Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations further distance Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and embed it further under European Union control.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations are in my view deeply problematic, because they effectively render for SPS border purposes that Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the world, is a third country in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. These regulations have for UK citizens living in the part of the UK called Northern Ireland what I call a deeply othering implication whereby we are set apart from our own country, with the rest of the world.
Let me be clear: when I fly back to Northern Ireland each week from your Lordships’ House, I am in effect entering the European Union when it comes to all laws relating to goods. I am entering its single market and its customs code, which is of course why the EU insists on the Irish Sea border to distinguish and give effect to the fact that, under this regulation, you are entering EU territory.
The Minister has sought to justify this by saying that the Government are seeking to protect the biosecurity of Great Britain and that this is not new but the stated purpose of their border target operating model, which was subject to public consultation. I have to tell the House that I and the other noble Lords who are opposed to these regulations are very aware of these points, which do nothing to remove the central injustice of the effect of these regulations on the body politic of the United Kingdom. I understand why the noble Baroness still attempts to justify the regulations, because she may not feel that it is her responsibility to engage with the central injustice, but I and others certainly can and that is what I want to highlight in this debate tonight.
I start by stating that a most basic function of a Government to its people is the provision of their security, and a critical component of security is biosecurity. The Government cannot just be allowed to abdicate their biosecurity responsibilities for Northern Ireland to the European Union, any more than it would abdicate its responsibilities for any other aspect of the security of Northern Ireland or other part of the UK to another country or group of countries. Surely this is a basic moral imperative. In case of any doubt, Article 1.2 of the Windsor Framework states:
“This protocol respects the essential state functions”
of the United Kingdom.
We all know that, before the imposition of the Irish Sea border, Northern Ireland was deemed to be in a different SPS zone from the rest of the United Kingdom. But what was never in doubt was, first, that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and not a third country in relation to it and, secondly, that, as such, the biosecurity of Northern Ireland was as much a responsibility of the UK Government as the biosecurity of GB. In this context, while any Government confronted by the outbreak of a biosecurity threat in a particular part of their territory will seek to limit movements to protect the rest of their territory from that outbreak, at no point is that part of the state relinquished such that it ceases to be part of the ultimate biosecurity identity of the state in which it is located. Ultimately, our security was held in common by the union that is the United Kingdom.
The difficulty with these regulations is not simply that their focus is on the biosecurity of Great Britain, as if the biosecurity of Northern Ireland did not matter, but that they are construed in terms that effect the casting aside of Northern Ireland for biosecurity purposes so that it is no more the concern of the UK Government than any other part of the world, the rest of the world being conflated with it into the same zone of third countries. This othering, as I mentioned earlier, transforms Northern Ireland from being part of the UK body politic for biosecurity purposes into something outside it. This is a hugely controversial issue, because one of the most basic questions of political identity pertains to who you join with when your back is against the wall in the context of a security crisis. Who are the people with whom, in the words of John Stuart Mill, “our lot hangs together”? With whom do we say “we”? These are not trifling matters that can be adjusted on a whim. The people of Northern Ireland cannot be lifted out of their security identity and become, like the rest of the world, a potential threat to the biosecurity of Great Britain from which Great Britain must be protected by the Irish Sea border.
The presenting difficulty is even worse than that. Biosecurity threats are, by definition, greatest from those who are not part of you but close. Northern Ireland, therefore, is reconfigured by these regulations not just to be a third country but the greatest third-country biosecurity threat to Great Britain on account of being the closest third country to Great Britain, separated by just a dozen nautical miles of British territorial sea in the North Channel.
In addition to reconfiguring Northern Ireland into a third-country threat to the biosecurity of Great Britain rather than part of the United Kingdom that is still the responsibility of the UK Government, these regulations imply that, as a third country, the biosecurity of UK citizens living in that part of the United Kingdom that is not Great Britain is not the responsibility of the UK Government. This rather suggests that there is no equivalent UK biosecurity legislation covering Northern Ireland because, if such legislation existed, while being in some senses in separate zones, ultimately the fact that the UK is a single state means that UK legislation pertaining to the biosecurity of Northern Ireland would need to relate to the equivalent UK legislation pertaining to the biosecurity of Great Britain and vice versa.
