Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Robin Swann Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

Yes, to a degree. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; it is very welcome, as is the investment that is promised and the way in which it will be provided, but—and I am happy to be put right on this—I think the figure used by the Government is an additional 500 members of staff for the Environment Agency. That is one per constituency in England and Wales. That will not make a noticeable difference. In practice, the Bill could well permit a continuation of the current situation, where water companies will be setting and marking their own homework, with an Environment Agency without the capacity to even manage its current workload, let alone the new duties the Bill will give it to monitor masses of important overflow data. The regulator must be much better funded to do that well. Even then, the regulation rules must be watertight for the Environment Agency to ensure that the water companies cannot pick and choose which information they release or retain.

The Minister indicated that the data will be made publicly available and easy to access. I look forward to hearing more detail about how that will be done. That could be a positive move, allowing citizen scientists and campaign groups—such as the wonderful Clean River Kent Campaign group, the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust and the Save Windermere campaign, as well as many others from other communities —to be able to hold the water companies to account to a greater degree. After all, knowledge is power. We are keen to encourage the Government to move forward with that.

We would also like to see water companies publish the volume and concentration of discharge from all emergency overflows, not just their duration and frequency. Will the Minister consider including that duty? And should we really have water companies installing and maintaining their own monitoring equipment? We believe that the Environment Agency or its successor should be doing that, with the full cost of that work paid for by the water companies.

The Bill makes almost no attempt to address the structure of finances and ownership of the water industry. The Minister has indicated that the Bill will seek to change the culture of the industry, which would be welcome, but cultural change will only come with a change to the reckless profiteering that has been the norm. As right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have said, Lord Cromwell in the other place tabled an amendment requiring annual updates from water companies on any financial restructuring that they have done or plan to do. It cannot go unacknowledged that financial stability and good governance seriously affect the environmental standards that any water company is able to reach. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) who made those points in relation to Thames Water.

I am grateful to my noble Friend Baroness Bakewell for tabling a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Bill in the Lords to create special status, with special protections, for Windermere as an exemplar of the standards we will expect in our waterways across the whole country. The Campaign for National Parks’ health check report, which was released earlier this year, found that only five out of the 880 bodies of water in the national parks of England and Wales met the highest ecological standards, and that every single one was polluted to some degree. Windermere itself received 140 million litres of pollution in the last two years. Amendments tabled in the Lords, which we will table here also, will seek to tackle that. Water industry leaders must be forced to take responsibility for the care of these world class lakes and waterways, and our amendments to the Bill would ensure that they do so.

Although the privatisation of the water industry was an incredibly bad decision and definitely did not happen on our watch, I am not convinced that renationalisation would be necessary or a good use of public money. I fear it would mean that we would have to buy the assets back, putting taxpayers’ money into the pockets of those who have already made so much money out of them, without a single penny of that money going into improving infrastructure. Instead, it seems wiser to move away from the current model and to ensure that water companies should be community benefit corporations, so that all revenue goes into keeping environmental standards higher and solving the long-term problems of our networks. None of our constituents should have to pay for company debt. These were business decisions, taken by those who took risks to make money, rather than to invest in our sewage systems; they should bear the consequences of those risks.

The current regulatory framework seems to leave water companies immune from the highest penalties, despite their repeated failure to meet their basic obligation to prevent sewage from being dumped in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas. The current rules mean that, under special administration procedures, to remove a water company’s licence to operator would mean the regulator serving a 25-year notice on them. That is why we are disappointed that the Bill does not go as far as we want, or as far as so many water campaigners have asked for it to go.

The Cunliffe review gives us hope of a more radical set of proposals to come later in this Parliament, but our communities are impatient for change—a change more radical than this Government are so far willing to offer us. Although we see nothing in the Bill to disagree with and much in it to commend, we are left frustrated that any radical transformation will be at best delayed until a second instalment, after Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The hon. Gentleman references Sir Jon Cunliffe, and I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning the review. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sir Jon’s review should look across the United Kingdom, because Northern Ireland Water is both a Government-owned company and a non-departmental public body and I assure the House that the water quality in Northern Ireland, especially in Lough Neagh, is nothing to be celebrated either. Should not Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review look at how all bodies regulate their water systems, so they serve the public?

