Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

In recent weeks, DEFRA’s quangos have made headlines: the Environment Agency is failing to prosecute waste criminals, instead going after virtuous volunteers who are cleaning up the rivers for it; Natural England is demanding more madcap fish schemes at Hinkley Point C, on top of its recommended £700 million fish disco policy, all of which will be paid for by our constituents; and Natural England’s threat to Dartmoor ponies was the quickest U-turn yet by this Government. Does the Secretary of State feel she has control over these quangos?

[Emma Reynolds]

That is some brass neck, given that the whole issue of the Dartmoor ponies was created under the right hon. Lady’s Government. They rejected several of the Fursdon review recommendations and put the future of the Dartmoor ponies in doubt. We are having to clear up their mess, so I shall take no lectures from the right hon. Lady.

[Victoria Atkins]

Oh dear. This may be the last time the Secretary of State gets to give such an inadequate answer to what is a reasonable question about her grip on her Department. But let us look at Labour’s wider chaos. After two years of record-breaking tax rises and the highest number of farm closures, the next version of a Labour Government are coming back for even more, with rumours of a brand-new tax on land value, which will target rural residents from their gardens to their farms. Has Labour learned nothing from its family farm tax fiasco, which every Labour Member voted for?

[Emma Reynolds]

The right hon. Lady lectures us about regulators. We have a tighter grip on our arms-length bodies than the Conservatives did when they were in Government. I issued strategic policy statements to all ALBs earlier this year, writing to the chairs of those organisations to tell them about the Government’s direction of travel. Under her Government, the reason we saw record levels of pollution in our waterways was that they took their foot off the gas and took a blind eye to water companies polluting rivers. And they introduced a system of self-monitoring that was equivalent to Ofsted not sending anybody out to do any inspections of schools.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Victoria Atkins

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I repeat my sincere thanks to Baroness Batters for her thorough report.

The Secretary of State presents a document for farming for the next 25 years, but this Government will not last even 25 days. Instead of using their 14 years in opposition to create this document, they have dithered and delayed for the past two years, but they did not dither and delay in making life harder for rural businesses. One of the first acts of this Government, of which Labour Members are all so proud, was to target family farms and family businesses with their death tax. As Labour MPs and Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs voted repeatedly for the family farm and family business taxes, DEFRA Ministers shut down farming payments without notice, including the SFI.

Sadly, the record of this Government is rising food prices and a record number of farms closing. They broke the trust of farmers, and they have only themselves to blame. Yet the Secretary of State stands here today wanting to be thanked by rural communities for producing a document that could be shelved quietly by whoever comes next, just as the Government seem to have shelved the 10-year plan for the NHS. For all the talk—[Interruption.] Mark my words! For all the talk of the new SFI scheme and budgets, the fact is that they have cut the farming budget by £100 million.

In another leap from reality, the Government’s negotiations with the EU get barely a mention in this document, despite the enormous consequences they will have for farming businesses. CropLife UK has estimated that this EU reset could drain £810 million from UK farms and sacrifice almost 9,000 jobs from our rural constituencies. The Food and Drink Federation states that the wholesale handover of our food laws to the EU will lead to at least 400 regulations needing to be changed. So how will the Government ensure that UK farmers, including our tenant and upland farmers, can compete against heavily subsidised EU farmers? This matters because food security is critical in this increasingly volatile world. What reassurance can the Secretary of State provide that the next Cabinet will prioritise farming and food production?

We Conservatives view DEFRA as a vital economic Department, so we agree with its efforts to recalculate farming and food producers’ contributions to the economy. By the way, I note that Reform calls itself the farmer’s friend, yet there is not a single Reform MP in the Chamber.

Had the Secretary of State attended Cereals 2026 at Diddly Squat, she would have seen for herself that the sector is already driving innovation. The Government are therefore playing catch-up, but we hope that the intention to work with the Department for Business and Trade to deliver reductions in compliance costs and to focus on innovation and technology will actually happen. The plan to bring DEFRA farming services into one integrated service is much needed, and this reflects Conservative calls for quangos and the Department to be overhauled.

