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

Debate between Lord Roborough and Baroness Grender

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Roborough and Baroness Grender

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, my thanks go to the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which we in the Liberal Democrats support. It represents a positive and necessary step towards addressing the deep-seated issues of fairness and transparency that have plagued our vital, world-leading pig sector. It is a welcome change in the wake of the painful crisis that gripped this industry from 2020 to the spring of 2023—a period marked by, as we have heard from other noble Lords, the Covid period, acute Brexit-induced labour shortages at processing plants, and soaring feed and Putin-induced energy costs outstripping farm gate prices and pushing producers to the brink. The statistics are stark, with losses exceeding £750 million collectively, as well as that awful period when more than 60,000 healthy animals were culled because they could not be processed.

Although the pig sector has a history of volatility, that particular crisis exposed a critical weakness at its heart: a risk/reward imbalance underpinned by commercially unclear and potentially harmful terms, especially for smaller producers, hindering their ability to budget, manage price fluctuation or invest for the future. These regulations are rightly designed to address this imbalance. They mandate written pig purchase contracts between buyers and sellers, setting out clear rules for pricing, contract duration and dealing with market fluctuations. This framework is crucial in rebuilding for them security, clarity and fairness.

The instrument makes necessary amendments to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, addressing the unintended consequence described by the Minister that impacts on businesses with an internal democratic structure—typically co-operatives—and allowing for volume-based or tiered pricing in that specific context. We urge Defra and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which will enforce these regulations, to monitor this amendment closely to ensure that it is applied in the true spirit of internal democratic structures. I thank the National Farmers’ Union’s dairy team and the National Pig Association for their valuable briefings on this issue, which have informed our understanding of it. They have asked for specific reassurances on this issue.

While these regulations are welcome and necessary for the pig sector, they highlight a broader need. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was introduced—we are very proud of this—by the coalition Government. It was taken directly from the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto, but we regret that its powers to enforce were not sufficiently established when we left Government in 2015, and it still comprises only a handful of people.

Given the clear and continuing power imbalance between producers, processors, supermarkets and the food service sector, does the Minister have any plans to enhance the enforcement powers and capacity of the GCA, given that it is the potential referee in the supply chain? Indeed, will she consider the need for the GCA to be able to intervene in deals between farmers and processers, not just those directly linking to retailers? Producers must be able to raise issues, and we believe that anonymity is vital, given the potential fear of repercussions. We believe that third parties such as the NFU should be empowered to raise concerns and truly hold the more powerful parts of the industry accountable, so the adjudicator therefore needs some more effective tools.

As ever, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of these matters. It would be interesting to get some clarification from the Minister on an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Pack, which was also in the committee’s report. It said:

“Defra has used a specific definition of what constitutes an electronic signature, rather than using or cross-referencing to what we understand is the more standard definition under section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000”.


In other words, there is some kind of different use of electronic signature here. That is a technical query that it would be great to understand. The committee continued, saying that:

“The Department was unable to explain … the rationale”.


I am having a second go at that question, and I thank the Minister in advance for even struggling to find the answer.

Finally, we must avoid simply passing this SI and then moving on. Regulations such as these need to be subject to regular review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The flexibility within this SI must not be abused, and the Government must ensure that these regulations genuinely work for an industry of which we can rightly be proud.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, made under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 2020, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular as a dairy farmer and landowner. This is the second use of these powers following last year’s regulations in the dairy sector, and I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today.

These regulations represent a step towards rebalancing commercial relationships in the pig sector. For too long, small and independent producers have operated under contracts that lack clarity, fairness or enforceability. Many have found themselves at the mercy of buyers wielding considerable market power and facing reductions in volume, unilateral contract changes and dishonoured pricing agreements. These practices have created uncertainty and risk at the farm gate, and undermined confidence across the supply chain.

As the Minister outlined, the instrument requires that all contracts between qualifying sellers and business purchasers be in writing and include transparent pricing terms. It prohibits unilateral changes to contracts, mandates dispute resolution mechanisms and sets clearer parameters around termination clauses. These provisions will enable producers to request a written explanation of how prices are determined if not based on objective and accessible criteria. The Minister also highlighted the usefulness of the notice to disapply in agreed circumstances.

The need for such reforms has been well evidenced. Our previous Government’s 2022 consultation received 374 responses, of which 89% supported mandatory written contracts and 64% said existing agreements were not consistently honoured. These regulations reflect this feedback and follow a constructive sector-specific approach.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Debate between Lord Roborough and Baroness Grender

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a dairy farmer. I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement in your Lordships’ House and for allowing an opportunity to scrutinise the decision to cap sustainable farming incentives in this manner.

