Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I am very pleased that he has raised his concerns about these regulations on retail and plant safety made under the Windsor Framework. I share those concerns on two main grounds.

First, there is the impact on trade, about which noble Lords have spoken. I draw your Lordships’ attention again to the report of the European Affairs Committee’s sub-committee on the Windsor Framework in respect of plant trade. It pointed out that plants such as prunus, hazel and hawthorn are on the prohibited list and so must use the red lane. As noble Lords know, these are vital to the hedgerows and ecosystems of both islands: the whole of the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, and of the UK. We ought to look at the problem as a whole.

My second concern is about who can send or receive these items. To the best of my knowledge, unless you are a registered provider you cannot use the green lane. This will eliminate internet providers, many of which are small businesses that rely on internet trade. It will undermine such providers’ competitiveness. Needless to say, I am also concerned about the impact of these regulations on producers in Northern Ireland, who will suffer a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the Dublin Government’s arrangements with the EU.

Finally, the constitutional status of Northern Ireland should prompt His Majesty’s Government to rethink the whole premise of the Windsor Framework. I understand that it is an easement, but it should be seen as an easement in some respects for certain areas of trade and certain traders. It should not be seen as an end in itself until the whole arrangement respects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland under both the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the protocol. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to Article 1(2), but the whole protocol respects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. We are undermining that by giving our consent to regulations that do not accept the premise of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement or even the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, at paragraph 7.10 the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The Windsor Framework establishes a new, sustainable and durable framework for GB-NI trade … This instrument is required in order to implement the Framework”.


In coming to consider the regulations before us, it is possible to assess whether they are worth while only if noble Lords first ask what their purpose is? As other noble Lords have mentioned, both instruments relate to EU Regulation 2023/1231, whose object is to affirm and effect two different border arrangements, one of which is less destructive than the other. As such, the regulations are not about removing any sense of border in the Irish Sea, as the Prime Minister suggested, but rather they are concerned with providing two different border experiences. Notwithstanding their differences, they are both united in upholding a border that can be negotiated only with an export number, customs and SPS paperwork—the extent of which, as my colleagues have said, varies depending on which set of border arrangements you use—at least 100% documentary checks, 5% to 10% identity checks and some physical checks at border control posts. This plainly does not give effect to the reintegration of Northern Ireland into the UK single market but, rather, puts in place mechanisms to process the challenges arising from the fact that, rather than Northern Ireland being integrated and enjoying unfettered customs and SPS access, fettering is being put in place, with costs and profit-loss margins recalculated and commercial decisions revised accordingly.

Given that rather than removing the border, these regulations are concerned just with the details of the border arrangement and the extent of SPS border bureaucracy and cost, the question necessarily arises about whether it is right to support regulations that have the effect of affirming and effecting aspects of the border and EU Regulation 2023/1231. The question is: why have a border? What is it for? It is there to protect the integrity of the different legal regime that exists in Northern Ireland from what might come to Northern Ireland and from the different legal regime that exists in Great Britain. That confronts us with a central difficulty that some might be willing to paper over and ignore but that we unionists living in Northern Ireland have not the luxury of ignoring: the fact that every one of the different laws in Northern Ireland is a result of legislation that has been imposed on us by the EU without our consent.

The Windsor regulations are concerned with navigating the border and thus affirm it in at least two ways. First, they authenticate the border by making provision for dealing with it through EU regulation 1231, which is based on the existence of the border. Secondly, in engaging with the EU regulation that I have mentioned, the regulations inevitably authenticate the principles set out at the heart of Article 14: that the EU can impose a division on the body politic of the United Kingdom as exists between separate states. Some 700 different pieces of legislation have been imposed on us since January 2021, and of course over time the divergence will become greater as more new EU laws are passed and as more laws are made by Westminster. EU laws will be imposed on Northern Ireland without any representation or democratic accountability. I ask Members of your Lordships’ House whether that is acceptable? Would it be acceptable for England, Scotland or Wales? Why, then, for Northern Ireland? The border created by these regulations must be rejected not only because it places obstacles between Northern Ireland and our main market in GB but because it is a symbol of our denial of full democratic rights within the United Kingdom. It tells us, the long-suffering people who have recently endured a murderous campaign for over 30 years, that while the people of England, Wales and Scotland are worthy of the right to stand for election to make the laws to which they are subject, the people of Northern Ireland are not. The right that we should enjoy, being British, is having a common citizenship with every other citizen of the United Kingdom, but these regulations prove otherwise and therefore ought not to be accepted.