[Tim Farron]

I think two things. I respect the devolution settlement and think it is important that we do not overstep what we are called to do today. I also, however, agree that the waterways of all corners of our United Kingdom are precious and must be protected. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

To conclude, the job of the Liberal Democrats is to be the constructive opposition in this place, and to now use Committee stage to inject into the Bill the ambition and urgency that we feel is currently lacking. To millions of people out there who care deeply about our waterways, the problems are obvious and so are many of the solutions. We call on the Government to accept the amendments that we will table in Committee in good faith, to act ambitiously and comprehensively, and to do so without delay.

Future of Farming

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right: big businesses will be the ones buying over the land, and they are not interested in farming it.

I respectfully ask the Minister to heed the voices of farmers, backed by detailed analysis from the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers and others. Farmers know their industry best. This policy must be revisited to ensure the sustainability of farming for generations to come. Let us act now to protect the custodians of our land, the economic drivers of our rural areas and the hand that feeds our nation.

Our farmers face relentless challenges, and the abolition of agricultural property relief is just the latest in a long list of blatant attacks. For too long farmers have been denigrated and subjected to some of the most draconian environmental restrictions. They are blamed for polluting waterways, while raw sewage goes unaddressed. Across all four nations, farmers are held back by planning restrictions over ammonia, making it nearly impossible to replace or upgrade sheds, despite these improvements benefiting the environment. Farmers face real threats from disease, including bluetongue, tuberculosis and bird flu, with little effective support. In Northern Ireland—this is a devolved issue, but the point is still important—herds of cattle are being slaughtered because of a lack of decisive action on TB, leaving farming families devastated and unsupported.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On the bovine TB agenda, does the hon. Member agree that what the recent Minister in Northern Ireland brought forward was a disappointment? There were no concrete proposals as to how to address the issue.

[Carla Lockhart]

I do not want to get into a devolved issue, but I will say that farmers are absolutely reeling from the lack of action by the Minister in Northern Ireland.

Farmers are increasingly being forced to adopt measures under the guise of supporting environmental goals, but many of these come with significant concerns and costs. One topical example is Bovaer, an additive aimed at reducing methane emissions from livestock. It is promoted as a solution to agriculture’s environmental impact, but it has raised serious questions in the minds of consumers about the long-term effects on animal health and consumer safety. Consumers are understandably concerned about the food chain, and farmers are left shouldering the burden of implementing often costly solutions, with little clarity on their benefits or consequences.

If we genuinely want to support sustainable farming, the Government must ensure that these measures are properly researched and justified and are accompanied by meaningful support for farmers in adopting them. Instead, what do farmers see from this Government? A raft of policies that show nothing but contempt for British farming. In the past month alone we have seen plans to abolish APR and a new tax on double cab pick-ups—the lifeline vehicle for many farmers—which will come into effect in 2025.

We have also seen the galling revelation that foreign farmers are receiving £536 million from the UK aid budget while our own farmers are left to struggle. British taxpayers’ money is being used to fund low-carbon agriculture in countries such as Brazil—the 11th richest nation in the world—and Kenya, as well as in Asia, while our own farmers face insurmountable challenges to their food security and sustainability. What good is environmental progress if we import more food from abroad, produced to lower standards and with a far greater carbon footprint than what we can grow here at home?

Our food security matters. Our British farmers matter. Yes, to this Government, it seems that they do not. I implore the Minister to reverse course. He should listen to the voice of farmers and prioritise the future of UK agriculture before it is too late. Let us support the custodians of our land, the drivers of our rural economy and the people who feed our nation.

Labour shortages are adding further pressure on an already stretched industry. Farmers are struggling to secure seasonal workers to pick and process crops. Whether it is heavy goods vehicle drivers, poultry workers, vets, butchers or abattoir staff—the workforce simply is not there. If we want a farming sector capable of meeting our needs and demands, the Government must overhaul their schemes and work directly with those who know the industry best to address these critical shortages.

At the National Farmers Union conference in 2023, the now Prime Minister said:

“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back...You deserve better”.

Before the election, he wanted a “genuine partnership” and said:

“We can’t have farmers struggling”.

He said they deserve “a government that listens” and “stability” and “certainty”. He wanted to roll up his sleeves and support our British farmers. Well, I call on his party, which is now in the driving seat, to pull back from this cliff edge and start to introduce policies that support our active farmers.

I want to finish where I started. When we think of the future of farming, we must think of those little welly boots at the back door of farm dwellings. We need to support our young farmers, and I call on the Government to do more, particularly on education. The very youngest in our society need to know where our food comes from. Sadly, all too often the answer is, “The supermarkets.” I therefore call on the Minister to address this issue with his counterpart in the Department for Education. We need a syllabus and an education system that teach our young people about the importance of our farmers.

