Total Allowable Catches: Fisheries Negotiations

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

I will call George Eustice to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I beg to move, 

That this House has considered the methodologies for setting total allowable catches for data-limited stocks in fisheries negotiations.>

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. It is very appropriate for you to chair this event since, as every Member present knows, your knowledge and experience of the fishing industry is unrivalled in this House. I am sure that, were you not being impartial in chairing the debate, you would have plenty to say on the matter.

In my time as a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I had two key observations. First, every Minister comes in with plans for the environment, and one of the first things they need to learn is that the environment has plans for them, too, and they are not always very pleasant.

The second truth is that every Minister coming into DEFRA says that they will have an evidence-based approach and will follow the science. But when they ask the scientists what should be done, they find that the scientists are not quite sure. They talk about evidence gaps and things that they do not understand, and are reluctant to come up with a clear policy proposal. That means Fisheries Ministers in particular are inevitably left with the thankless task of trying to make policy decisions with imperfect evidence, but making the best use of the evidence that they have. Nowhere is that conundrum more complex than in fisheries.

I recall a fishing representative giving evidence to a Select Committee. As he put it, fisheries is not rocket science; it is way more complicated than that. There are uncertainties in the science and in the way we calculate maximum sustainable yield. There are difficulties, for instance, around assessing the age of a fish. The basic approach to maximum sustainable yield is to allow fish to reproduce for at least one generation, and that stock should be sustainable. Typically, scientists measure the average length of fish when they are landed to try to assess the age of the stock and its reproductive capacity. That is the essence of the calculations that take place.

But there are difficulties all round. First, fish of different ages tend to inhabit different parts of the ocean, and trying to make sense of that can be difficult. It can be a hit and miss science to understand exactly what the average length of a fish is, given that they are very mobile and move around.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I am extremely interested in what he has to say, and I spoke to him beforehand. I have one example of the importance of data. We have witnessed a remarkable turnaround with spurdog. In a most important fishery, limited data led to a ban on landing the species. However, the situation has changed dramatically, based on the data for 2023, with a total allowable catch agreed with the European Union for the year ahead based on up-to-date scientific advice. A statutory instrument is to follow, as the Minister knows. That is because of the data-limited status and the evidence that has made the change.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a 30-minute debate. If interventions are to be made, can we make them short and snappy, please?

[George Eustice]

I think I get the hon. Gentleman’s point and the Minister might want to address it, but my understanding is that there is now data on spurdog and a total allowable catch has been allocated. One consequence of leaving the European Union is that we have accountable processes in this House for introducing regulatory changes, and I believe a statutory instrument is needed, which takes time to introduce. In the EU, because there is no such accountability, the Commission can literally just issue delegated Acts and implementing Acts sometimes on a whim without any real process behind that.

To continue my point, the length of the fish is not always a good sign of its reproductive capacity, so there are complexities with some species—haddock, in particular—for reasons that we still do not really understand. Roughly every seven years we get a big recruitment year, and it is hard to predict when that will happen. It is difficult to differentiate between different species of the same genera, so we have, for instance, composite TACs for species such as skate and ray whereby there are some 24 different species in a single TAC. To try to make sense of that, we introduced prohibitions on landing some subspecies within the TAC, but sometimes it is hard—for fishermen and for scientists—to distinguish between species visually, even though we know they are biologically different.

For some species, age cannot be determined by the length of the fish. I remember being briefed that scientists had to go to other measurements, such as the size of a fish’s eardrums, to try to make an assessment because the fish’s length was not a reliable indicator of age, and it threw the calculation out.

There is also the problem of uncertainty around fishing mortality. In particular, we do not have accurate data on recreational angling. Recreational anglers and commercial fishermen have hours of fun blaming one another for the state of particular fish stocks, but exactly what is fishing mortality is a difficult conundrum. That is especially the case with species such as pollack and bass. There is a further complication, which is that fish eat one another. The marine environment is dynamic, and a healthy recovery of one species might put pressure on another, which is preyed on.

As if all that were not complicated enough, there is a political context in which Fisheries Ministers have to operate. The Fisheries Minister has to arbitrate between competing interests among different UK Administrations, and indeed competing interests among different sectors, such as the pelagic and white fish sectors, the inshore fleet and so on. To reach a compromise with other countries to get a multilateral agreement on how to approach fisheries, we will, at times, have to accept others’ interpretation of the science, which might not be entirely in line with our own. If we do not get a compromise and do not get an agreement, and people unilaterally set quotas, that is the worst of all worlds.

Finally, there is a tendency, once policy in fisheries is set, for it to be set in stone. It is easy to follow the path of least resistance, and to do this year what we did last year, putting off changing things to a future year, only to find in a decade or 15 years that it is too difficult to change everything because the concrete has set. That was the case, for instance, in the EU era when we had relative stability, although the landing shares of different countries were hugely outdated. However, under qualified majority voting it was impossible for the UK ever to argue for change because the only countries that would have supported us in arguing that also wanted our fish in return for their support.

My right hon. Friend the Minister joins a small club of Fisheries Ministers and former Fisheries Ministers who have had to wrestle with those dilemmas, and he has to make the best judgment he can using the evidence available to him, but he does have one thing in his favour, as we all do, which is the support of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

Without question, CEFAS is the world’s leading fisheries science organisation, and its head office and main research facilities are in Lowestoft. If Members visit Weymouth, they will find a global centre of excellence on fish health, and in the reception at Weymouth are probably the best-cared-for carp in the world. CEFAS is very influential on the deliberations and methodologies applied by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Indeed, our current chief fisheries scientist, Carl O’Brien, is also vice-president of ICES and a leading authority in this area.

I remember going every year during the EU era to the December European Council, and CEFAS would often detect and have to correct errors made by the Commission services. DG MARE—the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries—did not particularly welcome the fact that an agency from a nation state was correcting its errors, but it nevertheless accepted when it was wrong. Of course, CEFAS always offered advice in an understated, very British way, which made it as easy as possible for the Commission to deal with those errors.

My purpose in calling the debate is to encourage the Minister not to allow the concrete to set on the way we interpret the science, and to ensure in all the bilateral fisheries negotiations we have that CEFAS’s pre-eminent scientific knowledge is projected forwards and shapes not just the approach for negotiations with Norway or the European Union, but the methodologies taken by organisations likes ICES. The particular prompt for the debate was the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation highlighting to me a particular case of pollack in the Celtic sea.

In the EU era, there were three principal ways of assessing data-limited stocks. The first was taking a precautionary approach, which simply meant an arbitrary 20% cut on species where we had limited data—that is, not a full dataset to enable a maximum sustainable yield assessment. The second was a “use it or lose it” approach. Empirical evidence from the previous year’s catch would be used to say, “Well, if they haven’t caught it, it is probably not there.” The third was saying there should be a roll-over approach. In essence, that was an assessment that the stocks are probably in a good shape, so we should just leave it where it is and roll it over year to year until the evidence suggests otherwise.

Even when we were in the European Union, we ferociously resisted these arbitrary, unscientific approaches. To be fair to the European Union, it was not just something that it had made up; its approach often reflected ICES advice in some of these areas. For over a decade now, ICES has recognised that those arbitrary approaches are not fit for purpose. In fact, probably as long ago as five years ago, CEFAS identified and developed a superior methodology based on making the best judgment we could with the evidence we had. We termed it as using biomass trends to assess what the TAC should be with these stocks. It effectively meant having a moving average assessment of the stock and aggregating data across several different years to avoid sharp changes in the TAC in one direction each year, and each year the aggregate data would get more reliable. For a while, even in the EU, we actually got them to accept that this was a better way to approach things, and that is what we used to seek and usually secured at December Councils.

The thing that caught my eye in the press release from the CFPO was that it alleged that the Celtic sea pollack stock had been set under the old-fashioned “use it or lose it” methodology. There are lots of reasons why fishermen may not have caught fish—it could be that the market conditions were not right or that there was bad weather at the end of the year. That is why it is a wholly inappropriate basis on which to assess the health of a stock. My question for the Minister is, whatever happened to the work that CEFAS did on data-limited stocks and that biomass trend approach? Will he seek to reinvigorate that work or update Members here on what CEFAS is doing in this area? Most importantly, will he ensure that we use the soft power we have through pre-eminent scientific knowledge in fisheries to shape how not just the EU and Norway, but ICES approaches these difficult issues?

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has taken the case study of Celtic sea pollack. Would he consider how his approach might also help solve the dilemma with southern North sea spurdog? I was on CEFAS Endeavour on Monday morning and saw its excellent work, so could he quickly help us out of our dilemma on spurdog?

[George Eustice]

I will be quick because I explained this earlier. My understanding—as a former Fisheries Minister, one’s knowledge decays over time and the existing Minister will have far more knowledge than me—is that there is at least some evidence now to make an assessment on spurdog. I do not know whether it is a full dataset to provide a MSY assessment. Nevertheless, a TAC has been set on that basis and I believe it is simply a parliamentary procedure to get a regulation in place to enable that TAC to take effect, but I am sure the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s question.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I feel quite close to the Bill, since it has my name on the cover and started its passage through Parliament all those days ago when I was Secretary of State. I will not spend all of my time going through the various matters that it covers; others will no doubt do that. The issues were also dealt with at some length by the Conservative party before we put most of them in our 2019 Conservative manifesto. The matters covered by the Bill were then debated somewhat exhaustively in Government during the last Session; the Minister was then Chief Whip, and was party to some of those discussions. The Bill has also already been debated at some length in Parliament, having passed both Second Reading and Committee stage.

The Bill is packed with commitments from the Conservative manifesto, including totemic measures such as the ban on live exports, which we would have been unable to introduce as an EU member. It toughens up the rules on the importation of puppies, to deal with a long-standing problem there. Finally, it would ban keeping primates as pets. It is a popular Bill that has near-universal public support, and the Government should now find the time to proceed to Report as quickly as possible.

We often hear representations in these situations about the lack of parliamentary time; again, my right hon. Friend the Minister knows how business managers will play on the issue of parliamentary time. However, I do not think lack of parliamentary time is a particularly persuasive argument in the case of this Bill, given the stage it has reached; it probably needs only about five hours to get through Report. Then, of course, it goes to the House of Lords, and our noble Friends in the Lords like to be kept active. We must not disappoint them; it is important that we keep them busy. There are plenty of hours between midnight and 4 am, for instance, during which the Bill can keep moving, provided that consideration of it commences at the right time in the other place.

I point out to the Minister that when it comes to animal welfare, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already made an offer to parliamentary business managers that freed up parliamentary time. As he knows, the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill was once to have been a Government Bill, but it was decided at the beginning of this Session that we would try to progress it as a private Member’s Bill, so DEFRA has already made an important down payment to business managers, giving them time.

Arguments about a lack of parliamentary time will be unpersuasive. I hope that the Minister will not make such an argument. I have every confidence that he will not. If there is doubt about whether the Government will take the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill forward, it will be down to something else: a lack of confidence somewhere in Government about navigating the Bill through Parliament. I understand that, and will address it.

[Tracey Crouch]

My right hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for animal welfare improvements over many years. Although it is infuriating that it has taken so long to get some things through Parliament, he has done so, while showing great insight and interest in these matters. Does he agree that it is slightly strange that this Bill, which is supported wholeheartedly by all animal welfare charities, is being delayed, yet we are finding parliamentary time for the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which animal welfare charities have concerns about? That Bill is racing through both Houses.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would find time for both of them, because I am also very committed to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, but I understand that animal welfare issues can be contentious and emotive. Some veterans of the last Parliament may recall that when the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 was being passed, there was a controversy about whether some largely irrelevant recitals in EU law about the existence of animal sentience should be brought into a British Act of Parliament. At the time, the legal advice was that those words would behave in a very different way when placed in a British Act of Parliament than they did as some benign, largely irrelevant recital in EU law, and that therefore we had to think more carefully about how to do that.

At the time, many Conservative MPs received Twitter abuse from people saying, “You’ve just voted to say that animals don’t feel pain.” That was always a lie. No Member of this House voted to say such a thing; people voted to say that the way the EU provision was drafted did not work correctly in UK law. That is why we had to revisit the matter, which is exactly what we did with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. When it was introduced, there were anxieties that it could become a Christmas tree Bill, and that there would be all sorts of difficult amendments, but in the end it progressed without incident. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it turned out to be perhaps the least controversial Bill that the Government passed in the last Session. The Animal Sentience Committee is about to be set up. It already has, in Michael Seals, a sensible, illustrious chair, and it is ready to go.

I think we can avoid the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill becoming a Christmas tree Bill. It is open to the Government to determine the long titles of Bills, to ensure that they remain focused on the subject that the Government intend to address. That issue was thought about at some length when we designed the structure of the Bill, and other Bills. As a result, the Bill has a very tight long title. That was by design, not accident. Also, a huge amount of thought has already been given in the Department to a handling strategy to navigate the Bill through its various stages of Parliament. I have had discussions with the Minister on that, and I do not want to give away to those present what a concession strategy might be, but virtually every conceivable amendment to the Bill has been thought about in advance, and can be managed.

Some of us voted to leave the European Union because we really wanted to take back control. We wanted to make our own laws and be a genuinely self-governing country once again, but with that comes a responsibility, in some ways. We cannot just hide behind the EU and expect it to do our dirty work, or to do difficult, contentious things on our behalf, as we often used to on animal welfare issues. We cannot blame the European Union any more. We have to take ownership, including of difficult, contentious or even emotive issues, and we must challenge ourselves to avoid a tendency to duck and dive and get by without tackling those difficult decisions.

I hope that the Government will have the courage to grasp this Bill and move it forward, recognising that there could be some emotive or contentious issues to be managed. I believe that Parliament must develop the maturity to be able to debate these issues sensibly. There is a good precedent in proceedings on the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, in that although Members in all parts of the House tabled probing amendments, they recognised that, ultimately, they had to be sensible and responsible to ensure that the Bill entered the statute book. I therefore believe that we can do this.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that although helpful Back Benchers—including helpful Back Benchers our side—have tabled a number of probing amendments, he should not be spooked by that. As one who started this Bill, I am willing to help Ministers and play my part in ensuring that we manage those probing amendments by explaining to certain hon. Members why certain amendments might not be necessary after all.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising issues of Brexit in his observations. I know he will be aware, but I will emphasise it here, of the absolute fiasco that happened at Ramsgate port back in September 2012, when more than 40 animals had to be euthanised because of the appalling vessel that was used for the cross-channel live animal exports. That has been a stain on Ramsgate, and I salute Kent Action Against Live Exports and others who have kept the issue alive. My right hon. Friend came down and joined me to see what was happening there. Activists are frustrated that, post Brexit, progress has not been made. I am sure that he would join me in recommending that the Government take that to a conclusion sooner rather than later.