We on these Benches are proud of the Environment Act 2021 and of the transition in farming support payments to environmental land management schemes. ELMS is a crucial step in fulfilling our legally binding commitment to achieve a 30% recovery in nature by 2030, as well as ensuring that farming payments are for public goods. To cap the sustainable farming incentives with no notice, despite the Government’s own website informing that up to six weeks’ notice would be given for withdrawal of SFIs, is a betrayal of our farmers and our natural environment. Many were already facing unexpected financial hardship from the massive reduction in delinked payments, planning for the reduction in IHT reliefs, the increased minimum wage and national insurance contributions. This adds more pressure to those who were expecting to transition to SFIs this year but had not yet applied. Fewer than half of farm holdings that were in the basic payment scheme have SFIs.

The NFU’s farmer confidence survey shows farmer confidence in England and Wales at its lowest level ever. Some 88% of farmers believe the phase-out of direct payments will negatively affect their business, and 51% of farmers were planning to use ELMS to mitigate that phase-out. These dramatic changes in government support with no notice upset any attempt at budgeting, with costs already largely set for this year based on revenue projections that have now been dramatically cut. This will cause significant further hardship and heartache.

What assessment has been made of the impact of the SFI announcement on the financial viability of the farming industry? How many farms are likely to be pushed beyond breaking point this year? Has the estimated £400 million being cut from delinked payments been fully reallocated to the environmental land management schemes? Do the Government still intend to open the Countryside Stewardship higher tier this summer as previously committed to? In regard to the environment, what impact will the SFI decision have on compliance with the legally binding commitment delivered in our Environment Act to deliver improvements in biodiversity and nature recovery, given the central importance of farmers and land managers in achieving this?

Government messaging about the timing of new SFIs has been muddled, mentioning both 2026 and 2025 and it being potentially contingent on the finalisation of the land use framework. Please could the Minister be clear today on exactly when farmers will be given access to new SFIs and how their emphasis will differ from existing SFIs? Can the Minister also confirm that the £5 billion budget settlement for farming remains intact and will be fully distributed over the years ending in 2025 and 2026?

Given this Government’s disappointing financial decisions relating to farming and the wider rural economy, it would also be helpful if the Minister could enable us to understand what role she sees for private sector finance in replacing the public purse in land management. ELMS is an important segue into that, identifying valuable natural capital activities in land management, which in turn can morph into quantified public goods. In order for the private sector to step in, we need to see financial incentives. What financial incentives would the Government consider appropriate to deliver this investment? Will the woodland carbon code and peatland carbon code be admitted into the emissions trading scheme, creating real market demand? Will tax incentives be considered, or public bidding rules? Finally, could the water industry play a greater role in financing nature-based projects for reducing peak flow rates and flood events, and improving water quality?

The farming community needs help to plan after so many blows; I hope that the Minister can help with her answers.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement. They will no doubt by now be aware of the significant disappointment and dismay the sudden closure of this scheme, without consultation or warning, has caused. What analysis did the Government do before this announcement to establish the likely impact on smaller farmers such as family farmers and those on significantly less than the minimum wage? Were there impact assessments in respect of farmers losing their basic payment this year with the immediate removal of SFI, and without, as yet, any clear replacement scheme?

Can the Minister please share with us the expenditure implications? It is our understanding on these Benches that if the BPS cuts this year are taken into account, more than £400 million of the £2.5 billion farming budget will remain unspent. Given that this was a budget intended to reward farmers for nature restoration and sustainable food production, can the Minister reassure us that this will not damage both? Can she explain how the Government will ensure that key environmental work is rewarded, and carried out by farmers who can no longer get access to this funding?

Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that the larger landowners, the ones that are more corporate, are highly likely to have already taken up the SFI and be part of the 6,100 new entrants this year? What advice does she have for the smaller operators, some of Britain’s poorest farmers, who are now left behind? Is she further aware that only 40 hill farms were new entrants this year, and that the previous Government failed to provide sufficient support for hill farmers, which in turn led to an over 40% drop in hill farm incomes in just five years? Is there any plan to help the small farms, upland farmers and commoners affected by this sudden change?

Can the Minister share with the House any discussions with farming stakeholders in advance of this change? Stakeholders tell us there were none, and the NFU said that it had just 30 minutes’ notice.

Finally, will the Minister please share what steps the Government will now take to increase the farming budget to reflect the Government’s nature and climate targets? We would be very happy to share the suggestions in our own manifesto if that would be in any way helpful. These targets, we would argue, have been greatly damaged by this cut in SFI.