When we carefully consider what we are asked to support today in these regulations, I say so much for respecting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and the consent principle which we were told lay at the very heart of the Belfast agreement. The agreement said

“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.

It prohibits any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland that involves a shift away from government by the United Kingdom towards more government by the Republic of Ireland or the EU, save with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The words “any change” include the threat that often emanates from some Members opposite, that if unionists do not get back to Stormont, Northern Ireland will be governed by a cabal of UK and Republic of Ireland Ministers. In reality, the suggestion is to bin the central principle of the Belfast agreement—an international agreement, we are told, that numerous Governments across the world heralded as historic and must not be broken; it is set in stone. However, the Government have chosen to mark the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement by rejecting parts of it in agreeing the Windsor Framework and hoping that no one notices.

The Windsor Framework and its forerunner, the Northern Ireland protocol, were mischievously sold on falsehood. Learning the lessons of the past, unionists are fed up with successive Governments’ spin and will not be beguiled by it, but we will carefully scrutinise the substance. I notice that the spin continues—my noble friend Lord Weir referred to it—because the Government suggest that what is happening under the present arrangements, which started only on 1 October, is a resounding success, when, in fact, it has not been really implemented. That undermines credulity, but it satisfies the government spin-makers. We are told to welcome warmly the PM’s amazing achievement with Europe concerning the Windsor brake. However, it is a convoluted complaints procedure which, when the dressing is removed, has as much chance of succeeding as a genuine brake on Europe as refloating the “Titanic”.

Official Controls (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention as it will allow me to conclude—to the relief of the House—very quickly. He is right about the nature of the vote but wrong about the context. In the first place, under the Government of Ireland Act and the Good Friday agreement, trade is a reserved matter. It was a decision of this Parliament, and the beginning of the change from the May agreement—Johnson’s agreement at least mentioned the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was not mentioned a few months earlier. It is part of the long struggle to deal with significant parts of the democratic deficit. I take the noble Lord’s point completely. You could argue that it would be better if it was a different style of vote.

However, in this new White Paper we have the announcement of a new Stormont brake, where the voting system is exactly what the noble Lord wants. Suddenly we discover that we have a voting system for a petition of concern. It is exactly what has been asked for, but it is still not good enough. There is a point at which one really has to respond to the seriousness of the moment.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I know it may dismay some Members that noble Lords from Northern Ireland want to speak on the future of our country. We were expecting this debate not to be at this time but earlier on. However, seemingly the usual channels decided to put it off so that other Members could get home and would not be inconvenienced.

I support everything that my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn said in his introduction to this debate. What we are witnessing, through the powers that are being given here, is a Defra Secretary of State being given the powers to order permanent border control posts. That is undermining the authority and power of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because this is its responsibility.

Even though they believe this will undermine the union, the decision tonight will force the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly to acquiesce—even though they disagree with it. That is not an appropriate way to go forward.

I have sat in numerous debates in this House when the Benches opposite were absolutely packed with noble Lords expressing absolute horror that the Government would dare to ever think of introducing Henry VIII powers. Yet the Opposition Benches are empty tonight because it is to do with Northern Ireland. There has been much talk of the exercise of powers that my noble friend mentioned; they are also the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but whenever it suits the Government, they will take it and exercise it here. They say it is because the Assembly is not meeting. The Assembly is not meeting at this present moment, and there is agreement across all the major parties in Northern Ireland for reorganisation of health, but that did not come here, because they have full powers. They say that the health service is in such a crisis that we need this reorganisation now. Well, why has it not been brought here when they are able to do it on other occasions? It suits them: they believe by not doing it, even though there is a crisis in the health service in Northern Ireland, that will force the DUP back in because there is constant pressure.

Tonight, we had it once again. At the beginning of the week, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, told us that if we did not accept the agreement between the European Union and the Prime Minister that was coming—even though he did know at that time what it really was; it was not called the Windsor Framework at that time—unionists should “just remember this”. He was looking across at us and said: “It is not going to be rule from Westminster; it will be joint authority with Dublin.” That was the threat that came from the Lib Dems at the beginning of the week, and now we have a threat today from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, just to add to it. If that did not make us sit up—we have been told a number of things—we will “pay a price at the ballot box”. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Members of this House, the Democratic Unionist Party is always happy to go to the ballot box; that is where we get the authority for our stand and the support. We have been written off so many times. As the Democratic Unionist Party in this House, we have been told what the people of Northern Ireland want and what unionist people want. Yet many of the people who say that have seldom, if ever, been to the Province, but they know what they people of Ulster are thinking; they know what unionist family is thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, “If you don’t accept what you are given now, we’ll change the Assembly rules”—that was tonight, that was him. We are being to do what we are told: “Sit in the corner and do what you are told, or else. This is what you’ll get, and you’ll have to suck it up.” So much for the Belfast agreement.

