the pandemic and the way things have developed in the 12 months or so since we reported.

Little did I think when I signed up for this debate that we would be discussing cavemen and hunter-gatherers, who seem to have come on to the agenda. However, I understand on what that is based. Normally, I would say that people should be free to eat what they want, buy what they want, and so on. That is all well and good, but the evidence that the committee received, which in many respects was quite shocking, illustrated that this is not an area where the state itself can merely be an observer. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made some controversial remarks earlier in the debate. I would not go as far as he has but, having represented an inner-city area for over 25 years, I have seen at first hand how a cycle develops. We may have a standard image of somebody cooking at home and so on, but those lifestyles have changed and gone and have been replaced by fast-food outlets.

An advertisement in my former constituency that caught my eye was for the “gut-buster” at £4.99. In other words, as was pointed out, it is for the maximum: a large portion of chips, and the bigger, the better. That is how products are marketed. The facts are that products that are high in calories are those that sell because they are cheaper and people get at least a feeling that they have eaten something and it will keep them going. The price is due to the nature of the products that are sold at that price point, but I point out that it is not simply about supermarkets; there are many other wholesalers, street vendors, and so on. As was pointed out, the recommended diets, which cost up to 74% of disposable income for some groups, are completely irrelevant, and in fact the difference between that and the reality is almost grotesque. That we do not take that into account in the calculation of UC makes me feel that perhaps we would do as well not even to publicise it, because the gap between the reality and the ideal is so great.

School meals was one of the issues that came up, and of course that got an exceptionally high profile as a result of the pandemic and the campaigns to keep school meals going during the summer months. However, there is an issue with school meals, which is that of stigma. In many cases, where you have schools where pupils go to lunch together and some are in receipt of free school meals and others are not, it creates circumstances where in some cases parents, to save their children embarrassment, do not even take up the opportunity or offer of free school meals. To make school meals more universal would be one way of avoiding that and ensuring that people get at least one decent meal a day.

We heard evidence that teachers were helping some pupils coming in in the morning who had clearly not had a proper breakfast. We know that if children do not receive adequate nutrition, their capacity to learn is dramatically reduced. There is widespread evidence to support this proposition. When one looks at the costs in an area of ignoring these issues, where obesity is out of control, we have huge long-term health issues. Not only do people suffer a shorter life, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, but the quality of that life dramatically deteriorates with age. If people are obese, they have huge mobility issues, you have the requirement perhaps for electric wheelchairs and people getting vehicles, and of course more frequent admissions to hospital, and so on. A vast cost is building up in the health service as a result of ignoring these issues.

The evidence was clear that the sugar levy had worked, but I think the state will have to intervene further with regard to salt and other matters. I would much prefer that people were able to make their own choices, but the reality is that, with the way things are in our society at the moment, that is not working.

It would be useful for the committee, under the new rules that the House is introducing on follow-up to committees, if, in a year’s time or whenever, we had some sort of follow-up to this to monitor progress. It is easy to bat off a committee’s report by saying “We’ll have a look at this and report back”, but the truth is that inertia in these matters is a very powerful force.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, made another point about having access to low-cost food imports and not having to ensure that we are self-sufficient. I understand his argument but he will recall what happened to this country during World War Two: there was a direct attempt to starve us out. There has to be a balance, because there is quite clearly a national security imperative to ensure that we at least have the capacity in extremis to keep our people fed.

Again, I thank the chair and am grateful for the backup support that the committee received. The question is out there, but will we do anything about this? I believe that only sustained, consistent pressure will ensure that we deliver an outcome that will help those people who are struggling to feed their families today.

Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

In his introduction, the Minister referred to the GI regime. As I understand it, we have effectively acknowledged each other’s position as at the end of the transition period. However, he indicated that there will now be a separation, so the obvious question is, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, which regime will it be subjected to? Will it follow what the European Union decides in terms of GIs or will it follow what Great Britain decides?