[George Eustice]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I remember visiting Ramsgate and having to deal with that case, which was even worse than he describes, as Thanet District Council had to pay more than £2 million in compensation to the foreign company, which took it to court for trying to put in place a localised ban. That is the kind of thing that used to happen when we were in the European Union. We now have the power to prevent that happening, and that is why I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries to work with us—with Conservative Members; we are all on his side—to ensure that the Bill is carried through Parliament. We only need about five hours for Report stage. I ask the same of Opposition Members.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, because of the botched Brexit, we have ended up with a situation where we have been forced to have those Australian trade deals, which he has criticised, at a rapid pace, which will give rise to importing badly treated animals? The problems of pregnant dogs being brought over and abused on a great scale, which I mentioned earlier, is also a result of our not having the harmonised border control that we would have in the single market. The idea that we are better off is absurd.

[George Eustice]

I do not want this debate to drift too far into the historical question about leaving the European Union. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I want us to have an independent trade policy, but I want us to take a more muscular approach to those trade agreements. I made that point some weeks ago. As I said, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will find the time in the next few weeks to take this Bill through to Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I always agree with every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), and I endorse every single word of her powerful speech today. Everyone who has chosen to participate in this debate will say that, quite simply, the Bill is a good piece of legislation. It is needed, and we encourage the Government to get it on the statute book at the earliest opportunity. This debate gives Members an opportunity to discuss issues related to the Bill, which is important. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, Conservative Back Benchers will do nothing that will risk the Bill making the statute book. However, we are able—quite rightly—to raise concerns and suggest additions. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon did just that when she raised concerns that cats are excluded from the new offence of taking a dog without lawful authority.

I want to comment on the scope of the Bill. Perhaps it is my tender years in this place, but I look to the eminence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) to correct me if anything I say is wrong. I think we all received a brief from the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. We are told that the Bill is broad-ranging and includes farm animals and domestic pets. I took that as a starting point, and asked what the phrase “kept animals” means if we take it away from the nature of the Bill. I could not find a satisfactory dictionary definition, so I went to the Bill’s long title, which says the Bill is to

“make provision about the welfare of certain kept animals that are...imported into, or exported from Great Britain.”

It appears that the scope of the Bill relates to the import and export of farm animals and domestic pets, but that does not seem to be the case. As we have just heard, one of the provisions relates directly to an offence that can only be committed when taking a dog without lawful authority in the jurisdiction of this country. The Bill presents an opportunity for the Government to consider not many amendments, but probing amendments that are not simply related to import or export—however important those issues are.

We need to look at the scope of the Bill in relation to pets and domestic animals. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said, the reason for that is important to us all. My dog Bertie is my best mate; he is part of my family. I will take any opportunity I get to talk about animals and how we treat domestic pets. The scope of the Bill hopefully allows us to do that. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

You would expect me, Mr Hollobone, to take the opportunity to refer to the Pets (Microchips) Bill—my private Member’s Bill that I have put before the House on three occasions. I will briefly mention why it is appropriate to talk about this issue, and to at least consider it being part of the provisions of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Gizmo’s law, which is part of my Bill, comes from a campaign run by a lady called Helena Abrahams from Bury North. As her constituency MP, I have a duty to talk about that campaign; it has been going on for many years.

Many Members may not know this, but if a cat is found deceased in a local authority area, the general action of a council—not all councils, because I am sure that some councils will be outraged by what I am about to say—is that that cat is immediately disposed of in landfill. There is no scanning of the microchip; there is no attempt to reunite that cat with its owner. When we consider the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon made, namely that cats as well as dogs are valued members of our families and a part of who we are as individuals, we should at least consider whether legislation can be brought in to address that situation.

Working with a pet food company, the Gizmo’s law campaign has been able to provide scanners to all local authorities in the country to allow them to scan a cat to see whether there is a contact address, and then to give the owner the opportunity to come and collect that cat, if that is what they want to do; if not, the cat will be disposed of. At the heart of a Bill that is about the best of animal welfare, the cost of such a scheme is not even minimal; the cost is non-existent. However, it could be a positive addition to the Bill.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue relating to what is called Gizmo’s law. I know that the Department has looked at this issue multiple times over many years. Indeed, four or five years ago, it was a requirement for the Highways Agency to scan animals—that was an administrative requirement handed down by the Department for Transport. However, does he not think that that may be something that could be addressed in a non-legislative way, such as simply making it a condition of some of the grants that local authorities receive, so that they actually show the due diligence to scan roadkill cats and dogs when they encounter them?

[James Daly]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. However, I would argue that legislation is the correct vehicle for doing this. Establishing a legal duty reflects what I hope would be Parliament’s view as to the necessity for such a condition. However, I fully accept the point that has been made and his suggestion may well be another way of dealing with this matter.

The second part of my private Member’s Bill is Tuk’s law. In different circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), with his expertise in this area, would be able to correct what I am about to say. In essence, however, a person might take a healthy animal to a veterinary surgeon and they say to a vet—again, this only occurs very infrequently—that they would like, for whatever reason, a healthy dog to be euthanised or put down. That has happened in the past and it continues to happen infrequently.

Tuk’s law would require veterinary surgeons and veterinary staff to scan what is called the rescue back-up—the chip that is on the dog—which would highlight the breeder or somebody else, at least to give that healthy dog an opportunity for a life, or a different set of circumstances. Whatever the reason is that a healthy dog is brought into a veterinary surgeon, we should be doing everything possible, if that dog is not a threat to human beings, to rehouse it elsewhere. Tuk’s law is a duty to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue and we will not turn it into a debate now. However, for a Bill—I have talked about its scope before—that aims to address directly how we as a Parliament and we as a country view our beloved animals, whether they are farm animals or pets, it is an important matter that should be considered in the round when this Bill is brought back. It is a good Bill and I wholeheartedly support every comment that has been made so far.

I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about my private Member’s Bill. If the Minister wishes to discuss it with me further, I am happy to do so at any point. It is a good private Member’s Bill, it costs nothing, and it adds to the great strides that our Government have taken in respect of animal welfare since we came into power in 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is rare to speak in such a consensual and constructive debate. It has been a real pleasure to listen to the knowledgeable contributions of all Members here.

I suppose that the simple question to the Minister is: where is the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill? I could just ask that question and then sit down again, but, sadly, I am not going to, because I would like to—[Interruption.] I will be brief, but I do have a few things that need to be said.

This issue spans the whole of the UK, and I think it speaks volumes that the top 10 constituencies by signature span Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, as well as England. I would acknowledge all of those people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition, including those top 10 by signature—East Londonderry, Ynys Môn, East Antrim, South Antrim, Mid Ulster, North Antrim, South Down, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Livingston, and North Down.

We all know that involvement and engagement with our democratic processes can, at times, seem difficult, so I am pleased that many people across the UK, including almost 400 people from my own constituency of Newport West, have signed the petition. I thank them for ensuring that their voices have been heard, and I hope that the Minister will go back to his Department and urge the new Secretary of State to get on with it and start delivering.

The benefit of such a focused debate is that there is no excuse for rambling, dithering or delay, so I will be brief. To be clear, Labour supports the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and, indeed, we want to strengthen it. That is why we have tabled a number of amendments for the Report stage of the Bill. More than anything, we want the Bill back before the House and speedily signed into law. We believe in honouring animal welfare, and will always push for the strongest possible animal welfare policies. Those are not just words; we mean it, and all Members who have had the chance in the recent months and years to work with us know that we mean what we say.

I would like to thank all the stakeholders, campaigners and organisations who work, day in and day out, to fight for the welfare of our natural wildlife, our animals and our pets, and for this country to show real and meaningful leadership. Many of those people and organisations sent helpful briefings before the debate, and those briefings have been cited and referenced by many colleagues this afternoon.

As the RSPCA put it in its excellent briefing, today is a chance for the House to urge Ministers to do what they have promised, to honour their word and to get things done. It is important that the Bill is brought back to the House and that it is signed into law. The Opposition support it, the people across our United Kingdom support it, and, as we have heard today, lots of Tory Back Benchers support it, so I urge the Minister to just get on with it.

Labour not only supports this Bill; we want to make it stronger and properly fit for purpose. That is why we have tabled a number of amendments for Report. I urge Government MPs to get behind our amendments so that, together, we can make this Bill properly fit for purpose.

Our amendments—tabled by me, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel)—include new clause 1, which looks at the microchipping of cats. We have talked about that at length this afternoon. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the compulsory microchipping of cats within six months of the Bill being introduced. New clause 14 looks at the regulation of the keeping of hunting dogs and would require the Secretary of State to make regulations for the licensing of the keeping of one or more dogs used for the purposes of hunting, with a view to assuring the health and welfare of those dogs.

Amendment 1 would prohibit the keeping of primates as pets in England—again, a simple amendment, which I hope Ministers will accept when the Bill is brought back to the House. Amendment 2 would broaden the definition of “at large” dogs, by requiring non-exempt dogs in fields with relevant livestock present to be on a lead if they are to be deemed “under control”, unless keeping the dog on a lead poses a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog. Our final amendment, amendment 3, would restrict the maximum number of dogs, cats and ferrets that may enter Great Britain in a non-commercial motor vehicle to three.

While this is not the place to debate the merits of the specific amendments, I wanted to give the House, colleagues present here today, and those watching from outside, a clear picture that Labour is on their side. We understand the importance of this Bill and care about ensuring that our country leads by example.

[George Eustice]

I wonder whether, in the interests of getting this Bill through, the hon. Lady might consider not pushing some of those amendments, since many of them are unnecessary. There are already legislative provisions that would enable us to introduce microchipping for cats; it does not need further legislation. There is also a welfare code for working dogs, including hunting dogs, which is covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the hon. Lady’s party introduced when it was in government. That measure is due for review, so the amendment is wholly unnecessary and is only likely to slow down the passage of the Bill.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member, a former Secretary of State, for his contribution. We proposed the amendments because stakeholders came to us to say that they wanted those things to be strengthened. Although I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not changed his position, I hope that we can have a reasoned debate on Report to increase understanding. We have no intention of slowing down the Bill in any way, shape or form; we merely want to strengthen it and make it more fit for purpose. That is why the amendments have been tabled; it is why organisations such as the British Veterinary Association talk about the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill as “important legislation”, and why the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums welcomes its principles, but wants it to make a real impact. It is so good to see so many visitors in the Public Gallery today, listening to the debate; in particular, I pay tribute to Andy Hall and Vicky from BIAZA.

Battersea Dogs and Cats Home—to which I paid a very enjoyable visit earlier this year—has also made clear its concerns about the delay and dithering. In its helpful briefing, written by Helen McNally, Battersea reminds us that the Bill completed its last parliamentary stage over a year ago in November 2021, and although it was carried over in the Queen’s Speech, we still do not have a set date for when it will return to Parliament. It would be marvellous if the Minister could put us all out of our misery by giving us the actual date this afternoon.

James West from Compassion in World Farming shared a briefing that was very helpful and that will guide the discussions we will be able to have when the Bill returns to the House. That briefing sits helpfully alongside the one prepared by Blue Cross for Pets, and I thank Richard Woodward for getting in touch ahead of the debate. Blue Cross notes that it, alongside other animal welfare charities, is deeply concerned at the stalled progress of the Bill, and goes on to note that while the Bill is not perfect, it is a start. We all remain hopeful that Ministers will meet us halfway when the Bill returns, and will support all sensible and objective amendments.

I am also grateful to Ferdy Willans and all those at Dogs Trust for the work they are doing on the horror that is the puppy smuggling trade. Since 2014, Dogs Trust has been exposing widespread abuse of the pet travel scheme—we have heard something of that already this afternoon. That scheme is being used by smugglers illegally to import puppies, often under age, unvaccinated and in poor welfare conditions, from central and eastern Europe to be sold to unsuspecting buyers throughout the UK. With the return of the Bill, we will be able to tackle and end that cruel trade once and for all. I thank Jessica Terry at World Animal Protection and Cameron Stephenson at Chester zoo for their work and for sharing their thoughts ahead of this afternoon’s debate. It was good to meet the Chester zoo staff just a few days ago, and to see the important work they do. I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for just how important their conservation work is.

Today is a good day. The debate has given us an opportunity to talk about the Bill, and to remind ourselves of the benefits of the strong, bold and ambitious piece of legislation that that Bill can be, if we want it to be. I am grateful to those who keep talking about the Bill, including the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition, and I hope the Minister will answer the following four questions: when will the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill be brought back? How much longer do we have before the carry-over motion that kept it going expires? What does animal welfare post Brexit and in 2022 actually mean to Ministers? Finally, will Ministers work with all of us who want to make sure the Bill can deliver the strong and bold approach to animal welfare that we all want and need to see?

I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for introducing the debate, and I thank you, Mr Twigg, for chairing it.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I cannot answer a question about the conversations that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have had on this matter, because I am not aware of exactly how those conversations have gone. What I am concerned about is the significant amount of produce that we export to the EU and the fact that the Bill poses a risk, for example, to the export of Scottish salmon. That is because the Scottish Government will lose some of their competency over this due to the internal market Bill and to the way that this framework is laid out.

Should amendment 1 from the Green party be pushed to a vote, the SNP will support it. The paucity of evidence is particularly acute in relation to animals. The Bill also risks violating the intention and application of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, passed for England and Wales earlier this year. The RSPCA has highlighted the fact that the public would not and do not support that.

New clause 8 relates to the labelling of food or feed produced by precision-bred animals. Eighty four per cent of people polled consider it important that all GE products introduced for sale in the UK are labelled as such, and only 8% do not consider that to be important. We are disappointed, therefore, that the UK Government no longer plan to consider requiring labelling for these products, despite the Minister saying in January 2022 that they would look at the matter. This will have a double impact in Scotland, because, even though the Scottish Parliament does not currently permit the marketing of these products, consumers will not be able to make an informed choice due to the lack of labelling requirements.

Mr Deputy Speaker, now is not the time for this Bill to pass. The UK Government have failed to make the case for “why now?” and have failed to ensure that the devolved competencies of the Scottish Parliament are respected as they seek to push through this legislation.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

As the former Secretary of State who introduced this Bill on Second Reading, I rise to express a little sympathy for amendment 4—not so much sympathy that I would vote for it if it went to a Division tonight. Nevertheless, I believe that it highlights some important issues that are worthy of further consideration.

First, amendment 1 proposes removing animals altogether from the scope of the Bill. Undoubtedly, using gene editing on animals raises complex ethical issues, along with the animal welfare dimension, and it was during such discussion when the Bill was being drafted that I considered excluding animals from the Bill. However, I want to explain to the House why, after reflection, I decided that we should include them.

First, from my experience in government and, indeed, in this place, there is always a tendency to put off things that are difficult or complex and to kick the can down the road, but the right thing to do is to grapple with these complex matters and chart a course through them. Secondly, when considering some of the issues that we might be able to address through precision breeding, it became clear to me that, if this technology was used properly, we could actually enhance animal welfare in certain areas. When I first became a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Beak Trimming Action Group set up by the last Labour Government was concluding its work. Beak trimming, using infrared beak tipping on day-old chicks, is required particularly for free-range systems, because otherwise there may be injurious pecking of laying hens. Through that work, we concluded that, while there were things we could do such as paying special regard to the feeding regime, it was against the welfare of those birds not to carry on the beak trimming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, as I have spent quite a lot of time trying to convince people that that does happen to day-old chicks. Is it not the case that some other European countries have introduced legislation on that point, so it is not necessarily linked to genetic technology? I think they have acted to prevent so many chicks being killed.