I raised this twice when we debated biosecurity regulations on 10 December 2024. The Minister in her response sought to respond, but I intervened to make the point clearer as it was being missed. I said at column 1694:
“If goods coming from the Republic through Northern Ireland into Great Britain have to be security-checked for phytosanitary and all the other reasons, why are people in Northern Ireland then left with nothing? How does the Minister know that we are not going to be poisoned or threatened by some kind of problem that she feels will come through to Great Britain?”
The Minister responded:
“I completely get the point that the noble Baroness is making. Our international commitments, and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, require us to treat EU goods equally, regardless of the entry point. As she is aware, there is a lot of legislation already in place. There are issues within the Windsor Framework. There are matters that we need to discuss with the EU as we go forward with the EU reset that has been discussed”.—[Official Report, 10/12/24; col. 1694.]
Well, that did not really answer the question: how does the UK discharge its equal essential state function to protect the biosecurity of the people of Northern Ireland and how does that legislation relate to the GB legislation?
Perhaps I can attempt to give the real answer and then the Minister will have the opportunity to correct me if I am wrong. The truth is that the UK Government have, in violation of Article 1 of the Windsor Framework, abdicated their essential security function in Northern Ireland in relation to biosecurity and effectively allow goods to flow in freely from the EU, outsourcing their essential state function in biosecurity to the EU and its legislation. The only biosecurity function and legislation that the UK Government now seek to provide relates to Great Britain and they set out that function in this and other legislation in terms that not only do not apply to Northern Ireland but reconfigures Northern Ireland from being part of the same biosecurity identity as the rest of the UK.
In all of this—and this might sound surprising—the regulations before us today give great grounds for hope. That sounds rather strange, given everything else I have said, so let me explain. These regulations contain three central components. First, they make provision for an SPS border to protect Great Britain from goods coming from the Republic of Ireland and the wider EU. Secondly, they do so along the Irish Sea rather than on the international boundary on the UK-Republic of Ireland land border. Thirdly, they make provision for that border to be upheld without hard-border infrastructure.
Under these regulations, those wanting to move goods from the Republic and wider EU into Great Britain by way of Northern Ireland are, under Regulations 16 and 17, no longer required to pre-notify to a border control post but can pre-notify instead to authorities based anywhere in GB, and, under Regulations 14, 7 and 11, they are no longer required to attend a border control post on the border and can be directed to SPS facilities away from the border, in some cases in Northern Ireland and in some cases in GB—and in some situations checks can take place at the place of destination.
This is a huge breakthrough, but it makes these regulations completely unsustainable. The justification for moving the border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK to the Irish Sea was that, if a hard border was erected along the actual international border, it would be provocative and terrorists would attack the border infrastructure and anyone employed in staffing the border.
It was never that the border cannot be where it is. The whole point of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was and is to recognise that unless and until there is a border poll and a majority of people in both Northern Ireland and the Republic vote for Northern Ireland to leave the UK and become part of the Republic, the international border remains where it is and Northern Ireland remains in the UK.
In this context, a border without infrastructure has long existed across the island of Ireland for multiple purposes: tax, excise and legislation. We even have miles into kilometres and pounds into euros when we cross the border. Checks happen there. During Covid, the Republic conducted border checks and people moving south were stopped in their cars. Recently, we saw Irish police seek to enforce the border for immigration purposes. The difficulty presented by Brexit—I say this particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie—was not that there should be a border, because there already was a border. It was thought that adding an SPS and customs border to the excise, tax and legal border would require permanent infrastructure that might be attacked: a hard border.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her usual generous response and the way she has handled all these SIs, where a lot of what is being said is outside her responsibility. We are very grateful as Members from Northern Ireland that she is willing to meet us so regularly to discuss some of the detail, even if, at the end, she is not able to change the substantial issue. Of course, we all know what it is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, is in her place. I thank her for the way that she reached out to all the Northern Ireland Peers after the very bad storm to ask how we were. I thought that was a very nice gesture, and I thank her.
This has been an interesting debate. In my contribution, I was very technical and rushed to get it all in, so I am very grateful that Members sat and listened to that. I think we had a very good wider debate, as we always do when we discuss anything about Northern Ireland. I am particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, and I remind Members, if they have already forgotten—I hope they have remembered—that on Friday it will be five years since we left the European Union. I say “left”. Northern Ireland has not left, and that is still part of the thing, so when the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, continues to say that it is all about Brexit, Northern Ireland has not had Brexit, although some of us have.