Part 4 of the instrument has three chapters and—as has been the case with all the SIs in recent months—one of them, chapter 3, makes amendments that extend to Northern Ireland, while chapter 2 makes amendments that extend to Great Britain. We are all Peers of the United Kingdom as opposed to Peers of any particular region, but we have now built up a massive amount of technical instruments where there are differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I would appreciate it if the Minister and his department could prepare, when these SIs are concluded, a compendium of differences between the areas, because it is extremely difficult to follow.

As time goes by, each day brings a new challenge. Today’s comes from Amazon, which—as one of the most sophisticated retailers in the world—says that it will have to withdraw a number of products. It has already stopped selling alcohol because it would be subject to two amounts of excise duty. We will not even be able to have our busy Lizzies and begonias introduced from Great Britain because British soil is no longer allowed. This is happening every day and, naturally enough, people are asking us where all this is going and what it means. Can the Minister prevail upon his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to desist from maintaining that there is no border in the Irish Sea? It is becoming increasingly a source of anger and dismay among our business community and the general public that we are trying to pretend—like King Canute—that the tide has not come in, when in fact it is there every day for hauliers and businesspeople to deal with.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I wish this Minister were Secretary of State. If that were the case, I think most people in this House would be content and happy with the way of things. I hope that by saying that, I am not doing him any harm.

The Minister has gone out of his way on a number of occasions to tell us about standards in this country. He has referred both publicly and privately to the FSA and the Scottish equivalent, and I get that. However, I want to tell noble Lords of a little experience that I had a few years ago as a member of the TTIP all-party group, which concentrated on transatlantic trade. This happened in the year of the referendum but before it took place. The group was led by John Spellar from the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and other Members of this House were on the delegation.

We went to Washington DC and had a meeting with all the representatives of the US food producers, ranging from the cattle people to the grain people. There was a whole roomful of them, and they all have very powerful organisations based in Washington. I will spare the House: we came to the chap at the end of the row and he said, “I have 46 Members of Congress in my pocket. There’ll be no deal done unless I say so.” Are we seriously suggesting that we do an international trade deal with the likes of America, although it could be somewhere else, and then say, “You can bring your food in here but we’re going to put a tariff on it if we don’t like the cut of it”, or are we going to ignore it in a specific and limited way?

This is the problem that many of us have. Yes, we have good standards and we want to maintain them, but equally we do not want to see the hands of the Secretary of State for International Trade completely tied behind her back when doing international deals. However, to all intents and purposes some of us, in my part of the United Kingdom in particular, are left in the EU. The Prime Minister came over a year ago and said, “If you get pieces of paper, tear them up and throw them in the bin.” On 1 July this year the Government allocated £25 million to help us fill in those pieces of paper. By 29 August that had risen to £355 million. That is a lot of paper.

The first point I am making is that if we have already have sufficient powers to maintain standards, how can we do trade deals? Why are we not saying specifically that we do not want this in the Bill because it might tie the hands of the Secretary of State for International Trade? You cannot have your cake and eat it. Either we have those standards or we do not. The difficulty that my part of the United Kingdom is left in is that we have no choice and no say, and will have no say, in what regulations we have to maintain. I cannot imagine the US or anywhere else doing a trade deal and then meekly lying down and accepting that we put tariffs on their products. That is the antithesis of having a trade deal. You do your deal, and that is what the deal is.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made the point about equivalence: it does not have to be the same. If it were equivalent then that might be a way around, but if we just say bluntly, “We can bring in cheap food but we’ll put a tariff on it”, there is no point in doing a trade deal because no one is going to agree to it. I can say, from having seen these people in the US, that there are no circumstances in which they are going to be dictated to. Forget about the politics of it; it is the reality of Congress and the people who come from the rural areas. They know which side their bread is buttered, even if we do not. I think we are living in a fool’s paradise.

My second point is that I was quite upset that the House of Commons decided to hide behind a money measure in dismissing the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. Yes, we have to be careful of the barriers between the two Houses, but that seemed an unnecessary way around it. They could have stated why they were opposed to it—a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. But to hide behind a money issue, when what we were talking about was trivial in comparison, was unfortunate.

