Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
As this House knows, Baroness Batters is a long-standing champion of British farming. Today, the Government have published her independent farming profitability review 2025, which we commissioned earlier this year. We will set out a more detailed response in the new year, but I can confirm today that, following her recommendations, we are establishing a farming and food partnership board to give farmers a stronger voice in Government. We will take forward sector plans to build profitability in sectors with great potential, and we will seek to boost private finance into farming.
Sam Rushworth
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
As we are all sleeping in or children are opening their stockings on this Christmas morning, farmers in Teesdale and Weardale will be up tending to their sheep and cows, and we thank them for that. As the Minister knows, at the moment only 25% of subsidies go to just 4% of farms. Smaller upland farms in areas like those I represent have done particularly badly under the transition. There are so many issues I could raise, but to avoid Mr Speaker’s cough may I just ask this? I am bringing a delegation of farmers from my constituency to Parliament in the new year. Will the Secretary of State meet them to hear their wisdom?
Emma Reynolds
I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to farmers working hard over the festive season. Upland communities face unique challenges. I or the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs will be delighted to meet his delegation. We are reforming the sustainable farming incentive to make it simpler and easier for farmers to apply to. We want more farmers to benefit from these schemes, and under this Government we already have a record number of farmers in these schemes.
Mr Dhesi
No farmers, no food. That is why, as the son of former farmers, I believe it is imperative that we support our farmers. After the last Conservative Government sold out British farmers with their substandard trade deals with New Zealand and Australia, our farming and food sector has been held back from its full potential abroad. What exactly are this Government doing to ensure that our farmers can get their products on to international shelves and grow their businesses abroad?
Emma Reynolds
I am proud that this Government, unlike the previous Government, are protecting and promoting British farming in our trade deals, including with India and the USA. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may chunter from a sedentary position, but they sold them out on their trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. We are also making progress with the EU on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will make agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, and our global network of agrifood attachés has already brought down 46 trade barriers this year, worth £127 million.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Obviously, one of the biggest challenges to farming profitability is the market fact that farmers are price takers. The farming campaigner Olly Harrison was this week highlighting that Lidl and Aldi are selling carrots at 8p per kilo, well below the cost of production. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that when supermarkets sell under the cost of production, that cost is borne by the supermarkets, not the farmers?
Emma Reynolds
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have already introduced fair dealing regulations for pig and dairy farmers, but I agree with him that we need to look to go further.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Sustained profitability requires sustained investment, and investment has collapsed as a consequence of the family farm tax, hasn’t it?
Emma Reynolds
I am very determined that we leverage in more private finance into farming. I visited a landscape recovery project in north Buckinghamshire a couple of weeks ago. It is really fantastic to see the innovative practices in these schemes that are levering in private finance in part of the compliance market, and part of the thriving and nascent nature credits market.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Here we are, at the 11th hour, on the very last day before Parliament rises for Christmas, and the Secretary of State has left it until now to publish Baroness Batters’ profitability review —48 days since it was handed to her. She has tactically left it buried in her Department until well after the Budget and purposely until after the crucial Finance Bill vote earlier this week, in which 333 Labour MPs backed the implementation of the family farm tax—all in the knowledge that whatever the recommendations in the profitability review, the Government’s financial assault on our farmers was locked in. What message does that say to our hard-working farmers?
Emma Reynolds
I am proud that this Government commissioned Baroness Batters to do the review into farm profitability, which is a lot more than the Conservatives managed to do in 14 long years. We will be taking forward a number of her recommendations, but, as I said, we will reply in full in the new year. We commissioned her because she has great experience and expertise. There are many ways in which we are unlocking profitability, not least the planning reforms that myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government are introducing to make it easier for farmers to build on-farm reservoirs, polytunnels and various other things that will diversify their farms. We are bringing down the barriers, which is something that they long called for, but they saw none of that action under the previous Government.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
If farm profitability is so important to the Government, I find it utterly peculiar that the review was released only today as a written statement at the last minute. It is an insult to this House and indeed the excellent Baroness Batters herself.
England is now the only country in the United Kingdom, and indeed in Europe, that does not provide financial support to its farmers. England’s farmers, therefore, have been uniquely abandoned by this Government, by their Conservative predecessor and by those whose madcap ideology took us out of Europe without any kind of a plan. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether food security will be counted as a public good, as the Liberal Democrats propose, and funded through environmental land management schemes? When will the SFI be reopened, and how much money will be in it? Will she ensure that this time the money does not mostly go to the wealthiest, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) just referred to, and when will she stop making English farmers the worst supported in the whole of Europe?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Member asked a number of good questions. I have said that the new iteration of the SFI will be out in the first half of next year. My hon. Friend the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs and I are looking very carefully at how we get this right, and I can reassure the hon. Member that we are looking at the distributional analysis on who is getting these schemes at the moment. We do want to make it easier for smaller farms to gain access to the schemes—I can reassure him on that.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Our animal health and welfare pathway scheme provides funding to farmers to improve the health and welfare of their livestock. It also supports veterinary visits to discuss health and welfare, and it provides capital grants for equipment and infrastructure to improve animal welfare. I am pleased that 7,000 farmers have already signed up to receive funding.
Adrian Ramsay
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
The Animal Law Foundation’s report “The Enforcement Problem” shows that only around 2.2% of farmers were inspected in 2024 and only around half of complaints about farmed animal welfare led to any inspection. Even when non-compliance is detected by local authorities, only 2% of cases lead to prosecution. Allowing those breaches is terrible for animals and terrible for the farmers who do comply with the rules. How will the forthcoming animal welfare strategy ensure that credible complaints are consistently investigated, and that enforcement bodies have the resources and duties needed to act when animal welfare concerns are raised?
Emma Reynolds
I can confirm that further details on this issue will be set out in the animal welfare strategy, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. He is right that we need to have a closer eye on enforcement and work more closely with councils to ensure that there is better enforcement.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
We know how much you love your pets, Mr Speaker, and we are a nation of animal lovers. We intend to publish our animal welfare strategy very soon, taking forward our manifesto promises with the most ambitious reform in a generation. This commitment to animal welfare sits alongside our wider ambitions for nature. Earlier this month we launched our environmental improvement plan, which sets out how we will protect our environment for future generations.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish you, your family, your many pets, your staff, the House staff who look after us so well, and all hon. Members, a merry Christmas. As many of us prepare to spend time with loved ones over Christmas, I want to thank the farmers, the emergency workers and many more who will continue their vital work throughout the festive period.
Sir John Whittingdale
While wishing the Minister, and indeed all hon. Members and staff, a very happy Christmas, may I tell her that many of my farming constituents will not be celebrating as they gather with their families, because their hopes of passing on their farms to their children, just as their parents and grandparents did before them, have been made impossible by Labour’s family farm tax? She has already heard from some of them when she and I did “Any Questions?” in Essex a few months ago, but will she now, once again, try to persuade the Chancellor to withdraw this punitive and damaging measure?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We did debate this issue on the radio together. The reason we are making these changes is that the top 7% of estates account for 40% of inheritance tax reliefs—that is £219 million for the top 37 landowners—and we think that is unfair.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Emma Reynolds
I am pleased to confirm that the animal welfare strategy will be published before Christmas, and I will have more to say about that shortly in the House. We are giving this country of animal lovers the legislation to match. The strategy will set out our priorities until 2030 and take forward the manifesto commitments on which Government Members stood.
Emma Reynolds
Well, Mr Speaker, it was not really worth waiting for. In the first instance, I urge the right hon. Lady to check her emails, as I sent a detailed response to her letter. I also urge her to stop talking the sector down. We are ensuring that we are helping farmers to be more profitable, which is why we have published the Batters review today. We are setting out in the new year our next iteration of the SFI, in close collaboration with the farming sector, and we will also set out our 25-year farming road map.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.
Alongside many colleagues on the Government Benches who are passionate about farming, I will continue to argue for a rethink on inheritance tax, but I back this Government and their mission to improve the profitability of our farms. We are speeding up planning, tackling unfair supply chain practices, unlocking finance and boosting exports. Does the Minister agree that the findings of the Batters review mean that we can finally turn a page on dwindling farm incomes and unleash benefits for farmers, the rural economy and our nation’s food security?
