Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Before the Recess we had tumble dryers, last week we had seed potatoes and this week we have batteries. I support the process. I think it is right that every Member of this House should have the right to seek a proper debate on all the statutory instruments that come before us, whether they affect Northern Ireland or are more general. It is important and, to an extent, we are making up for the problems faced by the Commons in giving adequate consideration to all the matters that come before them. So I support the process and welcome the opportunity to debate these issues.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, said, there are always choices. The point we need to emphasise is that in the UK we have made a choice. Some people do not like the choice we have made and they have every right to protest about it, but it is the choice that has been made. There is a certain irony in the fact that those who are most vociferous in calling for Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom are objecting to a decision made by the United Kingdom. You have to take the obligations that come with your objectives, and this is what we have.

I remind noble Lords of the point I made last week: the people of Northern Ireland voted against Brexit. So, when people come forward to complain about the outcome, those who promoted Brexit should accept responsibility for where we have ended up. Given the land border, there were bound to be problems. Clearly, whoever negotiated the arrangements did not do a good job. That is why the framework was being discussed yesterday in Grand Committee. As my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick said,

“it is important that the challenges and impediments presented by the Windsor Framework are ironed out”.—[Official Report, 14/9/26; col. GC 347.]

So there is an acceptance, even by those who support the Windsor Framework—as my noble friend declared she does—that it should be sorted out, following up the work of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen.

In my last few seconds, I turn to batteries. Batteries are made in China and some are made in Belgium. The idea that we as a country can determine the nature of the batteries that are used in this country is an illustration of the falsity of the claim of taking back control. We are part of an international system, and the reason why we do not have control over the form of batteries sold in this country is that we left the European Union, where the decisions are being made. We have no power over the batteries in this country because they are not made in this country; they are made elsewhere. The wish to ignore the reality of an interconnected world is, at heart, the cause of the problems here.

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

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this interesting debate. It is the second time that I have intervened in what appears to be a series of debates on this issue. The last time I was guilty of a degree of naivety. It turned out that it was not a debate about tumble dryers; it was really a debate about Brexit and the Windsor Framework, just as today’s debate—although quite a few references have been made to plant health, seeds and potatoes—is really at heart a debate about where we are with Brexit and the associated Windsor Framework. Why are we here?

Given the time available, I want to make just three points about Brexit. First, it was sold on a false prospectus, of which “take back control” was one of the most egregious. It was a lie. We do not have control in an interconnected world to the extent we were told. Secondly, the terms of exit were negotiated, in my view, incompetently—not least of which was the failure to appreciate until too late the implications of a land border between the UK and the European Union. Thirdly, it is worth making the point that a majority of people in the United Kingdom now regard Brexit as a mistake. These are all thoughts that need to be borne in mind when undertaking this debate.

Finally, given the nature of this debate and why it is happening, it is relevant to point out that, in the Brexit referendum, a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland were against leaving the European Union. In fact, the majority in favour of staying in Europe was somewhat greater than the majority across the UK as a whole who wished to leave.

Farming and Rural Communities

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I look forward to this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for introducing the issues that clearly need to be addressed. I look forward to my noble friend’s response. I am a sort of bookend in this event. I have come as much to listen and learn as to provide definitive information.

I am not a farmer—my father decided that he did not wish to take over the family farm; he was a qualified chemist—but, because of that farm, to a limited extent I feel I have a sense of the cultural hold of being from a farming background. I still occasionally visit the land that was ours and feel a sense of attachment—so I get that. It is important that government policies recognise the cultural content of farming and agriculture. In general, however, what we need are economic and planning decisions that support farming practices that deliver benefits for food production, biodiversity and climate resilience, while at the same time maintaining the countryside that we all know and love.

I thank various organisations and the Library for their helpful briefings. They include the Nature Friendly Farming Network, the World Wide Fund for Nature UK and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. I assume that there are parallel organisations in the other nations of the UK. They all emphasise the vital role of public funding, planning and infrastructure in creating and maintaining thriving rural landscapes while meeting our shared environmental goals and, not least, in achieving a successful and thriving agricultural industry.