There are many questions still left unanswered in this report, and I hope that the Secretary of State will try to answer them rather than deflect, because that has been noticed. The plan looks to double the funding for Environment Agency inspections. Why are this Government focusing on bureaucracy rather than helping farmers survive? What does she say to the tenant farmer of a well-run dairy herd who has been told by the Environment Agency that they must invest up to £750,000 to guard against a “risk” that there “may” be a pollution event in 50 years’ time. As that tenant farmer said to me, there will not be a farm there in 50 years’ time, as they simply cannot afford that payment.

There is also no mention of closing the flag loophole on food packaging to help our constituents to buy genuinely British food and to back British farmers. Why not? The report says there will be no cut to food production, but it also says there will be a reduction of 9% in the land available to produce food. How can the Secretary of State guarantee that our food production will be protected when key tools, such as gene editing to develop drought-resistant crops, are at risk in the negotiations with the EU.

In her final act in this Department, will the Secretary of State please advise the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) that the first thing he must do is axe the family farm and family business taxes completely? Otherwise, sadly, this will be a road map to nowhere for struggling farmers and food producers.

[Emma Reynolds]

Oh, gosh, how do I follow that? Well, the first thing to say is that that the shadow Secretary of State is not in charge of reshuffles on the Government side of the House.

Let me outline where I do agree with the shadow Secretary of State. I agree that DEFRA is a really important economic Department of Government, and I have been focused on that since I was appointed to this role on 5 September. I also agree that Reform Members do not seem to care about agricultural farming, because they do not even bother turning up to such an important statement. So there are some things that she and I agree on, but that is probably where they end.

The shadow Secretary of State accuses us of dithering and delaying for two years, but her Government dithered and delayed for 14 years. We did not see any action such as this road map during the whole time that the Conservatives were in office. They sold farmers down the river with their Australia and New Zealand trade deals, and they could not be bothered to spend their own farming budget on the farmers who needed it, so I will take no lectures from the right hon. Lady.

The SFI scheme will reopen next week. I am proud that we have taken forward the recommendations in Baroness Batters’ review on reforms to SFI, including making it simpler and more cost-effective, and introducing a minimum hectarage requirement. We on this side of the House are serious about engaging with the farming sector, and we commissioned Baroness Batters, who has such great expertise—that was never done under the previous Government—to advise us on how to make the sector more profitable.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about the sanitary and phytosanitary deal, and I say to her that we are working very closely with the National Farmers’ Union and other farming stakeholders, because that deal is all about bringing down the barriers put up by the previous Government at the border that make it so much harder both to export raw ingredients and food, and to import.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for what she said—this is one thing we do agree on—about both Baroness Batters and my saying that we must make sure the farming sector is more accurately measured. I think we need to reassess that, so that we do not just assess what is done on farm, but look at this from farm to fork, and therefore see the vital role of the farming sector in our economy.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about the Environment Agency. I will make no apologies for increasing the funding of the Environment Agency, which was so harshly cut under her Government. I will also make no apologies about having a plan, in this document and more broadly, for how we work with farmers to ensure that agricultural pollution is a problem we tackle together.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about gene editing and the SPS deal, and those negotiations are ongoing. However, we want to ensure that our farmers are able to use the best technology. We lead in agricultural technology in our country, and we want to make sure that it is harnessed by our sector. That is why there is such a big emphasis in the road map on the importance of innovation, and why we are dedicating Government funding to innovation, and on farmers sharing best practice so that they can become more profitable over time.

Thames Water

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Victoria Atkins

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

First, I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in remembrance of her dear colleague Jo Cox. Her loss was felt across the House and across party political lines, and I send all of our very best wishes to her loved ones and friends.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for a briefing call on this announcement. As you know, I have been trying for months to coax the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box to explain major events within her portfolio, from the Government’s EU handover negotiations to their lack of support for farmers. Finally, she emerges into the light. We all assumed that it would be to announce progress towards resolving the many issues facing Thames Water and its customers; instead, it is to make a statement about a letter to the regulator. There is nothing new in this statement—no change in the situation of Thames Water, and still no certainty for billpayers.