The Belfast agreement is premised on cross-community support. Members across the Benches, in every debate about Northern Ireland, said that the Belfast agreement is sacrosanct and the greatest treaty in the world, and nothing—but nothing—must be done to undermine it. But, when it does not suit the Benches opposite, or even some Members on the Benches around us, they tell us that they will change the rules.

Agriculture Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

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

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 18B in the name of my noble friend Lord Curry. The issue of maintaining animal welfare and environmental standards is of huge concern, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords. We have previously received a number of assurances from the Government, which are undoubtedly sincere, but there is legitimate concern to see that assurances are turned into deliverable action to create systems and mechanisms that provide a degree of independent advice and scrutiny to government.

As the UK starts negotiating its own trade agreements as an independent sovereign state, we have a chance to clearly demonstrate by actions, not just words, that we will negotiate on the basis that equivalent animal welfare standards and suitable environmental standards apply to the food we import, just as they apply to that which we produce ourselves. This is not about protectionism but giving our farmers a level playing field to compete on, and setting out a global exemplar position on animal welfare and the environment.

Last week, I had the pleasure, coming back from our local town, of passing a field of beef cows, with their well-grown calves at foot, contentedly grazing amid the woods and hills of Perthshire, all in a lovely wildlife-rich, biodiverse environment. Are we going to risk exchanging that for feedlot cattle that live their life on bare earth and are fed soya; or, worse, cattle reared not on natural grassland but on cleared rainforest? The UK is rightly proud of its climate change commitments, but what is the point of trying to reduce our agricultural carbon emissions if we import beef from cleared rainforests?

The creation of the Trade and Agriculture Commission was a welcome step and it will set out a framework for future trade deals, but it will cease to function by January. I submit that there will be a need for continuing advice and scrutiny. Why would any Government not want a readily available, very affordable pool of independent expertise to consult? For imported food, to protect our food safety, there is the Food Standards Agency. To protect animal and plant health there are the international sanitary and phytosanitary protocols. There is a deficit in independent oversight for animal welfare and environmental standards on imported products.

The amendment proposes that Parliament and a continuing Trade and Agriculture Commission should provide that oversight. If the Government object to this revised amendment, will they consider bringing forward their own suitable amendment in the other place? That would go a long way to assuage the very real concerns of the public—let us not forget the NFU petition which over a million people signed—and the legitimate concerns of the welfare and environmental bodies, the veterinary profession and our farmers. What is there not to like?

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 16B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 18B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. We have the opportunity through this legislation to shape future policy on food production, standards, the environment and animal welfare. Surely it is imperative that we do so, ensuring that those who produce our food to the highest standard are protected from unfair competition.

The rejection of the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, was a blow for UK agriculture and consumers. I appreciate that the Government have on several occasions repeated their commitment not to lower food safety standards, which are presently safeguarded under UK law, but I cannot understand why they are so hesitant to strengthen their arm in putting this clearly down in legislation. Flooding the UK market with cheap imports, with lower standards, would have a serious and detrimental effect on our farming industry and place UK food and farming in serious jeopardy. It surely cannot be right to negotiate any international trade agreement without securing clear food, food safety, hygiene, traceability, and animal health and welfare standards.

Verbal commitments are insufficient and can be easily set aside, as we witnessed during other recent negotiations. We need to set the parameters without ambiguity. What happened in the other place was a missed opportunity and we must do our best to rectify it. There is absolutely no excuse for us not granting Parliament a firm and coherent role in any future trade deals. For the Government to demand the highest standards from their own food producers, with all the considerable cost implications, while not demanding the same rigorous standards from those importing food to the United Kingdom, is unacceptable. The House must endeavour to press the Government on this issue by supporting the amendments. They are not wrecking amendments; they are constructive and deserve our support. They would permit a level playing field for all food producers and grant the necessary protection for the consumer.

Agriculture Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, to ask a short question of elucidation.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

To clarify, does the Minister believe that the term “exceptional adverse conditions” covers exceptional events such as extreme weather and serious diseases, which can cause major financial problems for farmers and food security? Does this Bill cover them?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that this Bill will cover those situations.