The Minister and his colleagues have been exceptionally patient with, and helpful to, us all. But he must remember that for some of us, this is the difference between having and not having an industry. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, this is our largest single industry, it has the largest manufacturing, and of all the companies in Northern Ireland, the top five or six are all based around the agricultural sector. That is why these amendments are important, and that is why I hope we can give the House of Commons another chance to look at this.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I would very much like my noble friend Lord Gardiner to be the Secretary of State, but I have to disagree with him that it would make any difference. I think the die is cast; the Department for International Trade is against these amendments, as is No. 10. They do not get farming in this country, and it would not matter if my noble friend was Secretary of State. I think we are batting our heads against a brick wall. But let us continue to bat our heads against the brick wall, and we might finally get a crack in the brick wall.

Amendments 16B and 18B seek to increase the resilience and sustainability of UK food and farming, and that is to be welcomed. On the sustainability of UK farming, I would like to go on a quick tangent, because, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I am concerned about the sustainability of farming, and I think a lot of English farms, as a result of this legislation, will be turned into theme parks. My fear of that was heightened when I listened to “Farming Today” last week. I do not know whether my noble friend listens to “Farming Today”, but it was an interview about what was going to happen as a result of ELMS coming in. It took place with a Defra representative in Cumbria, and she said a farmer could take his sheep to a show, and he would be able to get a grant for that because that is engagement; it is under the heading of “heritage, beauty and engagement”. This is not farming; this is taking it to the extreme. So I ask my noble friend: if a farmer is going to be able to get an ELM grant for taking his sheep to the show—and good luck to my noble friend Lord Inglewood—would the farmer be able to claim the same engagement by taking his produce to the harvest festival service? There, in the church, everybody would be able to see his grain, his potatoes, his leeks; that is engagement of the highest kind, so surely the theme park managers will be able to benefit from that.

Let me return to the amendment. Again, in the committee I sat on, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, it was quite clear that the hospitality industry is keen to buy the cheapest food at the cheapest price and sell it at the cheapest price, regardless of where it comes from and what the quality is, let alone the animal welfare standards. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—and I am happy to support him once again on his amendment—told us how much of the food we consume in this country comes from the hospitality side. That is a major concern. I have already described how difficult it was to get evidence from some of these people, but what evidence we did get did not fill me with any confidence for the future of farming and animal welfare standards in this country.

My noble friend the Minister, when opening, said that these amendments were disproportionate. If they are disproportionate, it means that the current system is adequate, and the current system is clearly not adequate, because we have heard of the bolt-ons that are going to be necessary and which are taking place. Surely, much the cleanest and best thing to do is to persuade the Department for International Trade and No. 10 that Amendments 16B and 18B should be included in the Bill.

It is absolutely right that there should be independent oversight of these trade deals, and that that body should report to Parliament through the Secretary of State. I have been in the Minister’s position and, after a cross-party defeat—and, so far, the Minister has no supporters, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Curry, have six each—I went to see Viscount Whitelaw, who was Leader of the House, and apologised for getting heavily defeated by a cross-party amendment. He looked at me and said, “Malcolm, perhaps they were right.” I wonder whether my noble friend could take that back to his Secretary of State.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made a number of comments when speaking to his amendments, including how he felt that a number of noble Lords have tabled amendments because they wish to stay wedded to EU rules, even though the UK has, theoretically, left the European Union. That may or may not be true, but people in my part of the country do not have the luxury of that choice, because we are left in the EU. That is the brutal reality of the situation.

On 2 October last year, the Government produced a document called Explanatory Note: UK Proposals for an Amended Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. That amended protocol used phrases such as “Border Inspection Post”. It said that products coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would be “exported” to Northern Ireland, and that people moving goods would have to notify the authorities of that fact. It talked about a “zone of regulatory compliance”, which is the 27 EU countries plus Northern Ireland. This is the first time that I can recall a Conservative and Unionist Government proposing a border between one part of the United Kingdom and another. To their eternal shame, the Democratic Unionist Party in the House of Commons endorsed that proposal, describing it as

“a serious and sensible way forward”.

It is neither serious nor sensible.

