Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I will call Robin Swann to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Before I begin, I direct Members to my entry in the register of interests.

As we approach the end of the year, Northern Ireland’s farming, veterinary and animal welfare sectors are facing a potential crisis that can no longer be ignored. On 31 December, the veterinary medicines grace period is due to end. Without a clear, workable plan from Government, the supply of hundreds of essential veterinary medicines is set to be disrupted. Last Friday, my party colleague, Robbie Butler, the chair of the Northern Ireland agricultural committee, met with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, Baroness Hayman, to press the urgency of securing a long-term solution.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that the continuing uncertainty is driving the problem and causing issues for the medical profession and consumers in Northern Ireland, and that it has to be clarified and resolved immediately?

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first of several interventions. At that meeting, we made it clear to the Minister that a solution must be in place by the end of this year. If it is not, the consequences for animal health, human health and our agrifood economy could be severe. Time is running out—we have only four weeks to go.

This issue has been known about for some time. In February of this year, I hosted an event with the British Veterinary Association in Parliament to highlight the concerns and to urge Government to act while there was still plenty of time. That was 10 months ago. Since then, the warnings have grown louder. Recently, more than 19,000 vets from across the United Kingdom signed a joint letter to Government stressing the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s access to veterinary medicines.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given that the National Office of Animal Health has warned that, in a worst-case scenario, up to 50% of veterinary medicines could be withdrawn from Northern Ireland, with serious consequences for animal health and agrifood, should the UK Government commit to urgent, targeted support for farmers and vets, who are heavily reliant on those products?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann]

I agree. The potential loss of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland threatens animal health and welfare. Essential vaccines and treatments may become harder to obtain, increasing disease risk and undermining herd and flock health. Our vets and farmers would be forced into reactive treatment, adding strain to veterinary capacity and raising the risk of avoidable animal suffering and public health impacts.

Pet owners will also be negatively impacted, particularly in filling veterinary prescriptions from online veterinary pharmacies, which are currently based in Great Britain and, for many, are more cost effective.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

While it is always lovely to see the Minister here, there is a role for the Secretary of State, who seems to be avoiding all the questions and letters that we sent him. I have been contacted by some of my constituents about the online pharmacies, regarding not only veterinary medicines, but specific types of dog food that their pets must eat. There is no doubt that greater clarity is needed on this subject. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be greater understanding of how dog food will be impacted and of the exact provisions surrounding online pharmacies?

[Robin Swann]

The hon. Member raises another valid point. Northern Ireland is exposed because of the divergence caused by the terms of the Windsor framework. Our supply chains, unlike those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are subject to the additional EU rules.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. He is right in saying that it affects not just us, but vets, distributors and manufacturers. Over eight major organisations are saying that. Does he agree that there has been secrecy and a lack of transparency on the part of the Government and the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State needs to stop pretending that this is manageable and publish the full details? Over 40% of key products and pack sizes will be impacted, and that will ultimately affect animal health. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not sufficient to say, “Stockpile and see how it goes”? The Government should deal with the issue immediately and unilaterally.

[Robin Swann]

I agree with the hon. Member. It is not just the politicians who are saying that: the British Veterinary Association has said:

“From 1 January 2026, the supply of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland will be thrown into uncertainty on account of the end of a post-Brexit grace period. The issue of veterinary medicines was not sufficiently addressed in the Windsor Framework, and in the absence of a veterinary agreement between the UK and the EU, the supply of critical products like vaccines for production animals, companion animals and horses, cannot be guaranteed.”

In June 2025, the Government announced the veterinary medicine health situation scheme, which was meant to permit the use of suitable alternative products from outside Northern Ireland through exemptions but, with only weeks to go, the definition of exemption is still unclear. It was also announced that the veterinary medicines internal market scheme will enable vets to use, when needed, specific individual medicines that are not authorised or available in Northern Ireland. Again, the process for accessing those is still unclear.

