Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

As I mentioned, the Federation of Small Businesses produced a report just this month. I recommend that every noble Lord and noble Baroness takes time to read it, because it injects a dose of reality into what we are talking about when it comes to the Windsor Framework. We have set out many times our constitutional and democratic objections to the Windsor Framework, but this strikes a dagger through the heart of the trade and economic arguments for the Windsor Framework. Noble Lords should read and digest that report. I hope that Government Ministers will respond to the FSB and come back to it with clear answers about the many issues of concern that its businesses are facing, particularly on things such as trader support services, where hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted. Businesses in Northern Ireland report, in overwhelming numbers, that they have no trust in trader support services, that they have been given contradictory advice, and that they cannot get that advice in writing—it is a joke, according to one of the businesses. The Government need to take these matters very seriously indeed.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, we need to think of the Minister’s welfare. I am quite sure that she probably needs counselling, coming to these debates. We see the array of people on the Benches beside me here and the degree of interest there is in this. But that should not undermine the significance of what we are discussing.

We have been talking about the labels. Labels cost money; it costs money to change the production lines. That can end up only with an increase to the customer who is buying the goods—nobody else is going to pay it. Look at the amount of money that has been put into this whole performance: £200 million to erect border inspection posts, and hundreds of millions of pounds on the trader scheme, and that is only going round the edges of it.

There needs to be some political reality about this. We are paying for the mistakes that were made in the run-up and subsequent to the referendum. Some people could see a mile away what was going to happen. Those in the other place who were so keen to “Get Brexit Done” did not give tuppence about Northern Ireland. We were just a nuisance, and they would fix it later. Well, they are still fixing it now, because who could have believed a decade ago that we would have border inspection posts in the Port of Belfast, the Port of Larne and the Port of Warrenpoint? It would be unbelievable, but it was entirely predictable because the United Kingdom conducted the worst statecraft negotiations with the European Union that I think have ever taken place in history. Before they even sat down at the table, they agreed what money they would pay. That is like saying, “I’m going to buy your house; I haven’t seen it, but I’ll pay you so much for it.” Who would do that? What responsible Government would do that? Then, of course, the Irish question was brought up and that was separated from trade and made a political commitment rather than being part of the major negotiations. It was awful stuff, and it was conducted, I believe, in a very sleekit way, with people talking out of both sides of their mouth at once.

That is how we got into this mess. It is nothing about what is happening today. The minutiae might be unexpected, but the principles are not unexpected. They were written on the wall. You could see them. I have to say to the Minister seriously: she must realise just how preposterous all this is. We have heard about the situation regarding supermarkets. Sainsbury’s are in the same boat, and it does not have any stores in the Republic—a big supermarket like that. People come across. If you look at the car parks in Strabane, in Enniskillen or in Newry, you see that they are thronged with people from the Republic. This has been going on for years, and they are taking their toxic baked beans back to County Louth to cause enormous damage. The ripples will flow right across the European Union, rattling the cages. It is all absolute and complete nonsense; it is costing a lot of money; and it is, potentially, leaving a serious political situation behind it.

We have bureaucracy colliding with common sense. I cannot believe that we cannot do better, but there is one interesting point. This phrase keeps coming up again and again: “full and faithful implementation” of the protocol and the Windsor Framework. It was in the Safeguarding the Union document, and it was repeated by the Secretary of State when he came to your Lordships’ Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee last week. The Minister just read it out.

The angle is this: because other Governments are deemed to have broken faith with the European Union, our Government—or Governments—are doing their best to show that they are the well-behaved boys in the class and we are going to do exactly what is involved in that, in hope that we will gain some concession at a later stage in the negotiations on the reset. Let us be fair, the reset is not going to have any impact on this whatever for at least a year. Even then, the small print will be the test as to whether there is any improvement.