[George Eustice]

What a number of countries have done—the UK was in the vanguard of this—was to move away from maceration of day-old chicks towards the use of carbon dioxide and argon gas as a means of dispatching them. However, I think we could accelerate the process of identifying the eggs through the use of genetic technology.

Dehorning cattle is another mutilation that we would like to phase out over time. Progress has been made for some breeds on polled cattle—that is, cattle born without horns, so that we do not have to use a hot iron, albeit under anaesthetic, to de-bud them. Again, it is difficult to perfect without precision breeding techniques, but if we had that technology, we could have more polled cattle and reduce the need for conventional dehorning of cattle, or even pave the way for a regulatory change to prevent it.

There is also the prospect of breeding more resistance to diseases. In the dairy herd some selection is already done for natural resistance to bovine tuberculosis. It is limited in its ability, but if we had the technology, we might be able to go further.

At the moment, the Government plan to phase out and remove badger culling is predicated on a lot of confidence that a cattle vaccine will be viable and deployable, but it would be helpful to have additional tools in the box, and resistance to TB could be one of them. Of course, we are about to face another very difficult winter when it comes to avian flu, and this technology might have some application there.

However, my sense when I read amendment 4 was that whoever drafted it had had one sector in particular in mind—the broiler chicken sector. There is a genuine concern that the production speed of broiler chickens, reduced now to around 32 to 33 days, is so fast that they are having all sorts of leg problems, and we might be able to make some changes there. That is a legitimate point, because while we might say it has improved the welfare of a broiler chicken that it is bred to finish within 32 days, we might say it is in its welfare interest to ensure that it does not have leg problems. There is a second question, which is whether it is the ethical and right thing to do to produce a chicken within 32 days rather than, say, 37 days, in which case the welfare problem goes away.

A less obvious and less talked-about situation might be commercial duck production. We know that ducks need and want open water—it is part of their physiology and the way their beaks work. However, many commercial duck producers do not give ducks access to water. I have come across vets who will argue that it is in the interest of ducks not to have access to water, since that can spread disease and that is not in their welfare interest, but that goes to the root of the issue with animal welfare. We can either see animal welfare in the conventional five freedoms sense—freedom from pain, hunger, thirst and so on—or we can see it in the more modern sense of a life worth living.

The amendment does not work, because the more we put into an amendment the more we inadvertently exclude. If we accepted an amendment that proscribed certain things but missed certain things, at a future date a breeder might bring a judicial review and say, “Well, this wasn’t covered by the Bill and everything else was.” Therefore, we would not be future-proofing the importance of animal welfare.

However, that is where guidance could work. After Second Reading of the Bill, I asked our officials to give some thought to the idea of guidance, which might give organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and people such as Peter Stevenson, who is very thoughtful on these matters, the reassurance they need in the absence of a legislative change on the face of the Bill, which is difficult to do. The Minister may find that there is some guidance helpfully drafted—or it may be that it was not drafted, but it is not too late, because the Bill has time in the other House.

Will the Minister consider whether this issue of how the animal welfare body should approach its task and how it should assess the impacts on animal welfare could be dealt with in a non-statutory way through guidance. He and his officials will have to issue terms of reference anyway to the animal welfare body, which is likely to be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, and it would not take much to set out some parameters for the things we want it to bear in mind when making assessments.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I will not speak for too long, but I want to address a couple of the amendments and some of the issues affecting the Bill overall.

I will start by being extremely critical of the European Commission—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Indeed. Most of us in this House think that science is broadly a good thing, or certainly at least neutral; it is a case of what we do with it. One of the things that has irritated me most about part of the Commission over a 20 or 30-year period is its knee-jerk objection to science in this area and the idea that there can be a moratorium not just on the application of knowledge, which is an issue, but on the very knowledge and research in the first place. That troubles me greatly. We should weigh all issues up and make wise, evidence-based decisions.

On the one hand, I welcome the Bill and I certainly welcome and support science-based approaches to technologies such as genetic modification and what the Government refer to as precision breeding. They have the potential to deliver a major improvement in productivity and on the environmental front, reducing the impact of farming. Genetic modification can have a positive impact by allowing us to address pest and disease pressures on crops and farm animals, and so reduce our reliance on fertilisers and pesticides; that helps more broadly in the fight against climate change. Genetic modification also provides opportunities for us to meet global need, including the food requirements of the global poor. However, there are problems with the Bill, and reasons why I would support the Government being more open to amendments from the other place, and especially to amendments 3 and 4 tonight.

Let me mention some areas in which the Bill is weak. It does not solve the intellectual property and commercial issues surrounding genetic modification technology. If we allowed science to be better used in farming, for the reasons we have set out relating to the environment and the quality and scale of production, but ended up making farmers, particularly tenant farmers, entirely beholden to the commercial interests of large, multinational agribusinesses, that would be an outrage. That is not what farmers in this country want; they want science applied, and they want freedom. They do not want to be pawns in a multinational game. That major area of concern is not addressed in the Bill.

The Bill is also light on the details of the new regulatory requirements for crops and animals. I accept that animals should be in the scope of the Bill, but we are transitioning from a very high regulation system to a relatively low regulation system. The lack of detail on how the new system will work makes it hard to support the Bill.

Amendment 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), would prevent the Secretary of State from authorising a new product if scientific evidence indicated

“that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny”.

Lack of detail on those kinds of situations makes it hard for us to go into the Aye Lobby and support the Bill this evening. Editing a pig’s genes could, for example, make it resistant to disease—that would obviously be a welcome advantage of this technology—but the Bill must not be a shortcut that allows pigs to be reared in less hygienic, more crowded conditions. Again, that issue is not covered. Animals’ welfare must not only continue to be protected but be continuously improved.

We do not want all the effort that has been put into the high standards in British farming to be wasted as a result of a back-door watering down of standards; but if there was such a watering-down, it would be part of a pattern, I am afraid. It would fit the pattern of the trade deals that are being designed and agreed to. The deals with Australia and New Zealand in particular basically throw away the high standards we have developed. It is not only that it is morally right to have those standards; they make the provenance of our produce important, make it high-quality, and give it high ethical value. What a desperate shame that free trade, which is a good thing, should be done so badly that our farmers are thrown under the bus, have their livelihoods threatened, and cannot take advantage of the benefits that free trade ought to provide. If the Bill is part of a deregulatory framework, or part of an agenda that seeks to unfairly disadvantage British farmers or throws the standards that they have developed under the bus, that is unacceptable. Unamended, the Bill forms part of a pattern of this Government throwing our farmers to the wolves.

Farmers do not benefit from the application of science envisaged in the Bill if they do not survive the transition from the current payment scheme to the new one. Reshuffle upon reshuffle has followed on from great uncertainty, which the Government introduced in September when they indicated that they might be prepared to rip up the environmental land management scheme. There are many problems with that scheme, by the way; the fact that only 1% of eligible farmers have applied for the sustainable farming incentive shows how poorly the Government are rolling out a scheme that most Members agree with in principle. The worst thing the Government could do is rip it all up; the best thing they could do is invest in protecting the £3.5 billion supposedly ringfenced for ELMS and allow the process to take place, so that farmers survive. Farmers will be in no position to protect our environment, produce our food or apply the science that the Government want them to apply if they do not survive.

In short, we strongly support the principle underlying the Bill, but we strongly urge the Government to consider the amendments before us this evening, and those that will undoubtedly be tabled in the other place, to improve regulation, safety and animal welfare, and protect farmers from the damage that could be done to them if they end up being the pawns of multinational global enterprises. I would hate the United Kingdom to end up a mirror image of the European Commission, which regulated to such an extent that applying science was impossible. Alternatively, the Government may deregulate to such an extent that it is hard to defend the science, and that would be a real shame for all of us who genuinely care about the application of science in farming.

Sewage Pollution

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on sewage outflows into our beautiful waterways and on our beaches.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As a Cornish MP, I have long been aware of the challenges created for our aquatic environment by storm overflows. When I became Secretary of State in February 2020, I instructed officials to change the strategic policy statement for Ofwat to give the issue greater priority.

This is the first Government to set a clear requirement for water companies to reduce the harm caused by sewage discharges: we have set that in law through the Environment Act 2021. We are taking action now on a scale never seen before. Water companies are investing £3.1 billion now to deliver 800 storm overflow improvements across England by 2025. This will deliver an average 25% reduction in discharges by 2025.

We have also increased monitoring. In 2016, only 5% of storm overflows were monitored. Following the action of this Government, almost 90% are now monitored, and by next year 100% of all storm overflows will be required to have monitors fitted. This new information has allowed our regulators to take action against water companies. The Environment Agency and Ofwat have launched the largest criminal and civil investigations into water companies ever, at more than 2,200 treatment works, following the improvements that we have made to monitoring data. That follows 54 prosecutions against water companies since 2015, securing fines of nearly £140 million.

Water companies should consider themselves on notice. We will not let them get away with illegal activity. Where permits are breached, we are taking action and bringing prosecutions. Under our landmark Environment Act, we have also made it a legal requirement for companies to provide discharge data to the Environment Agency and make it available to the public in near real time: within an hour. This is what Conservative Members have voted for: an Environment Act that will clean up our rivers and restore our water environment; that has increased monitoring and strengthened accountability; and that adds tough new duties to tackle sewage overflows for the first time.

The Government have also been clear that companies cannot profit from environmental damage, so we have provided new powers to Ofwat under the Environment Act to modify water company licence conditions. Ofwat is currently consulting on proposals that will enable it to take enforcement action against companies that do not link dividend payments to their environmental performance or that are failing to be transparent about their dividend payouts.

Yesterday, I laid before Parliament the storm overflows discharge reduction plan. The plan will start the largest investment in infrastructure ever undertaken by the water industry: an estimated £56 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years. It sets strict new targets for water companies to reduce sewage discharges. Designated bathing waters will be the first sites to see change. By 2035, water companies must ensure that overflows affecting designated bathing waters meet strict standards to protect public health. We will also see significant reductions in discharges at 75% of high-priority sites.

Water is one of our most precious commodities. Water companies must clean up their act and bring these harmful discharges to an end. I commend our storm overflow report, which was published yesterday, to the House.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but I am utterly staggered by his complacency. Following the news over the summer that raw sewage was being pumped into our waterways and along our beautiful beaches, I have received so many messages from constituents who are horrified that water companies are polluting in such a revolting way. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, after 12 years, people rightly hold his Government responsible for this risk to human and environmental health, and for allowing the twin failures of weak regulation and Government cuts, together with the continuation of a privatisation process that has lined the pockets of shareholders at the expense of investment in the infrastructure that we so desperately need?

Where is the urgency from Ministers? We have a so-called plan that allows water companies to continue polluting until 2035 in areas of significant importance to human and ecological health and until 2050 elsewhere, which means sanctioning nearly 30 more years of pollution. Is that genuinely what the Secretary of State considers to be an urgent response? Will he strengthen it to a 90% reduction in storm overflows by 2030 at the latest? Worse still, it was previously illegal for water companies to discharge sewage when there was no heavy rainfall, but under the Government’s new plan, that is now permitted until 2050. Why are this Government going backwards?

Our soon-to-be Prime Minister has claimed that she will “deliver, deliver, deliver”, but all that she did deliver when she was Environment Secretary were devastating cuts to the Environment Agency. Has the Secretary of State asked whether she regrets those cuts, and will the Government reverse them? Is the Secretary of State proud of a situation in which 24% of sewage overflow pipes at popular resorts have monitors that are faulty, or do not have monitors at all? Since privatisation in 1991, water companies have made a staggering £50 billion in dividends for their shareholders. Why does the Secretary of State’s plan include imposing costs on customers to pay for improvements—a bill that the companies themselves should be footing?

Coastal communities are still recovering from the pandemic. Local beaches are at the heart of these communities, and they are critical to our constituents’ wellbeing as well as to local economies. However, one local firm in Brighton told me that on the August bank holiday weekend, when it would normally see a 30% increase in business, it saw a 70% decrease. What compensation will there be for such businesses?

Will the Secretary of State now cut the crap, commit himself to strengthening the Government’s plan, and bring our failing system back into public hands, which is where it belongs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me just say that that was a good joke, but it is not what we want to start this term with. Come on—let us have the Secretary of State.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady delivered her comments with characteristic passion, but she was wrong to say that the Government had not prioritised this issue. Had she listened to my response to the urgent question, she would have heard that when I became Secretary of State this was one of the first things that I prioritised in changing the strategic policy statement.

The hon. Lady would like immediate action to be taken on these matters, but the truth is that long-term infrastructure changes and investments are necessary. We have to take decisions now, and invest in the infrastructure and the capacity to prevent such discharges from happening. Were we to do what the hon. Lady would like, which is to stop using these arrangements immediately, sewage would literally back up into people’s homes, and I am not sure that that is something they would thank us for. We must therefore have a programme of investment, and we are the first Government to set this out. The hon. Lady is correct in saying that down the decades, since the Victorian era, Governments of all colours have failed to give this matter adequate priority. Ours is the first Government in history to do so, and that is what our plan sets out.

The hon. Lady made a point about costs. We are mindful of this. As we roll out our programme, we must prioritise the most harmful discharges in the near term, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are taking action right now, with a £3 billion investment that will reduce discharges by 25% by 2025, and we will then prioritise bathing waters and other priority sites with a target of 2035. Those measures will require that infrastructure investment, and will require some funding. As I said in my initial response, we are doing this in a way that will ensure that it is funded fairly and that companies cannot award dividends unless they are performing properly. Let me also point out that Ofwat regularly tries to drive greater value from water companies, to the extent that last year a number of them appealed to the Competition and Markets Authority to say that Ofwat was being too hard on them.

I disagree with the points that the hon. Lady has made. Ours is the first Government to prioritise this issue, but doing so requires us to make decisions now that will bring about long-term improvements, and that is what we have decided to do.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Those of us who have been around for a long time do not believe that nationalised industries would allow the necessary level of investment to be continued. Can I ask the Secretary of State whether the companies, the regulator and the Environment Agency knew the scale of the discharges?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and it was only when this Government required increased monitoring that we discovered the scale of the problem. The reality is that this has been a problem for some time, but successive Governments down the decades have not had the right monitoring in place to recognise it. As soon as we recognised this, the Environment Agency started to bring record numbers of prosecutions against companies that appear to have been breaching their permit requirements. We are not sure whether that was an error that those companies were making, and that they did not realise they were making some of those discharges, or whether it was deliberate. There is a moot point about why the Environment Agency did not detect this earlier, and that is now the subject of an investigation by the Office for Environmental Protection, which was set up under our Environment Act 2021.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Secretary of State, Jim McMahon.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The scenes over the summer have shown us again that the country is awash with Conservative-approved filthy raw sewage. Over the last six years, there have been over 1 million sewage discharge spill events, which on average means a spill taking place every 2.5 minutes. Just in the time that we will be in this Chamber for this urgent question, 18 sewage discharges will take place. The water companies are laughing all the way to the bank and the Government are complicit in treating our country like an open sewer, allowing raw human waste to be dumped on our beaches and playing fields and into our streams and bathing waters, where families live and holiday and where their children play.