Animal Welfare Strategy
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s animal welfare strategy.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
We are a country that cares deeply for animals, and we have a proud history of being pioneers when it comes to ensuring the very best for them. We had the world’s first known animal welfare law in 1822, and produced animal welfare pioneers and organisations known across the globe today.
As announced this morning in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs oral questions, next week we intend to publish our animal welfare strategy, which takes forward our manifesto promises through the most ambitious reform to animal welfare in a generation. It will be a comprehensive package of reforms that will improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK. It covers all our relevant manifesto commitments, such as the commitments to give farm animals greater freedom and dignity, and to protect our wildlife. By improving animal welfare standards, we are supporting healthier, more productive livestock that deliver better outcomes for farmers, farm profitability and food security, and the high welfare standards that British consumers expect.
The animal welfare strategy builds on this Government’s proven track record of delivering reforms for animals, including introducing new world-leading standards for zoos earlier this year and supporting the passage of the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, to tackle puppy smuggling, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, whose Royal Assent you have just announced, Mr Speaker, and which is about the worrying of livestock. Labour has always been the party of animal welfare. During our last term in government, we enacted the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and we banned foxhunting.
Dr Hudson
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I know that you are an animal lover, as indeed we are as a nation.
As a veterinary surgeon, I have animal health and welfare very close to my heart. We have now reached the end of the year for Parliament, and we still do not have sight of the Government’s animal welfare strategy. The Prime Minister has said on the record that the strategy would be released by the end of the year. That has been repeated by Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs many times in the Chamber and again today, as well as in answers to repeated written questions from many Members across the House.
We need to find out, and be able to scrutinise, the Government’s plans for our animals. We face significant issues: animal digital identification; disease outbreaks such as avian influenza and bluetongue; the threat of foot and mouth disease or African swine fever coming into the UK; a Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into veterinary services; the need for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act; a shortage of vets; and a farming community struggling with anxiety and financial pressures caused by this Labour Government.
I put on the record this House’s thanks to all the vets, farmers and frontline officials in the Animal and Plant Health Agency who are on duty over the Christmas period, tending to and protecting our animals. The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.
We should be very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in improving animal welfare, such as banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for fattening or slaughter in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; increasing from six months to five years the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and enshrining animal sentience in UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and establishing the Animal Sentience Committee, so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. The baton has now been passed from the Conservatives to Labour. Please can we hear what the Government plan to do in this crucial area, so that the House can scrutinise what the future is for our animals and the people who care for them?
Emma Reynolds
I want to reassure the shadow Minister that we will publish the animal welfare strategy before Christmas, as we have promised. He is right that we face a number of significant issues. We will be tackling those issues head-on. I disagree with the shadow Minister’s characterisation of our Government. This will be the most ambitious animal welfare strategy in a generation. However, I agree with and echo his thanks to the vets, farmers and regulators for their work all year round, but particularly over the festive period.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
As we approach Christmas and Boxing day, let me record my pride in having been an MP when we banned foxhunting. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the Government’s commitment to welfare. Will she reiterate to the minority of people who still seem to think that it is pleasurable to kill foxes that that is totally illegal and inappropriate?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more. I was not a Member of this House during the last Labour Government, but as a proud Labour member, I am proud that that Government banned foxhunting. I reiterate what my hon. Friend says: those who engage in this illegal practice should face the full force of the law.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her comments.
Let me mention something that we would like the animal welfare strategy to focus on. The Veterinary Surgeons Act was passed in 1966, and a lot has changed since then. More than 60% of veterinary practices are now owned by corporates; they used to be owned by individual veterinary surgeons. Medical care for animals is now provided by a whole range of para-professionals, including equine dental technicians, cattle hoof trimmers and animal physiotherapists, who are all unregulated. We also have very highly trained veterinary nurses, but the title of veterinary nurse is not protected.
I urge the Government to make updating the Veterinary Surgeons Act a centrepiece of their animal welfare strategy. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the veterinary profession are calling for that. It would be good for owners, good for animals, and good for the veterinary profession, so I urge the Government to make that a key component of the strategy.
I am really excited about the fact that now that I am an MP, I will not be on call for Christmas, as I have been many times. I remind everyone not to feed their dogs mince pies and chocolate, and not to let them get hold of onion gravy, as that is what keeps us really, really busy at Christmas.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the whole House, for what he has just said, and for his service, before he became a Member and since. This is a really important area, and we absolutely appreciate that the Veterinary Surgeons Act needs updating. I can reassure him that we are continuing to pursue opportunities to do that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
All I want for Christmas is a generational boost to animal welfare. That does not have the same ring to it as what the queen of Christmas sang, but given the widespread public support for animal welfare, maybe we could give her a run for her money with that one. Our British farmers lead the way globally on high standards of farmed animal welfare, and they deserve great credit for that. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the animal welfare strategy will continue that trend, and will work with farmers and their representatives, so that they can reap the rewards, and so that domestic production is safeguarded as we move towards higher standards?
Emma Reynolds
I can confirm that. As I said earlier, measures are already in place to provide funding to farmers to help them improve animal welfare standards. Those measures include veterinary visits to help them continue to improve their animal welfare standards.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We have some of the best animal welfare standards for farm animals in the world. Of course, we can do much by regulation, but the best way to protect farm animals is to have contented and prosperous family farmers who love their animals and care for them. When I arrived in the House, farmers used to talk in glowing terms about Tom Williams, the Labour Minister for agriculture in the Attlee Government, who started 80 years of prosperity for our farmers. I beg the Secretary of State and the Minister, if they are really concerned about animal welfare and the welfare of our farmers, to drop the absurd family farm tax.
Emma Reynolds
I say politely to the right hon. Gentleman that the time to raise those issues was earlier today.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone across the House. I reiterate what colleagues from across the Chamber have said about the importance of reforming the Veterinary Surgeons Act. It is 60 years old and has not kept pace with modern medicine, new technology or the way that veterinary practices are run. Will my right hon. Friend set out how the animal welfare strategy will tackle the extraordinary increase in veterinary fees, which is a massive cost of living issue? Finally, I thank veterinary surgeons across the UK, particularly those at Glasgow University’s veterinary hospital, who I had cause to see rather more frequently than I would have liked this year.
Emma Reynolds
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think you have much in common with my hon. Friend. I thank her for her doughty campaigning on this issue. The work we are doing on the Veterinary Surgeons Act is separate from the animal welfare strategy, but as we have discussed privately, that work is ongoing.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I feel I should declare an interest, Mr Speaker, in that Mrs Carmichael will be one of those veterinary surgeons who will be on call on Christmas Day this year. It will be me in the kitchen, yet again. [Interruption.] That’s fine; it keeps the turkeys safe, at least. Just 10 days ago, Baroness Hayman told us that we would get the strategy before Christmas. Publishing it next week is, I suppose, strictly within the letter of that, but it is not quite within the spirit. The Department seems to be struggling a bit with its strategies at the moment. Our Select Committee had an excellent session with the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), but as soon as she was out the door, no fewer than four fisheries management strategies landed in my inbox. As a new year’s resolution, will the Secretary of State look at how these things are handled, so that this House can scrutinise future strategies?
Emma Reynolds
May I start by thanking the right hon. Gentleman’s wife for her service over the Christmas period? I am glad to hear that, by the sound of it, he will be spending a lot of time in his kitchen. We promised that we would publish the strategy before Christmas, and we will do precisely that, but obviously we would like to discuss the strategy with colleagues from across the House when it has been published.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the update and for engaging with the various animal welfare charities. I am particularly interested in the farmed animals section, given that we have millions of farmed animals in this country. Farmers, I find, are so often the best conservationists, and they want to do even more. Can the Secretary of State confirm that British farmers will continue to lead the world with strong animal welfare standards, and will she consider what more support can be provided to help them do so and to get the message out to consumers so that they can make more informed choices?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for his constituency and does great work locally. We do indeed have a good reputation for animal welfare around the world. I was in Brussels recently meeting my counterparts at the European Commission, and they were very interested in what we are doing here in the UK. Obviously they are doing different things in Europe, but it is always interesting to share notes.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I have two questions—one practical and one policy. Let us make no mistake: the Government have been dragged here today to answer an urgent question about their welfare strategy, which they are bringing forward next week but which we cannot scrutinise because Parliament goes into recess today. Why is that the case? On policy, I have written a number of times about animal welfare in the rescue and rehoming sector. I hope that that is included in the strategy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is being looked at and whether further regulations are needed?