It has been reported that between 10% and 15% of drugs and pack sizes are expected to be discontinued in Northern Ireland, and we know that 20 of those have no suitable alternative available on the Northern Ireland market. If manufacturers find it unviable to continue supplying Northern Ireland, vets, farmers and pet owners will be left with far fewer options.

Ministers have informed me that they are working with four online retailers to ensure a continued supply of veterinary medicines in the new year. Animal owners with a prescription from a vet will be able to order medicines through one of those sites, but there is still no clarification as to who will be able to order and when—or even which medicines will be available—through what is, for many, a way of accessing affordable veterinary medicines.

It is important to note that, even if any of the four retailers comes online, not all drugs currently used by animal owners may be available. In some cases, alternatives or substitutes will need to be found, sometimes at very short notice, and unfortunately substitutes are not a fix-all solution. Allergies, intolerances and other sensitivities mean that some animals will not be able to use those alternatives. That highlights the ongoing risks and the need for a long-term solution.

Marketing authorisation for a product does not necessarily mean that it will continue to be supplied. Indeed, manufacturers are still finalising their decisions, which they may or may not communicate in advance of January. Northern Ireland farmers are already under pressure from the threat of disease, rising costs and the introduction of the farm family inheritance tax. Losing access to essential veterinary medicines would make it far harder to maintain healthy livestock and sustainable family businesses. Not only will pet owners feel the impact, with everyday treatments potentially becoming scarce or expensive, but animal rescue charities, which already operate on tight budgets, fear that the disruption could prevent them from providing for the animals in their care.

As a former Health Minister, I know that any threat to animal health is also a threat to human health. Effective disease control in animals underpins food safety, public health and the security of our agrifood sector, and antimicrobial resistance is a real threat to both humans and animals.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He is right to invoke the issue of human health, because it was the European Union that went as far as to invoke article 16 to frustrate the supply of covid vaccines in Northern Ireland, before it realised that doing so was politically inappropriate. On this issue, the EU wishes to prioritise its single market, but the fundamental failure is that our Government are not prepared to stand up and ensure the protection of our single market. The European Union will talk about food chain supplies, but when it comes to domestic animals, I have young owners coming to me now complaining about the lack of availability of online supplies for their dog. Can we have a recognition that there are a lot of domestic animals that receive online veterinary medicines that will never enter the supply chain—and that it would be illegal if they did?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann]

The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. I remember well the Saturday when the EU tried to use article 16 of the protocol for covid vaccinations.

At that point much work was done for human medicines, but that was a number of years ago. It was done between the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, the Cabinet Office and, indeed, the European Union. I am still at a loss as to why the same emphasis was not applied to animal medicines at that point in time, because it was not as if the challenges were not known back then.

Human medicines can be licensed by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for use in Northern Ireland, allowing the same provisions for medicines in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but the same is not true for veterinary medicines. Once the grace period ends on 31 December this year, any veterinary medicine that comes directly from GB to Northern Ireland will be treated as a non-EU import into Northern Ireland and subject to additional red tape.

We have seen the grace period extended multiple times, but extensions are not a solution. We need certainty. The Government’s commitment to provide timely advice and information during the transition period is welcome, but that engagement alone will not secure supply chains in the long term.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Is it not a fact that one of the most appalling aspects of this is that our Government have been so shy and so much in deference to the EU that they refuse to stand up for Northern Ireland farmers and pet owners and are allowing the EU belligerently to enforce its laws as a demonstration of just how superior it is in controlling Northern Ireland? There is no logic in it. Our EU veterinary medicines in most cases come from the EU, but under these regulations they are no longer allowed to pass through GB to come to Northern Ireland. Therein is a diversion of trade, which is supposed to be prevented by article 16 of the Windsor framework but which this Government are absolutely blind and tone-deaf to.