In introducing the debate the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, outlined a number of major concerns, including the compulsory purchase of land to meet our housing targets. Clearly, this has to be undertaken in a way that does not work against the general objectives that I laid out. The issue of what should be paid for land—the enhanced market value with planning permission for housing, or its value as agricultural land—is important and I fully support the Government’s approach to that.

The most contentious issue has been the inheritance tax reforms. In any debate on this issue, you have to recognise that the problem has been created by the inheritance tax system. In general principle, I see no reason why particular groups should be absolved from their responsibility to pay part of their wealth following their death, to the general good. I support the concept of inheritance tax, and I do not see any reason in principle why the agricultural industry should be exempt. However, going back to the point I made earlier, the cultural significance of the family farm is a real factor and any changes we undertake have to recognise that.

Those who have read the financial pages over many years will know that there is a general view that inheritance tax is a voluntary tax and, in order to avoid it, you have to make changes to the way history and tradition have required farmers to behave. That will take time to adjust to, but we have asked many other communities to make cultural changes, and I see no reason why farmers should be exempt from that objective.

I support the Government’s farming initiatives, and I look forward to the publication later in the year—I hope my noble friend will cover this—of the 25-year farming road map. I look forward to hearing other speakers.

Biosecurity and Infectious Diseases

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to attempt to replicate the approach of the previous speaker. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for introducing this important debate. It is, in truth, an honour and a privilege to be able to take part, given the eminence of the speakers who are contributing today. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is not in her place, referred to the need to avoid repetition. At this stage of the debate that becomes increasingly difficult, but I say also that repetition is sometimes important as a form of emphasis—we need to emphasise the issues here, so if anything I say is too repetitive, I do not apologise, because I think the points need to be emphasised.

It is important that we discuss this critical issue of biosecurity in an era characterised by globalisation and climate change. The interconnectedness of our world has brought unprecedented benefits, but it also exposes us to new challenges. Today, we are talking particularly about infectious diseases that can threaten human, animal and plant life. Where people, goods and information travel across borders with unprecedented speed, infectious diseases do not recognise geographical boundaries. As we know all too well, a virus originating in one part of the world can swiftly find its way to distant continents, crossing national borders before we can appreciate the scale of the threat that is posed. This demands a collective and co-ordinated effort on a global scale. So I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government recognise the scale of the measures that are needed to combat the threat of infectious diseases.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has already referred to the story in today’s Financial Times, but it merits further emphasis and a demand on the Minister to provide a satisfactory response. For those who have not seen it, today’s Financial Times reports that inspectors at Dover, the UK’s busiest port, have warned that they are facing a 70% cut in central government funding which they say will pose a risk to British food safety and animal health. The Dover Port Health Authority told the Financial Times that Defra plans to impose the funding cut to its inspection team at Dover from April and stated:

“The impact of the cuts will be significant and increase the threat to GB safety by an order of magnitude”.


That was a statement from the head of the port inspectorate. I think the House requires a specific response to that story, albeit at short notice.

Given the importance of these issues, what else should the Government be doing? I shall just suggest some particular issues on which I ask the Minister to respond. First, I think the Government’s approach should be proactive rather than reactive, which perhaps it has been in the past, and also on the precautionary principle: we should always err on the side of safety, rather than hoping for the best. Specific proposals that perhaps the Minister could respond to include the issue of the Non-native Species Inspectorate. Will the Government be making an announcement on whether this process will be made permanent? It is an essential part of a precautionary approach, so perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

Another specific proposal that has been made is that there should be a positive list for exotic pets: rather than having a list of species that cannot be imported to become pets, there should be a list of those pets we know are safe, and anything else should be subject to restriction, inspection and, if necessary, investigation of whether they are acceptable.

Finally, can the Minister give us reassurance about the position on freeports? The Government trumpeted their policy of allowing freeports greater freedom and fewer restrictions. Will the rules apply equally to freeports as they do more generally?