I have asked the Minister in other debates, and I raised it again with Minister Thomas-Symonds in the committee last week, about the negotiations for the co-operation agreement which are to take place next year. What are we doing about that? Have we got a shopping list? Have we got solutions? Have we got ideas that we can put forward? We know that the European Union will want to narrow the scope of that negotiation, but it is an opportunity, it is in the agreement, and it should be worked on and incorporated in our negotiations with regard to the decisions flowing from 19 May.

We look at things such as the FSB report, which has been referred to, and Marks & Spencer; our committee has had numerous pieces of evidence in the last few weeks—some of it shocking even to those of us who are reasonably familiar with these things—because we have been engaging with people on the front line who are actually moving and trying to sell the goods. The other thing that came up at the committee’s visit to Newry, which we had not picked up on before, was fraud. It is being perpetrated with regard to some of these cross-border activities. I hope that we highlight that when we finalise the report, but we were not familiar with it before. A whole lot of significant things are going on out there.

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

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

So it could be entered into by the EU, under its law, only because it was intrinsically temporary. I did ask a very distinguished lawyer, who I shall not name, what “temporary” meant in European law; he said “Ooh, about eight years, generally”. Well, eight years are up, so, as a temporary arrangement, we ought to be moving speedily to think about some system of mutual recognition that would enable us to have a fully functioning internal market within the United Kingdom, and the most sensible arrangements across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, with the minimum of controls, none of which would take place at the border. Then we would all be happy and able to debate other things late at night.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, to some extent, as previous speakers have said of this set of regulations, it is almost preposterous that we are debating it several months after its implementation. But I would have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that there is nothing as permanent as the temporary; he will, sadly, be familiar with that phrase.

On the idea of protecting our plant life and so on, there will not be a word of discontent around the Chamber about our trying to do that; it is common sense. However, we are dealing here not simply with the regulations that are in front of us; we are dealing with the circumstances in which they have been brought forward. Other speakers have drawn attention to this.

Going back to the beginning, after the decision to leave the European Union, my party was uncomfortable with that at that time, simply because we could see that this sort of thing was going to happen. We triggered Article 50 far too soon. We had not negotiated and worked out among ourselves what we were going to do, and that showed up very quickly in the negotiating process. We accepted the fundamental top three things that the EU had agreed before we even sat down at the table. The first was leaving citizenship out of it, on which I think there would be no argument. We agreed on payment, so we decided to buy a house before we knew what it was going to cost, and we then agreed to take the Irish question out of the trade set-up and put it into a political context. That had to be done before we even got started. So, to some extent, you were fighting a losing battle from that point onwards. If anybody was to renegotiate the situation today, I do not think they would even contemplate such a proposal.

I also suspect that we are also in a totally different context from when the noble Lord, Lord Frost, put in his bid for this Motion. He referred to 19 May and the reset. However, this is a skeletal set of agreements. There is no substance or detail in any of those agreements with the EU, and anybody who knows anything about the European Union knows that it is good at the small print. So we may have these high-level ideas of reset, but the minutiae is where the European Union is at its best and we are at our worst.

I have argued for some time—I hope the Minister will look at this, and I think I have said it in other debates—that, given that the review of the trade and co-operation agreement is due next year, the United Kingdom should be working today to work out what proposals we want to put to the European Union in those negotiations. It is perfectly obvious that the European Union will want to compress that renegotiation to the minimum and the reset will play into that, but it is an opportunity. It is written into the agreement that its operation will be reviewed in 2026. We should be preparing a position now and not end up crashing in at the last minute with a few things jotted on a piece of paper. We need to know what it is that we want.

Fundamentally, the problem of us in Northern Ireland being half in the European Union and half out of it is insoluble. Even if you have all the fundamental technical solutions—there are many now that are applicable and could work, as has been referred to—if we are in one trading bloc and the European Union is in another, that is a politically insoluble position to be in, because we are under a totally different regime, subject to different laws with no impact on or say in what the laws should be.

