Bycatch Risk Prioritisation Framework

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that the framework will be ongoing: we get it set up, we get it working, we collect the data and we monitor. It will also inform further frameworks going forward.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest, as I took the then Fisheries Bill through your Lordships’ House. All that we have heard today very much chimes with what we heard when we had that consideration. I would like to ask the Minister what progress we are making on the redesign of nets, which was a subject we discussed because of the bycatch issue. There is also the imperative, with which I hope the Minser will agree, that we work with the fishing industry—alongside it—so that we make progress on maximum sustainable yields, which we all desire.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. We have to work with the industry if we are going to resolve this, because we need a balance between sustainable fishing and supporting the industry, while ensuring that we do not have bycatch that causes huge problems to some of our most threatened marine species. He makes a good point regarding nets. I know there has been work done on what nets are made of, what they look like, the size of the holes and all sorts of things like that. That work is ongoing and I am happy to keep him up to date with it.

Natural England: Gamebird Release Licensing

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm that I have confidence in the chair of Natural England. My understanding is that he was appointed for a third term because there was a new Government and it was decided that continuity was important.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, to play in what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, I think that what has broken down is trust; that is, trust on the part of so many in the rural communities in relation to what has appeared to be imposed upon them. I encourage the Minister, with her rural credentials, to seek to rebuild this sense of working together rather than against communities. It is all very well saying that this is not happening; it is happening. That is the feeling of rural communities. I ask and, indeed, implore the Minister to ensure that Defra, in the work that it is doing, really drills down with some of these bodies that they are meant to be working for people, not against them.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that I always believe in working together and constructively. When I am involved in issues in Defra, that is an approach that I always encourage, because people get better understanding of what is important and what is needed if they work together. We have a new Secretary of State, as I am sure noble Lords are aware. She was a Minister in Defra before, which is helpful, and I shall make sure that she understands the concerns of this House.

Farming Practices: Sustainable Farming Incentive

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Our encouragement of all sorts of farms that did not already have grants and support demonstrates that we are keen to look at food production. We also have a farming innovation programme that supports agrotechnology for farmers, which can help with food production as well. The whole picture is about supporting food production, because, as we have said, we believe that food security is national security, and we take that very seriously.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests. One should not be provoked by comments, but it is important that we feed the nation, and I am worried about this concern that, if you are a medium or large farmer, somehow you are the enemy. We need all farmers to ensure that we are well fed and have national security through that, as well as enhancing our environment. It is important that farmers have clarity and certainty; the Minister has touched on that, but farmers need far more of it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is absolutely right that farmers need clarity and certainty, which is why we have brought in the 25-year farming road map. With regard to larger farmers, that is also why, from September, the SFI will be open to all farms. We are trying to encourage farms that had not previously taken part to come forward and be supported by the Government.

Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Very strict conditions have to be met before the Government are allowed to do that. However, we have said that we will keep all options on the table if it comes to that.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

In terms of our desire for clean water, can I ask that the Government work very closely with the champions of clean water—the fishing community, who are often the eyes and ears on early signs of pollution? It is important because, although we have the desire to do this, we need volunteers and others to ensure that this comes into effect. I very much hope that Defra and the noble Baroness will work extremely effectively with the fishing community.

Environment Act 2021 Targets

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Cross Benches, then the Opposition Benches.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Unless you have accurate data, you do not know whether you have set the right targets. It is absolutely critical. One of the things that we are looking at in Defra, right across the board, is how to improve our datasets. In this particular area, it is critical. We know that if you target nature properly, it recovers very quickly, but we need to understand that better.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that invasive non-native species have a very profound effect on not only the economy but our native ecosystem? Does she agree also that we should do more by way of research in dealing with this, and with the mobilisation of volunteers? I am thinking particularly of the efforts with, for example, Asian hornets, grey squirrels, Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed. There is so much we could do by mobilising so many people to help with this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord; he has got it exactly right. I am very pleased that I am going to be supporting Invasive Species Week this week by going to Derwentwater, near where I live, to look at the work being done by the Rivers Trust on Himalayan balsam, for example. I am sure the noble Lord will also be pleased to know that I spent all last weekend, and the weekend before, Himalayan balsam bashing. We have a local group in our parish on Himalayan balsam bashing, which my husband runs. We also do a lot of work with the red squirrel group locally. It is something that I am absolutely passionate about.