Emma Reynolds
I am sure that there will be opportunities in the new year to have a discussion about the animal welfare strategy. I will be able to confirm the answer to the hon. Member’s question when the strategy comes out.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
My constituent Bryan Griffiths tells me that trail hunting in Warwickshire is often a smokescreen for illegal hunting, with devastating consequences for livestock. When will the Government start the consultation on the future of trail hunting?
Emma Reynolds
In the new year, we will issue a consultation on banning trail hunting, as we committed to do in our manifesto. My hon. Friend is right in the things she says about it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Since we cannot scrutinise the strategy today, may I ask what action is included in it to phase out animal testing in scientific laboratories?
Emma Reynolds
As the hon. Member will probably know, that is a joint responsibility with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which leads on it. We are working closely with DSIT. It released a strategy recently that ensures we can use alternatives more quickly to phase out animal testing. I would be happy to discuss it with him, but it is led by DSIT rather than DEFRA. It is seen as an animal welfare issue, but it sits with DSIT.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I hope that you, Mr Speaker, like me and my family have already got your turkey ordered from the local butcher for Christmas. Like many of my constituents, I really care about animal welfare, so I look forward to the strategy being published next week. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that there is really clear labelling and communication, so that we can all be confident when we go and buy our Christmas turkey of the welfare of the animal we are eating?
Emma Reynolds
I have ordered my meat from my local butcher already. It is a bit late in the day, but I thank my hon. Friend for the reminder to those who may not have done so already. We want to make sure that there is transparency, and we are working on labelling. It will not be part of this strategy, but we are looking at it separately.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
We are indeed a nation of animal lovers, yet every year 200,000 sows are kept in farrowing crates where they cannot even turn around, while millions of hens are kept in tiny spaces no bigger than an A4 piece of paper. Those are cruel, cramped conditions that cause a short life of pain and suffering. Following the recent cross-party letter that I initiated, will the Secretary of State confirm that the animal welfare strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages and, importantly, support for farmers through this transition so that people can have confidence in so-called welfare-assured systems?
Emma Reynolds
I know that the hon. Member is active on the issue of farrowing crates. Some 50% of the sow herd give birth outside, but we are looking at what more we can do to deal with the rest that do not; that is a priority for the Government.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My wife, who is a radiographer, is on call on Christmas day, but luckily we are going to the in-laws, so hopefully that will cover it.
Mr Francois
They’re not going to risk that!
Mr Speaker, we know you are an animal lover—the world knows that—but some may recall that our great friend, Sir David, was a passionate animal lover, too. One cause that was very close to his heart was pig farrowing crates. Another was banning the import of foreign hunting trophies, which is an awful trade. There was a private Member’s Bill in the last Session that sailed through the Commons but ran into trouble in the Lords. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are committed to banning the import of hunting trophies? At the moment, they are not providing any private Member’s Bill Fridays for other reasons, so how will that ban be achieved?
Emma Reynolds
I found Sir David Amess to be a really good and generous friend; I went on a number of parliamentary visits with him, and I thank the right hon. Member for what he said about Sir David.
We are committed to banning hunting trophies. It is a conservation issue, so it will not be in the animal welfare strategy, but we will be taking measures forward separately.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
South Norfolk’s farmers produce some of the highest quality pork and poultry products in the world because they are so proud of the high animal welfare standards they have. May I urge the Minister to work closely with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we protect our farms from lower standards across the seas, which we have been doing brilliantly in these first 18 months?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we are doing—we are protecting the high standards we have here in the UK in the trade deals that we are doing with other countries around the world.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Australia and New Zealand trade deals signed by Boris Johnson’s Conservative Government undercut the standards that are demanded of British farmers, including on animal welfare. Will the Government seek to renegotiate the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and will they ban the import of food produced with antibiotic growth promoters?
Emma Reynolds
I know that one of my Conservative predecessors, Michael Gove, has been very critical of the trade deals done by the last Government with Australia and New Zealand, but the hon. Member will appreciate that it is very difficult to unpick trade deals once they are in place.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff of the House. There is no such thing as cruelty-free fur, as the last Labour Government recognised when they banned the fur farming industry in the UK. That case has been made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and organisations like Respect for Animals. Beyond the animal welfare strategy, and when the Animal Welfare Committee reports, will full and favourable consideration be given to finally banning the fruits of this vile trade by ending the import of real fur products?
Emma Reynolds
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking at this issue, and there will be further details in the strategy.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. May I thank you for signing the Christmas card of my young constituent, who was the winner of our Christmas card competition? When I gave it back to her, she was thrilled.
I had the pleasure of visiting the Lush store in Bath. Lush has been a leading advocate for ending animal testing, championing cruelty-free science and cosmetics, and investing in innovative and humane alternatives. The Secretary of State has partly answered the question on the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, but of course it will be closely linked to the animal welfare strategy. Will she commit to any strategy that is published being backed up by primary legislation, with legally binding targets and timelines for ending animal testing and cruelty?
Emma Reynolds
As I said in response to a previous question, this is a DSIT lead, not a DEFRA lead. We do work closely with DSIT, and as a Labour Government, we are committed to phasing out animal testing as quickly as possible, but obviously we need alternatives to be in place to do so.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and all colleagues across the House. Before my election to this place, I spent five years in the shadow DEFRA team, working with my old boss, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones). We had the animal welfare brief and spent many months and years on these issues, so I welcome the strategy almost finally arriving.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire, we have wonderful farmers who work to the highest standards—British standards. While it would have been helpful to read the strategy today, can my right hon. Friend assure me and farmers back home that our strategy will support rather than hinder, be rooted in the highest of standards, and be rolled out properly, speedily and proactively?
Emma Reynolds
The short answer to my hon. Friend—I am sure you will appreciate this, Mr Speaker—is yes.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The top animal welfare issue raised with me by my constituents is the impact of fireworks—particularly ad hoc and unannounced displays—on pets and their owners. Please will the Secretary of State reassure me and others across the House, who I am sure are concerned about that issue as well, that the strategy will finally tackle it and provide much-needed relief to pets and their owners?
Emma Reynolds
That is raised with me in my constituency too. It is a tricky issue, however, because there are lots of people across the country who, at different religious festivals and obviously on Guy Fawkes day, enjoy fireworks. It is about getting the balance right.
Independent Farm Profitability Review
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
A strong domestic farming sector is, and always will be, a linchpin for national security. As Secretary of State, I will always champion British farming and rural communities. I have visited farms up and down the country, and in all these interactions, I have seen the ingenuity, determination and pride that defines our British farming communities. Whether the farming is arable, livestock, horticulture or mixed enterprise, the message I hear consistently is that to become profitable, productive and resilient, farmers need clarity and certainty from the Government. That is exactly what I intend to deliver.
Today, I am publishing Baroness Batters’ independent farming profitability review. The Government commissioned this review to examine how we can support farm businesses to become more profitable. Doing so is essential for our country’s economic growth and food security, enabling a stronger, more productive domestic farming sector that also helps keep high-quality British food on shelves for consumers who want to buy British.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Baroness Batters for her exemplary efforts in leading this review. Drawing on her years of experience and deep understanding of working farms, alongside months of research and stakeholder engagement, she has produced a breadth of work that will help in the development of our long-term 25-year road map for the sector.
The review makes 57 recommendations and highlights the sector’s potential to stand at the heart of Britain’s economic renewal. It calls for stronger partnership between the Government and industry, better data to drive productivity, smarter regulation, and more targeted innovation themes, which are central to this Government’s plan for change and essential to my vision to grow the rural economy.
One theme stands out very strongly from the review, and that is the need for agriculture, the food industry and the Government to work in partnership. I could not agree more. That is why, today, I am establishing a new farming and food partnership board, which I will chair, alongside the farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), as deputy. It will be about serious action and a strong voice at the centre of the Government bringing together senior leaders in farming, food, retail, and finance.
The new board will help shape decisions, remove barriers to investment and tackle the challenges the sector faces. This is a key element of our cross-Government food strategy.