I have to say that things are changing. All of a sudden, people in Great Britain are saying, “How awful is this? People are going to be making our laws and we’ve no say over them”. Well, I have to say, “Folks, wakey wakey”. We have had to live with this for some years. Now it appears that, in part, people in Great Britain are going to be in the same boat. Looked at that way, “dynamic alignment” is a significant term. We have had expressions of what that actually means. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that, if people are uncomfortable, since many Benches have by and large been empty when we have been discussing these issues, they may not be quite so empty in a year’s time when some people have to take a dose of their own medicine.

Personally, I believe that we as a nation could have avoided a lot of this. I think we negotiated and handled things badly after the people took a decision, and we are living with the consequences of that. Thereafter we have been mitigating, trying to ease the pressure and trying to make things easier for traders and businesses to operate. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to, not one scintilla of the Windsor Framework has been changed.

I want to ask the Minister about a particular issue that has not really got above the parapet yet: the new European Union customs processes. The European Union is undertaking a massive review. Like the Americans, it has had a situation where the movement of goods of small monetary value does not require any paperwork. I think there was a limit of about €125, and in the United States context it was about $850. That is coming to an end. Every single thing, irrespective of its value, will have to have a number and will be under the new regulations that will come in in the European Union in the next few years. That will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom in significant measure, but I have not seen or heard any comment in Parliament about it. Is the Minister aware of that? Do she and her colleagues have anything to say about it and what the implications would be for the movement of products of a very low value?

Of course, that will hit the very small businesses. It will make life more difficult for individuals who may be bringing things in online, or in whatever mechanism that is used. As the Minister knows, we have a parcel issue. We are in the process of spending £200 million on border inspection posts. People are saying, “The new reset means we don’t need them”, but that is not the case. We will continue to need them, and the European Union is insisting that we have them.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this up. I am sure he will be able to remind me of the clause in the Northern Ireland protocol—to which the EU signed up—that says the EU will use its best endeavours to ensure that there is no need for checks and border posts at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland. Now it is insisting that they exist, rather than trying to find ways of doing without them.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I suspect that the answer will be, “We need them there just in case there’s an outbreak of disease and we have to inspect animals and get back to crawling under tractors to see if there is any Scottish soil underneath”, and so on. There will be an answer. As the noble Lord is aware, there is always an answer.

Can the Minister tell us what the implications of the new customs rules that are coming down the track—which our committee is aware of and looking at—will be for the situations we are facing tonight? I think they mean that intrusive interference will be coming down to a very low level—to the level of an individual. Maybe Members do not realise that the Select Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred—and of which he and I are members—is the only committee in this Parliament that is looking at EU regulations and laws that apply to Northern Ireland. Nobody else is looking at them. There is nothing down at the other end. I think that is an outrage; the House of Commons should be looking at these things. Ours is the only committee in Parliament that is looking at these matters; maybe that says a lot about what people’s priorities are.

I ask the Minister to refer to the customs issue, because I think that is going to come very much to the fore. Can she also tell us what preparations are being made for the 2026 renegotiation of the trade and co-operation agreement? Are the Government preparing and working with other interested parties to decide the best way forward and to see whether, while we cannot solve these problems in their entirety—and certainly not constitutionally—we can perhaps mitigate them further to at least alleviate some of the obstacles that are in the way of business?

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, it is with considerable regret that I rise to oppose the regret Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, because I respect enormously the work that the noble Lord did on this question when he was in government. I wish to stress in particular tonight that the introduction of unilateral grace periods was the beginning of the fight-back against the authoritarian implications of the 2017 EU-UK agreement. That was of considerable importance and helped to give us space for further developments—developments with which, I understand from listening to him, he is now radically dissatisfied. I am not satisfied; I am rather less dissatisfied.