This is the record and the legacy of a decade of decline, including from the new Prime Minister, who slashed the enforcement budget by a quarter when she was in the right hon. Gentleman’s post. There might be a new Prime Minister, but it is the same old Tories. In the Environment Secretary’s own backyard, he has subjected his constituents to 581 sewage discharges in the last year alone. The very people who voted for him and put their trust in him have been let down by him. This could have been avoided had Conservative MPs not blocked changes that would have ended sewage discharges and finally held the water companies to account.

The Government’s plan is not worth the paper it is written on. It is business as usual, giving water bosses the green light to carry out another 4.8 million discharges through to 2035. When will the Government finally step up to eliminate the dumping of raw sewage into our environment? I have a message for whoever may be in the right hon. Gentleman’s post as early as this evening: the Labour party is putting you on notice. We are taking this fight, constituency by constituency, from Cumbria to Cornwall to turn those neglected filthy brown seats into bright red.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman’s contribution is characteristically political—[Interruption.] Let me say that this is the first Government to increase monitoring so that we knew there was a problem. This is the first Government to set out a £56 billion investment plan to tackle this. No previous Government, not even Labour Governments, ever prioritised this issue in the way that we have. The hon. Gentleman mentions cuts to the Environment Agency budget, but he misunderstands how that budget works. The cost of monitoring water companies’ permits for the management of combined storm overflows is cost-recovered through the permit, and there have been no cuts to that. They can to recover those costs, and we have increased the grant in aid budget to enable them to do further enforcement action. That is why we have seen record numbers of prosecutions being brought under this Government’s watch.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Before privatisation, every single gallon of Scarborough sewage was pumped into the sea untreated. Since privatisation, we have seen investment in the Burniston water treatment works, which has been upgraded with ultraviolet treatment to increase its capacity, and in a 4 million litre stormwater tank at the end of Marine Drive that captures the majority of heavy storms. Would the Secretary of State agree that the bathing water off the Yorkshire coast has never been cleaner, and that while there is more work to be done, particularly on some of our inland waterways, private sector investment is the way to deliver that?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have prioritised investments through the new strategic policy statement for Ofwat, which means that this issue is being prioritised for the first time ever. He is also right that private capital has helped to raise the money to lead to infrastructure improvements. Things were not perfect in the days of nationalisation. Indeed, we did not even understand the scale of the problem because there was not the monitoring in place, which we have now required, to recognise it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Dame Meg Hillier.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2019, the River Lea suffered a discharge for 1,000 hours. That was three years ago, and the ripple effect of it will be longer than just this summer. But the Environment Agency, in response to my questions, says—as the Minister said—“Well, it is okay, we are monitoring more.” But that monitoring does not seem to deter the water companies from repeating their action. So why does he think the threat of prosecution and fines is not delivering quicker and better investment to stop this happening?

[George Eustice]

Quite simply, because this is the first Government in history to require all of these 15,000 storm overflows to be properly monitored, and now that we have that data, this is the first Government ever to bring prosecutions against those companies, and they will respond to that. This is also the first Government ever to prioritise £56 billion of investment to improve infrastructure so that these storm overflows are not needed.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his clarity on this issue? Does he agree that that is in stark contrast with the Liberal Democrats, who are pumping out alarmist, inaccurate and frankly toxic material into our constituencies through leaflets and social media? In stark contrast, this Conservative Government are the first Government ever to take action on this and hold the water companies to account and to stop these illegal and unacceptable discharges.

[George Eustice]

No surprises there.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Tim Farron]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; impeccable timing, as always.

Look, it is obvious to everybody watching that we have a colossal problem: 6 million hours of sewage being dumped legally into our seas, lakes and rivers in the last year. These are the specifics of it: in the last 48 hours, a sewage dump on the beach at Seaford in Lewes. In my part of the world, Morecambe bay, 5,000 hours of sewage discharges on to the sands, and 1,000 hours into Windermere. Juxtapose that with £2.8 billion of profits for the water companies, £1 billion in shareholder dividend and the executives giving themselves 20% pay rises, 60% in the form of bonuses. I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I thought bonuses were what you got when you do a good job. And all this is done legally, on the sanction of this Government. When will they make these discharges illegal and ensure that the water companies pump their profits into ensuring that they protect homes and businesses, and our seas and lakes?

[George Eustice]

Our Environment Act addresses all the substantive points that the hon. Gentleman raised. As I said in my statement, Ofwat is currently consulting on an ability to regulate the dividends that companies pay and to link that to their environmental performance.

I would simply repeat that this is the first Government to prioritise this issue. These are long-term challenges. We could argue that the coalition Government, and Governments before them, could have acted on this issue and had a different strategic policy statement. There were Liberal Democrats in that Government. They chose to prioritise other issues, such as the alternative vote and Lords reform.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I will cry in a minute! Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is this Government who have prioritised this issue of tackling sewage discharges, with the monitoring, the reporting and the big investigation under way; and that, contrary to what we have heard from some Members, the Liberal Democrats actually voted against all those measures in the Environment Act? So they could have helped.

Crucially, would my right hon. Friend, who has himself done so much on this issue in the Department, agree that what is important now is that the regulator uses the power it has and uses its new directions; that the EA takes forward prosecutions following this intensive investigation; and that the water companies do not pay huge salaries if they cannot demonstrate that their house is in order?

[George Eustice]

I commend my hon. Friend for her role in progressing this agenda and for the work that she did on the Environment Act, which sets out all the new powers that we need to address this challenge. She is absolutely right: we introduced powers under the Act to give Ofwat new abilities to scrutinise and to change dividend awards. It is consulting on measures to do that now. It is because of the work of my hon. Friend and others in government and in the Department that we have the powers under the Environment Act to finally tackle this long-standing challenge.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Recently the Environment Agency branded Southern Water “appalling” and awarded it a one-star rating. Frankly, in the view of my constituents, that was one whole star too many, and many of them are considering not paying their bills. I have held two public meetings in Whitstable so that representatives from our sailing clubs, swimmers, fishers and residents could confront Southern Water directly. Will the Secretary of State—or one of the Ministers, because we do not know who it will be—come to my constituency and meet groups such as SOS Whitstable, and hear from them what damage this is doing to our economy on a daily basis?

[George Eustice]

Southern Water is one of the companies that were recently investigated, and was subject to a record fine of close to £90 million. That significant fine actually precipitated a change in ownership of that company. I know that the new owners are committed to addressing the historic problems that they have had. As for whether a Minister will visit the hon. Lady’s constituency, if she would like to write to me or wait and see who is around tomorrow, I am sure they will look favourably on her request.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the River Wye is a priceless national asset, threatened by phosphate pollution. He also knows that the Wye is unusual because it crosses the border between Wales and England and the majority of its phosphate does not come from sewage companies, and therefore it will not be as affected as other rivers by the thoroughly laudable measures that my right hon. Friend has taken. Will he make a note to his successor, if there is one, and to his officials now in the Box, that the next administration of DEFRA, if there is one, should take the matter up with great energy and authority, and press the cross-border issue, for the betterment of the Wye, the whole catchment and this country as a whole?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point, in that there are sometimes cross-border issues. While we are taking leading action in England, we obviously also need other devolved Administrations, including in Wales, to play their part to address the challenge, particularly in catchments such as the Wye. I am aware of the point that he makes on phosphates. We are consulting at the moment on reducing nutrient pollution—both nitrogen and phosphates—from both agriculture and sewage treatment works, and I am sure that when the results are published they will give the impetus that he requires and requests for agriculture to be tackled.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Last week, I and 17 of my north-west colleagues wrote to United Utilities about reported significant sewage releases into the River Mersey. United Utilities has simply denied that it was responsible and cited Environment Agency estimates that it is responsible for only about 30% of pollution incidents in the river. What will the Government do, on a speedier timescale than the one that the Secretary of State’s plan sets out, to make sure that investment in infrastructure is brought forward? The companies seem to have got into a very bad habit of treating the money that they make as something to be given out in dividends and payments to senior executives, rather than invested in the infrastructure that will make sure that this stops in the future.

[George Eustice]

The next pricing review period starts in 2025, which is not soon enough for me. That is why I said to Ofwat, and to the water companies, that they should bring forward any investments that they are able to. That is why, as I said earlier, there will be £3.1 billion of investments up to 2025, on 800 overflows, which will significantly reduce discharges by about 25% by 2025—so in the near term.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Last week, I met Anglian Water to discuss the situation that had developed in Cleethorpes. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has just said, I was left with the feeling that we could be harder on it in the targets that we set. Whether that is through my right hon. Friend, Ofwat or the Environment Agency matters not. Could we look again at the targets that we are setting? In his earlier response, the Secretary of State mentioned 2035. That is a long way away. Traders in Cleethorpes want people to come along and be confident that the waters are clean.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are mindful of the impacts on bills. The average increase in bills with the measures we outlined—the £56 billion package—will be about £12 per household per year by around 2030. However, we have said that we will review this in 2027, and if it is possible to accelerate more of that investment, we will do so and the Government at that time can consider that position. I repeat that it is not the case that nothing is happening until 2035; indeed, we are spending more than £3 billion out to 2025, which will lead to a 25% reduction.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I have repeatedly raised the issue of sewage dumping on the beach in my constituency in this Chamber. The Government continually use the excuse that it would cost up to £660 billion to upgrade our sewers, but the actual cost, over 10 years, would be £21.7 billion. Since privatisation, £72 billion has been paid out in dividends, so why are the Government not making the water companies meet these costs?

[George Eustice]

We also published and laid before the House yesterday a report required under the Act on the feasibility of removing the storm overflows altogether. It is the case that the cost of completely removing them, as the hon. Lady would like, is up to about £600 billion. Reducing their use so that they are not used in an average year would, in itself, be in the region of £200 billion. We have chosen to spend £56 billion, a significant investment, to target the most harmful sewer discharges, and that will lead to significant change in the years ahead.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

River pollution and sewage discharge in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Labour Government and last year there were more than 3,000 discharge incidents in waters around Anglesey. I have received many letters from my constituents who are concerned about the pollution of beautiful beaches such as Benllech as a result of the actions of Welsh Water. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Government need to take responsibility and urgently implement a plan?

[George Eustice]

We have set an important example with the storm overflow discharge reduction plan that we have published. We have committed to the investment and we are bringing record numbers of prosecutions in England against water companies. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need the Welsh Government and the devolved Administrations to play their part too.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

We have an ecological disaster with massive numbers of dead crustaceans, porpoises and seals washing up on the beaches around the Tees bay, hammering what is left of our fishing industry. In addition to the foul sewage discharges, levels of pyridine have been detected that are off the scale and there are concerns about the dredging of the river and the bay releasing toxins. Will the Minister assure me that his Department will commit to securing a proper explanation for this disaster and insist that his Tory Tees Valley Mayor does not repeat his misleading of the public about the quantities of dredgings being disposed of at sea?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue before and there was a tragic case of large numbers of crabs, in particular, being washed up on beaches in his constituency. We ordered an investigation by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture, our leading fisheries science agency, supported by Natural England. Their conclusion was that this is most likely caused by a natural algal bloom event.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

My local beach, Longrock, saw the highest number of combined sewer overflow notifications in this last bathing season, so I could not agree more that South West Water needs to do more. However, the Secretary of State will know that it is not just an issue for the water companies. For example, in a combined sewerage system, water from our roads, our farmland, our roofs and our own homes will eventually overwhelm this aged system. What can he do to encourage us all to act more responsibly in the way we use water, which will eventually overflow this system and go on to our beaches?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point: the origin of this problem links back to the Victorian combined sewer system we have, where street drainage systems are linked into the foul water drainage system. Since the 1960s, new housing developments have been required to be on a different drainage system, but I am sorry to say that all too often they have ended up plumbed back into the sewer. One key thing that water companies will be prioritising is, where possible, particularly on those later housing developments, ensuring that the drainage system is genuinely separated from the sewer system.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last year, South West Water dumped 350,000 hours of raw sewage into the rivers and seas around the south-west. It has just been handed a one-star rating by the Environment Agency and a third of its sewage monitors do not work, according to the EA. Meanwhile, executive pay is up, dividends are up and it issued a special dividend to reward shareholders with even more money. Is it not time that South West Water published a full list of each and every raw sewage outlet that it is intending to close so that bill payers, such as the Secretary of State and I, can look at what it is intending to do and how these things are going to close? This will allow us to hold South West Water to account, just as we will hold the Tory Government to account for their failure to take faster action at the next election.

[George Eustice]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) has met South West Water to discuss some of these issues. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that in 2016 only about 800 combined sewers were properly monitored and we have increased that to 12,000. Over the next year, we will increase it to 100% coverage. It is because of the action that this Government have taken to increase monitoring, something that no previous Government had done, that we have determined that there is a problem and we are bringing prosecutions against these companies.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

On the island, we have persuaded Southern Water to undertake its most ambitious pathfinder project, which should, in time, see dramatic improvements. We need them, because in the past 24 hours we have had overflows at Bembridge, Cowes, Ryde, Seaview, Freshwater and Gurnard, which is unacceptable. I pay tribute to the work done by the Secretary of State and former Ministers in bringing in these new laws that have exposed the problem. We have seen the complacency and the failure in the water industry. Because of that failure and complacency, should we not now be bringing forward the legal timescales by which we demand action? We have exposed the problem, so can we not do more to demand that those water companies take the action that we all want to see?

[George Eustice]

It is important to distinguish between the failure of water companies to abide by their permit conditions, which is an issue and is the reason for the Environment Agency bringing multiple prosecutions on this matter—we must bring that to a speedy conclusion, seek immediate rectification and bring them back into compliance with their permit conditions—and the separate issue of the permitted use of storm overflows. That issue is about long-term investment in infrastructure, which is what our discharge plan addressed.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I hope you will excuse me for being slightly political on this matter, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State continues to talk about the discharges and how he is trying to catch up with the water companies, but the reality is that we should be surcharging the water companies for the continuous abuse of our rivers, streams, play areas, seas and everywhere that this gets into. It ruins our environment for our rivers and our streams. If he wants to deal with this, he should surcharge the companies. If they cannot pay the surcharge, he should bring this back into public ownership—that is the answer to all of this.

[George Eustice]

As I said, we have brought many prosecutions since 2015 and levied fines of about £140 million on the industry. In one case, that precipitated a change in ownership of a water company. The right thing to do is bring prosecutions where a company is in breach of its permits, and that is what the Environment Agency is doing.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, thank you for granting not only this urgent question, but a 90-minute debate next Wednesday at 2.30 pm in Westminster Hall. Bexhill’s beach is red-flagged today, as it was yesterday, meaning that people should not enter the sea. It was the only beach in the area to be red-flagged and it is the only beach in the area whose bathing quality is not either “excellent” or “good”. I welcome the Secretary of State’s plan, but may I ask him to ensure that the areas that do not have good-quality bathing have a higher degree of prioritisation in the delivery of this plan?