Thames Water has repeatedly failed its customers and the environment with a record of pollution, leakage and chronic under-investment. The latest figures lay this bare. The company is responsible for around a third of the nation’s worst pollution incidents, even as billpayers face steep increases in their bills. These are not abstract failures; untreated sewage has been poured into the rivers and chalk streams that local communities cherish, while customers are asked to pay more for less. The priority now must be a financial arrangement that keeps the company afloat and protects billpayers and taxpayers. While the Secretary of State’s Government are in chaos, paralysed by the Prime Minister’s weakness and the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s leadership ambitions, Thames Water continues to fail. If no deal is reached, Thames Water could collapse—again, at enormous cost to taxpayers.

The Secretary of State has said that she does not want a scenario where customers

“pick up the bill for the company’s failures”,

but when the Conservatives tried to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to prevent consumers from being on the hook in the event of a company going into special administration and tried to impose a lending ratio limit on water companies to prevent this situation from happening again, Labour voted it down. Why? I also remember that under the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), an investor pulled out of a previous rescue deal, partly due to political risk—in other words, the former Secretary of State had talked himself out of a deal. How is the current Secretary of State avoiding the failures of the now Secretary of State for Housing?

There are those who are urging nationalisation, a word that is thrown around carelessly by Labour Back Benchers and by Reform—in fact, I think I heard it just now. None of them ever explains that nationalisation would be extremely expensive, potentially costing the taxpayer up to £20 billion. For those who are wondering what that means, it is roughly equivalent to the defence funding shortfall we have heard so much about in recent days. However, there are reasonable concerns about how Thames Water’s failures will be managed during the Government’s restructuring of the sector and the abolition of Ofwat, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that the existing penalty regime will not be downgraded or diluted, which has been briefed to the newspapers? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure Thames Water remains fully responsible for its environmental and operational failures? How will the Government ensure that billpayers are not left bearing the cost of past mismanagement, and have they offered or begun any process to recommend an alternative deal? Ministers have still not explained how investment in the sector will actually be paid for. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s predecessor had to admit that so-called private water industry investment is in reality paid for by higher bills, and the Secretary of State has repeated that today. Families already struggling with the cost of living should not become the safety net for a company that rewarded its executives while letting its infrastructure crumble. This is an important moment for the Government to show that they can balance financial stability with strong regulatory oversight and put accountability and the interests of billpayers and the environment at the heart of water reform. The Government must now deliver on the big promises they made during the election for the water sector.

Public trust in the water industry is already at rock bottom.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am always happy to receive brownie points, Mr Speaker, so thank you for what you said.

The shadow Secretary of State rightly says that untreated sewage has poured into our waterways, and it did, in the long years that her party was in government. They cut the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget and moved to an approach where water companies marked their own homework—the so-called self-monitoring approach. She has some brass neck in lecturing us when we saw a series of failures under her Government.

We are here today, and we as a Government inherited record levels of pollution in our waterways, because of the failure by the Government of the right hon. Lady to see what was happening before their eyes. It was a failure of regulation, a failure of the regulators and a failure of the previous Government.

I am proud of what we have achieved in the two short years that we have been in power. I am proud of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. When did the Conservatives ever cap polluting water bosses’ bonuses? Never. The right hon. Lady lectures me about amendments to our Act. Our Act did more in less than a year than her party did in 14 years to ensure a fairer deal for customers and a better deal for the environment.

The right hon. Lady asks about nationalisation. I gently say that a special administration regime is not the same as nationalisation. [Interruption.] I am just clarifying for the House; I do not wish to have an exchange with her across the ballot box—sorry, the Dispatch Box—if I can possibly help it. The ballot box might be at some other point. There is a difference between nationalisation and a special administration regime. With nationalisation, the Government would be taking ownership of the company. With a special administration regime, the Government would finance a special administrator appointed by the courts to run the company.

The right hon. Lady talks about public trust in our water sector being at record lows. All I can say is that we are clearing up her party’s mess. [Interruption.] It was under her Government that Thames Water was plunged into unmanageable levels of debt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

We will make that clear at the time of opening.

[Victoria Atkins]

Sorry—the Government have just published the documentation for a scheme that starts in the three weeks’ time, but the Secretary of State cannot tell us how much of her budget is being spent on it. Then again, we know that Labour is the party of

“Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?”.