It is crucial to understand that the 2017 EU-UK agreement is the core of the ideas that are then to be found in the protocol—that is absolutely clear. It is important to understand also that that agreement involved a flouting of key elements in the Good Friday agreement. Strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement insists that there be harmonious mutually beneficial relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Nobody could see how those mutually beneficial relationships could remain in the full implementation of the 2017 EU-UK agreement. One of the key themes of that agreement is that the British Government were compelled to commit themselves to supporting an island economy.

Look at the Good Friday agreement and the frame- work document that precedes it: it is explicitly about co-operation between two economies on the island of Ireland. To the surprise of many economists who believed that there should be more of an island economy in the early years of the 20th century, suddenly there was a thing called the island economy. By the way, in certain respects there is: in electricity, the dairy industry and so on. But there is not, overall, an island economy—there is absolutely no question about that—and the two economies on the island of Ireland remain a profound reality.

Funnily enough, in recent weeks, as a result of Donald Trump’s probings—is that the right word?—of the Irish economy, the indignant insistence all over the Irish press and media that there are two economies on the island of Ireland has become explosive. But the island economy, and the British Government’s commitment to support it, was one of the great problems in the 2017 agreement and the protocols—both the May and the Johnson versions. It is based on a very unrealistic assessment of the realities of the island economy. In the Gallimard edition of Michel Barnier’s memoir, around pages 137 to 140, there is a discussion of Ireland that is largely mythical. None the less, these mythical concepts became the heart of policy and, more importantly, a British Government were compelled to support that.

If the Windsor Framework has been treated very dustily tonight, there is one thing it does: it calls a stop to that. It says no, and the European Union agrees. It is absolutely explicit. The island economy driver of policy for the British Government and the dynamic alignment that people have talked about are dispelled by the Windsor Framework. That is one of the achievements of the Windsor Framework and why it played a role in the return of Stormont.

This was followed by the Safeguarding the Union document, the importance of which was to demonstrate, on the subject of the Irish Sea border, that, for large parts of the history of the union—for many decades—there has been an Irish Sea border of one sort or another. It is absolutely explicit—it reproduces the documents. You cannot say that the Irish Sea border as such is corrosive of the union; the union somehow survives. The phenomenon known as the Irish Sea border is in a different form today, but what is not in doubt is that it is not corrosive of the union as such. That, again, is one of the important things about the Safeguarding the Union document.

The other important thing is that it lays out the first declaration of something that is now commonplace in debate in this House: the necessary role of the Northern Ireland defence industries in the protection of the United Kingdom. It makes this absolutely clear, and it is the first signal of something that this Government have taken up very strongly. One of the reasons why I mention this is: where is the dynamic alignment with the Irish Republic, when we are emphasising above all the importance of the defence industries of Northern Ireland in the defence of the United Kingdom? It is important to remember these realities.

As I listened, I pictured the frustrations of life with the Windsor Framework. There are many such frustrations. The new SPS agreement may help, and I hope it does. One thing is clear, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the point: one can no longer say in Northern Ireland that we alone are rule takers from the EU. The whole of the rest of the United Kingdom will now be rule takers from the whole of the EU in a different sense. The reason why it is fundamentally democratic is that this Parliament has a right to make these decisions.

Traditional unionism always accepted that. In the 1930s, when traditional unionism disliked the 1938 agreement, it still said, “Nothing to do with Stormont’s decisions. It is up to this Parliament to make these decisions, even if we are uneasy and dislike the various provisions of a particular trade agreement”. That is what traditional unionism stands for: the idea that this Parliament has a right to make these decisions. They are often very difficult and, it so happens, often very unsatisfactory in Northern Ireland.

There are difficulties. The University of Ulster economist Dr Esmond Birnie has been quite right to insist—other speakers have mentioned it tonight—about the fall-off in trade from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, particularly smaller concerns. The paperwork has put off smaller concerns exporting from the rest of the United Kingdom into Northern Ireland. There is absolutely no question that this is a problem, but there is also no doubt, for example, that many Northern Ireland businesses enjoy dual access and enjoy the access to the Irish Republic. There is no doubt that the Ulster Farmers’ Union seems increasingly relaxed, especially in the context of possible new SPS arrangements, about the Windsor Framework.