The thing that has most encouraged me over a number of SIs is how things have been changing. Originally, the Conservatives voted against any change to statutory instruments, and then on the previous vote, they abstained. Tonight, I understand that it is a free vote, so who knows what will happen the next time we have a statutory instrument? I say to noble Lords that we are going to continue to put these issues. It is the only place we get a proper debate.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and thank him for sitting through all this tonight. I hope that it has helped in his inquiry and that he will reach out to all of us—particularly those of us who are not necessarily in a particular political party in Northern Ireland—during his look at how the Windsor Framework is working.
I thank all noble Lords. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said about how we must have hope and look to change, and that we cannot take an attitude. I am never going to take an attitude of, “Well, this is happening. We’ve got to put up with it. Why don’t we just get on with it?”, which I am afraid is what one or two noble Lords say. We are not going to do that. Particularly as many members of the Government have been kept behind tonight—I hope, to listen—I am going to press a vote, because I want to get it on the record.
Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, could I just say something gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie? She always says that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. Well, London did, Scotland did, Tunbridge Wells did; we did not leave them in the customs union with some kind of trade border.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, on his explanation in detail of what these regulations do. Of course, they are another example of the Windsor Framework building on the protocol to work against the interests of people in Northern Ireland—and indeed of people in the rest of the United Kingdom, as we increasingly see. Up until now, most regulations have dealt with movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland, but this puts the Windsor Framework on a different level, because this is about movement from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I remember clearly when, I think, three previous Prime Ministers and the leader of the then Opposition all said that there would never be checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to GB. Now of course there is a slightly different phrase: “no checks on qualifying goods” going from Northern Ireland to GB.
The Government have said that they want to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are applied to European Union goods and any goods from the rest of the world entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. They say that these controls are absolutely essential to maintain the United Kingdom’s biosecurity and food safety. Yet, as has been pointed out already by noble Lords, they do not seem to care about how Northern Ireland will be left exposed to any potential dangers. The SPS checks and certifications apply to goods moving from the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland into GB; they do not apply if the goods are simply moving from the Republic of Ireland and staying in Northern Ireland. There are fears about that, quite rightly, because it has been clear that sometimes the authorities in the Republic of Ireland have been very lax when it comes to imposing regulations on animal safety and so on.
I just want to repeat that, according to these regulations, goods can move from the Republic into Northern Ireland, and can be used, be consumed, be eaten, or reach their final destination in Northern Ireland without any checks. It is only when they move to another part of our own country that such checks could be imposed. That indicates that, as a result of the current arrangements with the European Union, Northern Ireland is being left exposed not only to the disruption of trade but as regards the safety of some of that trade. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, how can the Minister accept that? What will she do to ensure that our lives and our safety in Northern Ireland are considered just as important as those in the rest of the United Kingdom?
In the Committee in the other place that discussed this last week, a Member of Parliament asked:
“Since those checks do not cover the goods when they come into Northern Ireland, but only when they go into GB, what assurances can the Minister give to people in Northern Ireland that they will not be subject to dangers or disadvantages that the rest of the United Kingdom will not face?”
I am just going to read the answer from the Minister there because I am sure the noble Baroness the Minister, who has done a great deal of trying to talk with us and keep us involved, will answer the question. The Minister in the House of Commons said:
“My understanding of the situation is that that is a consequence of the Windsor framework and the desire not to have a hard border within the island of Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/12/24; col. 10.]
That does not answer anything about the safety of the people in Northern Ireland being left with goods that come across without any checks.
There is a certain irony in what has been proposed. First, as has been said, we can do checks without physically stopping anything at the border. One of the reasons for the border being between Northern Ireland and GB was that we were told it was impossible to do checks on trade from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland, or vice versa, without having physical checks on the border. Everybody said, “We do not want a hard border”; no one ever defined exactly what a hard border was, but now we are told that it can be done by the production of certificates, at warehouses, at the point of destination and so on. I really do not understand how a lorry coming just from Northern Ireland into GB can be differentiated from a lorry coming through Northern Ireland with non-qualifying goods. There will have to be random checks, which will mean that Northern Ireland lorries, or those going only from Northern Ireland to GB, are likely to be stopped as well. Will the Minister admit to this or suggest that it might happen?