There are consequences to that. We export to Great Britain the vast majority of our agricultural products, whether milk or meat. Therefore, if the standards with which we are forced to comply begin to differ over time from standards here, our products would become uncompetitive. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, have attempted to communicate to us, by various means, that they wish to retain standards, but they may or may not be in their posts in the future, and we have to look long term. The worry I have, and which I know is shared by many others, is that once you have done a trade deal, if you try to then apply tariffs or to change your own standards and regulatory environment, it will start to break the deal you have done. You can then be brought to whatever adjudication processes are agreed, and no one knows what the outcome will be.

I do not believe we want a situation in which we put up food prices—that is not what I want to see. Other amendments that I put down earlier on Report sought to ensure that people at least had a choice and that the primary producer would, for once, get a decent slice of the cake, so that it was not always left to the supermarkets and processors. However, I fear that if things change over time, and because our farmers will be regulated by whatever the EU decides—which includes state aid, because we will be bound by state aid rules as soon as the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented—in such circumstances, we could very quickly become uncompetitive.

If noble Lords think it is only in my imagination that there is a border in the Irish Sea, I say this. In the first week of July, the Government allocated £25 million to help business deal with the consequences of the additional administrative work that would be required to handle a new situation. By 29 August, that had risen to £355 million. If there is no border, why are we spending £355 million, over two years, to help businesses with the transition?

For us, any diminution of standards in Great Britain is a matter of life and death for our farmers—it is as simple as that. It is a competitive issue. If EU and UK standards remain as they are, or if there is equivalence, that is fine. I hope that that is what happens, because you cannot freeze things in aspic for ever. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard points out, we are not perfect: we make mistakes and there have been examples of these. Nevertheless, if the balance changes over time, our farmers will effectively be hammered. In my belief, it is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom to see one of her four nations left in that situation. Although some of us warned of this in advance, the whole protocol has come about in a way that has the potential to break up the United Kingdom and cause huge damage. It is a very bad idea, but that is a debate for another day.

In Committee, I referred to the FSA and the Scottish equivalent. It is not entirely clear to me how an equivalence in standards would be enforced against the background of international trade deals being done and the fact that we are left in the European Union while the rest of the United Kingdom is not. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Given all these things, and that Northern Ireland’s biggest food customer is Great Britain, we are very concerned. Our farmers are very concerned that they would be left in a hopelessly uncompetitive position.

There are a number of amendments in this group and there will be a sequence of votes. I reserve the right to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House in circumstances where some of the other amendments are perhaps unsuccessful. I have put that on the record and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and other noble Lords for their perseverance. The Minister has been granted the patience of Job. I fear that his patience may be frayed when we reach Report, but we thank him, the Public Bill Office and others for their enormous work in this marathon.

I will speak to Amendment 278 in my name, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for lending his name to it. It is clear from this group of amendments that an underlying fear exists. I want to see trade deals with third-party countries, but on the basis of helping the United Kingdom grow its economy and be more efficient, not of undermining significant parts of our industry. Over the last 40-odd years, the Government, consumer bodies, processors, retailers and farmers have expended an enormous amount of time, energy and money ensuring that UK food is produced to the highest standards possible. Why we would suddenly allow very inferior food products produced to a much lesser quality and standard into the United Kingdom to compete against our own superior goods I do not know, but it is possible.

I thank the Minister for arranging a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and others, so that we can at least hear his point of view, and that of the Department for International Trade, but there are too many straws in the wind that concern me. We hear talk of tariffs being applied to imported products, whether from the US or elsewhere, to level the pitch, but what is introduced one day can be taken away the next. The Minister must understand that not all parts of the United Kingdom are playing on the same level pitch. My part of the country is still in the EU and, pertaining to the previous group of amendments, we are still subject to state aid rules. Who will negotiate and implement those, and who will deal with any infringement of those? It is unclear. From our point of view—this has resonance for other parts of the UK—the standards we will be required to adhere to will be the standards of the European Union. There is nothing wrong with having different standards, provided there is an equivalence, and that can apply also to finance and other things, but who is to determine the equivalence?