[George Eustice]

I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our discharge reduction plan absolutely prioritises bathing waters in those near-term investments.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

While water companies such as Northumbria Water have made on average £2 billion profit a year since privatisation, filthy raw sewage is being dumped into our playing fields, our beaches and our waters. This included 1,248 sewage dumps across 48 sites in my constituency last year. Profits and shareholder dividends are up, at the expense of public health. I went to see for myself the River Don in my constituency a few weeks ago, and the stench alone made clear the scale of the issue. Will the Secretary of State and his Government act on this immediately, or is he content with this environmentally criminal behaviour?

[George Eustice]

I hope I have made it clear that we are not content with criminal behaviour, which is precisely why we are bringing record numbers of prosecutions, having discovered a problem as a result of the monitoring that the Government required. The hon. Lady mentions dividends. As I said earlier, the Environment Act 2021 gives us new powers, and Ofwat is currently consulting on new measures that will link dividend payments to environmental performance.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

At the hottest part of the summer, beaches from Hastings to Worthing were blighted by the discharges by Southern Water, even though the rain after the dry period was not particularly heavy. Many of our constituents and tourists just could not use those beaches. While I welcome the extra data and monitoring equipment, which is making the problem more transparent, what we really need is better inspection and enforcement by the Environment Agency, and better explanations from the water companies when these spills occur. If they are lacking, the companies need to be penalised. We also need better information for our constituents as to whether it is safe to go back into the water.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I said in my statement, we are now requiring water companies to make available to the Environment Agency all the discharge data from storm overflows, and to publish it in near real time for the public. We shall continue to bring prosecutions where there are breaches of licence conditions.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Despite 12 years of Tory government and some of the tough and strong words in the Chamber today, in my constituency tonnes of sewage are discharged into the River Weaver, the River Mersey and the River Dane on a daily basis by United Utilities. The current system is not working. The future Secretary of State will need to step up, step in and get a grip of this situation. That is crystal clear right across this Chamber.

[George Eustice]

I am the first Secretary of State ever to publish a plan such as this. One of my first acts as Secretary of State in 2020 was to instruct officials to change the strategic policy statement for Ofwat, which for the first time prioritised reduction of storm overflows.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend and his Ministers for all that they are doing to tackle this issue. He will be aware of the importance of water quality in areas where oysters are grown such as the Blackwater estuary. What progress is being made to require the water companies to provide additional investment to carry out microbiological treatment to prevent things like E. coli contamination?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the actions that we are requiring water companies to take in some instances will be to use techniques that will disinfect water to prevent E. coli counts in the way that he describes, which can indeed affect shellfish sectors in aquatic environments.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Is it not obvious that all these years of privatisation, all the billions that have been paid out in dividends and profits and the massive levels of executive pay have meant that not enough has been invested in the infrastructure, and that there have been excessive numbers of sewage discharges, which are getting worse? Is it not obvious that we should do what every other country in western Europe does and bring our water industry as a whole into public ownership under public control so that we do not damage our water infrastructure in order to pay profits to distant billionaires?

[George Eustice]

The original vision of water privatisation was that we would have publicly listed companies on the London stock exchange and that water bill payers would also be shareholders. In the early 2000s, most of the water companies fell into the hands of private equity operators, and that was a change. The then Government took a decision to issue licences to operate in perpetuity rather than for fixed periods, which was the case previously. There have been some changes since privatisation, but I am afraid his central charge that nationalisation is the way to get investment is wrong.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

Sometimes we forget in this place how we ended up here. We ought to recognise the work of the Environmental Audit Committee, a number of members of which are in the Chamber. The Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), highlighted for the Chamber the entire situation in his water quality inquiry. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, without our work, we would never have highlighted the improper use of storm overflows, and we certainly would not have been in a position in which the Secretary of State has put together a plan to tackle this problem, which has gone on for years and years?

[George Eustice]

I am a great believer in the role of Parliament and always have been. It has been a team effort. When I became Secretary of State, I prioritised this long before it was an issue in the media and long before people realised it was an issue. Many Members, including the Chair of the EAC, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), played a crucial role in making sure that we got the legislation right.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is pretty obvious to most of my constituents that water privatisation has been a miserable failure. Most of our water companies are owned by foreign investment companies, and we have lost that link. I went campaigning for better water in the Colne, the Holme and the Calder some years ago, and Yorkshire Water said to me, “I don’t know what you are complaining about, Mr Sheerman; there is no river in England fit for humans to swim in.” That is the truth of the matter. I would not prioritise public ownership for this particular thing; I would use that for other sectors. But the fact of the matter is that the regulation has not worked, and it has got to work.

[George Eustice]

I agree, which is why the Government have changed our legal powers through the Environment Act 2021 to strengthen the regulation, and to require improved monitoring. On the basis of that monitoring and the evidence that it has revealed, we are now bringing record numbers of prosecutions. So the hon. Gentleman is right that there have been regulatory failures in the past. We have addressed those legal deficiencies through the Environment Act.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Thank you for allowing the urgent question, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be aware that Herefordshire has been under a moratorium for several years now. Herefordshire Council has spent millions of pounds of council tax money buying land around Welsh Water’s sewage works to work as soakaways, yet now I learn that Natural England wants to extend the moratorium to the rest of the county. Please will he use his time in office to stop Natural England from pursuing this pointless and ineffective policy?

[George Eustice]

This issue is linked to a separate but associated challenge around nutrient pollution. We published our proposals to make some changes to deal with this issue on a strategic level before the summer recess, and we may well indeed need some legislative changes as the challenges that he highlights are a legacy of EU law.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks as if he is the first Conservative Secretary of State under this Government. The Conservatives have had 12 years to deal with this issue. Now we are seeing images of raw sewage being pumped out into our coastal waters at the height of the summer season. We have had 12 years of freebooting, when chief execs have paid themselves unearned bonuses and billions have been paid out in dividends. It is 33 years since privatisation. We were told that privatisation was the answer to problems like this. Why has the situation got worse, not better?

[George Eustice]

I am afraid that the failure to address storm overflows goes back much further. This is a legacy of the Victorian infrastructure that we have in place, and no Government down the decades in the 20th century properly grasped it. Successive pricing reviews under the Labour Government prioritised price reductions over investments to tackle this challenge. The same was true of the coalition Government. This is the first Government ever to prioritise this issue.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Constituents of mine along Rivadale View in Ilkley—indeed all of Ilkley and I—are getting fed up with Yorkshire Water’s underground apparatus and infrastructure failing in Ilkley. We have one scenario where a manhole cover has burst nine times in the past 12 months. Every time it bursts, sewage flows into the River Wharfe. We have passed the landmark Environment Act 2021, which, dare I say it, the Opposition did not vote for. Does the Secretary of State agree that Yorkshire Water needs to get its act together and sort this out, so that my residents are not having to suffer the consequences of sewage getting into the River Wharfe from this manhole cover bursting time and again?

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, thanks to the evidence that has been gathered as a result of the new monitoring that we required, we are now bringing investigations into around 2,200 sewage treatment works. I cannot comment on the specific manhole cover that my hon. Friend refers to, but I can reassure him that the Environment Agency is prioritising all of these sorts of challenges.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

A couple of weeks ago, heavy rainfall in Sheffield resulted in sewage flowing into the garden of my constituent Perri Bradbury and on into her home, so it has damaged the carpets, the floorboards and furnishings. She has young children. I do not think that we can imagine the awfulness of this situation. When I asked Yorkshire Water about compensation, it did a bit of a clean-up and then said that, under the Water Industry Act 1991, because this was due to exceptional weather, it was not obliged to pay any compensation and would not do so. Is it not time that we changed this out-of-date legislation and made sure that the cost of the consequences of sewage overflows falls on the water companies and not on residents, who have completely no responsibly for this?

[George Eustice]

The episode that the hon. Gentleman describes is probably linked to a failure somewhere in the sewage infrastructure rather than storm overflows per se, and that is a slightly separate issue. If he would like to write to me, I will look at the specific case he raises.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

On the topic of dirty waterways, more and more constituents have been getting in contact with me about the River Gipping over the summer. The river is full of algae and shopping trolleys and is distinctly unloved. Can the Secretary of State advise me and my constituents on how we can go about turning this situation around and potentially securing some extra funding? Ultimately, though, is it the Environment Agency or Ipswich Borough Council that is most responsible? Ipswich is not just about the waterfront on the River Orwell, which is lovely; it is also about the River Gipping. We have to love it and raise it up.

[George Eustice]

A number of agencies have a role in the situation that my hon. Friend describes. Typically, local authorities are responsible for most of the street drainage infrastructure and the schemes to address that, while the Environment Agency deals with fluvial flood risk, but the two often work together in partnership to tackle these challenges.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

This summer, people visiting east Devon had their health put at risk by greedy water companies. Executives at South West Water have been paid £2.2 million in bonuses over the past two years. A sewage pollution alert has been issued today in Seaton, and last year South West Water discharged water for more than 1,100 hours across Beer and Seaton. How comfortable is the Secretary of State with the size of the bonuses that have already been paid to South West Water executives while that company has received from the Environment Agency a rock-bottom one-star rating?

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises has been addressed through the Environment Act 2021. We have taken new powers to give Ofwat the ability to link dividend payments to environmental performance, and we are addressing the challenge of storm overflows through the plan we set out yesterday.

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I commend the Secretary of State—a fellow Cornish MP—for being the first Secretary of State so far to grasp this nettle and take robust action. As those on the Front Bench will understand, this is a serious problem in Cornwall, especially on the River Fowey, affecting our shell fishermen. It is also something that I raised more than two and a half years ago. Does he agree that enough is enough and that, if water companies are found not to be complying with their obligations, they should face unlimited fines, which I would like to see ringfenced so that we can invest back into the system to fix the problems, and even criminal penalties? If he does agree, will he set out how these will be implemented?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I have said, we are bringing a record number of investigations and prosecutions against water companies for potential breaches of their permit conditions. In addition, in the River Fowey, there is also a challenge around agricultural diffuse pollution, which contributes to the issue for the mussel and oyster fishery in that particular part of the world. That is something that we are addressing through our new targets in the Environment Act 2021.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

That is clearly not enough. This is a public health issue. Will the Minister consider making it a strict liability offence to dump sewage anywhere and give the Environment Agency more immediate powers, such as cease and desist, because clearly it is being ignored?

[George Eustice]

The real challenge is that the Environment Agency was not fully aware that these breaches were occurring. That is why, as I said earlier, the Office for Environmental Protection is investigating why the Environment Agency was not aware that permits it had granted were, it appeared, not being followed in all cases. None the less, the Environment Agency has all the powers it needs to prosecute, to bring fines and to require immediate changes.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of having accurate facts and data in this area? Pollution incidents in my North Devon constituency are actually down by 83% this year compared with last year. The increase in monitoring means that macro data between years is not comparable. Furthermore, when storm overflows discharge, frequently that is not raw sewage. Does he also agree that misinformation from the Opposition and the media on this topic is potentially damaging businesses along the coast, especially when their water is clean?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point: we need to have accurate data, which is why we have required new monitoring to be put in place and new disclosures to be made by water companies both to the public and to the Environment Agency. She is also right that some storm overflows are discharging storm water from drains and not foul water—sewage—at all, and we need to make that distinction. That is why we are prioritising environmental harm rather than the total number of discharges, because we need to recognise that some are more harmful to the environment than others.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Water companies must clean up their act. Last year, Northumbrian Water allowed 615 days’ worth of raw sewage to be dumped into rivers at 92 sites across Durham, including the Wear, the Browney and the Deerness, making a lovely home for the dead ducks, the traffic cones, and the used drug kits filling up the Wear. Does the Minister believe that the new Prime Minister regrets her savage cuts to the Environment Agency’s monitoring and enforcement work?

[George Eustice]

As I have said, there has been an increase in the grant in aid for the Environment Agency since 2010. More importantly, the work done on monitoring is cost recovered through the licences and permits that are issued. On a wider point, yes, we recognise that this is a challenge. I recognised that on becoming Secretary of State in 2020. Our plan addresses all of the issues that the hon. Lady highlights.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Contrary to the absolute nonsense peddled by the Opposition, it is this Government who are the first in history to bring forward a comprehensive plan to tackle sewage discharges. At a time when household budgets are under immense pressure, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been incredibly reckless to have agreed to Labour’s plans to eliminate sewage discharges, which would have landed the taxpayer and consumers with a £600 billion bill and left consumers paying thousands more per year for their water?

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, we have chosen to prioritise the most harmful sites and to prioritise them quickly, with £3 billion of investment until 2025 and £56 billion of investment across the programme. My hon. Friend is right: to eliminate all storm overflows in their entirety would be a huge undertaking, costing £600 billion, with a major impact on the bills of water bill payers.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Our sewage pollution is packed with wet wipes, and wet wipes that are made of plastic just never break down. Last week, I was on the banks of the River Thames visiting a wet wipe island, which was the size of two tennis courts and a metre deep. In February, the Government consulted on eliminating plastic from wet wipe production. It can be done, but the results have not been revealed. Can the Secretary of State say when the consultation results will be revealed and when the Government will ban plastic in wet wipes?

[George Eustice]

This Government have taken relentless action to remove plastics from the ocean, banning plastic stirrers and cotton buds and, as the hon. Lady says, consulting on the next steps to deal with non-biodegradable wet wipes. The consultation has now closed and it is the convention that they are typically replied to within nine to 12 months.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

For decades—indeed since the Victorian era—sewage has been discharged into the River Chelt. That is, of course, completely unacceptable. Now Severn Trent Water has given me a cast-iron guarantee that it will cut discharges by 85% by the end of 2024. Does the Secretary of State agree that companies such as Severn Trent need to abide by those commitments, and that if they do not, my constituents and others like them will conclude that these water companies are the unacceptable face of capitalism?

[George Eustice]

It is important that we have worked closely with the water companies, many of which recognise that there is a challenge. As my hon. Friend says, many have now said that they want to bring forward investment planned for the late 2020s to much sooner and are discussing that with Ofwat. We recognise and welcome that; it is good that those water companies are finally waking up and recognising and dealing with this challenge.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It must be apparent from the response to the news of the combined sewer overflows that the public, our constituents, do not believe we are doing enough to stop that happening. Last year, the Government had the chance to go further in the Environment Act 2021, but did not do so. People are concerned about the impact on their health and the environment. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the health impact of CSOs, and will he look at speeding up the timetable for stopping them? I pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage, which has done so much to highlight this issue.