The important question is: if there can be these checks away from the border, why do we need an Irish sea border in the first place? The costs have already been mentioned; millions have been spent not just on the trade or support scheme, but on building these great infrastructures at various places. The Minister needs to answer very clearly why this cannot be considered. We heard a brilliant speech last week—it would be helpful if Members read it—by Jim Allister in the House of Commons when he moved his Private Member’s Bill on mutual assurance. No one really can answer. People keep saying, “Oh, there’s nothing else. We’ve got to do this. The Windsor Framework is the only way we can protect the EU’s internal market and stop a hard border”. Yet mutual assurance was first suggested by people within the European Union and only stopped when the Irish Government realised that it was not going to bring about what they really wanted, which was part of the EU’s idea to punish the United Kingdom for leaving, and to make it much easier for the all-Ireland economy, which they are desperate to have, leading to a united Ireland. I just do not understand why sensible people looking at this, not from anything other than common sense, cannot see that there are alternatives to having to divide our own country with an Irish sea border.
I want to just mention today that at this moment in the Assembly there is a debate on whether these parts of the Windsor Framework should be continued. It is a pretty shameful day for this Government, and indeed for the previous Government. What we are seeing is the move back towards a majority rule within the Assembly. Cross-community votes have always been seen as what have to happen on controversial issues. Ever since the SDLP—the original party of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—walked out of Stormont in 1971 and the UK Government then ended the Assembly a few months later, nothing controversial has been allowed to be secured at a vote without cross-community consent. The Government changed this to a majority vote, presumably at the behest of the Irish Government and the EU. I have no confidence whatever in that vote today being seen as legitimate; it is not, because it is not the cross-community vote that should have happened.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister but she has not really answered the question. If goods coming from the Republic through Northern Ireland into Great Britain have to be security-checked for phytosanitary and all the other reasons, why are people in Northern Ireland then left with nothing? How does the Minister know that we are not going to be poisoned or threatened by some kind of problem that she feels will come through to Great Britain?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I completely get the point that the noble Baroness is making. Our international commitments, and the trade and co-operation agreement, require us to treat EU goods equally, regardless of the entry point. As she is aware, there is a lot of legislation already in place. There are issues within the Windsor Framework. There are matters that we need to discuss with the EU as we go forward with the EU reset that has been discussed. These more complex issues are where we need to dig into the detail in our meetings outside of the legislation, and the whole point of me wanting to meet noble Lords is so we can do that. We can dig into those details and I can better understand the concerns, and we can look at whether there are things that we can do to manage this better. I hope the noble Baroness is happy that I am not trying to dodge it; I just need to understand it better, so that we can discuss it properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked about electronic systems for paperwork. We have been looking at this; it is quite complicated, but we are exploring whether it might be possible, to answer that specific question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the potential SPS and veterinary agreements with the EU. I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her work as part of the veterinary medicines working group. This is a critical part of taking that work forward, and a way that we are working in collaboration and consultation to ensure that we get the best deal we can. It is quite difficult because it is early stages, and we want to get this right, so I cannot say anything formally at present. I assure noble Lords that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes on looking to get the best outcomes that we can for both SPS and veterinary agreements.
I conclude by summarising what we consider to be the benefits of these regulations. They strengthen Great Britain’s biosecurity by delivering alignment in the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. We believe it is right that goods from the European Union and the rest of the world are treated differently from goods moving within the UK’s internal market. Additionally, the consequential amendments to the qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition in existing legislation ensures that the updated definition, which focuses the benefits of unfettered access more squarely on Northern Ireland traders, applies to the direct and indirect movement of these goods into Great Britain. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that there will be further statutory instruments to come on very similar areas—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, assured us that this will be the case.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lords Dodds, may well be minded to divide the House on these regulations. As I mentioned at the start of my response, I have invited noble Lords from Northern Ireland to come, in January, to another meeting, as a follow-up to our previous one, and I very much hope that they will accept. I reassure noble Lords, who clearly have very real concerns about statutory instruments regarding the Windsor Framework and the implementation of the new BTOM, that I am listening. I want to have the opportunity to consider wider concerns in more depth, so that I can properly understand them and see if there are ways that we can move forward together on this. I do not pretend to have all the answers or a magic wand to resolve what is, in many areas, a pretty impossible position, but I am genuine in wanting to work with noble Lords on this. With that having been said, I once again thank everyone for their contributions. I commend the regulations to the House.
Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations treat pets travelling to Northern Ireland differently from those travelling to any other part of the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I will not be quite as short as the Minister, because it is important that noble Lords understand this in a great deal more detail. Sometimes the words that sound very positive are not nearly as positive when you go into the detail. These regulations are in effect about a new aspect of the Irish Sea border that has not had expression until this point because of the grace periods.