From the family farm and the family business taxes to the fertiliser tax, business rates and national insurance hikes, why should hard-working farmers, pub landlords, rural businesses and communities be pushed to the brink to pay for Labour’s ballooning benefits bill?

[Emma Reynolds]

I will take no lectures from the right hon. Lady, given that the Conservatives could not even be bothered to spend their own farming budget. We have a record farming budget during this Parliament, and we have protected our farmers in trade deals, whereas they sold them down the river with their trade deals with New Zealand and Australia. We have simplified the SFI, in co-operation with the National Farmers Union, and farmers have welcomed that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Consumers and farmers believe that a Union Jack flag or a Made in Britain label should mean that the food was made or grown in the United Kingdom. We Conservatives, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), consulted on this flag loophole before the election—and we will close it when we are back in government. May I offer the Secretary of State some help? We have already helped her with her fly-tipping policies this week, and I am pleased to see that she has adopted some of our policies to tackle the problem. Will she now adopt another Conservative plan and close the flag loophole?

[Emma Reynolds]

The right hon. Lady had 14 years to do what she is talking about.

[Victoria Atkins]

And the Secretary of State has had this matter sitting on her desk for 18 months. Instead of dealing with it, we have had 18 months of damaging the rural economy, damaging rural businesses and hurting rural families under this Government. Indeed, only yesterday we saw yet another example: as fuel prices surge, Labour MPs voted to make the fuel in our cars even more expensive than it already is. We on the Conservative Benches know that rural families depend on their cars to live, so we ask why this Labour Government are targeting rural families with ever-higher taxes on their cars, their incomes and their businesses, making life harder for us all?

[Emma Reynolds]

Let me gently point out to the right hon. Lady that on Monday the Prime Minister announced a £53 million package to help rural communities that are reliant on heating oil. On waste crime, I will take no lectures from the right hon. Lady, because the Conservatives had 14 years in government to address waste crime. In 2018 they had a review on what to do about waste crime, and they did precisely nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

The EU reset deal is predicted to slash around a third of the Government’s farming budget from farm profits in its first year, cause higher food prices and lower food production, and sink the UK fishing industry. As the Prime Minister’s authority seeps away, will the Secretary of State insist that this shoddy deal is renegotiated while she is still in post?

[Emma Reynolds]

Nice try! We are still negotiating the deal, and the whole purpose of it is to bring down the trade barriers that the right hon. Lady’s Government put up during their botched Brexit negotiations.

[Victoria Atkins]

For goodness’ sake, if the Government are still negotiating, the Secretary of State needs to deal with the matters I have raised. It is not just the farming sector that they are damaging; it is the entire rural economy. Rural and coastal businesses tell me that they simply cannot afford Labour’s high taxes, rates and costs, and they will not survive. In these desperate times, will the Government match the Conservatives’ plan to help rural and coastal businesses by scrapping business rates entirely for our high streets?

[Emma Reynolds]

I seem to remember that the Conservatives were in power for 14 years, and they did not do what the right hon. Lady has just set out. Her question is for the Treasury, not DEFRA. We are still in the process of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will bring down trade barriers for farmers and food producers, helping both those who export to our largest market and those who import, and it will deliver better outcomes for consumers too. I make no apology for clearing up the mess that the Conservatives left us.

Water White Paper

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Victoria Atkins

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement. Indeed, I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber. It is not often that she puts in an appearance, from the publication of the Minette Batters report to the animal welfare strategy, which was published two days before Christmas eve, to the family farm tax fiasco, the Secretary of State has been noticeable by her absence. Indeed, she intervened on the South East Water crisis only seven days ago, months after Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead and other areas began suffering from the crisis.

The Secretary of State talks about this statement. Why does she have so little pride in her own water White Paper? She announced it to the press on Monday, and we were waiting and ready for a statement—there was no statement. The Government were, however, able to cancel their business on the public accountability legislation—that is ironic. We were waiting for a statement yesterday—there was no statement—and today she has finally given a statement on the White Paper because there was an urgent question. When it comes to scrutiny and accountability, I think the Secretary of State should be a little bit careful before she criticises others over their presence in the Chamber.