[George Eustice]

The Environment Act addresses those issues, and this Government and Conservative Members voted for the changes that put in place the legal powers that we need to address this challenge. The hon. Lady asks whether we can speed things up; as I have said, we are already talking to water companies about bringing forward investment into the current pricing review period. We will have more than £3 billion-worth of investment up until 2025 and we will review in 2027 whether we can accelerate the plan further.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I am very proud to have the Rivers Usk and Wye in my constituency but, as has already been said, the Wye flows from my constituency into England and back again. Last year, I asked the then Environment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), to chair a roundtable of all parties with her counterpart in the Welsh Government. She kindly agreed to that, but the Welsh Labour Minister told me there was no value in such a meeting. Can the Secretary of State advise me on how we can drag the Welsh Government to the table and engage with them on this issue?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I have said several times, we are taking clear and assertive action in England to tackle the problem. We need the devolved Administrations, particularly Wales, to play their part as well, and it is disappointing if what she says is correct and Ministers have declined a meeting. I would advise her to work with Members of the Welsh Assembly to try to bring matters to a head and address the issue.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Could the Secretary of State send a copy of the statement he has made today to those people who claim to run Thames Water? So far in their correspondence with me they have refused to give any undertakings about keeping drains and overflows clear. They also refused to attend two public meetings in Leytonstone in my constituency on the flooding—in fact, getting a papal audience would be easier than getting constructive information from Thames Water. I hope I am wrong about this, but despite the Secretary of State’s best efforts I suspect that Thames Water, one of the most powerful companies in the country, will continue to treat elected representatives and consumers with contempt.

[George Eustice]

That is very disappointing, if what the hon. Gentleman says is right. In my constituency I have regular engagement with South West Water and I am sure many other hon. Members have regular engagement with their own water company. I would simply say that the key role of Government is to ensure that we have the legal powers to bring prosecutions where they are necessary, and to set in place the strategic plan to require the investment necessary to deal with this particular problem.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Countries around the world and other parts of the UK are battling historical infrastructure constraints that mix storm water with foul water. Does the Secretary of State agree that what we need in this debate is some cool, some balance and to deal in the facts? There has been some deeply grubby, irresponsible scaremongering over the summer from some of the usual suspects. In the spirit of honesty and truth—I appreciate that 2035 is a long way away; too long for many of my constituents—can the Secretary of State tell the House the cold, hard choices that he and his potential successor face, and I suppose therefore water bill payers in our constituencies face, to speed things up significantly?

[George Eustice]

It is not the case that nothing will be done until 2035. Indeed, investments are happening right now to improve more than 800 priority storm overflows. We will see a reduction in discharges across the country of around 25% by 2025, and then we will go further out until 2035. The estimated average increase in water bills for those actions, the £56 billion package that we have set out to 2030, will be in the region of £12 per year. Were we to go further, it would be around 10 times higher than that every year.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

We have heard this afternoon of the ecological impact that many of these sewage discharges have on rivers and coastal areas, as well as the public health concerns that arise from them. It bears repeating, of course, that there is also an impact on local communities and businesses, especially in coastal communities. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as part of his plans to tackle the problem, perhaps compensation should be considered for those communities impacted, which might well prove an incentive to those water companies to speed up some of their work?

[George Eustice]

Obviously, the issue is devolved; the action we have taken is in respect of England and it is for the Welsh Government to tackle some of the challenges they have in their own area. The approach we have taken is essentially to require and allow unlimited fines against companies that breach their permit conditions. We are bringing record numbers of prosecutions and we believe that that is the right way to bring those water companies back into compliance.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My beautiful South West Hertfordshire constituency has the River Chess going through it. Jon Tyler is the last watercress farmer along the River Chess. Can my right hon. Friend give me assurance that the Environment Act, as is, is the best way to ensure that his business remains successful in the years to come?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Department is also working on a new horticulture strategy, and I invite him to write with details of the particular watercress grower he refers to, to ensure that the challenges they face are properly reflected in the new strategy we are developing.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I did not realise that the Government’s plan for biodiversity net gain was simply to boost the level of E. coli and Campylobacter in our rivers and waterways. That is a serious point, because earlier this summer the chief medical officer, Ofwat and the Environment Agency set out that they have real concerns about the spread of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in our waterways, not just because of sewage from storm overflows, but because of normal sewage treatment works. What is the wait? Why have we been waiting 28 years to ban that outright?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady is wrong. The environment targets that we are currently consulting on will set ambitious targets to improve bathing water quality, addressing issues such as E. coli counts. She is also wrong to say that the issue of breaches of permits from water treatment works is not being addressed; it is being investigated right now at 2,200 facilities and, where appropriate, prosecutions will be brought.

[Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

My constituents in Mid Sussex have rightly been very concerned by social media’s inferring that the Government are not taking significant action. As confirmed today, that is both irresponsible and alarmist. We all enjoy the seaside in Sussex and across the country. People are acting today as if they do not bear any blame themselves, but we are all contributing to this problem. We should be allaying fears. DEFRA should be working to give my constituents and those across the land a clearer insight into the positive changes, and to ensure that we keep our resorts busy and our bathing water safe. Will the Department provide more clarity so that people understand that the situation is improving significantly?

[George Eustice]

I have been grateful for today’s opportunity and I hope to do precisely that. We all know that one should not believe everything one sees on social media. I tend not to participate on Twitter and social media for precisely that reason; in my view, it is best not to have a Twitter account. The important thing is that we parliamentarians focus on the substantive issue. That is what I have done as Secretary of State and it is what the report that we published yesterday does.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

This was the first summer that Oxford West and Abingdon could enjoy the fact that the River Thames in Port Meadow had been granted bathing water status, and it was enjoyed by many, but it is the second of only two such sites in the entire country. I know that the Government want more locations to be granted the status, but that is difficult because of the huge amount of work that needs to be put into the bids, and the fact that no money is allocated in the Department to help communities and councils to put the bids together or to put in the extra resources. Will he consider a fund to help communities and councils to gain bathing water status for our rivers?

[George Eustice]

If the hon. Lady writes to us about her proposal, we will look at it. DEFRA has a target under the Environment Act 2021 to increase the number of bathing waters that are in good and favourable condition, and the Environment Agency and others work to ensure that the designations can be processed.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

We need to establish the real scale of the problem. It has been estimated that providing a full solution to storm overflow discharges will require the replacement of 100,000 miles of combined sewers, so the Government have it absolutely right with increasingly onerous targets for Ofwat backed by unlimited fines, and £56 billion of infrastructure investment year after year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to pretend that we can call for an immediate ban does a huge disservice to the general public and takes them for fools?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to take the right long-term decisions now on investment, monitoring and bringing prosecutions in order to ensure that the issue improves over the next 25 years and, indeed, that it improves significantly between now and 2025; that is exactly what our plan sets out.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. He has mentioned on three occasions the need for the devolved Administrations to play their part. Sewage impacts on all the seas around the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Taking into consideration the fact that 7 million tonnes of raw sewage are pumped into Northern Ireland’s seas and waters, and more than £1.5 billion of investment is needed to repair that situation, does the right hon. Member agree that there must be a holistic approach to tackling sewage pollution across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[George Eustice]

As I said, responsibility for water quality is devolved, but of course we work closely with all the devolved Administrations. DEFRA will share all the policy thinking, work and analysis that we have done in respect of England with any devolved Administration who would find it useful.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

There are two pollution warnings on our beautiful beaches of Southend West today, because of the use of storm overflows. I welcome all the work that the Government are doing and their plans to reduce the problem, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the payments of dividends and capital buy-backs must be directly linked to Anglian Water’s performance in preventing sewage discharges in my constituency?

[George Eustice]

Yes, I agree that dividend payments should be linked to compliance with permits and environmental performance, and we have taken the powers in the Environment Act to ensure that that happens.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Last question—the prize for perseverance and persistence goes to Anthony Browne.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The discharge of sewage into waterways, including the beautiful chalk streams of South Cambridgeshire, is clearly completely unacceptable, which is why I welcome the package of measures the Secretary of State talked about earlier finally to tackle the problem. Enforcement is a lot more effective if we hit owners and senior executives where it hurts most: in their pockets. That is why I welcome the fact that, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, including in response to the previous question, Ofwat is consulting on linking dividend payments to environmental performance. Does he also agree that the Government should consider going further and banning water companies that are fined for illegally dumping pollution from paying any bonus to their senior management team or dividends to their owners for one year? When bankers break the law, they lose their bonuses. Should not the same happen to water company executives?

[George Eustice]

As I said, Ofwat is consulting on a package of measures, using the new powers that we have given it under the Environment Act. I am sure that it will study this urgent question carefully and take on board my hon. Friend’s policy proposal.

Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

This Government have consistently been clear that the failure of the water companies to adequately reduce the amount of storm sewage discharges is unacceptable. We are the first Government to set a clear requirement on water companies to reduce sewage discharges and set this in law.

Today, I have laid in Parliament the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which sets out strict new targets to crack down on sewage discharges. This will start the largest investment in infrastructure ever undertaken by the water industry, an estimated £56 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years. This will eliminate 80% of discharges by 2050.

Designated bathing waters will be the first sites to see change. By 2035, water companies must ensure that overflows affecting a designated bathing water are compliant with strict standards to protect public health. We will also see significant reductions in discharges at 75% of high priority nature sites. By 2050, no storm overflow covered in the plan will be permitted to operate where this will cause any adverse ecological harm.

The first steps in achieving these targets are already being taken. Water companies are investing £3.1 billion already between 2020 and 2025 to deliver 800 improvements to storm overflows, which will deliver an average of a 25% reduction in discharges by 2025.

Storm overflows are a Victorian sewer system design feature. Achieving the targets will require large and complex infrastructure projects which will take time to deliver. It is right that we carefully balance our ambitions to improve and protect the environment with the need to limit the impact on consumers, particularly when households are facing pressures. If new evidence shows it is possible to go faster, without disproportionately affecting consumers, we will not hesitate to do so and we have set a review of the targets in 2027 for this purpose.

We will not hesitate to hold companies to account where discharges are happening illegally. This is happening now, with record fines and the largest ever criminal and civil investigation into water company sewage discharges being launched by Ofwat and the Environment Agency.

We have also made clear that water companies must be transparent about how executive pay and shareholder dividends align with the services they provide their customers. This Government supports Ofwat’s recent proposals to take further enforcement action against companies that do not link dividend payments to their environmental performance, or those failing to be transparent about their dividend pay-outs.

Water is one of our most precious commodities—water companies must now show their commitment to clean up our environment, protect public health and bring these harmful discharges to an end.

[HCWS281]

United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-Use Plastics

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

This statement is made in accordance with section 10(11) of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-Use Plastics) Regulations 2022 create an exclusion from the market access principles in Part 1 of the UKIM Act for legislation so far as it prohibits or restricts the supply of single-use plastic straws, drink stirrers, stemmed cotton buds, plates, cutlery, chopsticks, balloon sticks and expanded and extruded polystyrene food and drinks containers, including cups.

This exclusion was requested by the Scottish Government through the resources and waste common framework, in line with the process for considering UKIM Act exclusions in common framework areas¹. Under the Act, the Secretary of State is required to seek consent from the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. If that consent is not given within one month, the regulations may be made without consent.

Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers have consented to the making of these regulations and consent has been sought from the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. As this legislation is of a cross-cutting nature, the consent request requires referral to the Northern Ireland Executive as per Northern Ireland’s ministerial code. This has not been possible because of the ongoing absence of a First and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, meaning the Executive cannot meet. My officials have, however, continued to engage at official level with the relevant Northern Ireland Departments in the development of this legislation and there has been engagement with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots MLA, and the Minister for the Economy, Gordon Lyons MLA, who have raised no objections to the approach.

In line with section 10(7) of the UKIM Act, I have considered the importance of facilitating the access to the market within Great Britain of qualifying Northern Ireland goods. The supply of the items covered by this exclusion is banned in Scotland, and the UK Government and the Welsh Government have consulted on banning the supply of these items in England and in Wales in so far as it is not already banned there. The relevant EU directive (Article 5 of the Single-Use Plastic Directive) under Annex II of the NI protocol, once implemented in Northern Ireland, will have equivalent effect to the proposed and existing legislation in Scotland, England and Wales. As such, I do not consider there is a need to make additional or separate provision to maintain access to the market within Great Britain for these single-use plastic items.

I therefore intend to proceed with making the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-Use Plastics) Regulations 2022. I welcome the commitments and shared ambition across the UK to continue to work together to reduce plastic waste and tackle plastic pollution across the UK.

¹ www.gov.uk/government/publications/process-for-considering-ukim-act-exclusions-in-common-framework-areas

[HCWS250]

Reservoir Safety: Reforming the Safety Regime and Modernising Legislation for England

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Reservoirs play a vital role in safeguarding our water supply, by storing water that falls in the wetter part of the year, to ensure continuity of supply when it is dry. But storing large volumes of water is not without risk—in August 2019 parts of the spillway at Toddbrook reservoir collapsed following significant heavy rainfall and around 1,500 local people were temporarily evacuated while the reservoir was made safe. More than 17,000 were potentially at risk of flooding from the reservoir dam being breached. Fortunately, incidents such as this are very rare. We have a strong record of reservoir safety and compliance with our safety regulations is good.



We cannot however be complacent. The number of reservoirs in England is growing by an average of 15 to 20 per year, adding resource pressures for already stretched panels of engineers. Reservoir assets are ageing, which increases risks where investment is limited. In addition, the more extreme periods of drier and wetter weather expected as a result of climate change will place increasing stresses on reservoir infrastructure.



Following Toddbrook, Professor David Balmforth’s independent review considered whether the regulation of reservoirs, which protects more than 2.2 million households and properties in England, remains effective and robust in securing the ongoing safety of this critical infrastructure. The review identified common examples of poor practice in the work of reservoir safety engineers and concluded that the Reservoirs Act 1975 does not effectively support modern, risk-based safety practices. It recommended:



a new risk/hazard based safety regime, where safety requirements are proportionate to risks;

improving safety management practice by reservoir owners;

improving inspection and supervision by reservoir engineers; and

strengthening the regulator’s role.

I am therefore confirming today that the Government have accepted Professor Balmforth’s recommendations and will carry out reform of the reservoir safety regime and modernisation of the Reservoirs Act 1975. DEFRA and the regulator—the Environment Agency—will commence a programme of work now, with a view to consultation in 2023-24. Once the consultation has concluded, the Government will then work to develop legislative proposals. The Government would then legislate when parliamentary time allows.



The Government considers that the review has made a strong case for improving safety practice, strengthening roles and responsibilities for owners, engineers, and the regulator, and for modernising the legal framework.



The following principles will be applied to shape and guide the reforms. We will aim to:



Reduce risk to life as low as reasonably practical.

Take early action to address risks where possible.

Fairly apportion costs for risk management with reservoir owners.

Take a proportionate, risk-based and customer-friendly approach.

The Government have been considering whether small raised reservoirs, which are between 10,000m³ and 25,000m³ in volume and are currently unregulated, should be brought under the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975. We are minded that, subject to a consultation, such reservoirs should be regulated in future and will develop proposals as part of the reform of the safety regime. Research suggests that there are around 500 small raised reservoirs which pose risks for local communities if the structures were to fail. At least five incidents a year occur where emergency measures are needed to prevent dams and embankments from breaching or failing which indicates a strong need to regulate such reservoirs to ensure public safety. During 2022-23 the Environment Agency plans to introduce a free registration scheme for owners of small raised reservoirs, which will collect data about these reservoirs and help inform a proportionate approach to regulation.