As we stand on the cusp of a vote in the main Chamber, it is important to note that a recent poll demonstrated that more than half of those surveyed supported a farmers’ strike, on the basis that farmers are among the groups worst treated by the Government. I believe that those protests are coming, because farmers are at breaking point. Farmers in Northern Ireland increasingly need mental health support from Rural Support. There are reports of things getting too much for some to cope with, with people subsequently taking matters into their own hands. Farmers need our support; they need to know that their work and efforts—night and day—are appreciated, and that they are an integral part of our everyday life.

In conclusion, at the event in the Eikon centre hosted by the Ulster Farmers Union, I had the pleasure of meeting next-generation farmer and young mum, Lorraine Killen. Lorraine was inspirational as she addressed the crowd. She said that uncertainty, disappointment, apprehension, dread and heartbreak are just some of the raw emotions she felt as she reflected on the reality of an industry under immense pressure and a way of life increasingly under threat.

Let us redouble our efforts in this place and fight with every sinew to support our farmers—no farmers, no food.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing the debate.

I want to take exception to language used by Government MPs here today and in the debate we had in the main Chamber on 11 November, when they accused anyone who raised genuine concern for family farms of being either in the pocket of big business or alarmist. I can assure you, Sir Roger, that the Members I know who have spoken here and those who spoke in the main Chamber on this issue did so out of genuine concern and understanding of the effects that this tax grab will have on our family farms.

I was so concerned that I asked for clarity on the figures that I had used from the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister. He responded:

“I am disappointed at the UK Government’s dismissal of the figures you quoted and the subsequent comment that our analysis that one third of farmers and up to 75% of dairy farmers will be affected by the new inheritance tax limitations as ‘alarmist’. I can assure you that these figures are based on a solid analytical basis…from data collected as part of the Northern Ireland Agricultural Census 2023.”

I may have many differences with him, but I believe the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland over what I have heard from the Labour Government about how the tax will impact Northern Ireland farmers.

A 2023 Irish Farmers Journal survey showed that the average price of agricultural land in Northern Ireland is £13,794 per acre. It would be reasonable to assume that by 2026, when the inheritance tax changes take effect, the average price will have increased to £15,000 an acre. Based on that information, farms in Northern Ireland with 67 acres of land will be affected by this tax grab.

Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 General Committees

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. There are basically three questions for the Minister about the regulations, following her opening speech.

The Minister said that the draft regulations would sharpen competitive advantage. I seek clarification from the Minister on the basis of and context for that phrase, because that is not the experience of the businesses that I represent in Northern Ireland.

I seek further clarification on how, if and when the regulations are adopted, they will be disseminated across businesses in Northern Ireland. We currently have the trader support service, which is out for a competitive procurement exercise at this moment on the support mechanisms that it delivers to businesses in Northern Ireland. I recently met a group of businesses in my constituency of South Antrim, as well as road hauliers and delivery companies that have been dealing with them. They do not have clarity from the trader support service about how these regulations and others are implemented, or on how they are meant to comply without being on the receiving end of financial penalties for regulations that are neither well explained nor well delivered, nor actually clarified.

The Minister referred on a number of occasions to the fact that the regulations are temporary in nature. I seek clarification from the Government on the costs, delivery and designations of the permanent check posts mentioned in regulation 2(2) and (3). What physical structures are to be put in, and what are the costs of implementing the checks? How does that balance against the threat to the UK economy, or indeed the EU’s, relating to the delivery of the goods covered in the regulations and the relevant moneys?

Storm Bert

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I share my hon. Friend’s praise for volunteers and the emergency services, and particularly for his brother, for the work that they are carrying out. I am sure that he will welcome our review of the funding formula, which will ensure that all appropriate steps are taken in whichever parts of the country are affected, to improve resilience against the kind of flooding that we have seen over recent days. I know that the Environment Agency is aware of the rising water levels in the Ouse and other slower-moving rivers and is taking appropriate steps to safeguard people in Newport Pagnell, in other parts of his constituency and, indeed, along the rest of those rivers who may be affected as river levels continue to rise.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I note from the Secretary of State’s statement that the floods resilience taskforce is designed to ensure better co-ordination between central Government and frontline agencies. Can he advise whether any of those agencies, local authorities or, indeed, the devolved Administrations have requested military assistance through the MACA process? If they have, is that being considered? Will he consider including the Ministry of Defence in his floods resilience taskforce?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, the devolved Administrations were represented on the floods resilience taskforce. We want to co-ordinate better with them and to ensure that they are co-ordinating with their own agencies and the frontline staff who are charged with protecting communities from the devastating impacts of flooding.