That being said, we do cautiously welcome elements of these proposals. Indeed, many of the Government’s measures on water match our plans from before the 2024 election. When we entered Government in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored by the previous Labour Government. Now that figure stands at 100%. The Water (Special Measures) Act last year repackaged Conservative regulatory proposals, such as banning unfair bonuses for water bosses, and we welcome that. The so-called private investment that the Secretary of State keeps referring to is in fact paid for by bill payers, so let us not pretend otherwise. This investment, although it is needed, is being paid for by all of our constituents through their bills.

Talking about delay, in June and July last year Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team published their review of the water sector. That report contained 88 recommendations. How many of those 88 recommendations were accepted by the Government and included in the water White Paper? Given that the Secretary of State for Energy has just announced that £15 billion worth of taxpayers’ money is to be spent on heat pumps and solar bills—to put that in context, it is equivalent to most of the police funding for England and Wales—can the Secretary of State tell us how much taxpayer and bill payer money has been allocated to this White Paper and over what timeframe these taxes and bills will be used to pay for the work in the White Paper?

Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will extend environmental permit regimes to cattle farmers? If so, how does she intend to ensure that the beef sector—which has already been hit by higher taxes under this Government, by the abrupt halt of farm funding, which has not been replaced, and by the family farm tax fiasco—is not sunk by thousands of pounds in extra costs each year? How will the Secretary of State make sure that infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months, do not happen again? A glaring gap in the Government’s rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security. That means improving supply. How and when will the Government improve water security?

Given Ministers’ habits of missing their own deadlines, will the Secretary of State give an iron-clad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? How long will the transition take? People expect change in the water sector and are beginning to tire of the sloth-like way in which this Government conduct themselves. The Opposition fully support efforts by the Government to hold water companies to account, building on the work of the last Conservative Government to improve water quality and deliver meaningful reform of the sector. We just need the Government to get on with it.

[Emma Reynolds]

Oh my gosh! Well, I say to the right hon. Lady that I will not take any lectures from the Conservative party. Not only can they not be bothered to turn up for the statement, which shows an absolute disregard for the concerns of the public about the levels of pollution in our waterways—[Interruption.] I will answer her questions. We have done more in 18 months than the Conservatives did in 14 years, so I will not take any lectures from her. I am proud of our water White Paper and that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), commissioned somebody of the stature of Sir Jon Cunliffe and appointed the Independent Water Commission to do the most fundamental review of our water system since privatisation—a privatisation that happened under their Thatcher Government.

The shadow Secretary of State asked how many recommendations we are taking forward. It is the vast majority and more, because we are also looking at agricultural pollution, which we did not ask Sir Jon to look at. The water White Paper talks about tackling that kind of pollution and I will not shy away from that. We are working in partnership with farmers, the National Farmers Union and others because that it is an important source of water pollution.

Again, I will not take lectures from the right hon. Lady about the environmental land management programme when the Conservatives underspent the farming budget. They could not even be bothered to get the money out of the door. She asked about infrastructure upgrades. The White Paper introduces a system that moves away from water companies marking their own homework to a regulator with teeth that gets a grip on the delivery of the £104 billion infrastructure investment. Under the Conservative Government, the pipes and pumps were left in a shocking state of disrepair because there was not the regulation nor the strong regulator that we need. That is what this water White Paper and the upcoming water Bill will deliver.

The right hon. Lady talks about improving water supply. It is absolutely correct—maybe we can agree on something—that we have seen very poor performance from South East Water in recent weeks, and I was in the area last week to meet constituents of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin)—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady asked whether I should have gone earlier. Did she bother to go? [Interruption.] Listen, this is a privatised industry because of decisions made in 1989. I called on the regulator Ofwat to examine the licence conditions and whether they had been breached by South East Water. I do not remember her saying any such thing. I have also hauled in the chair of South East Water to ask for an urgent investigation into what happened last week and the week before, as well as for two weeks before Christmas.

This water White Paper is the most ambitious reform in a generation to our water system. It is severely needed because of the blind eye that the Conservatives turned when they were in government and the record levels of pollution in our waterways.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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?