The reform programme will be taken forward collaboratively, with owners and engineers being involved in shaping the details. It will include:



Reforms that can be done through existing powers, secondary legislation, guidance, training and codes of practice during 2022-23 and 2023-24, including:

improving enforcement options and flexibility using civil sanctions;

introducing review of engineers’ reports by the Environment Agency;

developing proposals for a proportionate charging scheme to improve recovery of regulatory costs; and

introducing a free registration scheme for owners of small raised reservoirs during 2022-23.



Preparing for modernising the Reservoirs Act 1975 with a view to consulting on proposals during 2023-24, including:

developing a new risk/hazard classification and how it could operate;

developing proposals to make the future supply of reservoir engineers more sustainable;

developing proposals for regulating small raised reservoirs within the new safety regime, for consultation.



This will build on actions that have already been taken to strengthen reservoir safety, for example:



a ministerial direction in April 2021 requiring reservoir owners to prepare on site emergency flood plans for all their large raised reservoirs. Owners were given a year to do this and the Environment Agency report that 94% of registered reservoirs now have plans certified by reservoir engineers;

guidance issued to reservoir owners about having inspection information packs for their reservoirs;

guidance developed in collaboration with engineers and issued by the Environment Agency to improve spillway inspection and management; and

the Institution of Civil Engineers, at my request, is carrying out research to improve the future supply of engineers.

The reform programme will be spread over several years so that changes can be managed alongside ongoing reservoir safety management in a proportionate and reasonable way. The Welsh Government and the other UK Administrations will be kept informed and involved with the development of the safety regime because the Reservoirs Act covers England and Wales, and reservoir engineers work across the UK. The Reservoirs Act 1975 as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 will remain in force until legislative changes are made.



The Government’s planned actions in response to individual recommendations in the review are summarised in Table 1 below.



Our reforms will bring the reservoir safety regime for England into line with other high risk sectors such as the nuclear industry and rail. It will lead to a modernised safety regime that protects the lives and livelihoods of those living downstream of reservoirs, while preserving the important role of these crucial assets in safeguarding our water supply in a changing climate.

Improving Water Quality and Tackling Nutrient Pollution

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Improving water quality is a Government priority. We are the first Government to take such substantial steps to restore our water environment, from setting in motion the largest water company infrastructure project ever to reduce discharges from storm overflows, to seeing the largest fines in history placed on water companies. We have provided new funding to the Environment Agency to increase farm inspections to at least 4,000 inspections a year by 2023, and we are launching future farming schemes that will reward farmers and land managers for actions to reduce run-off, such as introducing cover crops and buffering rivers. This is reinforced by our proposed Environment Act 2021 targets to reduce the key sources of river pollution.

We are today launching a further package to tackle nutrient pollution, which is a significant problem for our freshwater habitats and estuaries. Increased levels of nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) can speed up the growth of certain plants, disrupting natural processes and devastating wildlife.

While we have taken substantial steps, this is taking time to make an impact on the ground and we must go further. At present some 27 catchments, and several of our internationally important water bodies and protected sites, are in unfavourable status due to nutrient pollution. In accordance with complex and bureaucratic EU-derived domestic legislation and case law, local planning authorities can only approve a plan or a project if they are certain it will have no negative effect on the site’s integrity. Natural England, in its statutory role as an adviser on the natural environment, has advised a total of 74 local planning authorities on the nutrient impacts of new plans and projects on protected sites where those protected sites are in unfavourable condition due to excess nutrients. They have issued tools and guidance on an approach called “nutrient neutrality” to mitigate the impact of nutrient pollution so that development can go ahead. However, there is still a gap in the ability of LPAs and developers to find mitigation quickly and effectively.

In order to drive down pollution from all development in the relevant catchments, we will be tabling an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This will place a new statutory duty on water and sewerage companies in England to upgrade wastewater treatment works to the highest technically achievable limits by 2030 in nutrient neutrality areas. Water companies will be required to undertake these upgrades in a way that tackles the dominant nutrient(s) causing pollution at a protected site. We are also using feedback from the recent “call for evidence” to water companies to identify where these upgrades could be accelerated and delivered sooner. Our proposed Environment Act target to tackle wastewater pollution across the country will still see upgrades brought in elsewhere, on a slightly longer timeframe.

In the meantime, we know the impact of new housing is a small proportion of overall nutrient pollution, but mitigation requirements have a significant impact on overall house building. This amendment will improve water quality and in doing so will support house building to continue in areas affected by nutrient pollution. We want these improvements to be factored in for the purposes of a habitats regulation assessment.

Wastewater treatment upgrades will reduce a significant source of nutrient pollution, helping to recover these crucial habitats, which will thereby reduce the level of mitigation required by individual developers when legislation comes into force.

Supporting mitigation

Building on our initial package of support announced in March 2022, I will issue a ministerial direction to support Natural England to establish a nutrient mitigation scheme.

Natural England will develop the scheme, working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. DEFRA and DLUHC will provide funding to pump prime the scheme: this is intended to front-load investment in mitigation projects, including wetland and woodland creation. This will then be recouped through a simple payment mechanism where developers can purchase “nutrient credits” which will discharge the requirements to provide mitigation. Natural England will accredit mitigation delivered through the nutrient mitigation scheme, enabling LPAs to grant planning permission for developments which have secured the necessary nutrient credits. Wetlands and woodlands will also provide biodiversity enhancements to areas and promote public access to nature across England helping to deliver on our levelling up missions for pride in place and wellbeing.

Natural England will deliver the scheme by establishing an “accelerator unit”, with the support of DEFRA, DLUHC, the Environment Agency and Homes England. The previous announcement of £100,000 funding from DLUHC for affected areas will help support delivery of the scheme. We will open the scheme to all developers while ensuring that small and medium enterprises are prioritised, given the difficulties they can face in securing mitigations due to access to funds and skills. This scheme will not be a requirement but an option to discharge mitigation requirements more efficiently. We recognise that there are a number of private markets and local planning authority-led nutrient mitigation schemes that are already being established. Natural England will be working closely with these providers to ensure they do not crowd out private markets, and will ensure that the national scheme dovetails with these markets and provides additional support as needed. We will announce further details in the autumn when the scheme will launch, and in the meantime, Natural England will be in touch with local authorities and developers.

Our amendment will support the delivery of the tens of thousands of homes currently in the planning system, by significantly reducing the cost of mitigation requirements. The mitigation scheme will make delivering those requirements much easier for developers.

Longer term, we continue to progress proposals to reform the habitats regulations so that impacts on protected sites are tackled up front, focusing on what is best for bringing sites back into favourable status. Recovering our protected sites is critical to meeting the Government’s ambitious environment commitments, including our apex target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030. Through this work we can improve water quality, biodiversity and our wider environment while also enabling sustainable development.

Planning

We understand the concerns that some local planning authorities have around the impact of nutrient neutrality on their ability to demonstrate they have a sufficient and deliverable housing land supply.

We will make clear in planning guidance that judgments on deliverability of sites should take account of strategic mitigation schemes and the accelerated timescale for the Natural England’s mitigation schemes and immediate benefits on mitigation burdens once legislation requiring water treatment upgrades comes into force. DLUHC will revise planning guidance over the summer to reflect that sites affected by nutrient pollution forming part of housing land supply calculations are capable of being considered deliverable for the purposes of housing land supply calculations, subject to relevant evidence to demonstrate deliverability. It will be for decision takers to make judgements about impacts on delivery timescales for individual schemes in line with the national planning policy framework.

The roll-out of advice in relation to nutrient pollution to additional catchments in March, and for those already caught by the issue, resulted in a number of planning permissions having been granted prior to the nutrient neutrality issue being raised, but where a post-permission approval is still required (reserved matters approval or discharges of conditions). I am aware of views that the habitats regulations assessment provisions do not apply to subsequent stages of outline approval, and while we know the following will be disappointing to the developers whose sites are affected, it is important to ensure there is clarity on how the assessment provisions should operate.

The habitats regulations assessment provisions apply to any consent, permission, or other authorisation, this may include post-permission approvals; reserved matters or discharges of conditions. It may be that habitats regulation assessment is required in situations including but not limited to:

where the environmental circumstances have materially changed as a matter of fact and degree (including where nutrient load or the conservation status of habitat site is now unfavourable) so that development that previously was lawfully screened out at the permission stage cannot now be screened out; or

development that previously was lawfully screened in but judged to pass an appropriate assessment cannot now do so because the mitigation (if any) secured is not adequate to enable the competent authority to be convinced of no adverse effect on integrity of the habitats site.

DLUHC will therefore also update the planning practice guidance on the application of the habitats regulations assessment in this regard, and consider any further additional revisions as necessary over the summer.

[HCWS258]

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to help increase farm profitability.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We will spend over £600 million on farm-based innovation over the next three years. Our recent food strategy outlined how we intend to use grant support to help businesses invest to improve their profitability and increase their agricultural output. While we will not tell farmers what to invest in, we will support the investment decisions that they judge to be right for their own businesses.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

My farmers are seeing rising production costs, from increases in fertiliser costs, feed prices going up, the price of red diesel agriculture fuel doubling and increasing labour costs because of low availability of labour in the south-west. Those pressures will increase food prices further or see farms go to the wall. What more can be done?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is true that farmers are facing increased input costs, particularly for fertiliser, fuel, animal feed and energy. Some farm-gate prices are also at record highs, and that is helping to mitigate the impact of those increased costs. The Government have already announced a package of measures to support farmers with the availability of fertiliser. To help with cash flow, we have brought forward basic payment scheme payments to July, and we have also announced an additional 10,000 visas through the seasonal worker visa route to help with labour shortages.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

What is the Secretary of State’s latest assessment of the impact on farm profits of plunging exports, new red tape and the labour shortage caused by the Conservative Government’s Brexit deal?

[George Eustice]

Farm incomes have seen a strong recovery since the 2016 referendum. Land prices are running at record highs and the price of milk has also increased. Farm profits have been on the rise in recent years. In the current year, it is true that the increased input costs caused by the spike in gas prices will put pressure on margins, but it is in the context of a successful post-Brexit boom for agriculture generally.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

While the other place’s International Agreements Committee report broadly welcomed the Australia-UK trade deal for sectors such as financial services, it was concerned about the deal’s impact on UK agriculture, highlighting that it will allow the importation of beef from deforested land, crops grown with pesticides not permitted in the UK or the EU, and often no protection from copies for products such as Scottish whisky and Cornish pasties. The Committee fears that that will continue with other trade deals that the Government pursue and criticises their refusal to involve the devolved Governments. How can farms and our food and drink sector remain profitable in the face of such free trade agreements? Does the Secretary of State accept that his failure to achieve protections from untrammelled competition for farmers and food producers will ultimately have an impact on their businesses and livelihoods?

[George Eustice]

In the context of the free trade agreement with Australia, we secured staging protections for the sensitive sectors of beef and lamb for a decade, and then a very strong special agricultural safeguard thereafter, set against volumes. We judged that that would be sufficient to manage any risks to the market. It is important to recognise that Australia cannot compete with the UK on the vast majority of agricultural products, including dairy. In lamb, New Zealand cannot compete with the UK and does not use the quota it already has. Beef is an issue that we are watching, but we believe that we have the right protections in place.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to help to protect and enhance peatlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implementation of the Government food strategy published in June 2022.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Before answering this question, I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record. In an urgent question to which I replied on 19 May, I stated:

“We are largely self-sufficient in wheat production, growing 88% of all the wheat that we need.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 839.]

In fact, we produce 88% of the cereals that we need and the figure for wheat is a little lower, at 81%.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, let me say that the food strategy has themes that are cross-cutting and have effects on policy in many other Departments. I can therefore confirm that the process of securing collective agreement meant that this issue was discussed exhaustively with Cabinet colleagues and other Departments.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that response. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy was an

“excellent plan to help people escape the ‘junk food cycle’”.

That is what the former Conservative leader William Hague said when he was writing in The Times a few weeks ago. He went on to describe the Government’s U-turn on implanting any of the recommendations in that strategy as

“intellectually shallow, politically weak and morally reprehensible”.

Was he right?

[George Eustice]

No, he was wrong, because we have implemented new point-of-sale restrictions, which take effect later this year, in October. That is already driving reformulation; so we have put in place policies that deliver on the issues highlighted in Henry Dimbleby’s report. As for advertising and bans on promotions, we do not believe that that is the right thing to do in the context of rising food prices.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for issuing reports on food strategy, but I am still not entirely convinced that we have a long-term sustainable policy on the production of indigenous fertiliser in this country. Will he put into the House of Commons Library additional information for us to share with our farmers on this very important issue? Given the rising costs of fertiliser and the concerns about potential closures of fertiliser plants, may we have these assurances?

[George Eustice]

Although CF Fertilisers has confirmed its intention to close the Ince plant, it is maintaining production at the Billingham plant, which is the largest of the plants, and I understand that it has full order books until later this year.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

On CF Fertilisers, may I thank the Secretary of State for the time he took yesterday to discuss the future of the site? I am pleased to see that there is interest in purchasing the plant. Does he agree that despite the ongoing challenges that the industry faces, with a parent company that increased its dividends by 33% in the first quarter, there is no reason why the plant cannot be sold as a going concern?

[George Eustice]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman; although CF Fertilisers has chosen to consolidate its UK operations into Billingham, the Ince plant remains viable and the best commercial exit from that plant for CF Fertilisers would be to progress an offer based on selling it as a going concern. There are many skilled people in his constituency who have been working at that plant, and the best outcome for all concerned would be for it to be sold as a going concern.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has just mentioned that we lack total self-sufficiency in wheat production. Presumably, given the skyrocketing prices in the wheat market because of what is happening in Ukraine, the Government food strategy is more about producing more of our own wheat. I do not ask him to comment on a particular planning application, but what does he think of an application to build a solar farm covering 7,000 acres of good agricultural land in my constituency? I am not asking him to comment on that proposal around Gainsborough, but will he consult his colleagues to ensure that we maximise food production on our farmland?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Some years ago, we changed the planning guidance from the chief planning officer in the then Department for Communities and Local Government to make it clear that there should be a powerful presumption against the construction of field-scale solar on the best and more versatile agricultural land—that is defined as grade 3b land and above. I am aware that there are concerns that in some parts of the country that advice is no longer holding and applications are being approved, and we are discussing that across Government.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

6. Whether he is taking steps to make it easier for people to travel abroad with their pets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I take this opportunity to welcome the confirmation this week that the UN convention on biological diversity, COP15, will now be going ahead at the end of this year in Canada under China’s presidency. This week, in preparation for that, the UK will lead ambitious calls to protect nature at Nairobi in the run-up to building ambitious biodiversity targets.