Agriculture Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

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

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest in a small farm holding, which is in the register of interests. I also pay tribute to the courteous and patient manner with which the Minister has dealt with a very wide range of amendments debated since the Bill has been in Committee.

I appreciate that the Bill deals primarily with the needs of England, but it contains powers which are relevant to Northern Ireland and provides certainty for the distribution of direct support to local farmers for the forthcoming year. The continuity provided by the Bill will afford the devolved Minister time and space to bring forward new proposals for longer-term farm support in Northern Ireland.

It is, however, of great regret that the other place rejected the inclusion of measures which would have upheld standards of imports in a number of areas, including food, welfare and environmental standards. The amendment tabled in the other place would have been a welcome addition, and this House must right that wrong and give protection to consumers and farmers. It is vital that we do not outsource our food production to countries which do not have the same high standards as our farmers have to comply with. The Bill should be sent back to the other House reflecting this. That is why I support Amendment 271, which places an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the United Kingdom under a trade agreement are processed and produced are equivalent to or exceed the relevant domestic standards and regulations relating to animal health and welfare, protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene, traceability and plant health. The standards that British farmers adhere to, with significant cost implication for them, leaves them at a price disadvantage compared to cheaper imports.

It is also worth noting that producers and agri-food businesses stand to be doubly hit if the threat from barriers within the UK internal market stemming from the Prime Minister’s disastrous agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol are not mitigated. Therefore, I also strongly support Amendment 270 on the creation of an international food standards commission with legal standing to scrutinise import standards for food. This would help to ensure a level playing field for our farmers and no future dilution of standards.

While the establishment of the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission and the inclusion of the UFU representation is a welcome step in ensuring that the interests of local producers are represented, it must be more than a talking shop. There must be legislative protection. Advisory reports are not legally binding, and although Ministers Eustice and Truss in the other place have indicated they wish to act in good faith, agriculture needs firm guarantees.

The recent pandemic has demonstrated the importance of food security in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is evident that there is growing support for British produce. The Government’s approach to trade talks and funding must reflect the desire of any local farmer to maintain exemplary standards, to produce safe food and to ensure that our environment is safeguarded for future generations.

In the current climate farmers need certainty and continuity. Agriculture is the cornerstone of job creation and growth in the Northern Ireland economy, sustaining approximately 100,000 jobs and adding value in the region of £1.5 billion to that economy. That contribution must be sustained for the future. We welcome the Government’s commitment to retain the same level of direct support to farmers until the end of this Parliament. However, we must have the same commitment around replacement funding for rural development funding. I trust the Government will listen to the views clearly expressed by numerous Members of your Lordships’ House and will make the necessary changes to this Bill.

Agriculture Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register and express my total disappointment that my noble friend Lord Morrow could not participate in this debate, even though he had prepared for it.

Under the Bill, the Government would be required to report on the state of the nation’s food security every five years. Surely this is a relevant and important measure in the light of the empty shelves and food queues that we have experienced in recent months—something that I had never experienced before in my lifetime. However, I am convinced that farmers throughout the United Kingdom believe that this should be strengthened in the Bill and made a yearly requirement instead of a five-yearly one. By doing so, the Government and producers would have a clear understanding of how much of our nation’s food comes from domestic producers, thereby assisting us in our endeavours to be as self-sufficient as possible. I believe that this would be in the national interest, and I encourage the farming industry to be both stable and efficient in future.

With Brexit, the United Kingdom is fundamentally reassessing its trade relationship with partners in the European Union and the rest of the world. I have no doubt that many see major opportunities for the United Kingdom but undoubtedly there are also challenges. These trade negotiations coincide with one of the most serious crises that the world has faced in a generation, in the form of the coronavirus, and the ongoing challenges of climate change and biodiversity decline. A future trade policy that undermines our farmers will mean that a common goal of a more prosperous, sustainable and nature-friendly food and farming sector will be made much harder to achieve, and our nation’s already declining food self-sufficiency and security will continue to be eroded. The UK will also have missed an opportunity to set out its stall as being serious about tackling its global footprint and being at the forefront of sustainable production and climate-friendly farming across the world.

If UK farming is to face a future as a vital strategic sector, producing the food that we eat and meeting the challenges of climate change, food and security and the high expectations of the UK public in the way that we treat our farm animals and wildlife, the Bill must not undermine that very goal by allowing in food imports that fail to meet its high ideals. As in Northern Ireland, farmers and growers across the United Kingdom are very proud of their high standards of production. It is important that UK farmers are not in any way unfairly disadvantaged through the imposition of high costs, direct or indirect, that are not shared by overseas competitors exporting food to the United Kingdom. It is therefore imperative that the Agriculture Bill is amended to ensure that agri-food imports are produced to environmental animal welfare and food safety standards that are at least equivalent to those required of producers in the United Kingdom, which are so highly valued by the British public.