[Robin Swann]

That was part of the reason for bringing forward this debate today. Any Minister or any organisation I have spoken to that has been involved with the committee on veterinary medicines regulations, which was established under the last Government, seem to be doing a lot of talking and engagement, but there does not seem to be much proof of what is going to happen come 31 December in regards to the continuation of veterinary medicine supply to Northern Ireland. It is another example of how this Government are treating farmers across the United Kingdom—seeing them as a second set of industry—and how they do not seem to grasp the concerns and real effects that their decisions are having.

There are four core concerns that remain around this issue. One is confidence. The Government estimate that the number of products under supply and discontinuation threats is actually extremely low. However, there is limited transparency around the evidence base, which raises questions about the reliability of that claim. The second concern is communication. Despite the impending deadline, vets have been provided with limited guidance on the practical application of lease schemes. The lack of urgency and targeted messaging risks disruption, confusion and concerns about liability.

The third concern is that of cost. Divergent legislation and bureaucracy in a smaller market like Northern Ireland’s will raise the cost of veterinary medicines. Those pressures could flow through practices to pet owners as well as farmers, with a potential knock-on effect to the agrifood economy. The fourth concern is criminality. There is a concern that a threat or complication to supply will lead to a move to replace a legitimate supply chain with black market or indeed illegal supply chains.

Northern Ireland cannot be left exposed. A secure settlement on veterinary medicines is essential for animal health, human health, and the future of our agrifood sector. I, along with others, have made the argument, and it is now up to the Government to act to protect the health of our animals and farms. Will the Minister answer three specific questions? Can she confirm when clear professional guidance will be issued to veterinary professionals and farmers in Northern Ireland regarding the continuity of access to veterinary medicines post 31 December? Will the Department work closely with organisations such as the BVA and National Office of Animal Health to ensure guidance is practical, accurate and communicated effectively to all relevant stakeholders? And will she outline what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that vets and farmers receive timely updates on any changes to access, prescribing routes or fallback options? To date, those questions remain unanswered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman; of course, I reject the phrase “EU masters”. These schemes are really important to make sure that the vets or those who require the medicine have the medicine that they need in Northern Ireland.

I want to take this opportunity to make a few further remarks about our assessment on discontinuations. In June, the Government said that “fewer than 20 products” are expected to be discontinued where there was risk of “significant adverse impacts” if not addressed through our schemes. I am pleased to announce that further analysis has reduced that figure to six. Following extensive engagement and detailed analysis, we are now satisfied that none of these discontinuations would lead to a health situation or other significant adverse impacts.

In some cases, the products will no longer be discontinued; in others, there are sufficient alternatives available in Northern Ireland or from the EU. However, we will of course continue to monitor the list and any new discontinuations, and we welcome stakeholder feedback. On divergence, the veterinary medicines regulations for Great Britain were updated in 2024 to reflect the comparable EU regulations 2019/6 and 2019/4, thereby basically bringing Great Britain and Northern Ireland into closer alignment.

These are the regulations that will apply in Northern Ireland from the end of the grace period. Divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland veterinary medicine regulation is minimal, and is something that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate monitors closely in considering where alignment may be beneficial.

I will now address some of the other concerns raised. We have heard that stakeholders are concerned about insufficient pack sizes being available and about that leading to cost increases and issues with dispensing veterinary medicines. However, based on our extensive engagement, we have no evidence that pack size changes are a systematic issue. Where pack size changes occur, we expect the most popular sizes to remain, but of course, if the situation changes or if new evidence comes to light, we will look to use the schemes we have in place.

More broadly on costs, we have had positive reassurance from a number of pharmaceutical companies that they will not increase prices, but we will closely monitor the situation into 2026.

[Robin Swann]

With regard to market surveillance to look at costs, what powers do the Government have, should a pharmaceutical supplier decide to increase costs? That would be interfering with the commercial market, and I do not see where the Government have the powers to do what they say they want to do, or may do, in that instance.