This week I met the US Deputy Secretary of Agriculture to discuss many issues around sustainable agriculture and trade. I am pleased to announce today that the UK will join the Sustainable Productivity Growth Coalition convened by the United States. I look forward to working with our international partners in this dialogue on innovation, science and sustainable agriculture.

[Damien Moore]

The wine trade, and particularly wines produced in the UK, plays an increasing important role in Southport’s food and drink industry. Will my right hon. Friend meet some of these businesses to listen to how the proposed duty reforms will affect their trade?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will know that duty and tax is a matter for the Treasury, but I am more than happy to meet his constituents. The English wine industry has been a fabulous success story in recent decades.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the impact covid has had on mental health and wellbeing, for many, access to the outdoors was a vital escape, but the Secretary of State will know that access is not equal. Research by Wildlife and Countryside Link highlights that the poorest communities are twice as likely to live in a neighbourhood without access to nature. What are the Government doing to ensure that every neighbourhood in every corner of England finally has access to a green and pleasant land?

[George Eustice]

We have set out some detailed proposals on this, both in our response to the Glover review, but also under the Environment Act 2021. Local authorities will be required to have local nature recovery strategies in future, and that will include commitments around public access in particular locations. We have also opened a new farming and protected landscape scheme, which is all about supporting public access to the countryside.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

T2. Residents in Gedling have recently received letters regarding a nearby outbreak of avian flu, and I am grateful for the work of DEFRA officials in combating that, but might my right hon. Friend be able to offer any update on when restrictions are likely to be lifted? I am particularly thinking of my constituents who race pigeons. There is a short pigeon racing season from April to September, and they are currently prevented from doing so. They would like to get on with their hobby.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

T3. Almost 343,000 meals were redistributed in Glasgow South West thanks to FareShare and other charitable organisations, yet FareShare says that its Government funding has been cut. Does the Secretary of State intend to meet FareShare and concerned Members of the House to discuss its funding, so that we can support its #FoodOnPlates campaign?

[George Eustice]

I met FareShare recently to discuss a particular proposal it had around trying to ensure that waste on farms was redistributed where possible. We did increase the funding for FareShare temporarily during the coronavirus pandemic, and we continue to support it, but obviously I will look into the specific case he raises.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

T4.   The UK’s dependence on food imports makes it vulnerable to food insecurity and soaring prices. I know that the Minister will be joining me next week to welcome Infarm, which is bringing one of Europe’s largest vertical farming facilities to Bedford. Can she reassure me that these innovative urban farming methods will supplement, not replace traditional farming methods to ensure that Britain and indeed the world is more food secure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

With prices spiking for fertiliser and vital fuels such as tractor diesel, farmers in Lincolnshire face extreme pressure on cash flow. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving farmers the support and confidence they need to plan for the future is vital to our food security?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we have decided this year to give the industry the confidence needed by bringing forward half of the BPS payment to July from December. That will help ease those cash-flow pressures. In the context of Lincolnshire, which has a particularly strong horticultural background, we have increased the number of visas so that farmers can have access to the labour they need.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6. On Tuesday, at Foreign Office questions, the House paid tribute to the activists Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira, who were killed while working on the book “How to Save the Amazon”. Does the Secretary of State agree that our food chain is contaminated by products linked to deforestation, in particular livestock feed from imported soya that is grown in the region, and that we need to do much more to stamp that out and protect the work of activists seeking to expose this?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady raises a sad and tragic case, and our thoughts are with the affected families. On her specific question, she will know that we have introduced legislation to push for due diligence in supply chains; that will require producers in the UK to ensure there is due diligence right through their supply chain, in particular for forest-risk products.

[Mr Speaker]

We welcome the new Chair of the Select Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.

The UK is home to some of the world’s best agricultural research facilities. For some 70 years, plant breeders have used chemical and radiation treatments to generate random mutations in genes, in the hope that these might provide traits that are useful for plant breeding. For decades we have had F1—filial 1—hybrid breeding techniques, which were designed to create far greater genetic consistency in plant varieties that are grown commercially.

Precision breeding techniques such as gene editing are really a natural evolution of conventional approaches to plant breeding. They are simply a modern way of creating more targeted and predictable changes to DNA within a species than would have been possible using induced mutagenesis or natural breeding. They result in nothing that could not occur through natural breeding processes. In that sense, precision breeding techniques are distinct from genetic modification, which can involve moving genes across species boundaries. It is the recognition of this difference that is the reason for this Bill today.

In 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that all gene-edited organisms should be legally regulated as genetically modified organisms. That has hampered our ability to take advantage of precision breeding techniques and of the clear opportunity to help the environment and food producers.

The UK Government disagreed with that 2018 judgment from the perspective of science. Now that we are outside the European Union we are free to consider what a consistent, coherent and science-based policy looks like. What we really need to achieve as we address today’s challenges is a fusion of the traditional principles of good farm husbandry with some of the best technology available to us in the 21st century.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Secretary of State keeps using this language about precision breeding, but he will know that that is neither a specific technology nor a scientific principle. It relies on the creation of a hypothetical class of GMOs that could have occurred naturally. He will know that there is opposition to that definition from everyone from the environmental non-governmental organisations right through to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and to the Roslin Institute. Given that level of disagreement about the very principles of how he is framing this Bill, will he take it away and look at it again?

[George Eustice]

We have considered these matters in great depth. We ran a consultation. The overwhelming view of scientists are that these precision-breeding techniques, which do not achieve or do anything that could not be achieved through natural breeding processes, are not in fact GMOs. That is our view. That is why we are bringing this Bill forward today. As the hon. Lady knows, there will no doubt be a debate about these matters in both Houses as the Bill progresses.

Precision breeding techniques give us the ability to produce plant varieties with particular traits far more efficiently than was ever possible with conventional breeding. This opens up huge opportunities for our farmers and growers to produce nutritious food with a lower environmental impact.

Precision breeding techniques can improve crop resistance to diseases, reduce the need for pesticides, increase crop yields, improve resistance to climate change, promote drought resistance and reduce the need for fertilisers.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I do not believe that people need to fear this technology. This is not about creating Frankenstein’s monster or introducing DNA from another species. From developing disease resistant crops to bird flu resistance in poultry to PRRS—porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome —resistance in pigs, there are significant benefits, including: for food security; for the environment; and importantly, for animal health and welfare. Ultimately, there are also significant benefits for public health, as we are reducing medicines and therefore tackling things such as antimicrobial resistance. Does the Secretary of State agree that, ultimately, this can be a win, win, win for food security, animals and people?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about animal welfare issues in particular, raises some very important points. He will know that livestock breeders have long selected traits for polled cattle, for instance, so that they can avoid the need for mutations such as dehorning. It is also the case, as he says, that these new techniques offer the potential for us to breed poultry that is naturally resistant to avian flu, which is a major challenge, and some other issues that I will come on to.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, I have long campaigned against the badger culls, so the idea that gene editing may improve disease resistance in livestock is something that I find really interesting and could be, as my hon. Friend put it, a win, win. However, the Secretary of State will also be very well aware that, with the Department’s view that this could drive animals to faster growth and higher yields, there is significant concern from animal welfare charities that this would exacerbate the severe welfare problems that have arisen through selective breeding for increased productivity. Can he give some reassurances to those animal welfare charities that we are not seeking to produce more eggs, bigger eggs, or in any way harming breeding animals?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is already some work going on to breed natural resistance and to select, for instance, dairy cattle that have a higher level of resistance to bovine tuberculosis, and these techniques will allow that to be progressed far faster.

On my hon. Friend’s wider point, we address that in the Bill, and I was going to come on to it. I have listened carefully to organisations such as Compassion in World Farming; that point was highlighted to me some years ago by its head of policy, Peter Stevenson. That is why we have put in some very specific safeguards to protect animal welfare, so that there can be an assessment before any authorisation is allowed. We do not want to have a situation where there could be more lameness in poultry, for instance, or other animal welfare concerns. There will be a dedicated committee to assess that.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Has the Secretary of State considered the impact that this Bill might have on public trust? People might be suspicious of GE food products. For those who are worried, what reassurance can be provided that genome editing will only be used where there are no other less invasive alternatives available?

[George Eustice]

I think consumers want to see fewer pesticides in their food, and technologies such as this open the door for us to achieve that. As part of the notification process that I will come on to describe, we will ensure that there is transparency and that any seed that is marketed is listed in a transparent way. The Food Standards Agency will also conduct a very thorough and comprehensive assessment of any food safety issues. I think that will give people the reassurance they need.

Returning to some other examples of crops, UK Research and Innovation funded a study that has identified promising sources of genetic resistance to virus yellows in sugar beet, a group of viruses that can cause severe yield losses of up to 50% and are at the heart of the controversy around the use of neonicotinoids in sugar beet. Introducing resistance to virus yellows will reduce the need for pesticides, boost our food security and reduce costs to our sugar beet producers.

With food security high on the agenda, we also have the ability to develop wheat that is more resilient to climate change, helping successfully to grow a crop that 2.5 billion people are dependent on globally. Researchers at the John Innes Centre in Norwich have used gene editing techniques to identify a key gene in wheat that can be used to introduce traits such as heat resilience, while maintaining high yields.

These technologies also have potential to improve the health and welfare of animals, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development of animals that have increased resistance to some devastating diseases. For instance, the Roslin Institute and Genus have developed gene-edited pigs with natural resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, a disease that causes mortality and major welfare issues in pig populations globally.

I turn now to the contents of the Bill. It will focus on four key areas. First, we will remove precision-bred plants and animals from the regulatory requirements applicable to the environmental release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. That will remove the necessity of adhering to the onerous regulations imposed by the European Union for plants and animals that could also have been produced through traditional breeding. The Bill does that in part 1.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Secretary of State will know that section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires him to be able to affirm that this Bill does not weaken any existing environmental protections. Given that he has more or less just said that it precisely does, because it will weaken the EU legislation that we were following and will erode the existing regulatory system, how can he then sign section 20 in good faith?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As I have set out, as a point of science, the scientific community and the UK Government rejected the legal conclusion of the European Court of Justice. It is important to point out that that was based on an interpretation of the clauses in EU regulations, rather than on any coherent assessment of the scientific evidence. We will assess the scientific evidence, and it is on that basis that we are bringing the Bill forward.

The hon. Lady asks whether I can be confident that this will not undermine the environment, and I can. Indeed, I am confident that it will lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides, which is a key objective that she will share with Conservative Members. It could also lead to a reduction in the use of synthetic fertilisers—currently the primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

What restrictions are there around the world on the agricultural products of this technology? Does the Secretary of State think that in the very near future, when the European Union appreciates the benefits that this can bring to agriculture, it may well change its mind on it?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In fact, I was at the agrifood council when the European Court of Justice judgment came in 2018. Even countries that had some scepticism about genetically modified foods, such as Germany and France, were very concerned about that judgment. It is also the case, as he may well know, that the European Union itself is now consulting on a change to its own laws. The EU will be some years behind us, but it recognises that the ECJ judgment in 2018 was scientifically flawed. He asked what other countries around the world do. The vast majority of serious agricultural producers with the scientific expertise to assess these things treat gene editing and these precision breeding techniques as being distinct from genetically modified organisms.

Clause 1 of part 1 describes what a precision-bred organism is. Clause 2 establishes the scope of what is considered a plant and an animal for the purposes of the Bill. Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

On definitions, the Secretary of State may be aware that the British Veterinary Association has expressed some concern that perhaps the definitions have been broadened somewhat in the Bill—in particular, that organisms or techniques that would insert exogenous genetic material could be allowed under those definitions. Can he confirm whether that is indeed the case?

[George Eustice]

The Bill defines this quite tightly and lists what classes of animals are to be included. On some of these very specific technical issues, I am sure that hon. Members who have read clauses 1 and 2 will see that there are quite a lot of different processes, which we will all have to make sure that we learn a lot more about as the Bill progresses. I am sure that this will be discussed in great detail.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

There is no doubt that a lot of the Bill is potentially of huge advantage, particularly in terms of animal welfare. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that concerns have been expressed that people should at least have the right to know what they are buying. Does he have any comments to make about food labelling in this respect?

[George Eustice]

There will be transparency in the sense that any authorised product will be listed. No marketing authorisation will be granted for the sale of any food unless it has been properly assessed. However, it is not currently our intention to have some kind of labelling requirement specifically for food, because a loaf of bread might have some of these crops going into it and others produced through other techniques. We do not currently, for instance, require people to label that a crop has been produced using an F1 hybrid technique such as an open pollination. That is the comparison that I would draw my right hon. Friend’s mind to.

Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems—one for research and one for marketing purposes. Developers will have to submit information to DEFRA that will be published on a public register, and this will support consumer transparency. Clause 3 sets out the conditions under which a person may release a precision-bred organism in England. Clauses 4 and 5 set out the notification requirements for the release and marketing of a precision-bred organism. Clause 6 describes the application process for obtaining a precision-bred confirmation. This will ensure that each precision-bred organism is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Clause 7 sets out the requirement for there to be a report of the advisory committee, with further provisions in clauses 8 and 9 regarding the precision-bred confirmation and its revocation if necessary.

The Bill will not compromise animal welfare standards. As I said, it establishes a regulatory system to safeguard the welfare of precision-bred animals. This system is described in clauses 10 to 15. Clause 10 establishes that precision-bred animals will need to be authorised before they can be marketed. Clause 11 describes the application process. Clause 12 describes the involvement of an animal welfare advisory body. Clause 14 makes provision for regulations requiring information on the health and welfare of these animals once they have been placed on the market.

Finally, the Bill also makes provision to ensure that there will be no compromise whatever on food safety and that there will be a comprehensive assessment of the safety of any products placed on the market that result from precision-bred organisms.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[George Eustice]

I will give way one more time, and then I will conclude.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I am keen to understand something. Although the territorial extent of the Bill’s provisions is rather limited, what consultation did the UK Government have with their Scottish counterparts? Scotland remains opposed to GE food products being sold there, but legally cannot prohibit it.

[George Eustice]

This is a devolved matter, as the hon. Lady says. The Scottish Government have taken a particular position, which is broadly that if the European Union changed its law, Scotland would change its law at that time, but not before, and it would appear that the Scottish Government do not want to move early on that. Of course, many of the leading international research institutes, such as the Roslin Institute and James Hutton, are world leaders in these technologies. They will probably be acutely disappointed if the Scottish Government do not take this opportunity to lead the world, rather than waiting and following the European Union.

Finally, part 3 of the Bill, in relation to an assessment of food safety, sets out the powers for the regulation of food and feed derived from precision-bred organisms and includes a new regulatory framework governing the placing on the market of these products, a public register and a monitoring and inspection regime.

In conclusion, it is more than 30 years since the current GMO legislation was passed. In that time, unnecessary and unscientific barriers imposed by the European Union have stalled the development of the agritech industry in the United Kingdom. Our legislation has not kept pace with our increased understanding of the safety and benefits of technologies such as gene editing. By removing these barriers, we will enable investment in these technologies, which have the potential to tackle some of the great challenges faced by the United Kingdom and the world today when it comes to producing food in an environmentally sustainable way. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]