So, while it is perfectly correct that there are many unsatisfactory aspects of the current reality—Dr Esmond Birnie in particular has drawn careful and precise attention to this, and I hope the Government will pay attention to the various scholarly papers that he has produced—and while there is no doubt that these possibilities exist, there are also areas of success. The services industry in Northern Ireland is doing far better than anybody expected at this point. It is protected in the Windsor Framework quite explicitly and is doing far better than anybody—certainly myself—expected at this particular point in history.

Finally, I will say something on the point of phytosanitary arrangements. Back in the days of the BSE crisis, Dr Ian Paisley, leader of the DUP, went into No. 10 and said to Tony Blair, “I need to tell you that my farmers are British but my cattle are Irish”, because he wanted to make special arrangements. BSE was not so marked a feature in Northern Ireland as it was in the rest of the United Kingdom and, basically, he wanted a privileged relationship for Northern Irish farmers—“My farmers are British, but my cattle are Irish; respect that they currently do not have the same levels of BSE as they have in Derbyshire”. The logic behind this legislation is, “My gardeners are British but my plants are Irish”. It is hard to dispute or argue with it.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, talked about those who suggest that you have to live with ambiguity and compromise in Northern Ireland. He expressed doubt and said that some of these compromises had been very unsatisfactory in the past 25 years. I am absolutely certain that there is no way that Northern Ireland can survive as part of the United Kingdom without compromise of the sort that has been made. He mentioned, for example, the logic of the Good Friday agreement. I am also clear in my mind that the union is never going to be available on exclusively unionist terms. That does not mean that the union is not available—the union has, at this point, a strong future ahead of it—but it is not going to be available on exclusively unionist terms. This is the point that we all have to accept.

There is irreducibly an element here. I have criticised the Irish negotiators of that agreement in 2017; they overplayed their hand, and the best Irish officials, in my view, now accept that. It left a lot of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, had to struggle with, and in the first instance dealt with successfully. It left lots of problems, but the truth of the matter is that there are these two identities and Northern Ireland does face both ways. This cannot be avoided in the settlement, which must involve, at some level, a compromise. The protocol was definitely unfair to the mainstream unionist community, but the idea that we can just drop the Windsor Framework now—which, as I pointed out, has significant elements that work well for the unionist community—is not realistic.

Flooding

Lord Empey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks what we are looking at beyond flood defences—the actual physical barriers. There was quite a discussion during the Water (Special Measures) Bill about natural flood management and the work we are doing and promoting in that area. She may recall that we amended the Bill to ensure that we looked at more natural flood management schemes—nature-based solutions, as she suggested. We are doing that not just through the Water (Special Measures) Bill; we have made a number of announcements on this issue because we see it as an important part of the long-term solution. We need to look at long-term solutions, particularly, as the noble Lord said, because of the climate change pressures. In a way, building a flood barrier is a short-term solution because we do not know how long it is going to last for, so we need to combine that with longer-term solutions. Recently, for example, some balancing ponds have been developed with a grant near where I live. That is the way forward: barriers and longer-term nature-based solutions hand in hand.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, a number of Members have raised the question of flood plains and building houses. There will already be a number of planning applications approved yet not activated by a number of those who own the land—they have their planning approvals and maybe five years to do something about them. Is it possible to seek a review of those to see that we are not putting more people into high-risk situations as a result of the applications that have already been approved?