Rural Affairs

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

As a past president of the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster and a former director of Rural Support, which is a mental health charity supporting farmers and farm families across Northern Ireland, I have worked on cases where farm families have been through foot and mouth, swine flu, avian influenza and TB. I have seen the impact. They have had to deal with complete herds being removed. However, I have never encountered so many farmers in Northern Ireland being as low as they are this minute, due to the farm family inheritance tax put on them by this Government in this place. They are so angry about what is happening.

The Secretary of State talked about not listening to the fury, or the alarming headlines, but a third of farms in Northern Ireland will be affected. Some 75% of our local dairy sector farms will be affected. Those on the Government Front Bench say, “No, they will not”, but that is the assessment of the Agriculture Minister in the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland.

[Daniel Zeichner]

He is wrong.

[Robin Swann]

It is also the assessment of the Ulster Farmers Union. I encourage the Government Front Benchers to engage with the devolved Administrations, because if our Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland is causing alarm and raising headlines that are not accurate, it is up to this Government to correct that. That is the impact, and the feedback that I am receiving from farms, farm families and our Agriculture Minister in the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland.

I spoke to a friend over the weekend who is a bit younger than me, with a young family. He is now concerned about shackling his family farm to his children. He has been progressive, and has taken up every financial opportunity to progress the family farm and make sure that it is fit for purpose. He now says that if he has to pay 10 years of inheritance tax, that is 10 years in which he will not be investing in his farm, and its productivity. The average income in Northern Ireland is £27,345, and these measures are making our family farms unsustainable.

I think the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) mentioned devolved farming payments now becoming a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland. I would love clarity from Treasury or DEFRA Ministers on who asked for that, because it was not Northern Ireland. It sounds as if it was not Wales, so why was that change made to how agricultural support goes to our devolved Administrations? On whose advice and guidance was that change made? What engagement did the Treasury or the Government have with the devolved institutions prior to making it? There are other issues on matters that are not devolved, but those were the two main ones I wanted to speak about.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Farming and Food Security

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I agree with that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising Growing Well at Sizergh and Tebay, and the fantastic job it does in building mental health and connecting that with the countryside. I particularly want people who are not from rural constituencies to imagine what it is like in this time of flux and change, when people see the money going out the door and do not see it coming in. Typically, farmers are male. They will be my age or even older than me, and they will be perhaps the fifth, sixth or seventh generation who have farmed that farmstead. They see the very real prospect of being the one who loses the family farm. What does that do to someone’s head? We have heard the horrific consequences, and we need to love, cherish and care for our farmers, and recognise the terrible situation they are in at this moment of flux.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

As a past president of the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster I think the hon. Gentleman’s point is very apt. At this moment across the UK, 95% of farmers under 40 say that mental health is their biggest concern. It is not only about losing the family farm; it is about worrying where the next payment comes from. It is about relying on making that payment and about what they do for the next generation and the ones before and after. Mental health is a real problem, and I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not go into any great detail on that issue.

[Tim Farron]

Hopefully we have established that we need to care for those who feed us and care for our environment. Farmers need friends, so let me mention one potential very important friend: the Prime Minister. People may be aware that during the general election, the Prime Minister turned up in my constituency. I have the claim to fame that mine is the only constituency in the entire United Kingdom where Labour lost its deposit —by the way, my Labour opponent Pippa was excellent, and it was nothing to do with her—but the Prime Minister came to the Langdale valley in my constituency. Despite the fact that I am a Blackburn Rovers fan, I was pleased to see Gary Neville there. People will remember the party political broadcast that Labour had during the election campaign, as well as the Prime Minister’s recent speech at the Labour conference, where he talked about the importance of the Langdale valley to him personally growing up and to the development of who he is. I was moved by that. As the Member of Parliament for the Langdale valley, I am grateful to him for saying that. Langdale needs friends, and this is a moment where Langdale could do with the most important of friends, particularly when it comes to spending money.

I will read out some words from a hill farmer related to the Prime Minister’s comments about his upbringing in the Langdale valley. He said that he was “moved” that the Prime Minister championed Langdale so well, but he then said that

“farming communities in Langdale and other upland areas are facing severe financial hardship with many wondering whether they will survive…they have now lost 50% or more of the basic payment scheme, an integral part of their business income, which will actually all be gone soon. These farmers are almost all in old environmental stewardship schemes, which means that they are hardly able to access anything from the new ELMS scheme and the sustainable farming incentive. Not because they don’t want to, but because of computer and agency issues in DEFRA.”