Importantly, the board will not take a one-size-fits-all approach. It will focus on specific agricultural sectors, tailoring growth in sectors like horticulture and in poultry, where there is significant untapped potential to increase homegrown production. I want to unlock the untapped opportunities in specific parts of the food chain and deliver specific sector plans.
I want to give farmers confidence to grow and invest. Most farmers are small and medium sized business owners, as well as custodians of the land, and they want to sell their produce for the best price and have a long and sustainable future. Helping them do so strengthens the whole food chain—supporting households with reliable, affordable access to British produce at a time when the cost of living remains a concern for many families.
Alongside the launch of the board, the Government are today setting out immediate actions to back farm businesses:
This week, the Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), and I took action to cut wasteful bureaucracy, and are changing planning rules to make food production a priority for councils. This will mean the system is more supportive of the infrastructure farmers need. That is a win for getting more on-farm reservoirs, greenhouses, polytunnels and farm shops built quicker.
We are tackling barriers to private finance, bringing together farmers, agrifood businesses and major financial institutions to attract investment into farm transformation and productivity and nature.
We are stepping up action on supply chain fairness, including continued scrutiny of unfair practices and consideration of changes to Groceries Code Adjudicator oversight.
The Government can and must create opportunities for farmers beyond our own shores. We are creating opportunities overseas through our trade deals for our world-class food and drink, from British beef in the US to a whole range of produce in India.
But we can go further. Our global network of agriculture attachés has unlocked an estimated £100 million in export deals this year alone, and there is more potential out there. I am going further and setting up dedicated trade missions for British agriculture, so that farmers and growers can get their products to new markets overseas.
This is just the start. Our 25-year farming road map will give farmers clarity and confidence for the future. We are doing more than ever—cutting bureaucracy, driving investment, opening global markets—because British farming matters not just for rural communities, but for every household that values affordable, homegrown British food.
Today’s announcements form a core part of the Government’s overall food strategy, focused on backing British farming, strengthening food security and supporting profitable, resilient farm businesses for the long term.
In addition to the Government’s initial response set out here, we will carefully consider all of Baroness Batters’ recommendations as we continue to develop our 25-year farming road map which will be published in 2026.
[HCWS1204]
Environmental Improvement Plan 2025
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Today I am laying the environmental improvement plan 2025 in Parliament. This sets out a road map for improving the natural environment. It explains how this Government will protect and restore our iconic places and wildlife, boost biodiversity, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature. It is a prioritised, systems-based plan that is clear on what, how and who will deliver our environmental ambitions.
The EIP underlines our commitment to delivering the statutory Environment Act 2021 targets. It includes updated interim targets for the next five years that are ambitious and achievable. They span air quality, water, terrestrial and marine biodiversity, and resource efficiency and waste reduction.
To be transparent on the actions required to achieve each target, for the first time we are publishing Environment Act target delivery plans alongside the EIP. The EIP and the delivery plans will be delivered in collaboration with partners including Government Departments and bodies, local authorities, landowners, farmers, private companies, third sector organisations and community groups. These delivery plans will be refined over time as we work collaboratively to support, deliver and monitor the impacts of actions.
Laying the EIP in Parliament and publishing it concludes the statutory review of EIP23. In producing this plan, we have reviewed and improved upon EIP23. In particular, our revised plan:
prioritises actions, moving to a clear framework that sets out how objectives and actions “stack up” to contribute to our environmental outcomes;
sets out who is responsible for delivering actions, across Government and wider society;
provides delivery plans for the Environment Act targets, alongside the EIP;
and includes a clearer framework for monitoring and evaluating progress to improve transparency.
The EIP includes a summary of the EIP review and how this revision responds to it.
This Government have already made significant progress in protecting nature. The EIP will drive forward this momentum and sets out how the Government will, for example:
Restore nature, with stronger interim targets to restore or create a total of 250,000 hectares of a range of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by December 2030, in line with the Government manifesto. Action will be backed by £500 million for landscape recovery alongside funding for tree planting and peatland restoration. This follows announcement of two new national forests backed by £1 billion investment.
Reduce harmful pollutants in the air with revised interim targets to reduce exposure to PM2.5 particles by nearly a third by 2030 compared to 2018 levels. We will consult on new measures to cut emissions from domestic combustion.
Tackle forever chemicals that can harm people and pollute air, land and water. A new PFAS plan will set out how sources, pathways and exposure to forever chemicals will be addressed.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure resilience of the natural environment to climate change with at least £85 million invested in improving and restoring our peatlands and £1 billion in tree planting.
Take tougher measures on waste crime with stronger penalties to ensure that only the right people transport and manage waste and a digital waste tracking service to modernise record keeping, to tackle waste fraud.
Improve access to nature by completing the King Charles III England coast path next year and publishing a Green Paper on measures to ensure everyone has access to nature close to home.
Our revised plan provides the clarity and detail needed to manage competing pressures on our limited land and water, integrating environmental action with our plan for change to grow the economy, build homes, boost food security and meet climate targets.
Achieving our environmental ambitions requires collective action from individuals, communities, and organisations across all sectors. We look forward to working in partnership to achieve them.
[HCWS1106]
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
I am a Buckinghamshire Member, Mr Speaker, but there we go.
The Government are delivering our manifesto commitments to improve access to nature and deliver three national forests. We recently announced that the second national forest will be in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. Milton Keynes is the beating economic heart of that corridor, and we will deliver economic opportunities and even better access to nature side by side in my hon. Friend’s great city.
Chris Curtis
I welcome the comments about Milton Keynes, the largest economy in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, and we are very excited about the upcoming forest. The Wetland Arc, led by the Parks Trust, is another exciting project that spans the Great Ouse valley in my constituency. It will bring significant benefits for both people and nature, improving biodiversity, strengthening flood resilience and creating new opportunities for recreation and wellbeing across the area. We recently got some funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to start the project. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government will continue to support strategic initiatives such as this across the country to deliver environmental protection, enhance community wellbeing and expand opportunities for everyone to enjoy and engage with nature?
Emma Reynolds
I commend my hon. Friend for championing the Wetland Arc project in his constituency. Wetlands enhance water quality and biodiversity, and provide effective natural flood defences. As he suggests, we will continue to support initiatives such as these, and I would be delighted to visit his constituency, should he so wish, because it is very near mine.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Over the summer, the renovation of the Centurion Way was extended, and the cycle path now goes all the way from Chichester to West Dean in my constituency. Mr Speaker, you would be more than welcome to come to join me on a bike to cycle the new length. The restoration of this once crucial transport link provides residents and tourists with access to the beautiful Sussex countryside and the South Downs national park. Does the Secretary of State agree that such projects are vital to improving the UK’s health and happiness? What are the Government doing to help local authorities that wish to renovate disused railway lines and improve cycle paths and footpaths?
Emma Reynolds
I am a keen cyclist myself, so I might visit the hon. Lady as well. As we set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to improving access to nature, and I look forward to working with her to do so.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that farmers play a key role in enhancing nature and access to it, but that farmers can do so only when it is financially viable and their businesses have certainty from the Government. Yet with the sustainable farming incentive chopped, de-linked payments slashed, capital grants cut, the family farm tax looming and a profitability review completed but deliberately held back from the public until well after the Budget, this Government have created a food and farming emergency, and when our farmers suffer, so does nature. What real, tangible reassurance can the Secretary of State give our farmers right now so that they can stay afloat, produce food, and deliver for nature and the environment?
Emma Reynolds
I am delighted to be at these questions for the first time, but I must say that the Conservatives have some brass neck. Under their Government, they could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget. We have got more Government money into the hands of farmers than ever before, and a record number of farmers are involved in environmental land management schemes. We have a proud record of supporting our farmers; the Conservatives sold them down the river on trade deals.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
The Government will publish a White Paper later this year outlining our vision for the future of the water sector, making the most fundamental reform of our water system in a generation. We are determined to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas to deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Sally Jameson
My constituents know the trouble the water industry is in. I have previously raised in this House the matter of bonuses of being given to Yorkshire Water executives in exchange for poor service. What will the Government do to fix the broken regulatory system so that the failures of the past do not happen again?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. We recognise the scale of the challenge facing our water system and are taking decisive action to reset the sector. We will create a single powerful water regulator, abolishing Ofwat and ending the fragmentation that led to the abuses of the past. As my hon. Friend refers to, we have already banned polluting water bosses from taking bonuses, which we did early in our time in government with the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.