This goes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, when she introduced this debate. A flash-in-the-pan commission will certainly not be able to do it. With no disrespect to the Minister and his colleagues, last October, when the withdrawal agreement was being made, promises were made about the arrangements not only to people in Northern Ireland but to the whole country. Those promises were not kept. Many of our representatives ended up endorsing a proposal that produced a border in the Irish Sea, and yet there continues to be a denial of this. Lest someone from the Box sends the Minister a note telling him that Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the UK market, I point out that this is not guaranteed, because it is subject to negotiation with the European Union, which at present could require us to make export declarations if we are sending products to Great Britain. The Minister needs to bear that in mind.

We do not want to make life difficult for our international trade negotiators, but if a situation arose whereby our farmers were confronted with different and lower standards in Great Britain, then because Great Britain is our biggest single market, automatically our farmers would be uncompetitive, and that would apply also to those operating in less favoured areas, such as the Scottish and the Welsh. This is a very serious business that we are discussing. I know that the Minister will be anxious to reassure us, and I have absolutely no doubt that he is sincere in that undertaking, but between 2 October and 17 October last year, I saw black become white. Therefore, he cannot allow an undertaking to be sufficient. It must have a basis in law, and this Bill, since we are discussing agriculture, seems a logical place to put it.

Someone who has been in the system for a long time knows that when an amendment comes, it can be argued that “Now is not the right time, we are in the middle of negotiations” or “This is not the right vehicle because we have another vehicle coming down the track which would be a more suitable location for it.” We can deal only with the vehicle that is in front of us at any point in time. What might come around the corner is fine, but if there is a sincere commitment to maintaining current or equivalent standards, it should have no difficulty being written on to the face of the Bill. Consumers and producers throughout the United Kingdom are basically supportive of that. Were it our tradition in this House to vote on amendments in Committee, I would pursue that today, but another opportunity will arise on Report in the autumn. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is a positive response then.

Some of us find ourselves left in the EU and required by an international treaty, supported by the UK Government, to adhere to EU regulations, even though we will have no input on them, which is another matter. There is so much at stake here, and we believe that maintaining our standards is good for the health of our nation, our producers and our food security and supply, and for allowing the sector to reinvest and be efficient. However, if we decide, for whatever political reason, to cut and run, which could happen, and since decisions can be made overnight, as we have seen in recent months, we need some legal assurances that we are not going to be left in such a position in the future.

I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to ensure that when we come to Report, he and his colleagues consider the widespread views in this House and ensure that our agriculture sector, food processing and all the welfare issues that have been addressed are not forgotten about, and accept that a nod and a wink will simply not be sufficient.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. It is a huge privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I appreciate the comments of all the previous speakers on this group of amendments.

I will speak to Amendment 279 in my name, and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his support. I apologise in advance for taking slightly longer in introducing this amendment. It is impossible and would be quite wrong to run groupings of amendments in order of importance, but this group is among the most important we have debated over the seven days that we have spent on the Bill this month.

While having my long-awaited haircut last week, the hairdresser asked, “Are you involved in this chlorinated chicken issue?”, as it has become known, such is the level of public awareness. I am slightly concerned about being accused of jingoism in this wide-ranging debate about our production standards. Having farmed all my life, I know that our production standards are not always perfect. However, over the past 35 years that I have been involved at national level, we have striven to respond to consumer concerns, and even anticipate changes, and react accordingly. This is a dynamic space, and the standards of crop and livestock husbandry, including animal welfare, food safety and care for the environment, that we have in place today have been hard-won and are being delivered every day on our farms.

Standards are reviewed every year to make sure that they are relevant and appropriate. We absolutely must not undermine consumer confidence in our food. I experienced the consequences of that in the 1990s with BSE in beef when I chaired the MLC: beef sales dropped by 30% overnight. Scaremongering over hormones in imported beef could have a similar impact.

It is important to state that I had been working on this amendment and had it ready to table before the Secretary of State for International Trade, Liz Truss, announced the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which has been launched today. Subsequently, the membership was also disclosed. I then found myself in a slight quandary. Do I table the amendment or not in view of the announcement? After careful consideration, I decided to proceed with the amendment for reasons that I will outline in a moment.