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We would of course look at whatever powers we have at our disposal, but as a Government we do not want to see costs unfairly increased for Northern Ireland customers. That is the important principle that we are trying to address by doing this. We hope that that will not be the case, but if it is, we would need to work closely and carefully with all stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and we would of course follow up with meetings with representatives from Northern Ireland about that.

We are not complacent. The Government’s position is based on our assessment of the best possible evidence available, and we take stakeholder concern extremely seriously. As I mentioned at the beginning, Baroness Hayman was in Northern Ireland just last week for a couple of days, meeting with people about this very issue. I know that it is something she cares about and sees as incredibly important.

Our view is based on what we can see. The transition to new arrangements at the end of the year will be manageable, but if there are unexpected problems, we have our two schemes to manage that. I also note that there will not be a cliff edge on supply at the end of the year. All medicines supplied to Northern Ireland before the end of this year will remain available, and some of those products have long shelf lives. We have advised businesses to take prudent action, but that is just in case. We have put in many different mitigations to try and resolve this issue. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, and we will respond rapidly if issues arise. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we want to continue and maintain open dialogue with all representatives.

[Robin Swann]

The Minister has been gracious in taking interventions. One issue that she has not touched on yet is pet owners with a prescription who buy medication online from GB suppliers. What reassurance can she give us there? I have heard everything that she has said to date, but I have not heard her address that issue.

[Emma Hardy]

Through our engagement, we are aware of multiple companies that are either being established in Northern Ireland or planning to set up as online retailers there. That is expected to ensure that medicines will remain available through online channels. The Government appreciate that access to online retailers for pet owners to obtain veterinary medicines for their pets is of great importance, so this is something we are monitoring closely. Of course, it would be a positive outcome if those companies were setting up as online retailers in Northern Ireland. As a pet owner myself, I recognise how important it is for pet owners to be able to get the medication their beloved pets need.

We will continue to monitor the situation closely and will respond rapidly. We welcome feedback from stakeholders on specific issues and will continue to work with industry as we have done.

Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 General Committees

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

I am the former Northern Ireland Health Minister, and when the issue of moving away from dental amalgam kicked off, it was quite serious. It was raised by all political parties, the British Dental Association and its representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all sectors. We have heard about the use of amalgam in dentistry, but it is mostly used in our national health dentistry. While we were struggling, and are still struggling in the rest of the UK, to get NHS dentists, the inability to use amalgam for basic fillings would add an extraordinary cost to businesses. The shadow Minister asked and, if I recall it right, the charge at that point was in the region of £26 million.

With regard to the specifics, the draft statutory instrument includes only “mercury” in its title, but it focuses solely on amalgam. I ask the Minister, are there any other implications for the utilisation or import of other mercury products, or for other utilisations of mercury in other machineries, that might be affected by the SI?

Also, in the setting out of this, there were conversations about what the UK Government were able to achieve. EU Commission notice C/2024/4675 stated that the Commission permitted this regulation and the change that enabled Northern Ireland dentistry to continue to use dental amalgam, as stated, until 31 December 2034 or until the date agreed under the global Minamata convention, to which the UK is a signatory. I therefore seek input from the Minister on that. Should the convention move earlier than the agreed deadline of 31 December 2034, what steps have the Government put in place—working with the Departments of Health and of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland—to ensure that preparatory work is being done now?

Originally, the Northern Ireland Executive established a mercury working group, which was under the leadership of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I note that in the explanatory memorandum, under “Consultation”, the Government had consulted not only the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, but the Department of Health in Northern Ireland—they

“were consulted on the approach taken during the drafting of this instrument and were given the opportunity to propose amendments to the text.”

May I seek clarity from the Minister? Did they reply, and if so, what did they say? No reference to that is included.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s ability to weave a question for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero into a question on flooding. He will have heard from the Nature Minister how important peatlands are and how essential they are for this country and heard our commitment to protecting them.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

8. What steps he is taking to help prevent foot and mouth disease entering Northern Ireland.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

We have discussed this serious issue in the Chamber before, and I know how seriously Members on both sides of the House take it. The Government make it an absolute priority to protect farmers from the dangers of this awful threat. The Government have stepped up measures to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease following confirmed cases in Slovakia and Hungary. Imports into Northern Ireland of live animals and susceptible meat products are prohibited from within the restriction zones surrounding the affected premises in Hungary and Slovakia.