Access to Nature Green Paper

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: one of the things that it is really important for us to do as a Government is get children out into nature. We know that, if you get out in nature at a young age, you are more likely to continue to do so during your life, and we know how good it is for people’s health. On children, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we have been working with the Department for Education on a number of measures where we can increase children’s connections with and understanding of nature. We are working to develop a national nature education park, for example, and looking at how we can embed it throughout the school life of children.

There are also other ways. I recently visited Low Gillerthwaite field centre, for example, to see its excellent work. It trains young people in nature conservation and brings children in to see nature. As we develop the Green Paper, which we are absolutely committed to, we are also working on myriad other ways in the meantime to ensure better access for all people, including children.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as declared in the register. Farming for food production and the environment is eminently compatible, but does the Minister agree that with rights come responsibilities, and with the importance of adherence to the Countryside Code and a much greater awareness of it? We want to encourage so many people of all backgrounds and all regions to come and enjoy the glories of the countryside, but there must be responsibility with it. Also, I think that the countryside ticks better with pragmatism rather than ideology. We need to remember that we are relying on the farmland for food and to look after nature and there will be times when it is not advisable to have wider access, for the protection of not only food production but the thing we cherish, which is nature.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord about responsibility. I live in Cumbria, as noble Lords know, where there is damage, litter, the leaving opening of gates and sheep worrying, because people sometimes do not understand when they go to the countryside how to be responsible. I am really keen that we increase access. I do not need increased access to nature, because I have plenty and I enjoy walking. Plenty of people do not. They are the people we want to get out into nature, because we know how good it is for them. At the same time, an education process about responsibility in the countryside is incredibly important.

National Food Strategy Independent Review

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

One of the most fascinating parts of the report was when it spoke about satiety. The junk food cycle is based on the desire to eat more than we need to feel sated. That is a real problem and a cycle that we have to break if we are to tackle obesity and other wider health issues.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge proceeds with the Bill, I will make a very brief statement about legislative consent. The Bill, which increases the maximum custodial penalty for the worst acts of animal cruelty, has enjoyed cross-party support in both Houses. It would bring both England and Wales into line with the existing sentencing regimes for animal cruelty offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Animal welfare is a devolved matter, meaning that the Bill is subject to the legislative consent process. The Welsh Government laid a legislative consent memorandum for the Bill before the Senedd in February, advising that they support the Bill applying to Wales.

The timing of the Senedd elections and the Queen’s Speech means that there is now insufficient time for the Senedd to consider a legislative consent Motion before the end of this Session of the UK Parliament. Letting the Bill fall at this very late stage would be a regrettable outcome for both England and Wales alike. Given the circumstances, and mindful of the support expressed for the Bill by both the Welsh Government and other parties in Wales, the UK Government have decided to maintain their support for the Bill, notwithstanding that the Senedd has yet to pass a consent Motion. In the event that the Bill receives Royal Assent tomorrow, as I would hope, the incoming Senedd would have time to provide its support for the Bill after the election period and before the Act comes into force. We believe that this represents a pragmatic solution that will deliver widely supported enhancements to welfare and protection of animals in England and Wales.

Motion

Moved by

Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Wine) (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2021

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Wine) (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2021.

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

My Lords, this instrument concerns protection of geographical indications in Great Britain. GIs are a form of intellectual property protection for the names of food, drink and agricultural products with qualities attributable to the place they are produced or the traditional methods by which they are made. Wider examples include Scotch whisky, Welsh lamb and Melton Mowbray pork pies. This instrument concerns only wines such as an English regional wine, iconic products such as champagne and Rioja, and corresponding traditional terms: for example, grand cru or sparkling. It contains a necessary amendment to the retained EU regulation which provides the legal basis for the wine geographical indication scheme.

