Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 June be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

For Back-Bench contributions, the limit is three minutes. There is no gap and we are very tight for time, so if people stick within the three minutes, everybody will be grateful and we will be able to hear from the Minister later.

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

My Lords, this instrument extends to Northern Ireland only and is being brought through Westminster, working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or DAERA. The Government note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, which raises concerns about the implementation of EU-derived plant health and seed legislation in Northern Ireland without public consultation and about the broader implications of the Windsor Framework.

This is a necessary measure to update Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation and plant health enforcement provisions, ensuring the continued protection of Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and fulfilment of our Windsor Framework obligations. As noble Lords will be aware, under the terms of the Windsor Framework, limited parts of European Union law falling under Annex 2 to the framework continue to apply in Northern Ireland. These include the movement of goods, agri-food standards, and animal and plant health. It is important to note that this instrument makes no changes to the Windsor Framework. The instrument will amend existing Northern Ireland plant health legislation, introducing changes to six Northern Ireland statutory rules. The instrument will also update Northern Ireland legislation in line with EU legislative changes which are directly applicable in Northern Ireland. The majority of these changes update obsolete and outdated references in respect of Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EU member states following the UK’s exit from the EU.

I will now outline the changes being made by this instrument. Three of the pieces of marketing legislation being amended are: first, the Marketing of Vegetable Plant Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995; secondly, the Marketing of Ornamental Plant Propagating Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999; and thirdly, the Marketing of Fruit, Plant and Propagating Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017. These set out conditions relating to plant varieties, documentation requirements, and plant health and quality for an array of fruit, vegetables and propagating materials. They protect buyers and growers by outlining compulsory standards for products.

Also being amended are the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, which implement rules for marketing forest seeds, plants and cuttings, ensuring that material is from approved sustainable sources and is identifiable from seed to the final user, protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity traders and growers.

The fifth piece of legislation being amended is the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. As you will possibly be aware, seed potatoes are one of the notable good news stories resulting from the introduction of the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework permitted the movement of seed potatoes from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and their growing on, which had been prohibited during EU exit.

The final piece of domestic legislation for Northern Ireland that this instrument will amend is the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020. This is a central piece in setting out the overarching rules and requirements for plant health. These amendments are primarily technical in nature to update references and terms that are related to Northern Ireland, the UK and the EU.

The amendments will also update domestic legislation to include EU biosecurity legislative changes that are already applicable and implemented, including some relating to disease control. A number of the pests and diseases covered in these technical updates pose similar risks to us here in Great Britain, and controls have already been introduced in legislation here. This instrument ensures that similar control measures to protect against these pests and diseases that are already in place in Northern Ireland will be fully enforceable.

The instrument moves beyond the existing ability of rejecting consignments and provides for full enforcement of non-compliance, including pursuing penalties and prosecution where necessary. While no formal public consultation was undertaken for the instrument, we have worked closely with stakeholders through webinars, publication of guidance, roundtables and the Horticultural Working Group as well as one-to-one meetings, particularly on the implementation of the Windsor Framework. From these ongoing stakeholder engagement mechanisms and the technical nature of this instrument, we determined that a consultation was not required.

In conclusion, I emphasise that it is essential that the amendments in this instrument update the Northern Ireland statute book and enable effective compliance with plant health requirements to uphold our commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework. The instrument does not impede Northern Ireland’s constitutional position or grant any additional powers to the European Union, nor does it introduce any additional impositions for stakeholders. So, by approving it, we reaffirm our solid commitment to protect our agrifood, forestry and horticultural sectors and deliver on our international obligations. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for securing this debate and ensuring that we have three whole minutes to discuss the dismemberment of the United Kingdom.

I began by trying to find out what this was about by reading the Explanatory Memorandum. I want to make a complaint to those who write these things—if any of them are listening. It is completely opaque. It gives no indication of the actual consequences of what we are doing on real people and real lives, or on the constitution of this country. In future, I hope they write them more informatively.

Following from that, if we were to reject this statutory instrument, what would happen? Would it mean that European laws no longer applied in Northern Ireland? No, they would still apply. They would probably not be enforced by the British Government. I do not know what would happen. Perhaps the European Union would send in officials to do the enforcement for us. We should find out what the actual consequences are of passing or not passing this legislation before we decide whether it should go ahead.

Next, do these regulations actually fulfil the promises of the Windsor Framework, as it is so called? I looked up what the promises were. It was said, re plant health and so on:

“Instead of full EU certification, all plants and seeds will move under the existing UK-wide plant passport scheme, in line with traders throughout the UK”,


and:

“Previously banned seed potatoes will once again be available from other parts of the UK while remaining prohibited in Ireland”.