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a very good point about slowing down the flow. That may mean some form of additional forestation, or it may mean providing variations to certain waterways and so on. Is an attempt being made to combine the two things together? At the end of the day, we are facing change, and there is virtually nothing more debilitating than seeing people flooded out. Anyone who has had to go out and look after constituents in this situation knows there is nothing like the misery they face and how appalling the situation is, because it is not just water that goes into their houses. That is something that I think is often overlooked.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

If a planning application has been approved in a flooding area, I would expect it to have been granted alongside mitigation measures that the developer would have had to provide to get planning permission in the first place from a local authority. Clearly, I do not know the detail of every single planning application that the noble Lord is talking about, but whether that would be available for review would be a matter for policy development through MHCLG as well as for local authorities, because it is local authorities’ responsibility to provide planning grants and look at applications.

On some of the other matters that the noble Lord raised—this is probably relevant to some of the other questions too—I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we are reviewing the flood funding formula. A lot of the issues that have been raised are down to the fact that the existing formula follows a complex process and risks slowing down the development of the kinds of schemes that perhaps many noble Lords would like to see. We are aiming to bring in a new approach from April this year, and that is important. Where I live in Cumbria, the existing formula certainly did not work for us when we were badly flooded, and the Government had to provide an extra top-up amount of money. That is not the way to go forward. We need to ensure that communities are properly supported with the kinds of budgets that can bring in the long-term solutions that will be needed to protect them against potential future floods.

Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I support the statutory instrument because it follows logically from the Windsor Framework, which is complex and, in many respects, inevitably unsatisfactory in certain details but a necessary compromise with the European Union and one that is part of the process by which devolution was restored to Northern Ireland. Underneath everything that lies in the statutory instrument is the concept that Ireland is one eco unit. That is what is in the Windsor Framework and what underlies this legislation. It is the most fundamental point underlying it.

However, the Windsor Framework does not say that Ireland is one economic unit. This is an important point to make while we address this subject. Page 5 of the Windsor Framework says:

“Inherent in this new way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland—from food and drink to plants and pets, building on the existing differences in every area of economic and political life such as services”—


which, by the way, appear to be very strong now in Northern Ireland—

“migration, currency and taxation”.

That is the Windsor Framework. That is the international law that the Government, who give a very strong emphasis to their commitment to international law, are committed to.

Yet today I listened to the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson—at Question Time giving excellent answers, for which I am extremely grateful, to a number of searching questions, but on this point, she said something that is open to misinterpretation. She said there is an island economy. I agree. There is no question that there is an island economy and that for some activity, whether it be dairy products or the single electricity market, which has been mentioned already tonight, as well as a handful of individual companies that operate on an all-Ireland basis, there is an island economy, but there are many more individual companies operating across the UK’s internal market.

The Government are in a position where they cannot leave any ambiguity. This is part of the process by which Stormont was returned, and the Good Friday agreement was returned to operation. The “island economy” is a complex and slippery phrase. I have just said that I can understand completely why somebody might say there is one, but it is also very important to notice the very strong commitment in the Windsor Framework to there being two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. I suppose you can say that the island economy is a fact; it is just not as significant as the fact there are two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. There is a danger here that if we do not get this right, the whole compromise which has led to the re-establishment of Stormont will start to unravel. This is a commitment the Government have entered into in international law.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I cannot fault virtually anything the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said in her eloquent analysis from a technical point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made a very important point that there is going to be a conveyor belt of these regulations as far as the eye can see at this time. Every time one of these comes along, there will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth, and we will complain, and quite rightly so, because it is an affront to our status as citizens of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned the future and how things can be changed. I think we have to shift our focus to how we change things in a permanent and much more beneficial way.

In 2026, there is a review pencilled in of the trade and co-operation agreement. I believe that we should be putting our heads together now to develop a series of proposals that can rectify, in as far as it is possible, the situation we are in. While politicians do not like to say it, the truth is that this problem is fundamentally insoluble because we are half in and half out of the single market and half in and half of the United Kingdom’s single market. So, ultimately, we are fiddling around with these sorts of things and tweaking them, and tonight the Minister can justifiably say that this instrument is less bad than the one before it and that is true, but, as was pointed by the noble Baroness, what do we do with tourists? Does somebody bring their pet with them and have no intention of staying in Northern Ireland? We can all find ways to chip away at these things, and that is true.