The British Government stated that they had no intention of allowing the UK’s high standards of production to be undermined after the UK left the European Union, but that will be the outcome of allowing the import of food produced at a lower standard. UK consumers will be left hostage to food on the market that will be unsafe and our UK farming industry seriously undermined. If the Government fail to amend the Bill accordingly, I believe they will be failing not only our food-producing industry but the UK consumer.

Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the additional work he has had to undertake with regard to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, this has come about because, as we know, there is no Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive to discuss and pass these Motions. However, I think all of us here hope that the ongoing talks taking place in Stormont will prove successful, and that might relieve the Minister. It is vital, however, that these Motions are agreed to protect animals and plants in Northern Ireland from disease, which can be imported from other countries, so I very much welcome the regulations. Northern Ireland has some of the best policies that defend animals and plants from imported disease. When the European Union certificate is replaced by the phytosanitary certificate, it will obviously involve additional administration. Can the Minister say who will bear the additional cost: the importer or the exporter, or will it be passed on to the public? Once again, I thank the Minister for all his work and for keeping the Northern Ireland Peers so well informed about these matters.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I shall follow on from my noble friend. The Minister talked about the consultations between officials from Defra and the Irish Republic. Can he tell the House what consultations have taken place with the Ulster Farmers Union and the other groupings that represent farmers in Northern Ireland, and do they agree with the regulations before the House this evening?

Also, do any of these regulations have any connection with the backstop being demanded by Europe in the present negotiations? If they relate to the present negotiations and the backstop, which is opposed by many within Northern Ireland, certainly my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party will have to look afresh at these recommendations.

My noble friend also asked about the burden being placed. Do any of the proposals place a greater burden on the agricultural and business community in Northern Ireland than those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Who will bear the financial responsibility for that?

Winter Flooding (Preparation)

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Steve Brine]

My hon. Friend is a visionary and a futurist. Bear with me—“bear with”, as someone recently said.

I was touching on Headbourne Worthy. The Good Life Farm Shop lost thousands of pounds of business because of the road closure. That is part of the wider socio-economic impact that I mentioned. My constituents in the village of Littleton, another place where my team and I shifted thousands of sandbags, took that to a whole new level, as one end of the village was the ungrateful recipient of thousands of tonnes of water flowing off groundwater-saturated farmland at the other. One thing that I have learned this year is that water is ruthless and will find its way, no matter what or who is in its way, to the lowest common point. I saw that happen to devastating effect.

Meanwhile, villagers at the other end of my constituency, in Hursley, saw rising groundwater levels fill cellars and infiltrate sewerage systems, with the resulting outpouring down the picture-postcard streets. The villagers do not look on that as their village’s finest hour and I would not want to see it again.

What do all these communities, including Sutton Scotney in the north of my constituency, where there are still constituents out of their homes, have in common? As I said, their flooding was the result of groundwater—levels just overspilled. The problem that they all share is that the cost-benefit ratio for flood alleviation schemes—this issue was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris)—under the national funding formula does not favour them or, I am sure, many of the villages that colleagues represent, because of the low number of properties that are actually physically flooded.

The difficulty is being able easily to quantify impacts such as the road closures that I mentioned, disruption to local businesses, such as the Good Life Farm Shop and the King Charles pub, deliveries to those businesses and to homes, welfare services, social care, education—I mentioned St Bede’s school—and normal life in general. Our experience in Winchester points to the need for the cost-benefit analysis for flood alleviation schemes to be articulated in a very different way.

We know that the national funding formula, the so-called flood defence grant in aid programme, will never touch us, but we want to build something that is complementary to it, not in place of it, which properly recognises the value of multiple small-scale local measures to deliver community flood resilience.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate. Could he address a problem that constituents right across the United Kingdom face when flooding happens? I am referring to the difficulty that householders, including my constituents, encounter when they try to get insurance. They experience great difficulty in getting insurance at all or they face exorbitant rates. Surely the Government must do more on that with the insurance companies.

[Steve Brine]

Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I could have gone into huge detail on insurance, but I know how many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. A huge insurer based in my constituency, Ageas, briefed me recently. There is a scheme that has come out as a result of the floods; there is a levy on policies that helps those in hard-to-insure or uninsurable properties. I urge the hon. Gentleman to look into that. Perhaps the Minister will refer to it.