Is that the case? Is it exactly the same as in the rest of the UK or not? The honourable Member in the other place, Sammy Wilson, said that he finds it difficult to get seed potatoes in Northern Ireland, that consignments above 2 kilograms have to go through complex procedures, and that lots of producers and suppliers no longer get them from GB. Is that or is that not the case? Will these regulations alter that in any way?

I share the disgust which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned at the inclusion in this document of statements that Northern Ireland is to be treated as part of the EU. What that is saying, in effect, is that the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is to be the same as between Donbass and Luhansk, and the rest of Ukraine. Legally, they are part of Ukraine, but the laws are made by Russia. Here, legally, Northern Ireland is part of—

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Order. I ask the noble Lord to bring his comments to an end.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I end on that sombre note.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Relevant Documents: 28th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a large number of groups to get through today to complete Committee. I remind noble Lords of some important points of guidance in the Companion that might help us with that aim. Paragraph 8.81 on speeches at amending stages on Bills states that:

“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.


While there have been many important contributions from all sides of the House, parts of our debates on previous days have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments being debated. To make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion and brief.

Paragraph 8.82 on custom when withdrawing an amendment states that:

“Members (other than the Minister) pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.


While many noble Lords have adhered to this, at times long speeches have been made when withdrawing amendments. I urge all noble Lords to keep remarks brief to keep us on track. The Ministers responding will continue to keep speeches as confined as possible while providing a proper response to questions raised in the debate.

Clause 55: Environmental features, environmental impacts and conservation measures

Amendment 242B

Moved by

TB in Cattle and Badgers

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Order. Quite a few Members want to speak. The hon. Lady has been good at giving way, but I hope she will come to the end of her speech at some point.

[Ruth George]

I will do, Mr Wilson.

[Ruth George]

Absolutely. We would not want that to happen in Derbyshire either.

In 2014, 20% of culls were supervised by Natural England staff, but by 2018 the organisation was able to monitor only 0.4% of them. That gives rise to safety concerns, particularly if protests are involved. Without even responding to their own report, last month the Government extended the badger cull to a total of 40 areas, including around Bristol, Cheshire, Devon, Cornwall, Staffordshire, Dorset, Herefordshire and Wiltshire. It was not extended to Derbyshire, however. That delighted the thousands of supporters of Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and its vaccination programme, but not the Derbyshire farmers, 700 of whom had signed up to the cull in their area.

With infections increasing so much recently, and no other Government policy forthcoming, farmers feel that the badger cull is their only option to escape the real fear of TB. As has been said, however, there is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of the cull, and it is disappointing that Professor Godfray’s team was specifically asked not to evaluate whether ongoing culls are reducing TB in cattle. A recent report from the Animal and Plant Health Agency stated explicitly that the data cannot demonstrate whether or not the badger control policy is effective.

The Downs report shows some reduction in infections during and immediately after the cull, but infection rates are now rising again and TB is spreading among cattle. Professor Godfray stated that the only feasible alternative to control badgers is vaccination, and that leads me to the work of Derbyshire Wildlife Trust—the largest volunteer-led vaccination programme in the UK, supported by the National Trust, the National Farmers Union, Derbyshire County Council, the Badger Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Derbyshire police and local badger groups. Derbyshire’s police and crime commissioner is also a strong supporter, especially after assessing the resources that policing protests against the cull would involve. DWT is supported by more than 100 volunteers, and that number is continually increasing. I thank the small band of professionals and all the volunteers who dedicate a substantial amount of time in the evenings and early mornings to trap and vaccinate badgers. They have vaccinated 742 badgers so far, including 218 this year.

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Order. Is the hon. Lady coming to the end of her speech? She has been speaking for 25 minutes, and I want to be fair to other Members who wish to take part in the debate.

[Ruth George]

Am I okay to finish by 10 am, within four minutes?

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

You are eating into the time of other Members—that is what I am saying. If you could come to a conclusion, it would be good.

[Ruth George]

Right. This is a much more popular debate than I had envisaged for 9.30 on a Wednesday morning, so I will make progress, Mr Wilson.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has vaccinated badgers over an area of 120 sq km, and that area is expanding since the wildlife trust reached an agreement with Natural England to start work on national nature reserves in the Derbyshire dales. Government funding has been just £280,000 through the scheme over four years, given the much lower cost of vaccinating badgers instead of culling them. Derbyshire presents the ideal opportunity for a large-scale vaccination programme of the kind recommend by Professor Godfray. It has no cull, an expanding vaccination programme and a highly experienced professional vaccination team. Such research is vital to help to inform the Government about their bovine TB policy and the opportunity significantly to increase badger vaccination across the country.