[Robin Swann]

I join in the Secretary of State’s words on VE Day, especially regarding Northern Ireland’s contribution to our armed forces and through the armaments we supplied.

When I contacted the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland about his responsibilities, he actually told me that the issue no longer sits within his ministerial responsibility, but comes directly under the control of the Environment Secretary. What practical steps is the Minister taking to protect Northern Ireland farmers, especially in regard to the recent announcement of a case of African swine fever on 2 May in Slovakia, within the same geographical area as those foot and mouth outbreaks?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We work closely with the Minister in Northern Ireland for exactly the reasons that he would expect. We take this extremely seriously. There are a range of threats in Europe, and that is why we have not only put in place the long-established and well-trialled measures, but added additional protection measures to ensure that we are properly protected.

Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Leadbitter]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I enjoy a dram now and again as well.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. I do not want this to become a promotion for every drink across these islands, but the challenges that Irish and Scottish whisky face are also faced by Baileys. Maybe not many people know this, but 70% of the world’s Baileys is produced in a factory in Mallusk in my constituency. It is exported to 100 countries worldwide, providing good jobs in the economy. I know the hon. Member enjoys a glass as well.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I do not know whether I need to comment on how many different types of drink I consume. Returning to the matters at hand, exports are valued at more than £5 billion, with 43 bottles of Scotch whisky exported every second.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his concern and his recollections. Yesterday we held a roundtable to discuss the threat posed by bluetongue, and we are in constant dialogue with all those who have direct interests and expertise. We will be working in lockstep.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In his initial answer, the Minister talked about protecting the UK and spoke about our nation’s farmers. He also advised farmers to consult gov.uk, which gives advice to Scottish, English and Welsh farmers but not to Northern Ireland farmers. May I ask him why he has abandoned them, given that the last outbreak, in 2001, cost the Northern Ireland economy £24.2 million? One small region in Germany cannot export to Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not agree that there should be a complete ban on the import of German products to Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We stand with farmers throughout the United Kingdom. The circumstances are slightly different, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, which is why we have to provide appropriate advice, but we are working in tandem and lockstep with colleagues across Europe to beat this horrible disease.

Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I want to bring attention to Lough Neagh in the middle of Northern Ireland, which is the largest freshwater lake in the British Isles, spanning approximately 149 square miles. It serves as a vital resource, supplying 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water, but in the last two summers of ’23 and ’24 Lough Neagh has experienced severe cyanobacteria blooms, which have been visible from space. Those blooms pose a risk to wildlife and human health, due to the toxins they produce.

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has instigated 20 key measures, but we must wait for the summer to see whether they will be enough. They include enhancing monitoring and research, and other agricultural interventions. As the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said in respect of past processes, to tackle the challenges that agriculture faces with water quality, we need to work in partnership with farmers, and look to go back to allowing farmers to farm by the seasonal calendar, rather than a paper one that has seen farming practices put out of kilter with the seasons we now see.

The Northern Ireland water-quality framework is different from other parts of the UK. Northern Ireland is guided by national and European directives, including the water framework directive, which aims for all water bodies to achieve good ecological status, whatever the standards or the regulations. A 2024 report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office noted that the existing regulatory and policy frameworks have failed to adequately protect water quality in Lough Neagh.

Northern Ireland Water, the sole provider of water and sewerage services in the region, operates under the governance of the Department for Infrastructure and our Utility Regulator. That is why I asked, in a debate in the Chamber, that Northern Ireland Water be brought under the Government’s independent commission, which is being led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. I have been informed by the Government that that is currently restricted to England and Wales, but I think there would be a benefit if Northern Ireland was included.

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.