Alan Strickland
It is crucial that the Government have the powers to crack down on polluting companies, but the Environment Agency’s budget was cut by half by the previous Conservative Government. What will this Government do to make it quicker and easier to fine the companies polluting our rivers with raw sewage?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under this Labour Government, there is nowhere to hide for polluting water companies. We have overseen record fines on water companies and are introducing automatic penalties—like speeding tickets—to ensure that those companies are held to account for every level of offence.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My constituents are fed up. They are fed up of paying rising bills and adhering to hosepipe bans, and of being told to be mindful of how they use their water while leaks go unfixed and water shortages remain. This autumn, people in Mid Sussex came within three weeks of standpipes being needed, despite paying more and more on their bills. Against this torrent of failure, my constituents want to know how the Government plan to create a water industry that can provide for a growing population, rather than lurching from crisis to crisis.
Emma Reynolds
I share the public’s frustration with what has happened in recent years, but I reassure her that we will take decisive action. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act, but we will also be issuing a White Paper later this year and will legislate to ensure that we have better regulation, a better regulator and a better water system for her constituents and those around the country.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In West Dorset, overloaded sewers and outdated infrastructure cause repeated sewage spills. Rainwater enters combined systems, overwhelming capacity and causing them to overflow. The Independent Water Commission recommended pre-pipe solutions to reduce storm overflows. Will the Secretary of State introduce a national rainwater management strategy and require rainwater harvesting on all new homes and renovations?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I look forward to working with him on this issue. We will look at pre-pipe solutions in the forthcoming White Paper, which I look forward to discussing with him when we publish it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Under the previous Government, water bosses awarded themselves over £112 million in bonuses. Thanks to this Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, water company bosses who pollute our waterways have been blocked from receiving millions of pounds in unfair bonuses for the past financial year.
Mr Alaba
After 14 years of water bosses profiting while sewage has spilled into our waterways, this Government are finally setting the record straight. In Southend East and Rochford, we have several organisations dedicated to protecting and preserving our coastlines, from Southend Against Sewage to Waterwatch. Southend has not one but two Labour MPs and a Government who are taking decisive action, so I am reassured that the future of our waterways is in safe hands. Will the Secretary of State update the House on progress on the forthcoming water Bill, and will she meet me to discuss how upcoming legislation could address the regulation of wet wipes and their environmental impact?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his doughty campaigning on this issue. We are already taking forward secondary legislation to ban plastic wet wipes, which are a major source of pollution in our waterways. As I have said previously, this Government are taking decisive action to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. We will publish a White Paper later this year, putting forward proposals for fundamental reform of our water system, so that it delivers better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
I am delighted to lead the first all-woman ministerial team in a UK Department of State. My focus as the new Secretary of State is delivering the Government’s No. 1 mission of economic growth, while restoring our natural environment. I have four big priorities: cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas; backing British farmers and our food industry; restoring nature; and delivering a sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU.
Pam Cox
Today I am hosting pupils from Colchester academy in Greenstead in my constituency. They and their families want a clean River Colne. Will the Secretary of State set out what the Government are doing to hold Anglian Water to account, and whether she is seeing an improvement in its performance?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on these issues. We have already banned bonuses in six water companies, including Anglian Water, as she will know, for not meeting our high standards. That is a powerful incentive for companies to deliver immediate improvements and rebuild public trust. Together, I hope that we can rebuild public trust in our water system for generations to come.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Lady and the Minister with responsibility for farming to their new roles. We Conservative Members genuinely wish them well in this food and farming emergency. The seriousness of that emergency was made clear to me last night by the agricultural chaplain of Suffolk. He told me about the devastating impact that he sees the family farm tax having: the father of two small children who took his life because of fears about the tax, the 92-year-old grandmother who has told her family calmly that she will not be here in April because she wants to beat the tax deadline, and the teenager who walked in to find his father’s body. The chaplain said to me, “This tax will live with that poor boy for the rest of his life.” All that has happened since the Secretary of State took office, and it is happening across the country. Why does she support this tax?
Emma Reynolds
This is a highly sensitive issue. The reasons for somebody taking their life are often very complex, and my heart goes out to every family devastated by these events. I am not willing to make political points on this issue.
Victoria Atkins
I am not making political points; I am telling the right hon. Lady the reality of her policy. Farmers will have heard no answer, no reason and no understanding. It is shameful. With 13 days to go until the Budget, let me point out that there are enormous economic costs, too. Millions of advisers, businesses and constituents, the 10 largest supermarket chains, multiple food manufacturers, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee think that this is a bad tax, badly done. The Conservatives will axe this tax. Given that the Secretary of State has admitted this week that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have “made mistakes” this year, will she finally admit that the family farm and family business taxes are some of those mistakes?
Emma Reynolds
I live in a rural area, represent a semi-rural seat, and have 89 farms in my constituency. I understand the pressures that farmers are under, but the catastrophic mistake made by the previous Government was that they could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget. We have put more Government money in the hands of more farmers than ever before, and we have put a record number of farmers in the environmental land management schemes. We will soon publish the Batters review on farm profitability. We are not keeping that review under wraps, by the way; the House will soon hear more about it. The Conservatives did nothing on the issue when they were in power. We have appointed the nation’s first tenant farming commissioner, and we will set out a 25-year road map for farming next year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Emma Reynolds
Like the hon. Member, I am appalled by this plastic pollution incident, which affects his constituency, nearby constituencies and Camber Sands. We are holding Southern Water to account. There needs to be a thorough investigation of what happened, and as has been said by the Minister with responsibility for water and flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) —she has been in touch with both the water company and the Environment Agency—the immediate priority is to address the damage caused, but we need to ask questions about why this was not uncovered earlier. The water Minister or I would be happy to meet him.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Given the Government’s focus on strengthening skills in the agritech food sector, will the Secretary of State join me in visiting Harper Adams University’s new Telford facility at the Quad to see how the industry and higher and further education facilities, including Telford College, are working together to develop and diversify the skills pipeline in the sector?
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
If the Government are serious about engaging with alternatives to the deal that we voted on last night and serious about listening, why will they not grant a series of indicative votes, as recommended by the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I serve and which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), to determine the will of the House?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Depending on how the House votes today, we may have an opportunity to vote on that proposition tomorrow. It is important is that we find consensus as quickly as we possibly can.
Draft Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. These are the two affirmative statutory instruments in my portfolio that extend and apply solely to Northern Ireland. These regulations relate only to Northern Ireland and concern devolved areas of policy, which would normally be dealt with by the devolved Administration at Stormont. Another Committee of the House will debate regulations on habitats applicable to other parts of the UK later this week, and the second of the two regulations to which I am speaking has already been considered and passed by Parliament in regard to England and Wales.
Because there is already a well-established body of separate Northern Ireland legislation in these two areas, having separate SIs will help to preserve the coherence of the Northern Ireland statute book. The UK Parliament is being asked to consider and pass these SIs in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That said, I am delighted—the Committee will not be surprised to know—that the civil service continues to operate fully in Northern Ireland and officials there have prepared these statutory instruments. I requested that we be joined by officials from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, to help answer any questions that members of the Committee may have.
These two sets of regulations are made under section 8 and paragraph 21(b) of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Act retains EU-derived legislation in UK law. Section 8 of the Act enables regulations to be made to address deficiencies in EU-derived legislation, so that the law continues to be operable.
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that legislation protecting biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and species will continue to function after exit from the EU. The regulations make technical amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable. The amendments represent no changes of policy, nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public.
Part 2 amends the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, to ensure that species of wild birds found in or regularly visiting the UK, but not elsewhere in the EU, continue to be protected. Part 2 also includes a technical amendment to the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. The change will ensure the operability of two powers within the order, to give effect to retained EU obligations.
Part 3 is the main focus of the regulation and amends the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995. The 1995 regulations, together with the Wildlife (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, transposed the requirements of the habitats directive and the wild birds directive into Northern Ireland law. Various terms in the regulations or the directives that relate to the EU are amended to be relevant to the UK. For example, the instrument removes references to the UK as an EU member state. The instrument introduces five main changes, mainly involving a transfer of functions from the European Commission to Ministers.
