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

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we support these regulations as a sensible step to protect our biosecurity and reduce costly and deeply damaging barriers to trade, but we see this as just one stage of a much bigger journey. As my noble friend Lady Suttie has said in previous debates of this nature, these regulations are a stopgap. The real prize is a full sanitary and phytosanitary SPS veterinary agreement with the EU—something both sides committed to at last month’s summit. That would mean that one day our aim would be to do away with most border checks on plant and animal products altogether.

Indeed, we welcome the Government’s recent decision to delay new checks on medium-risk fruit and vegetables, an approach that a lot of industry rightly calls common sense. The extension until January 2027 gives businesses some breathing space, but everyone knows this is temporary and that the Government expect that a new SPS agreement will make these stopgap measures unnecessary.

The May summit made clear the aim: a common sanitary and phytosanitary area with no time limit. That would mean most goods, plants, animals and their products could move between Great Britain and the EU without the current certificates and controls. It would cut costs, ease pressure on food prices and end routine border checks. The benefits would also extend to Northern Ireland, thanks to the Windsor Framework. There is sometimes a myth that such an agreement would make Britain a rule taker. In reality, if we want to export, we always have to meet our trading partners’ standards. This deal would mean genuinely unfettered access to the EU market and therefore far less trade friction—friction that has been so damaging, for example, to our farmers in recent years.

Farming groups such as the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association have raised concerns about the role of European courts and the need for flexibility, especially around issues such as precision breeding and pesticides. The proposed agreement suggests dynamic alignment with the EU rules, but also promises a say for the UK and an independent arbitration panel. I am looking forward to a few more answers on this and the need to be sure that any dispute process is genuinely fair and respects our own parliamentary procedures.

This agreement could bring real benefits: lower prices, less red tape and more secure food supply. But I echo some of the requests in previous debates with questions to the Minister, especially from these Benches, about a clear timetable for finalising the implementation of the SPS agreement. So far, our understanding is that no date has been set. We would also like to know whether there is any risk to animal health or biosecurity while we wait for the new agreement to come. Ongoing surveillance in that period is obviously vital, but we do feel that reassurance is needed.

On another point, the Explanatory Memorandum mentions debt recovery and collection costs for unpaid fees. Can the Minister tell us the total cost of unpaid fees, the average fee charged, and whether non-payment is a widespread issue? If she is unable to answer that this evening, perhaps she could undertake to write; we would be very grateful. Finally, can the Minister confirm that there are robust checks to prevent goods deliberately avoiding control posts, now and in the future?

With regard to the Motion to Regret, I note at paragraph 17 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 15th report the submission from Jim Allister MP and the Defra response with reference to the use in the four nations of the UK plant health provisional common framework and that, for example, measures against Popillia japonica are already in place in Northern Ireland, and the rest of Great Britain has been catching up. I therefore have been a little confused by some of the contributions I have heard this evening.

Given the benefits so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the very detailed and useful explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, we will not be supporting the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. We want to see these regulations and the wider agreement deliver what matters to people: less bureaucracy, lower costs and a stronger partnership with our closest trading neighbours, and we would prefer that sooner rather than later. That is what is best for our businesses, our farmers and ultimately our consumers.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and my noble friend Lord Frost for bringing it to the Chamber.

At face value, this instrument appears to be a routine update, technical in nature and laudable in intent. It introduces new and stricter import controls on certain plant pests, including Heterobasidion irregulare and Popillia japonica, which are already spreading rapidly in parts of Europe. These steps are necessary. We have seen all too often the devastating consequences of failing to act quickly and unilaterally if necessary, whether to Phytophthora ramorum, which devastates our larches and causes sudden oak death, ash dieback, or threats to our commercial crops from the great spruce bark beetle and the eight-toothed European spruce bark beetle—for some reason, neither of those seem to have Latin names. I refer the House to my register of interests as a forest owner and a planter of new forests.

While these regulations seek to bolster biosecurity across Great Britain, they do not extend those same protections to Northern Ireland, and that is a shame. I know that the concerns of my noble friend are sincerely held and reflect the views of a great number of those in Northern Ireland in particular. As my noble friend Lord Caine has said on previous occasions, it is important that His Majesty’s Government and Opposition continue to listen to those concerns and seek to address them.

We are told that biosecurity is an essential state function. It is and it must be. But under the terms of the Windsor Framework, that essential function has been compromised. Biosecurity measures which apply robustly to England, Scotland and Wales are not being applied to Northern Ireland in the same way. In effect, plant health in Northern Ireland is now subject to the policy choices of the EU and not, as it should be, to the collective will of this sovereign Parliament. However, the Windsor Framework was the best deal available to us while in government, and we continue to support it, while urging this Government to try to improve on it. For that reason, we do not support my noble friend Lord Frost’s regret Motion.

My noble friend Lord Frost and others have already mentioned the new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, which is designed to ease trade by removing checks on food. To add to the many questions posed to the Minister, could she reassure us that this will not provide an easier entry for plant diseases and a repeat of the imported pests that I mentioned earlier as happened while we were in the EU? What checks will remain in place to protect our natural environment?

The EU deal appears to have betrayed our fishers in return for reduced checks. The farmed salmon industry seems to be the only fish and seafood group to have spoken in support of this deal. The damaging effects of this industry on the environment have been debated at length in this House during Committee and Report of the now Crown Estate Act. The farmed salmon industry is distinct from the UK fishing industry, which has greeted the deal with deep disappointment.

In answer to my Oral Question two months ago, the Minister gave encouraging answers, which I will briefly quote:

“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters, and vice versa, become a matter for annual renegotiation, as is typical between coastal states … as a Government, we will always push for the best opportunities for our fishers and the fishery industry”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]

The end of the trade and co-operation agreement in June 2026 represented the opportunity to increase the size of our fishing effort by 60%, with full zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone—a huge economic opportunity for deprived coastal communities. The deal was a betrayal of those communities and those who live and work in the fishing industry. We are now committed to a 12-year extension of the very disappointing status quo. Was this phytosanitary deal really worth that betrayal? The benefits of trade accrue to both sides of that trade, so why should any price be paid, let alone such a high price?