I was talking about the national programme and the difficulties that communities such as mine, and those represented by many colleagues here, will have in accessing that. Fortunately, Hampshire county council, which Winchester clearly comes under, has a plan that is actively being discussed with officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—even the day before yesterday, they were discussing it again, I think. Following my introducing the idea to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury officials are looking at it ahead of the autumn statement. Called the Pathfinder programme, it would look beyond property protection to measure the benefits of resilience in the wider area—for example, the benefit of maintaining strategic transport routes.

Better management of groundwater flood risk at local level, unconstrained by the current funding methodology, would mean that the communities that I represent could remain open for the duration of the flood, enabling local economies and businesses to function. By integrating existing programmes with a devolved funding pot for new measures, benefits of scale could be realised by incorporating simple flood risk measures alongside other maintenance programmes such as highway drainage or even the resurfacing of a road.

The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report, “Winter floods 2013-14”, rightly highlights the fact that each catchment area has different flood risk management needs. It argues that effective flood risk management should be informed by local knowledge and prioritised according to local circumstances. It calls on the Government to assess the possibility of a total expenditure for flood and coastal risk management in order to allow greater flexibility to target funding according to local priorities. I think that Government support for the Pathfinder programme in Hampshire would provide for exactly the type of flexibility envisaged in the Select Committee’s report.

Lest the Minister think that this is just another clever ruse from Hampshire, supported by its MPs—my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) is here today—to eke more money out of the Government for it to spend as it sees fit, I am pleased to be able to say that Pathfinder is underpinned by serious academic work by the university of Portsmouth, which is working to secure a sensible baseline for cost-benefit analysis of flood risk adaption and mitigation. Hampshire seeks £2 million for Pathfinder that DEFRA devolves for a three-year programme and it will stand behind that request with match funding from Hampshire council tax payers. If the Minister hears nothing else that I say this morning, I ask him, as a consequence of today’s debate, to press his officials on those proposals and to think creatively about what they can offer.

Finally, I come to the repair and renew grant, or RRG, which I have become incredibly familiar with in recent months. It had the best of intentions when it was set up, but it was, for a start, poorly named, as many of my constituents who were attempting to claim against it would find out. The original guidelines defined the RRG as being used only if

“habitable internal areas of the premises have been damaged by flooding”.

However, following sustained appeals from my constituents, through me, DEFRA Ministers, to their credit, noted the high impact on daily lives where people were unable to continue living in their home and, on 24 June, Ministers decided to extend the RRG beyond the use in relation to habitable areas. That means that under the revised scheme, money can now be paid to those people whose septic tanks were flooded—a problem that was very acute in my area and that I suspect others will recognise. As they put it to me in their letter of 25 June,

“this is due to the fact that people cannot reasonably be expected to live in a property that is not flooded but has no functioning sewerage system”.

Quite!

That was a victory for common sense, and Winchester city council has run with it. As of the end of last week, the chief executive tells me, the council had received 67 applications to the reformed RRG, with 44 approved and only two rejected. The value of grants paid out to date is in the region of £45,000.

I do, however, have one final ask on the RRG, on which I beg the Minister’s assistance; I gave him notice of this. As he knows, the scheme is due to close at the end of this financial year, by which time all schemes that receive grant approval need to be implemented and the money claimed back from the council. I do not think that that will be a problem for most individual claimants, but for larger-scale, collaborative schemes, that deadline certainly is a problem.

There is one such scheme in the village of Littleton, which I have already mentioned. A residents company has a programme, already agreed by the council in Winchester and by DEFRA, that is designed to deal with the surface water that inundated their private foul drainage system last winter, leaving many of my constituents without drainage for many weeks. There were Portaloos in the village for a long time.

I am concerned that because of the detailed design work that is required to do this properly—and it must be done properly—it may not be possible for my constituents to implement the scheme and claim back the costs by the end of March next year. I appeal to the Minister to look at the case once again and to demonstrate the kind of flexibility that the Department displayed earlier this year, which showed it in such a good light. I am happy to provide the details to the Minister outside the debate.

I place on the record my thanks, on behalf of my constituents and many others in Hampshire, for the £11.5 million that our county was awarded from the Government’s flood recovery fund to assist with repairs following the floods. That has been invaluable in repairing roads in my constituency, such as Springvale road in Kings Worthy and the B3047 through Itchen Abbas, which were ripped to shreds by floodwater. Hampshire spent £5 million of that £11.5 million on repairing the county’s roads. That was in addition to the £35 million that the county spends on highways as part of its annual maintenance budget. That is a word of thanks, which I know the Minister will appreciate.