I was delighted by the announcement that the Government plan to establish the commission and I commend the Government for taking action. It was a pragmatic and sensible response to the rising tide of public concern about this issue. The appointment of Tim Smith as chair of the commission is an inspired choice. I know him well, as I do many other members of the commission. I am absolutely confident that, under Tim’s leadership, the commission will be thorough, will carry out its task with diligence and integrity and will seek additional expertise and advice if needed, which it will be, to ensure a good understanding not only of the issues at stake but the global marketplace that we are trading in and stakeholder views, in particular those of the environmental NGOs and consumer organisations. So I welcome this commission.

I have three fundamental concerns, hence my reason for deciding to proceed with this amendment. The first is the authority and influence of the commission. The second, linked to the first, is the role of Parliament and the obligation on the Government to respond to the commission’s initial report. My final concern is the longevity of the commission. There is no question that when the Secretary of State announced the establishment of this commission, it was an attempt to head off pressure to include a standards clause in the Bill. Much public comment since the announcement has described this as a sop and described the commission as toothless. This must not be a sop. The role of the commission is hugely important. It has a critical role, not only in defending our existing domestic standards but, importantly, in influencing future global standards of international trade. The current terms of reference understate the importance of the role and the influence of the commission.

Under the current terms, the commission will set up for six months and will submit an advisory report to the Secretary of State, which will be presented to Parliament. It will then be disbanded and disappear into the mist. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take its recommendations seriously or respond positively, and no clear indication that Parliament will be given dedicated time to scrutinise and debate the recommendations of the commission. The amendment addresses that weakness.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eames (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in this group of amendments I will speak to Amendment 209. I refer to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, during our debate on Tuesday.

In this debate so far, I have been impressed by the frequent references that the Minister has made to the need to view the Bill in relation to the devolved nations. On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke powerfully on the importance of that relationship from a Welsh point of view and this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has reminded us of the connection with the problems in Northern Ireland.

So far as that relationship is concerned, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminded the House of the difficulties presented by the period during which the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive did not function. Amendment 209 is influenced by the problems of that period but now, thankfully, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are operating fully. However, the importance of the relationship between central government and the devolved Administrations in areas such as agriculture cannot be overemphasised in this debate. This amendment is an attempt to build on that sensitivity so far as one devolved nation is concerned, but it has implications for the others so far as the whole Bill is concerned and cannot be isolated to one devolved nation alone.

As the United Kingdom prepares to leave the EU, none of us can have a complete picture of the problems which will emerge for the farming community throughout the UK. Amendment 209 recognises this reality. For Northern Ireland farmers, the uncertainties of their geographical situation are well documented, with a land border about to become the border between the United Kingdom and the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, reminded the House, this is vital to farming communities in Northern Ireland. In addition, there continues to be confusion around the issue of what is normally referred to as a border in the Irish Sea. The implications of that confusion for transporting agricultural produce within the United Kingdom cannot be overstated for Northern Ireland farmers—hence their concerns about the future.

I support Amendment 209, for I am well aware of the importance to the Northern Ireland economy of our farming community, but I am equally aware of the contribution of the devolved settlement to the strength of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why I welcome the Minister’s references to the importance of the relationship between central government and the devolved Administrations, so far as agriculture is concerned. It is surely essential that these reflections are clearly stated in the Bill.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I want to speak on a number of these amendments but will make a small technical point at the beginning. Amendment 209 and others in this group refer to Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department. A number of colleagues have asked why this is the case—in fact the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, challenged it during one exchange some weeks go. But the Government’s amendment is in fact correct because power in Northern Ireland is not vested in the Minister; it is vested in the department. This goes back to some kind of anomaly in 1921. I have never understood or heard an explanation as to why that is the case, but it is. Amendment 209 is correct but some amendments in this group do not quite follow the same pattern. I think that would need to be addressed. The role of a Minister is to direct and control a department in Northern Ireland so that power is vested in the department, not in the Minister.

With regard to the amendments, my first question to the Minister is: what happens if Whitehall fails to get the agreement of one or other of these devolved institutions? What impact would that have and how would it be addressed in practice?