However, we must now focus on working up an alternative that at least would begin to restore some of the sovereignty and remove some of the friction. I have to say that if people had done their homework some years ago, all of this was foreseen and foreseeable. There are no surprises here. The minutiae might be different. We might see something here that we had not quite seen, but we all knew and were told and were warned—we had debates galore in this House and in other places—that when the negotiation on Brexit was taking place, it was probably the worst piece of United Kingdom statecraft that many of us have ever witnessed. It was a bad negotiation and, ironically, some of those who negotiated it who are sitting on their Benches are getting up and attacking the negotiation. The individual who led it is attacking the outcome of his own negotiation, but that is neither here nor there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the many contributions we have had this evening and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As a number of noble Lords have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, it is important to have opportunities to debate these issues in some depth, because they are complex issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for appreciating that I am doing my best to work through these complex issues and understand all the different perspectives and points of view, so that I can do my job as effectively, efficiently and transparently as possible as we move forward on some quite complicated—and, in some quarters, controversial—regulations.

Regarding the Windsor Framework, there has been a lot of discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, made some very pertinent points and referenced some things that have been previously mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anderson. I have got a lot of questions to answer and I do not want to get bogged down in wider discussions about the Windsor Framework at this point—I will come back to them. However, one thing I do want to say, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned this, is that we are trying to work more constructively with the European Union; we are trying to reset that relationship. I have heard a number of criticisms of the European Union’s attitude towards discussions and negotiations and I am hoping that, with a more constructive approach to working with the EU, we may be able to make some progress in how we manage things going forward.

A number of questions were asked around checks. To be completely clear, Northern Ireland pet owners will not face any checks and there will be no checks for pets travelling from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I will go on to a few other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about unfettered trade and whether the Government were still committed to it. I can confirm that the Government have long-standing commitments to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s businesses have unfettered access to their most important market, which is of course Great Britain. That was legislated for in the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and is reflected in the border target operating model, which this Government are continuing.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked whether there had been an impact assessment. I can confirm that a de minimis assessment was completed for this statutory instrument, which is in line with standard practices and thresholds for the evaluation of impacts where these are expected to fall under the de minimis threshold. The assessment is that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme will deliver large net benefits, particularly to UK pet owners.

Consultation, and the lack of it, was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. While there may not have been a formal consultation, the Government engaged comprehensively with interested stakeholders—including pet owners, ferry and airline companies that operate the travel routes between GB and Northern Ireland, and commercially owned pet microchip database operators—when the regulations were drafted.

Assistance dogs were mentioned. Guide Dogs UK has specifically highlighted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dog owners who are travelling to Northern Ireland. The British Veterinary Association outlined that the arrangement will reduce paperwork and health treatments for vets.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the information being provided. I can confirm to her that there will be a public communications campaign; it is currently being planned. Officials are working with stakeholders, including vets, on that communications plan.

I turn to the SI’s requirement that pet owners apply for pet travel documents, because a number of questions were asked about that. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, dog owners in Great Britain would have to go to the vet and be checked for EU animal health certificates, rabies vaccinations or tapeworm treatments. That would cost the pet owner a considerable amount of money every time they wanted to travel into Northern Ireland. In practice, there are currently no routine checks on pets travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course this was only a temporary arrangement while the Windsor Framework pet travel scheme was being agreed. Officials have always reserved the right to undertake checks, should there be any suspicion of illegal activity or any welfare concerns.

The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme is designed to greatly simplify pet movements to Northern Ireland. There are no health treatment requirements; instead, the pet travel document requires more basic information. It is free. It can be applied for very easily and quickly online, and you do not need to visit a vet to do that. I also want to confirm that Northern Ireland-based pet owners will not need any pet travel documentation or be subject to any process when they return home with their pets. The scheme needs to ensure that GB pet owners have a valid pet travel document, because we need to mitigate against any abuse of the scheme. We believe that the new arrangement will involve a smoother experience than the current legal requirements.