The amendment made by this short and technical instrument corrects an error in the original legislation, identified since the end of the transition period. I express my considerable apology and regret for this. Clearly, one seeks to have all legislation in the perfect form. I can report that this error was identified within the department. We immediately sought to remedy it, hence this instrument has used the “made affirmative” procedure. It ensures that the proper registration and protection of GIs and traditional terms in Great Britain continues and that the UK maintains compliance with its international agreements.

This SI does not make any wider policy changes. It corrects article 107 of retained EU regulation 1308/2013, concerning protected wine names and traditional terms. Three separate exit instruments provided for amendments in relation to this article, but in the process an inadvertent revocation was made of the text that was intended to be in place. This instrument puts the intended provision in place, ensuring that all established wine GIs and traditional terms are fully protected and legitimately appear on a public register of wines and traditional terms. “Established” means those names that were protected under the relevant EU schemes on the last day of the transition period. This in turn ensures that the UK Government fully comply with their GI commitments under the EU withdrawal agreement, and the WTO’s TRIPS obligations—the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement.

As well as making a direct amendment to a retained EU regulation, the instrument includes a corresponding revocation of domestic secondary legislation. The provision revoked is Regulation 6(3) of SI 2020/1452, one of the previous exit instruments I mentioned. As the provision has been rendered ineffective, it is being removed for clarity.

Since this instrument entered into force on 10 March 2021, the relevant entries in our public GI registers have been updated to show the date of registration as 10 March, rather than 31 December 2020. This change has been made to just over 2,000 records; seven of these are UK names, the rest are predominantly from EU countries. We have engaged with the Food Standards Agency and the network of trading standards authorities, who have confirmed that they are not aware of any wine GI infringements during this period.

We have also engaged with the European Commission and have provided reassurance that we are not aware of any breaches with respect to the affected product names given our checks with the responsible bodies. Furthermore, we have confirmed with the Intellectual Property Office that there have not been any conflicts with trademark applications during the period in question. We have also engaged with the two main UK wine trade bodies, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and WineGB, and with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. All were appreciative of the quick efforts we had taken to rectify the error and our engagement with them; they reported no knowledge of any breaches to affected product names. I reassure your Lordships that all product names under the three other GI schemes have not been affected, including spirit drinks and agri- foods, nor are wine GIs and traditional terms which are protected domestically through other international agreements.

As I have outlined, the regulations in this instrument are essential to ensure that the UK and EU wine GIs and traditional terms are appropriately protected in Great Britain, and that we comply with our important international obligations. For those reasons, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very constructive debate. It is clearly essential that we have the right legislation in place for the effective operation of the UK’s wine GI scheme, with appropriate product name protections visibly in place.

I enjoyed my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere’s absolute endorsement of viticulture in this country, and if I could trade some counties with my him and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in Suffolk we have some excellent wine production as well. Clearly, the champagne houses are not only buying land in Kent because of climate change but also because the soil structure is very similar to that obviously famous part of France—and that is why there is this commitment. The export of English and Welsh wines, in particular, around the world is an area of expansion and growth, and I am pleased that my noble friend mentioned innovation start-ups, which are really important.

I reiterate to both noble Baronesses my regret that the error has happened, but I would also like to remark upon their thoughtfulness in raising the matter of the official, whom I am not allowed to name, who detected this error. I am very grateful for their generosity. I am aware—as we all are, because we are all engaged in this—of the significant pressures on both policy and legal teams with regard to the SI programme. This was particularly the case in the run-up to the end of the transition. That is why, to pick up the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, we will continue to review and improve our processes in respect of legal and policy checks and clearances of legislation. This will include a consideration as to whether there is enough resource in place. I regret every error; the perfect form is something we strive for, but sometimes these things happen. I will always be up front when they do, but we obviously need to do everything we can to stop these issues manifesting themselves.

My noble friends raised the issue of VI-1s, which already exist for wine imports from other origins, such as Australia, the United States and Chile. These wines remain extremely competitive in our, and, indeed, the EU’s, marketplace. We believe the new self-certification requirement to be appropriate and affordable.