Sites designated in the United Kingdom under the nature directives are part of the EU’s Natura 2000 network. Those sites are the EU’s contribution to the Emerald network, established by the Council of Europe to fulfil the Bern convention. Those sites will now form a national site network and will continue to fulfil the UK’s international biodiversity obligations. Any such area that is currently part of the Natura 2000 network will continue automatically to be part of the Emerald network on leaving the European Union.
New regulations set out by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs make it its responsibility to manage and, where necessary, adapt the national site network in co-operation with other authorities. The network’s management objectives look to secure compliance with the aims of the habitats directive and the wild birds directive as retained EU law.
On the designation of special areas of conservation, functions currently undertaken by the European Commission are being transferred to DAERA, which will assess any new special areas of conservation designation proposals, acting on advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee using existing criteria.
Regarding IROPI, which stands for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, this instrument transfers the role of the European Commission in being able to offer an opinion to local decision makers such as local planning authorities to DAERA. The opinion concerns whether imperative reasons of overriding public interest may apply in the granting of a planning application for a proposal that might adversely affect priority habitats where there is no feasible alternative. In doing so, DAERA would need to take account of the national interest and consult widely, including the UK Government, other devolved Administrations and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I should point out that it is my understanding that IROPI has never been deployed in relation to priority features regarding planning proposals anywhere in the UK, such that no final dossier has been submitted to the European Commission for an opinion.
Turning to amendments to annexes and schedules, a new instrument-making power allows DAERA to make amendments to the annexes and schedules as required to reflect technical and scientific progress. DAERA will set out in guidance the means by which expert input is sought, including from statutory advisers, before making any amendment to the schedules and annexes. To ensure transparency and accountability of environmental performance, in line with current requirements, DAERA will report publicly on the implementation of the regulations within six years of the date of exit and every six years thereafter.
The second set of regulations we are considering, namely the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively with regard to Northern Ireland environmental legislation, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Legislation amended by the regulations covers a wide range of environmental law in Northern Ireland, including the management of waste, producer responsibility, permitting and licensing, noise, environmental liability, air quality and genetically modified organisms.
The regulations amend six pieces of Northern Ireland primary legislation and two sets of regulations. Part 2 of the regulations makes amendments to the following Northern Ireland primary legislation: the Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991; the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Northern Ireland) Order 1998; the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 and the Environmental Better Regulation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016.
Part 3 of the regulations sets out amendments to the Environmental Noise Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and the Liability (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009. Part 4 of the regulations makes savings in respect of the amendments made to the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 by this instrument.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I have a question of clarification: in the explanatory memorandum to the Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) regulations that we are discussing, in section 7.2 it says:
“With EU exit day less than one year away”.
As I understand it, the Government are insisting that we will still leave the EU at the end of this month. I just wondered why that wording was used; is there something the Minister knows that we do not? Also, although I understand she is a hard-working Minister and someone I have always had great respect for, how many other SIs does her Department need to get through before the end of March, and will it have a functioning statute book by the time we leave?
Dr Coffey
The 29 March is within a year. I think this SI was written prior to Christmas, and deliberately written to give that sense. I think it is standard wording that is being used across every Northern Ireland statutory instrument being taken through the UK Parliament, so we have not changed the wording in that regard.
I do not have the answer to the hon. Lady’s second question; she may wish to speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) who is in charge of statutory instruments for DEFRA. In terms of statutory instruments for which I am responsible, our last SI together, which might be not quite my last opportunity to debate with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, is a week tomorrow. I am confident from my side, but as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East would expect, we will ensure that the legislation is in place.
In summary, the draft regulations are technical in nature and amend various aspects of environmental legislation, focusing primarily on references to EU law, to Commission processes and to the UK being a member state of the European Union, which will no longer be the case. If we do not address those deficiencies, the result could be legal uncertainty for regulators, stakeholders and the Government, ambiguity about environmental obligations, and difficulty with enforcement for regulators. There are no policy changes and no reduction in the environmental standards or obligations to which Northern Ireland is currently subject. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, I think for the first time. May I place on the record Opposition Members’ regret that the former DEFRA Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), resigned from the Government? He was a good Minister and we enjoyed many Committee sittings debating with each other. I know that he will offer a formidable Back-Bench critique to whoever replaces him on the Front Bench.
The Opposition will not oppose either of the statutory instruments we are considering, because we believe that our environment faces a climate crisis and that we must be able to protect it properly after the UK leaves the European Union. However, as with the other DEFRA statutory instruments we have considered, we have serious concerns about the scale and pace at which these SIs are being considered and the potential lack of proper scrutiny.
On environmental protections and governance in Northern Ireland, the Opposition are increasingly concerned that, due to the lack of an Executive, Northern Ireland not only faces unique challenges because it shares a border with an EU country but is not sufficiently well equipped to stop it lagging behind the rest of the EU on the environment in the future. I appreciate the Minister setting out the case for the two SIs. In the absence of an Assembly in Northern Ireland, it is important that Westminster scrutinises them, but we have particular concerns about several elements of them.
According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, humans have wiped out 60% of animal populations since the 1970s. Now, more than ever, is the time to strengthen our conservation efforts. The Government must be careful not to dilute any current environmental protections with these or any other SIs. We have a number of questions about that. I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on those and provided reassurance that there is no reduction in protections for our environment in the two SIs we are considering.
Both SIs seem uncontentious—they seem to effect a very simple transposition of regulations on to the UK statute book—but the Opposition are concerned that there is stakeholder fatigue among those people who would normally provide the expert advice that enables us properly to review SIs on the basis of an informed legal framework, especially at the pace we are going through them, to ensure there are no errors or problems with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East pointed out potential errors in the explanatory memorandum, or areas in which it may be seen as obscure. What else might have slipped through?
Emma Reynolds
Does my hon. Friend agree that this situation was totally avoidable? If the Government had gone ahead and started to put these SIs through Parliament earlier last year, we would have had more time for scrutiny.
Luke Pollard
I entirely agree. There is speed and pace to our considerations. In previous SI Committees, we have spoken about the importance of strong and robust pre-legislative scrutiny for such SIs. I have asked the Minister previously whether the particular SIs we were considering were part of the Department’s online reading room, which was made available to some stakeholders. She has suggested that those reading rooms are not suitable for parliamentarians to undertake pre-lay scrutiny of SIs. I would be grateful if she set out what stakeholder feedback, if any, was received about these two SIs in particular. It is important that we have decent scrutiny of them.
The Minister will be familiar with my concern about the impact assessments of SIs because we have spoken about them in every single Delegated Legislation Committee that we have sat on together, and I am sure that will be a feature of the one that she mentioned in her opening remarks. The explanatory notes state that the two SIs will have
“no, or no significant, impact”.
I say again that “no impact” and “no significant impact” are two different things. Although we are coming to an end of the SIs that she and I are doing together, I remain concerned about that, given that no impact assessment has been carried out. Although these are very technical and, on the face of them, uncontentious SIs, I am still concerned that Ministers will potentially have a “get out of jail free” card if an impact is discovered in the future.
Species are declining and we must do more to protect our natural habitats. The special areas of conservation included in these SIs protect 78 types of habitat and 43 species that are native to the United Kingdom and Ireland or are normally resident here. Throughout Europe, such areas protect 189 habitat types and 788 species. Their importance cannot be overstated. It is therefore very important that we transfer those protections to UK statute after we leave the European Union.
The Opposition are worried that this draft SI will dilute the current designation process, as outlined in regulation 7(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, which state:
“Once a site of Community importance in Northern Ireland has been adopted…the Department shall designate that site as a special area of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most.”
This draft SI removes the provision and does not replace it with a similar time requirement. Will the Minister explain why the time limit for establishing special areas of conservation has been removed from the SI? It could be because all those areas have been designated, or the Department expects no new ones, but that clarity would be welcome. We cannot afford to lose protections and accountability for protecting those habitats.
Regulation 9 outlines the duty to designate special areas of conservation. Proposed new regulation 6(8)(a) states:
“in relation to the application of stage 1 of the Annex III criteria, have regard to the advice of the appropriate authority”.
Sub-paragraph (b) states:
“in relation to the application of stage 2 of the Annex III criteria, have regard to the advice of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.”