Microchipping was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I confirm that microchipping is already a legal requirement in England, Scotland and Wales for all dogs. It is now a requirement for cats in England—that came into force in June of this year. Microchipping is considered good practice, and it is also part of the Government’s commitment to world-leading standards in companion animal welfare. We believe that this approach to microchipping reflects existing requirements and practice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether there would be exemption certificates for microchipping on the basis that a dog might not be able to be microchipped if a vet said that that was the case. I have been assured that if the pet cannot be microchipped with a UK chip, the pet owner can still travel with the pet animal from GB to Northern Ireland under the existing pet passport scheme.

There were mentions about how burdensome the scheme could be; the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to burdens. Clearly, the scheme needs to be adhered to, but the new arrangements will create a cheaper and smoother experience for those travelling with their pet from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, because it removes the need for pet health treatments, as I mentioned. This is because the scheme recognises, for example, the rabies-free status of the UK. As other noble Lords have said, the benefit is that it also lasts for the entire lifetime of the pet.

I turn to some other questions. How will things be enforced? One thing that is important to say is that I am sure the vast majority of people will comply with the scheme and the rules. The Government intend to provide comprehensive support to those travelling with their pets to ensure that they can do so. I cannot remember now who asked about pets being taken to facilities. We need something in place, because you cannot have something that is open to abuse. You have to have some kinds of checks in place and something that happens if people do not comply. But we do expect this to be very rare. If any pet is taken to a facility, we expect that to be extremely rare—but, clearly, it is a new scheme that will be monitored and we will check progress.

Another question that the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked was why the scheme covers only cats, dogs and ferrets. It is for the very simple reason that these pets make up the vast majority of movements and it is about keeping things simple and manageable. It is in line with relevant applicable regulations that have grouped these animals together. Also, they are those most susceptible to rabies. That is that is the other reason for having that in place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether everyone travelling with pets would have to be checked to identify whether people are not resident in the UK: are they travelling to Northern Ireland via GB in transit from another country? Onward travel to the EU was mentioned. There are no new requirements applied by the Windsor Framework concerning movements into Ireland, the EU or for those who are not resident in the UK, or otherwise not covered by the pet travel scheme. What is required in these circumstances is unchanged by the Windsor Framework. If pet owners wish to travel with their pet on to Ireland, provided the same rules that have applied throughout Ireland’s membership of the EU are adhered to, that option remains available to them.

I will conclude. It has been a long debate, so if I have not answered anything, I will go through Hansard carefully and write to noble Lords. I just want to summarise. The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme certainly has benefits. It is new, sustainable, durable and will support non-commercial pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and secure the smooth movement of pets within the UK. It will also remove costs, pet health treatments and red tape.

I want to make one point before I conclude. I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised during the debate on this SI. I am aware that similar concerns were raised on previous SIs and I am sure that, as further SIs come forward, we will return to these discussions and debates. I want to reassure noble Lords who have expressed concerns that I am continuing to engage constructively with DAERA and relevant organisations in Northern Ireland. It is important that we start to rebuild trust in these areas. In fact, I am going to Belfast next week for a couple of days and intend to do that regularly as part of my portfolio. I know that a number of broader issues that have been discussed. I very much appreciated the meeting I had with noble Lords representing Northern Ireland some weeks ago and look forward to continuing that ongoing engagement, where we can get more into the depth of these broader concerns. Having said that, I thank once again all noble Lords for their contributions.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Can the Minister discuss with her ministerial colleagues, looking towards the review in 2026 of the trade and co-operation agreement, work which can be undertaken to find a way out of this as best as possible? It would at least be reassuring to Members. I hope that work has already started but, if it has not, it ought to.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I apologise; I know that the noble Lord raised this in his speech. I am more than happy to speak to ministerial colleagues on those matters.