I also say to my noble friends, particularly my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Holmes of Richmond, that leaving the EU of course gives us the opportunity to consider and review changes in policy to suit the needs of British people and our businesses. We will continue to monitor all areas of retained EU law, including those concerning wine certification, to ensure that they are fit for purpose. I remember my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond raising the electronic transmission of wine certification strongly in debate on the Agriculture Bill. It is possible to transmit by those means and we will consider all aspects of VI-1 processes and their transmission. Our immediate attention has been focused on whether VI-1s serve a practical and useful purpose in today’s global wine trade. However, I remember the document and officials are considering this area.

A number of points were also made about the whole scenario of the wine world, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The first thing to say is that the United Kingdom is one of the most important global wine-trading nations. The UK is second only to the United States of America in the value of imports. She also raised the point that there were issues, which we have all identified, post the end of the transition with imports and arrival. My understanding is that these matters are improving all the time, as paperwork becomes better understood. A lot of attention has been paid to this and it is improving. It was interesting that imports from France and Italy were down by 10% in 2020, compared to 2019, but imports from Spain were up by 10%. Those are the three countries which have a significant supply issue.

I certainly want to take up the opportunities that my noble friends have raised for exports of our excellent English and Welsh wines. I should also say that we have recently extended the easement where any wines arriving from the EU will not need to have associated wine certification to 1 January 2022. This will provide time for the sector to adjust to the new trading arrangements, including those set out under the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

I agree that there have been these initial problems with exports to certain EU member states. We have a considerable interest in wine exports to the EU, of course, which total about £400 million per annum. This is largely made up of re-exports of imported wine from countries such as Australia, Chile and the United States, and fine wines from all around the world. Those problems are very important not only for our own domestic wine but obviously for this significant re-exporting, which is a key feature and part of the employment aspects of this sector.

We have been working hard with the companies concerned in this area and with their agents, our diplomatic network and member states to resolve the immediate issues, and what can be done to ensure these problems do not reoccur for future shipments. I cannot promise that we are in the perfect form on these matters as yet. What I know is that, across the piece, as exports have been building up since 1 January, these issues have been resolved and trade is starting to re-energise itself—not only because of coronavirus but because of the work we are doing in this sector.

With those comments and, if I may say so, a general endorsement of the opportunities for domestic wine consumption and exports, I recommend that the Committee agrees to these regulations so that we can rectify an error which, thank goodness, was identified by an excellent official. There was no issue with any goods and, from the work we have done, we are clear that there was no issue of any difficulty during those nine weeks. We would of course not have wanted that to arise. I will look at Hansard in case there are some points that I may not have covered, but with those remarks I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument extends the current regime of charging for plant health import checks to apply to checks carried out on consignments from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This is in line with the standard approach that the full cost of service delivery be recovered from businesses using plant health services.

It is our responsibility to protect biosecurity across plant and animal health, and the wider ecosystem. To that end, plant health checks—documentary, identity and physical—are carried out on regulated consignments imported into England from non-EU countries which may carry pests or diseases that could pose a risk to our biosecurity. Currently, the highest-risk commodities are subject to 100% documentary, identity and physical checks. The level of identity and physical checks on other commodities is based on risk.

During our membership of the EU, plants and plant products were able to enter the UK from EU member states without the need for any import checks. However, inspections carried out as part of Defra surveillance programmes have identified instances where EU consignments have contained plant pests or diseases that could pose a threat to UK biosecurity.

To address that threat, and in line with retained law, from 1 January 2021 the existing regime of plant health checks is being extended to consignments of regulated plants, plant products and other objects imported from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Under the agreed phased approach, which allows businesses time to adjust to the new arrangements, higher-risk goods, such as plants for planting, have been subject to documentary, identity and physical checks from January. This has already resulted in a number of interceptions of consignments with pests and diseases, allowing appropriate statutory action to be taken. Documentary checks on other, lower-risk regulated plants, plant products and other objects will commence on 1 January 2022, with identity and physical checks applied from March 2022.