As we are an animal-loving nation, I am sure that this statutory instrument will resonate with the British public, perhaps more than the other ones that I and other Members have prayed against in the past. The draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024 will impact the everyday lives of people seeking to move for non-trading purposes from one part of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, to another, Northern Ireland, when they travel with a pet under the terms of the regulations.
The experience of visiting Northern Ireland with your pet dog or cat, or even a ferret, will be made to feel like a visit to a foreign country. It will be possible for you to travel from GB to NI with pets, including guide dogs—despite what we were told in the past—only if you have ensured that, first, your pet is fitted with a microchip; and, secondly, you have successfully applied to join the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme and have a pet travel document, which amounts to a pet passport. Meeting the requirements for that document remain obscure, because their definition, and indeed the potential for their definition to be changed, rests not with this Parliament but with the EU Commission—in regulation 4(1). Thirdly, as you travel with your pets, you must submit to full documentary and identity Irish Sea border checks, subject to sanctions. Fourthly, and very importantly, you must sign a form saying you will not attempt to enter the Republic of Ireland.
Of course, if your pet is found wanting in any way during the border checks, you will then suffer the inconvenience of being sent immediately to an SPS inspection facility, where you must remain with your animal unless and until you are permitted to leave. You could have your membership of the UK pet travel documents scheme suspended. So it is the fourth and final bullet point that makes these regulations particularly absurd, because it seeks to impose an Irish Sea border for internal UK movements while keeping the border for moving into the Republic. On the one hand, we are told that there can be no border across the island of Ireland, which is why there must be a border down the Irish Sea; but, on the other, the regulations before us do not comply with that logic. It is, by any measure, absurd to have both.
Your Lordships need to look at the implications of, if you use the pet travel scheme, having to sign that you will not go over the border to the Republic with your pet. Does the Minister have any idea of the effect that this will have on the casual tourist, who, perhaps having visited the Glens of Antrim, decides to drive down to the Ring of Kerry? There will be specific tourist implications of this, on top of the tourism effect of having to get a pet passport in the first place. Relatives going back home for Christmas or summer holidays next year, as they have always done, will no longer be able simply to travel freely with their pet within their own country.
Can noble Lords imagine how they would feel if it were their county in England, Scotland or Wales that required this extra bureaucracy? This could spell the end of holiday trips for pet owners from GB to NI and then on to the Republic, when they want to explore both Northern Ireland and the Republic. If they have a pet passport, they will have renounced their right to go to the Republic. That makes the border more of an obstruction than having border control posts on it, because at least in that eventuality, you could still cross over it. If you have a pet travel document, you cannot go to the Republic of Ireland via NI, unless you leave your pet behind or find somewhere in Northern Ireland to fulfil all these requirements. Can the Minister say where those requirements will be fulfilled in Northern Ireland for that travelling person?
The Minister might respond by saying, “Yes, that’s right”. However, that would be ridiculous, because rather than making it less of a border, the border is being made more of a border than ever, by preventing people with pets travelling over it. What advice will be given to prevent them breaking the law? Will they be told to drive back to get a boat to Liverpool and then to get the boat from Liverpool to Dublin? Does the Minister have an answer to this question? I assure her that neither Defra nor DAERA has that answer. All the people who have rung them, over the past week or so, get a different view every single time depending on whom they speak to. I wonder whether anyone in Defra or DAERA actually understands the detail of these regulations.
The Minister could say, “No, if you want to stay in Northern Ireland and then go on to the Republic, you can, but not on the basis of the pet travel scheme. You have to stay in Belfast or Larne, and we will then give you entry on the basis of EU regulation 576/2013—not on the basis of a pet travel document under the pet travel scheme”. So where will that happen and what will the cost be? In that instance, the reality of the rationale for the pet passport—being subject to documentary checks, having your pet checked, with the possibility of being sent to an SPS centre and being made to feel as though you are going to a foreign country—makes no sense, because these animals are not going to the Republic. They will remain in the EU under EU law, as designated by the withdrawal agreement. On that basis, we do not need to divide our own country. We do not need a pet travel scheme for the movements of pets that do not leave the UK, with pets and people being sent to SPS facilities. Have His Majesty’s Government even thought about the fundamental implications of the pet travel document making the open border absolute?