If the Prime Minister loves Langdale, will he please prove it by ensuring that we invest in hill farmers and in farming more generally? We have focused on what the last Government got wrong.

Sheep Farming

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for bringing forward this important debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already indicated the Northern Irish interest in this subject and the fact that, as a rough calculation, 20% of the contributors are from Northern Ireland. We value the input of our agricultural and farming sector not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom.

Before moving on to the substantive subject of the debate, I will pick up on a topic referenced by the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith): the next generation of farmers. As a past president of the Young Farmers’ Club of Ulster, I know that ensuring opportunities has been a challenge in the farming sector across all parts of the United Kingdom, and even further afield. We must ensure that the next generation of farmers has the opportunity not just to take over ownership of a farm or follow on a family tradition, but to enter into a profitable, future-proofed industry where they are supported by the Government here and back home in Northern Ireland.

As the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, agriculture is a devolved issue. I know that our Government back home have looked at a number of new entrant schemes relating to the various supports that are out there. Unlike England, Wales and most of Scotland, we do not have the challenge with tenancies, but we do with the passing of land from one generation to the next, and inheritance tax and all those other additional problems, so there are commonalities and solutions that the Government can bring as well.

The hon. Member for Strangford obviously got the same briefing on numbers for our sheep industry as I did from the Ulster Farmers’ Union. There are just short of 1 million breeding ewes and more than 2 million sheep, so we actually have more sheep than people in Northern Ireland; that has been a proven statistic in this debate. There are 9,669 sheep farmers currently registered and, as has already been referenced, the industry makes a £109 million contribution to our economy.

What is glaring and needs highlighting in this place, given that we have established the importance and the contribution of our sheep sector back home, is that the future agricultural policy of our Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs does not mention sheep at all. It is important that the message that we realise that comes from today’s debate, and that that message gets to our Minister back home as well.

A sheep taskforce was established back in 2022, representing members from the Ulster Farmers’ Union, Ulster Wool, the National Sheep Association, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association, the Livestock and Meat Commission and the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters’ Association. They took it upon themselves to establish a taskforce with a number of key aims and targets, because at that point we were once again without an Executive and an agriculture Minister to support our farmers and our industries.

The sheep taskforce has produced a robust, evidence-based report that highlights the stimulus programmes and opportunities for the vision and the future of the sheep sector. That is the task they have taken on, and they have set themselves a strategic vision for the Northern Ireland sheep industry of being

“a resilient, vibrant and sustainable industry that uses leading edge technologies to deliver safe high-quality meat and wool through increased productivity while adding value by increasing carbon sequestration, reducing greenhouse gas intensity, and enhancing landscape biodiversity while maintaining the mosaic landscape of our hills and uplands and securing social cohesion.”

All those topics have been raised not just by the hon. Member for Hexham but by all the contributors who have spoken today. However, the Northern Ireland sheep sector faces specific challenges that are not replicated across the rest of this United Kingdom, but in which the Minister and his Government can play a part.

Our agriculture and veterinary industries are currently seeing major challenges in the future-proofing of the supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland because of the protocol. That matter has been raised not just by the farmers’ union and farmers but by the British Veterinary Association. Anyone around here who has farmed and worked with sheep knows about the importance of regular dosing for the gut worm and all the rest of it, so access to medicines and veterinary products is crucial to the sustainability and the future-proofing not just of our sheep sector but of our agricultural sector in Northern Ireland in general.

Another thing that is possibly within the Minister’s remit is the ability to move livestock—I know the topic today is sheep, but I also mention cattle—between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the additional bureaucracy and challenges that farmers face in moving pedigree animals back and forth between not just sales but shows. I have a constituent who was present today for Prime Minister’s questions and who is here for this debate, and he has raised an important issue. He has pedigree cattle in Scotland at this moment in time that he has not been able to bring home to Northern Ireland since October because of bluetongue and the restrictions that have applied in respect of moving livestock even within this United Kingdom. Will the Minister look into that and see whether something can be done?