It is UK government policy to charge for many publicly provided goods and services. The standard approach is to set fees to recover the full costs of service delivery. This relieves the general taxpayer of costs, so that they are properly borne by users who benefit from a service. This allows for a more equitable distribution of public resources and enables lower public expenditure and borrowing. Charging for plant health services is consistent with the principle that businesses using these services should bear the costs of any measures to prevent harm that they might otherwise cause by their actions or inactions, since most serious plant pests and diseases that arrive and spread in this country do so via commercial trade in plants and plant produce.

Fees are applied for checks under the Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) Regulations 2018. For lower-risk consignments eligible for reduced levels of physical checks, a proportionally reduced fee is applied to every imported consignment. This SI amends the 2018 regulations. It extends charging for plant health checks to also apply to checks carried out on consignments from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. In addition to ensuring equity with those importing from non-EU countries, it also reflects that exports into the EU are subject to chargeable import checks, so there is a degree of reciprocity.

We have worked closely with individual operators and industry bodies, including the Horticultural Trades Association, Fresh Produce Consortium and the National Farmers’ Union on developing our approach to dealing with imports from the EU. To give businesses time to adjust to the new arrangements, the fees for documentary, identity and physical checks on the higher-risk goods, and for documentary checks on other goods, will not be applied until June 2021, despite checks being undertaken since 1 January. Fees for identity and physical checks on the remaining regulated goods from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein will be applied from March 2022.

Under the 2018 regulations, there is a single combined fee for a documentary and identity check, reflecting the fact that both those checks were previously carried out at 100% on all consignments. From 1 January the frequency of the identity check is linked to that of the physical check as both checks are carried out at the same time. So any reduction in the level of physical inspection will also apply to the identity check. This instrument therefore provides for a separate fee for documentary and identity checks for all consignments. This SI does not make any other changes to existing fees for checks on consignments imported from non-EU countries, other than Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

This SI applies to England only. The vast majority of consignments entering GB from the EU do so via England. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are following the same phased approach in terms of the timetable for inspecting EU consignments and applying fees to recover the cost of those inspections.

This instrument is necessary because it provides for fees to be charged for plant health checks on commodities imported from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, thereby providing consistency with imports from the rest of the world, where fees already apply. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for what has been a constructive and interesting debate. If there are any points that time does not permit me to cover today, I will of course write to your Lordships.

I was struck by all the comments about biosecurity and why we are doing this. It is to protect plant biosecurity, as was made clear by my noble friend Lady Redfern and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is absolutely key that we embark on this in a very serious and important way. I was also struck by my noble friend Lady Redfern, absolutely rightly, referring to the importance of the safety of those working to deal with pests, disease and invasive non-native species, all of which impinge upon our biosecurity.

Given the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others, I thought it would be helpful to summarise the timetable for the introduction of checks and associated fees. On 1 January 2021, documentary, identity and physical checks were introduced on high-risk EU goods and carried out at places of destination. No fees are currently applied for these checks. On 1 June 2021, fees will be introduced for documentary, identity and physical checks on high-risk goods and for documentary checks on other goods. On 1 January 2022, physical inspections of high-risk goods will move to border control posts. On 1 March 2022, identity and physical checks on other goods will commence at border controls posts, with fees then applied for those checks.

The noble Baronesses on the Front Benches opposite raised the devolved Administrations. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are following the same phased approach as in England in terms of the timetable for inspecting EU consignments and applying fees to recover the costs of those inspections. In all parts of GB, fees will set to recover fully the cost of services provided, in line with the general Treasury principle on cost recovery. As services in Wales are provided by APHA on behalf of the Welsh Government, fees in Wales will mirror those in England. A different cost-base applies in Scotland, so there may be some differences to actual fees, but the same methodology and principles apply.