Will the Minister clarify what is meant by “have regard to”? How does it differ from “have the consent of” or “have consulted with” the JNCC? Those three phrases are very different and are contained in different elements of Northern Ireland environmental regulation.
Regulation 8 states that the Department shall publish reports
“in such form as it sees fit”.
That does not seem to match the current scrutiny outlined in article 17 of the habitats directive, which says:
“The report, in accordance with the format established by the committee, shall be forwarded to the Commission and made accessible to the public.”
I know, from having raised similar concerns relating to these points with the former Minister, that the format of reports was about reporting from the UK to the European Commission. I am concerned that the lack of definition of what the format should be could open the opportunity for reports not to be as full, and not to provide a paper trail, which would allow scrutiny by stakeholders and parliamentarians at a devolved or UK level. We have concerns that the regulation makes no provision for the reports to be reviewed or for any failings to be identified and addressed, as is currently required by the European Commission. The format of a report is about data collection, and it is also important that we ask about what happens to the report afterwards.
The Opposition are doubtful that the mere act of publishing the reports will be sufficient to match the current level of scrutiny. We suggest that this SI or a future one should include a requirement that reports are also reviewed and assessed. This draft SI revokes the agreed format for the reports to the European Commission. It merely requires that they are published in a way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, with no reference to format in the future. In our view, that is too open to interpretation by the current and future Secretaries of State, and by those preparing the reports. It is likely to lead to reduced quality and possibly less effective monitoring and security of important environmental commitments in the future.
Proposed new schedule 3A, on the prohibited means of killing mammals and fish, raises the most concern for the Opposition. Regulation 36 is being amended to remove paragraphs (3) to (5) and place them into proposed new schedule 3A. Those paragraphs deal with animal welfare and conservation protections that we categorically believe should not be rolled back. They outline prohibited means of taking or killing mammals and fish. We know of the recent penchant among those on the Government Benches for the killing of foxes and the inhumane cull of badgers and our concern is to prevent the rolling back of animal welfare or environmental protections, in relation to the killing of mammals or fish, as an inadvertent consequence of any changes.
The draft SI gives Ministers powers to amend the list of prohibited methods of taking or killing. The explanatory note states that the new powers will allow for future amendments for scientific or technical reasons, but those terms are undefined. I should be grateful if the Minister would make a commitment not to use the powers to roll back animal welfare standards as the Government please.
It is important to say that I appreciate that, as Northern Ireland does not currently have a functioning Assembly and Executive, the Minister cannot bind future Administrations in Stormont as to what they might do with the powers. However, we have concerns about the mere creation of the potential for change. In the absence of an Assembly, I should be grateful if the Minister would also explain what scrutiny, if any, the changes will be subject to. Will the process for amending the methods for taking and killing mammals and fish set out in new schedule 3A be subject to any public consultation?
I mentioned stakeholder fatigue earlier. In relation to the brief review of the SIs, some stakeholders are concerned that there is no specific requirement for expert input or even a duty to consult relevant statutory nature conservation advisers or take account of their advice. I should be grateful if the Minister would set out the type of consultation that she envisages as most likely in the event of the list of killing methods being changed. The issue is of particular concern with respect to those changes that can be made without an affirmative SI, with its scrutiny processes in this place.
I now want to talk about the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. I am concerned that we are rushing to pass such items before the 29 March deadline. I have previously raised a concern about how this bit of the SI jigsaw fits with other SIs—already passed, or yet to be passed—to provide a coherent picture. There are elements of Northern Ireland regulation, especially in the absence of a functioning Assembly—and, I believe, as I look around the Room, Members from Northern Ireland reviewing the measures—that concern me. I want to make sure that their implementation in Northern Ireland will fit with the implementation of other SIs that have been passed, and those that may be passed in future.
The example used by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, of EU exit day being less than a year away, raises concerns about what additional elements have been included in a generic form or held in a fridge in Whitehall waiting to be defrosted and warmed up again when the Government decide to put the SIs through Parliament. I appreciate what the Minister said about standard wordings but, as I have said in relation to impact assessments, standard wordings—such as the phrase
“no, or no significant, impact”—
still cause me concern. I am also concerned about standard wordings in some explanatory notes. I suggest to the Minister that it might be prudent at this point to have words with officials to make sure that any standard wordings do not raise such concerns as have been highlighted today.
The Opposition have no major issue with the draft regulations, but I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions about how they fit into the Government’s proposed regulatory environment, so that they can be implemented and can continue to protect the environment in Northern Ireland as currently happens. Given the lack of an Executive in Northern Ireland, can the Minister set out what plans there are for an environmental protection agency with responsibilities to ensure that there is sufficient oversight of these SIs as they are implemented, and whether the environmental protection agency as envisaged in the draft legislation that the Government are proposing would extend to Northern Ireland in the absence of an Assembly or an Executive in that respect?
I turn next to the question of how the protections that people in Northern Ireland have become accustomed to enjoying, due to Northern Ireland’s being part of the European Union, can be rolled over when there is no system necessarily to do so in the absence of a fully functioning Executive. The European Union has been acting as a stopgap, or backstop, to ensure that those protections are enforced; I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what conversations she has had with colleagues in Northern Ireland to ensure that there are no gaps and no concerns about what is happening in relation to that.
I have set out the Opposition’s case for wishing to scrutinise these two SIs. I say to the Minister and particularly to any Whips who might be sitting next to her that, when considering Northern Ireland SIs, it would be helpful if the Committee could at least include some hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I would feel uneasy if an SI Committee without any Plymouth MPs on it looked at regulations affecting Plymouth. That is a concern that I am sure colleagues on both sides of the Committee, without partisan interest, may feel about ensuring that regulations are drafted and implemented to ensure the fullest effect, especially because climate change is real, we know it is getting worse and we must ensure that the environmental protections that we as a House have put in place are not only effective, but implemented and scrutinised properly.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I have read that letter. It has been sent to every Member, and I would ask every Member to give it close attention. Our farming communities, like our country, were split over whether to leave. A majority of farmers voted to leave, recognising the opportunities that being outside the CAP would present, but I have yet to meet a single farmer who believes that a no-deal Brexit would be the right option for this country when the withdrawal agreement in front of us provides the opportunity for tariff-free and quota-free access for agricultural products to the EU.
I will say a bit more about the specific challenges of a no-deal Brexit. It is an intellectually consistent position, but it is important, even as we apprise it and pay respect to its advocates, that we also recognise the real turbulence that would be caused, at least in the short and medium term, to many of our farmers and food producers.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I find myself in agreement with the Secretary of State about the risks and dangers of a no-deal Brexit, but his claim that people will be better off flies in the face of the Government’s own economic analysis, which suggests that people will be poorer, the economy smaller and economic growth slower. How can he stand at the Dispatch Box and say something the Government have found to be otherwise?
Michael Gove
The report emphatically does not say that people will be poorer. It is important to pay proper respect to projections while also applying the appropriate analytical tools. Some of the economic projections for no deal and Brexit have proved to be unfounded. Projections have been wrong in the past and may well be wrong in the future, but it is the case—here I do agree with the hon. Lady—that, irrespective of projections for different paths, there are certain brute and unalterable facts about no deal, including the imposition of tariffs by the EU, that would create friction and costs, and that would mean, at least in the short term, economic turbulence for parts of the UK economy.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has been speaking for 50 minutes now and has just said he wants to talk to people to convince them to vote for the Government’s withdrawal agreement. Can we hear a little bit about that, please?
Michael Gove
I have in response to questions from a number of colleagues pointed out the many advantages that the withdrawal agreement secures.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). I, too, will vote against the deal next week, but probably for different reasons.
Earlier this week, more than 100 Back Benchers from across the political divide met the Prime Minister to stress the economic self-harm that would be inflicted by a no-deal Brexit—a point the Business Secretary made today and earlier this week. I was of course grateful for the Prime Minister’s time, but I sat there thinking, “Could things have turned out differently if this meeting had taken place two years ago?” If she had reached out to Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and others instead of spending all that time negotiating with her party and giving too much ground to the extreme Brexiteers, who always put ideology before people’s jobs and livelihoods, we might be in a very different place.