I do not want to finish on the challenges or the negatives, given the contributions that have already been made and that will be made. We have to look to the potential and consider the future-proofing of our agricultural sector in the United Kingdom. It is what this country was built on, it is what this country is based on and it is what we are good at. We produce good-quality food that we should be able to look to as the safe and sustainable food supply for the people of the United Kingdom. I thank the hon. Member for Hexham for moving the motion and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for bringing this important matter to the Floor. As has been clear from the contributions from Northern Ireland, sheep farming is a significant but, sadly, poor relation of farming because the lowest farm incomes in the farming sector arise among sheep farmers. That is an indication of an indisputable fact: what is needed in Northern Ireland, and particularly in a constituency such as mine, which has a lot of sheep farmers, is a sheep support scheme.

In Northern Ireland, we do have a beef support scheme —it is called the beef carbon reduction scheme—and we have a separate cow scheme. Those contribute to environmental enhancements on what used to be the single farm payment, now the direct payment. But there is no scheme for sheep farmers, and that is a lamentable failure on the part of the local Department. It has been sitting on a taskforce recommendation since early last year and has failed to move on that matter. Not only is that failure to move doing nothing to increase incomes, but it is going to decrease them. From 2025, sheep farmers farming only sheep are set to lose 17% of their basic payment unless they change to include protein crops and cattle. For many, that is just not possible, so there is an urgent need for action.

[Robin Swann]

The hon. Member talks about sheep farmers in Northern Ireland looking enviously on at beef farmers in Northern Ireland, but he will be aware that they also get to look across the border, where the Republic of Ireland Government have introduced a sheep support scheme that pays up to €17 to €20 a head. That puts our farmers in Northern Ireland at a further disadvantage.

[Jim Allister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but it is actually worse than that. Yes, we can look across the border and see the advantage, but the problem is that, courtesy of the Windsor framework and the protocol, Northern Ireland farmers are subject to the same rules and regulations but none of the benefits. Members should never forget that the laws concerning farming in Northern Ireland are not made in this place or in Stormont; they are made in a foreign Parliament to which we elect no one. That is the ultimate constitutional absurdity of the Windsor framework: we have created a situation where, in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are foreign-imposed—colony-like—on Northern Ireland. The laws concerning the whole agrifood industry are made in Brussels, and that is an appalling constitutional and economic affront.

Because we are subject to the European veterinary regime, we now have a looming crisis: come 2025, our veterinary medicines, which are produced in Great Britain, will not be permitted to enter Northern Ireland, and up to 50% of our medicines will be excluded from Northern Ireland. That is a serious challenge, which the last Government did nothing about and which I trust this Government will do something about. This Government will need to stand up with vigour against the European Commission and insist that every part of this country must be entitled to have the same veterinary medicines as the rest of the country. It is time that we shook off our shackles and insisted on that.

Of course, it gets even worse. As has been alluded to, movements of livestock from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are subject to every EU rule that applies. We therefore have quarantine periods of six months for those wanting to bring in livestock, and of 30 days for the host farm it is coming from. Why? Because that is what EU rules, which we have been left subject to—serf-like—insist on. To take sheep farming, farmers need to constantly improve the genetic line; they need to bring in new rams, but bringing one in from Scotland or Wales, which would be our traditional sources, is now nigh impossible because of these quarantine rules. That needs to be addressed.

There are other dimensions. Reference has been made to the fact that hundreds of cattle and other livestock have been stranded on this side of the Irish sea since last year and cannot be moved to Northern Ireland, due to EU rules about bluetongue. We have the ludicrous situation that someone who buys rams in France or cattle in Sweden or elsewhere can bring them straight through GB to Northern Ireland, but if they buy them in GB, they cannot bring them to Northern Ireland, because GB is said to be a bluetongue zone. Even though the livestock is, in many cases, being bought from Scotland, which has no bluetongue difficulties, it still cannot be brought to Northern Ireland. Why? Again, because of the absurdity that we are subject to EU rules.

This House, far outside the framework of farming issues, needs to get hold of the fact that unless we deal with the constitutional imperative of restoring Northern Ireland to the rules of this House and this country, and not of a foreign jurisdiction, we will have these problems, which manifest themselves in our farming industry in the way I have described. It is not just a multifaceted problem, but a multifaceted problem with many deep issues that need to be addressed. The last Government had no appetite to address them—in fact, they deepened the problems with their Windsor framework. I trust that this Government, who have inherited the ludicrous situation of Northern Ireland being a condominium ruled in part by laws made in the United Kingdom and in part by foreign laws in a foreign jurisdiction, will address this issue. We cannot go on like this. Neither our sheep farmers, nor any other farmers, nor our citizens should be living in a colony-like situation where we are ruled by laws we do not make and cannot change.