As I have tried to set out, many things went well in my constituency last winter when we were faced with unprecedented levels of rainfall, and there are real success stories to tell. Some things, such as the RRG, have since improved. We need some further help, as I outlined, in preparation for winter 2014-15. In preparation for this winter, however, other nuts are not so easy to crack. I close by stressing the importance to me and to my constituents of the Pathfinder scheme, as put forward by Hampshire county council. I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say, and I look forward to the response from the Minister and the shadow Minister.

Tyne River (Pollution)

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Nicholas Brown]

Dr McCrea, like me, you represent a constituency with a rich industrial heritage that no doubt has similar problems, albeit perhaps not exactly of the nature we have been discussing. I am very disappointed by what the Minister has said. He has, however, offered one constructive suggestion, which I note would not cost the Government any money. Nevertheless, it is a constructive suggestion and I will take it up with the local authority and others locally.

I agree with the Minister that the possibility of a commercial way forward for the site is worth exploring. The figures he cited are the same as my own—a cost of roughly £1.2 million to £2 million for the council’s preferred scheme to try to contain the tars and prevent them from leaching into the river, but it would contain them on site. I do not know how commercially attractive that would be to a developer. My preferred option would be a one-off capital clearance of the whole site to clear it up completely and bring it back to a more pristine standard, certainly than it has known since 1920. However, my suspicion is that that would cost more money.

I rather thought that the Minister would turn me down on the money, and that he would refer to the Department for Communities and Local Government grant arrangements—

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister might like to say a few words in response, but it is an intervention; there can be no further speeches. Does the Minister want to respond?

[Mr Brown]

May I have a final sentence?

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

One final sentence.

[Mr Brown]

My final sentence—there may be a few commas and semicolons—is this: will the Minister, or another Minister from the Department, agree to meet me to have a continuing dialogue on a way forward for the site, with a view to finding a conclusion?

[George Eustice]

I omitted to deal with that point, which the right hon. Gentleman raised. I am more than happy to go back and raise that point with Lord De Mauley. He is responsible for the matter because it is in his portfolio, even though I handle it in the Commons, and I am sure that he will be willing to meet and discuss it further. I have been as honest and frank as I can with the right hon. Gentleman about the constraints that we have. As I have said, a large sum of money is required to put the site right. We have made it clear that we have only about £500,000 a year for the whole country, so he can appreciate that it would overwhelm us. I will nevertheless take that point back and ask Lord De Mauley if he will have a meeting.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman for the debate. It was less contentious than some of the debates that we have had today, but it was no less important.

Question put and agreed to.

Common Agricultural Policy

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman as full an answer as he would wish. First, we have not yet agreed the deal, so we do not know whether that voluntary modulation figure will stand. Secondly, a lot will depend on the design of the schemes and on how we implement them at national level. We have been pushing the argument in Europe that, in relation to the devolved Administrations, we want as much flexibility and local determination as possible in the design of operation. We want to give Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the opportunity to use their own discretion on behalf of their own farming businesses, as they will know the best way of implementing the schemes in those countries. If we are successful in our objective of achieving that flexibility, as we have been so far, we will effectively have a devolved CAP.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister acknowledge the need for regional flexibility to allow Northern Ireland to tailor any new policy to fit the needs of the local industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful for that question. A lot will depend on the local determination in Northern Ireland for the options under pillar two, which provides the capacity for supporting diversification. The relevant Northern Ireland Minister will have to decide the extent to which voluntary modulation applies and whether the pillar two schemes will be devised to support diversification. The capacity is there and the decision on whether it will happen or not will be a local one.

[Dr McCrea]