There is currently no clear strategy or clarity about where vaccinations should take place or at what scale. Vaccination has not been pushed as a viable option to culling in any meaningful way, whereas the Government have been vocal in support of culling. There needs to be a level playing field. The current funding model provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides only 50% of the funds needed to run a badger vaccination programme, and that is preventing other organisations from establishing programmes. If such a model is to be extended, it must be offered proper financial support.

The people of Derbyshire and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust seek assurance from the Government that the cull will not come to an area with such a high success rate in vaccination—that it did not this year is a positive step. When will the Government publish their response to the Godfray report? Will consideration be given to monitoring the disease status of badgers, as well as badger populations, within cull areas? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that already happens in Northern Ireland. Why is there no systematic testing of culled badgers for TB? A key factor for farmers in my area is for them to get access to the tests they need to ensure that their herds stay as risk-free as possible. I look forward to hearing speeches from other hon. Members, and to the Minister’s response.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Order. We need to introduce a four-minute time limit on speeches, and we may have to reduce that if people do not stick to it.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, and I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on securing this important debate. Like other colleagues, I thought her speech was incredibly well balanced and truly reflected the nature of her constituency.

The hon. Lady’s constituency is very different from mine. As hon. Members will recognise, I represent an urban constituency and I therefore would not pretend for a nanosecond to understand fully and appreciate the concerns felt by other colleagues who might represent more rural constituencies. That said, I was one of the few Conservative MPs who spoke and voted against the badger cull when it first came before the House, and I have been a long-standing opponent of the cull ever since.

As I have served as a Minister for three and a half years, this is my first opportunity to speak on this issue since 2015. Although I recognise—especially looking around the Conservative Benches this morning—that I am probably in a minority on this side of the Chamber, I believe it is important that I speak. In my first speech on the issue I spoke of my appreciation of the devastating effect on farmers, which has been reflected in the debate today. It is important that the issue does not become one of farmers versus badgers. We have enough division as it is, and it is important to reflect on that.

Because of my deeply held views on animal welfare I have had the pleasure of working on the issue alongside various charities and organisations. It is important to recognise that they, too, have worked tirelessly to raise awareness of badgers and bovine TB and to provide the Government with scientific evidence that could protect both badger and cattle numbers. The evidence is clearly important, and I have worked with those, such as the Save Me Trust, who have worked for years to try to show that the scientific evidence used by the Government is flawed. Working with a farmer in Devon, the trust has helped to implement a different strategy to tackle TB in cattle, called the Gatcombe method, developed by veterinarian Dick Sibley. The method focuses on maintaining standards in cattle herds such as cleaning up the birthing of calves, cleaning up excrement as soon as it is dropped, and not pumping cow slurry on to the feeding fields. That has given the farmer an officially TB-free herd for three years, without the need to slaughter badgers.

Success in tackling bTB is not limited to that farm. We have already heard that Welsh herds are 94% free of bTB, and that it is dropping significantly without the culling of badgers, so surely there is an alternative for tackling the disease in English farms. As the Save Me Trust makes clear, the reason badgers have not been culled at the farm is that the likelihood of badgers passing TB on to cattle is low. According to the randomised badger culling trial, 5.7% of bTB outbreaks have been caused by badgers, but other scientific studies have put the figure at less than 1%. As has been mentioned, the RBCT estimates that 80% of badgers culled in England do not have bTB; so they were culled unnecessarily.

We need to look at other methods and take a more holistic approach to tackling bovine TB. I appreciate that that would require investment of time and money. I think that it is something the Government can support. A suggestion that was put to me was a Government-led grant programme, for farmers to invest in aerobic digesters to remove bTB from slurry, protecting cows and the wider environment from contamination, and, better still, providing biogas to be turned into electricity.

If we are to eradicate bTB it is clear that the current system for testing cattle needs to be improved. At present the skin test is ineffective and many infected cows remain in herds. Experiments with blood tests have shown TB organisms in cattle—

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

The hon. Gentleman has maintained an interest in these issues for a long time. Pilot studies are being carried out to assess the impact and potential benefits of the dredging of watercourses, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise any further points about the use of materials or has any other ideas relating to local management of river catchments and watercourses, I shall be happy to hear from him.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

T6. Yesterday, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister said that he strongly suspected that the recent abnormal weather events had been a result of climate change. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister?

[Mr Paterson]

What the Prime Minister said was that we should consider the practical measures that we are taking, and I entirely endorse his remarks. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask those on his party’s Front Bench whether they will now endorse our very ambitious spending plans for flood defences, which they have so far been very reluctant to do.