I give the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, my absolute assurance that the devolved Administrations are currently checking high-priority plants. We are working very closely and extensively with our devolved counterparts on operational readiness to ensure that our policies and plans are operable. For example, a UK plant health post-transition period operational readiness board—I am sorry, that is such a long phrase—has been established to discuss planning with devolved Administrations. This includes weekly meetings to consider policy issues, including fees. We have been working closely with officials from all the devolved Administrations to design future common frameworks where they are necessary, in line with principles on common frameworks.

I understand the point about working closely with industry. My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, raised this. We have maintained regular engagement with the industry—indeed, I have been at a number of the meetings, particularly with the Horticultural Trades Association—on post-transition planning with individual operators and through key stakeholder groups. This included an explanation of the planned charging regime for EU imports, which was followed up with details of the actual changes. Discussions were held through fora such as the plant health advisory forum, the tree health policy group and the Ornamental Horticulture Roundtable Group. In addition, there was frequent bilateral engagement on EU imports with key stakeholders, such as the Horticultural Trades Association, the Fresh Produce Consortium, the National Farmers’ Union, the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association and—I declare my membership—the Royal Horticultural Society, which we have also been working with.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Hayman, my noble friend Lady McIntosh and others more generally raised the important point of how best we can support business with the changes that I think we have all agreed are desirable, given the interceptions that we have identified already, and before this new regime. We have been listening carefully to the concerns of industry to make sure that the new requirements are practical, proportionate and—importantly—risk-based. The import controls on EU-regulated goods are being phased in over 14 months. Regulated goods are not currently being held at the border for import checks in order to help trade flow. All EU high-priority goods may be checked at places of destination until January 2022, minimising that disruption at the border.

On a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the Government have invested £705 million to ensure that our border systems are functional from 1 January and will be fully operational in line with the phasing plan. Operating hours for plant health services have also been adjusted to service business needs, while ensuring that biosecurity standards continue to be maintained and strengthened in ways that support trade and the smooth flow of goods. I think it was my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes who made the point about the importance of biosecurity but also trade flows and supply.

So far as the financial costs raised in this debate, we have been clear that, in line with Treasury rules, the Animal & Plant Health Agency recovers the cost of delivering these services from businesses that use them. Low-risk goods will receive a lower frequency of checks; fees therefore need to be adapted to ensure that there is no over-recovery of costs.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised engagement with the EU. There is ongoing and active engagement with the EU on all these matters. She also raised the AIC report. We have regular contact and engagement with the AIC. She also mentioned FERA, which conducts seed testing to support imports and exports. The cost of seed inspections is £128.13 per consignment for a 100% inspection and £6.40 for a 5% inspection rate. Specific seeds are listed in the SI.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked about risks from Northern Ireland goods. The island of Ireland is of course a single epidemiological unit. It is really important that we respect both their biosecurity and ours. We have a risk-targeted surveillance programme, which monitors movement of plants from all origins. Again, it is important that we look at this constantly. She also raised the risks to woodlands. We review risks on a continuous basis through the UK plant health risk register and take action in response to new threats, including emergency regulations, such as those for Xylella.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised the definition of high-priority plants. High-priority plants are those that pose the greatest potential risk to GB biosecurity. This includes shrubs and plants for planting not intended for final users, host plants of Xylella—for instance, lavender and rosemary—and other plant material for propagation, such as seeds and cuttings. Fees are based on the actual cost and time that it takes to inspect different categories of material.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also raised costs. The methodology used to calculate these fees was fully consulted on in 2017 and has not changed. Fee income is carefully monitored to ensure that there is no over-recovery or under-recovery. Any discrepancy would normally be rectified in the following year. However, for this year, to ensure that there is no significant over-recovery of costs, APHA and Defra will monitor fee income on a monthly basis, which is important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, also raised Northern Ireland. In line with the principles of unfettered market access, there is no requirement for export phytosanitary certificates to accompany qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB, so there are no associated fees. There will also be no import checks on those qualifying goods entering GB and no additional costs to trade as a result of plant health service delivery by APHA.

I am sorry if that was a very brisk description of some of the questions asked by the Committee. However, I commend this statutory instrument to your Lordships.

Motion agreed.