The Minister is being very gracious in the number of interventions he is willing to take. The UK has received the lowest EU share of the rural development budget, which will impact on schemes such as agri-environmental schemes, the less favoured area compensatory allowance and farm modernisation. Will the Government balance the reduction in rural development with funds from, for instance, pillar one?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman asks a basic question about voluntary modulation. We have already indicated that we will probably wish to see significant modulation from pillar one to pillar two in England. Obviously, other structural funds could be used for those purposes, if desired. On rural development, there is a need to utilise every possible source of funding to improve the rural economy. We are not simply talking about what is available through CAP funding to support agricultural and rural development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak after the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Food security delivered by a viable farming industry and the sustainable management of our natural resources must be compatible. It would appear that the CAP does its best to ensure that they are not. Greening is a lie. The proposals are not greening proposals. Modifications that are being made in the proposals to pillar one can be said to be greening in nature, but the proposals do not constitute the greening of the CAP as a whole. Only 13% of the funding under pillar one goes to specific greening measures. In many cases, good farmers are doing those things anyway. The real objection is that money is being used for subsidies around Europe instead of being used to encourage farmers to improve their practices and run better businesses. That is the tragedy of the CAP’s current structure. The CAP budget is €57.7 billion, which is around 40% of the EU budget. It is staggering that the money is being used predominantly to reward productivity and to increase product, and not to incentivise better businesses and improve the wider environment.

I compliment the Minister—I do not always do so—for the way in which he has handled the debate. He not only took a lot of questions, but sought to engage the House. There is broad consensus in the House on the position that the UK Government would like to get to in Europe. The tragedy is that the 27 different countries have very different farming industries. Many of them have a vested interest in having subsidies prop up their ineffective farming industries.

The key issues are on the use of funds. The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) was right to correct what I said earlier—10% modulation was compulsory and 9% was voluntary in the past. That meant a total of 19% modulation as opposed to the 15% voluntary modulation that the Government propose. The difficulty is that the 15% is 15% of less, and the 19% was 19% of more. The will have a dramatic impact on advancing the environmental stewardship schemes and the green elements of our budget will be dramatic.

I take on board the points made by the Chair of the Committee and the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire about how the proposal will impact on farming businesses in the UK. This is not a zero-sum game, but if we put the money into the schemes that hon. Members would ideally like—the greening schemes that will improve our environment—we will, to an extent, disadvantage our farmers, because they compete against their counterparts in Europe with less subsidy. It is as simple as that. We might all believe that that subsidy is wrong and should not exist—subsidies should not exist to prop up failing industries—but it exists none the less, which is a disadvantage to our farmers.

[Dr McCrea]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not have time, I am afraid.

The Chair of the Committee was absolutely right to put the central question: what is the Treasury going to do? Will it allow enough funds to DEFRA to ensure that we can put the money that is needed into the environmental schemes to support the natural environment White Paper it produced last year and to support our farmers, or will DEFRA budgets be cut in such a way that our farmers and the environment suffer? That is the question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy.

I represent a rural constituency in Northern Ireland where the active farmer is prominent, and there is a need to emphasise the role of the active farmer in single farm payments. Farmers have had to withstand difficult weather conditions in the past 18 months. A combination of wet weather last summer and one of the coldest springs have had an impact on agricultural production. Farmers and farming organisations in Northern Ireland, particularly those in my constituency, are looking forward to a fair wind in the CAP reform negotiations to ensure the resilience of farm practice and the business of farming in Northern Ireland.

I have had several discussions with the Minister, both in separate meetings and as a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Central to the success of the growth of the agri-food industry as the bedrock of the economy is a good outcome from the CAP negotiations that will underpin our industry and farm production at all levels; make provision for new entrants; acknowledge the position of the active farmer in terms of payments; and, above all, ensure a stable income for farmers and for those who derive their livelihood from the farm base. This is a long-term political issue that will shape farming and agriculture not only in the UK, but in Ireland too.

[Dr McCrea]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the reforms should support production, reduce red tape, and ensure that farmers receive an adequate return from the marketplace?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree that farmers need to receive a fair income for the work they undertake, notwithstanding difficult weather conditions, soil fertility or other matters.

We must use all the levers at our disposal, including those in the EU, to achieve the best possible outcome for our farmers and our industry. Only last weekend there were some suggestions that farmers in Northern Ireland would be left at a financial disadvantage as a result of the ongoing Government negotiations. I seek assurances from the Minister that the business resilience and capacity of farms in Northern Ireland will be protected in whatever outcomes emerge from the CAP. I have spoken to the Minister’s opposite number in the Republic of Ireland, who is heading up the negotiations, and he has said that farming in Ireland, both north and south, is similar. We are looking for similar outcomes.

I am aware that some farmers involved in full-time farming inherited their farms from their fathers, but in some instances they have not inherited entitlements. What can be done in the current negotiations, and in further discussions at UK level and at devolved level, to secure a position for those farmers who have no entitlements because they did not apply for them back in 2005?

Those are the two principal issues I wanted to raise. I wish the Minister a fair wind in the negotiations. As we enter their final stages next week, the bottom line is to ensure a good outcome for agricultural communities and farm enterprises.