That, of course, would have involved compromise on all sides, not just in the Conservative party, and it certainly would not have pleased the right-wing Eurosceptics on the Tory Benches, but the Prime Minister might have brought on side Members from other parties. I believe, for example, that there is a majority in the House for continued membership of the customs union, because most Members understand the importance to our economy of having no delays at the UK-EU border and of just-in-time manufacturing. However, due to the Government’s lack of cross-party working, she faces pretty certain defeat next week.
It was totally irresponsible to delay the vote in December and run down the clock. The Government have wasted a month seeking reassurances on the Northern Ireland backstop that have yet to materialise, but they have done nothing to address the concerns of hon. Members from different parties about the economic impact of the deal.
Businesses tell us that the lack of certainty is already leading them to decide either to invest elsewhere or to hold off investing in the UK. The delay has also meant an eye-watering amount being spent on planning for no deal—an eventuality that the Prime Minister and most of her Cabinet in reality will not countenance. Just think of all the things we could have done with that money to improve people’s lives—preventing homelessness and rough sleeping; hiring extra doctors, nurses and teachers; and putting more police officers on our streets.
The Government like to lecture us about acting in the national interest, but I am afraid they have put party interest before the national interest at every turn. Now they are trying to blackmail us into voting for this deal or crashing out without a deal. I am sorry, but it will not wash. I cannot, in all conscience, vote for a deal that will make my constituents poorer and the economy smaller. I cannot remember a time in British history when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor recommended a course of action that they knew would make people worse off—and that is according to their own economic analysis.
There is a simple reason the Government’s deal does not please either those who voted remain, such as me, or those who voted leave, as we heard from the hon. Member for North Cornwall. On the one hand we lose sovereignty, control and our seat at the table; on the other, the deal is worse for our economy than the current arrangements. The Government made a huge mistake very early in the negotiations by laying down the red lines that we must leave the customs union and the single market. They simply have not levelled with the British public.
Exciting as they may sound, trade deals with countries around the world, even if negotiated quickly and in our favour—which is by no means certain; look at the President of the United States—would not make up for the trade that could be lost with the EU, our biggest trade partner. In trade, geography matters. As business has made clear, it is not just a no-deal Brexit that would be catastrophic. Anything short of staying in the customs union would threaten just-in-time manufacturing in, for instance, the aerospace and automotive industries, and the integrated supply chains that have built up over so many years.
The other huge failing of the Government is that they have not addressed the causes of Brexit. They have done nothing to bring our divided country back together. They have done nothing to address the sense of loss in many of the communities, including those in my constituency, that voted for change. They have done nothing to tackle the regional inequalities that drove the Brexit vote.
The Government have refused to come up with a plan B to be implemented if the deal fails to win a majority next week. However, talking to colleagues on both sides of the House, I sense that there is a cross-party mood in favour of finding a way forward, and coming together to find an alternative. I am not sure exactly what that is yet—[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but I think that much more cross-party work is going on between Back Benchers than anything the Government have done.
We must have a chance to consider all the options, which include going back to the people; the so-called Norway-plus arrangement, in which we would stay in the single market and the customs union; and an extension of article 50. If the Government will not come up with a plan B, it is incumbent on us to do so, because the prosperity of our constituents depends on it.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the stakes. This is a matter that engages all Members of Parliament. We all have a responsibility to our constituents now and for the future, and every one of us will need to make an individual decision that reflects that.
I want to mention a few colleagues, and I am sorry not to be able to do justice to all the contributions that have been made; there were more than 50 of them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said—wrongly, I think—that it was too late to engage across parties and across Parliament. If I have misrepresented her, I would be delighted to hear it; I was going to admonish her gently for saying that. If we believe, as I do, that this is the most important decision that this Parliament will take, it is never too late to establish that agreement.
Emma Reynolds
The right hon. Gentleman invites me to correct the record. I did not say that it was too late; I said that it would have been better to do so earlier. As I said at the end of my speech, I really hope that if the deal is voted down on Tuesday next week, the House will come together. Quite a lot of cross-party working is going on among Back Benchers—more, I am afraid, than is happening between the Government and the Opposition.
Greg Clark
I am delighted to know that, and I am delighted that that is the hon. Lady’s view. It is important that Front Benchers do likewise, and I was a bit disappointed that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles did not take up the invitation to participate in establishing what this House can support.
I think we all admire the optimism and enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), which he referred to. This is a matter that merits such optimism and enthusiasm. His contribution to the debate, looking at how energy can be applied to finding a solution, is much to be commended.
Let me reflect on the amendments that indicate the progress that can be made. It is important to reflect that the standards of workers’ rights we have in this country not only meet but often far exceed EU standards. The right hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out that the UK offers 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay, compared with the 14 weeks required under the relevant EU directive. We in this House have given fathers and partners a statutory right to paternity leave and pay—something the EU is only starting to consider. Less than a month ago, I said at the Dispatch Box that we were laying legislation to repeal the so-called Swedish derogation from a European directive, removing what many in this country see as a loophole that allows employment agencies to undercut agency workers’ wages.
Those sentiments and that approach are reflected in amendment (p), which was tabled by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues. It is in keeping with traditions on both sides of the House, and we very much agree with its spirit and intention. Today’s contributions show what can be done in this instance and may be a totem for what is possible more broadly. We stand ready to engage in discussions on the amendment. As ever, we need to look very carefully at its implications and drafting, but I am hopeful that it will be possible for us to accept it.
The amendment rightly mentions the environment. We have no intention of lowering our ambitious environmental protections after we leave the EU. We have a duty to continue the leadership we have exercised on that in Europe and across the world. It seems to me that we also have a responsibility, given that time is running out before 29 March, to take advantage of the availability of a means of preventing a damaging no-deal Brexit. It is difficult for investors around the world to understand why the most rudimentary trade terms available between any nations on earth should govern our relationship with the rest of the European Union.
I hope that the tenor of today’s debate continues in the days ahead. I say on behalf of my colleagues that hon. Members’ contributions will be listened to seriously, taken into account and acted upon, as I indicated in response to the amendment relevant to today’s discussions, so that, in the weeks ahead, the whole House can move towards a greater sense of compromise and resolution to implement the decision that the people of the United Kingdom took. At the same time, we must ensure that we can move our economy forward and strengthen our workers’ rights and environmental protections, recognising the House’s ambition to establish this country, now and in the future, as one of the most successful and admired in the world in terms of the economy, workers’ rights and the environment. I commend the motion to the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Amanda Milling.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow (Order, 9 January).
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend will have to await the final announcements that will be made this autumn. However, we have already had constructive discussions with Natural England and the Environment Agency, which has been very helpful in our quest for savings that will not involve compromising the front line. Reducing duplication between those organisations will obviously be one way of achieving that.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Given the recent suggestion that the Government will scrap the Commission for Rural Communities, the Sustainable Development Commission and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, how on earth can Ministers come to the House and claim that this will be the greenest Government ever, and how will the functions performed by those bodies be taken over?
Mrs Spelman
If the hon. Lady examines our structural reform plan closely, she will see that we have incorporated the important issues of environmental protection and sustainable development in the Department’s mainstream work. They are among its top three priorities.
The Commission for Rural Communities was established a long time ago. I am sure that the hon. Lady would acknowledge that there is a considerable depth of understanding of the issues of rural communities on this side of the House, and that DEFRA is the rural champion at the heart of Government.
Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(15 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Huhne
Let me be absolutely clear for the hon. Gentleman: this is a matter for the Department for Transport in due course, and my colleague the Secretary of State for Transport will come forward with plans. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he supported a Government who have just left office and who did not make clear those details. It is unreasonable at this point to ask for that level of detail from this Government.
The EU has the opportunity both to press for ambitious action internationally and to show the world its commitment to making the transition to a low-carbon economy. We will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020. We cannot expect poorer developing countries to cut their emissions if we do not take the lead.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion. I worked in the European Parliament when he was a Member of it. Will he use his powers of persuasion to persuade some of the Tory MEPs to act and to vote on climate change issues in that Parliament, given that the EU is a force for good on climate change? Without those MEPs voting for legislation on climate change, that will not be possible.
Chris Huhne
I certainly agree about the importance of the EU in tackling environmental issues and the climate change agenda. We would not have made as much progress as we have internationally on climate change had it not been for the efforts of the EU.
We also need to ensure that our energy supplies are secure—we will be putting energy security at the heart of both our energy and security policies.