As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear—as does Article 12 of the now very famous EU regulation 1231, the important one that allows the EU to govern the division of our country—pets can be moved into the Republic of Ireland only if one is subject to another border. The rationale is absurd. If the border for moving a pet from NI to the Republic of Ireland is such that it cannot be crossed without engaging in border requirements, surely the rationale for the Irish Sea border evaporates. It is particularly absurd when you remember that, to get the pet passport originally to take your animal to Northern Ireland, you have to sign that you will not take it into the Republic. So there should be no need for any restrictions on taking your pet on holiday or to visit relatives in Northern Ireland from GB.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I apologise; I know that the noble Lord raised this in his speech. I am more than happy to speak to ministerial colleagues on those matters.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I want to say, as usual when this kind of statutory instrument is being discussed, that it goes much wider than the actual SI. I kept my remarks specifically to pets, and a number of questions were asked which it was very difficult for the Minister to answer. I very much appreciate her genuine sympathy and concern. We will go through Hansard to see what more needs to be answered, because one of the things that has come out of tonight’s debate is that there is genuine confusion, much more within the departments than even with the Minister. That has to be sorted.
I thank those noble Lords who supported my regret amendment. The two noble Lords who opposed it did not say anything specific about what was wrong with the issues that I raised; they tended to go wider than that. I am sorry if I pre-empted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I always know that she will say that it is all Brexit’s fault. However, I thank her very much for asking some questions that were very relevant to the debate.
Scrutiny is the reason that we are here tonight and why these SIs always take a long time; I know that there are many frustrated colleagues here tonight wishing that this had gone through in a quick hour. It is because there is no real scrutiny in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, many MLAs now say that quite a lot of what is going on there is a farce in terms of scrutiny. The scrutiny for this part of the United Kingdom is more and more having to come in this Chamber, which is why we have these debates.
I am still not at all satisfied and feel very strongly that all those animal lovers out there watching this tonight—many knew that it was happening, particularly the Kennel Club, which I mentioned earlier—will not feel satisfied about any of the answers and will not understand why our Governments have allowed this to happen. I keep tabling regret amendments. I am getting fed up with regret. I would like to press this amendment to a vote.
Farming Families
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to express my disappointment and indeed my sadness at the Government’s attack on family farms. The Budget decision to abolish APR on inheritance tax—whatever is said by the Treasury about the dubious figures of the number of families affected—is a body blow to small family farms and is undermining the most important industry in our country. What makes it so much worse is that a specific promise was given before the general election that there were no plans to abolish APR, and it was not in the manifesto.
As has been said, this proposal was introduced with no prior involvement or discussion with the National Farmers’ Union. Indeed, it is impossible to find anyone who was consulted. I would like the Minister to confirm that it seems that even Defra officials and the Secretary of State were told only the night before the Budget. It is a measure being pushed through by the Treasury, which has long wanted to do this but was stopped by both Labour and Conservative Chancellors over the years. Sadly, the current Chancellor has given in, and now she will have to face the consequences—not just for her party but for the country. It sends a signal that the Government still do not really understand or even care about how farming works and the massive effects this will have on our rural communities.
I was born and reared in a very small farm in County Antrim in Northern Ireland, where there is a particularly large number of small-sized to medium-sized family farms. This will affect thousands of family farms in Northern Ireland. Not much unites politicians in Northern Ireland, but a letter was signed to the Chancellor just last week by every Member of Parliament, and every Peer in this House, from all the parties in Northern Ireland. That shows how strongly people in Northern Ireland feel.
Farming is not a normal business in so many ways, and even the Prime Minister seemed to understand that when he told the NFU that
“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back”.
Does the Minister understand that what can appear to be an affluent farm, with perhaps a well-maintained farmhouse, can be making virtually no money at the end of the year? The farm may be asset-rich, but the farming family is cash-poor.
What is so deeply worrying about this is that there has been no rural proofing. I thought that this was something that the Government said:
“Rural proofing is a commitment by government to review and examine all public policy to ensure it does not disadvantage rural areas”.
Have I missed this? Surely this could have been done by every government department before such a drastic measure was introduced. Even at this late stage, the Government could show that they have listened. Changing policy when it is proving disastrous is a mark of strength in a Government, not weakness. We all know what we want to achieve: to stop the very big, rich people buying land not for farming but just to get tax incentives—we must stop that. Surely there are some brains somewhere in the Treasury or the Government that could have come up with something that would have protected the small family farms and the livelihoods of those people and their rural countryside.