Draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Once more a Committee—and therefore this Parliament—has been asked to approve a regulation that has the effect of departing Northern Ireland from the UK legal framework governing the subject matter. Let us be clear: this Committee is being asked to nod through a regulation imposing a law that no parliamentarian in this United Kingdom made, scrutinised or had any hand in drafting. This Committee is being asked to nod through the imposition of a foreign rule—made by the European Parliament, not this Parliament—and to nod it through so that it is enforced with criminal sanction in a part of the United Kingdom, of which this is meant to be the sovereign Parliament that makes the laws and decides the criminal penalties. But no, we are here obeisantly to nod through a regulation to enforce foreign law on a part of the United Kingdom.

The narrative is quite clear: the 2006 EU regulation historically applied to all parts of the United Kingdom. After Brexit, however, when the EU amended the regulation in 2023, it ceased to apply to GB, where it has been revoked. But a part of this United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland, is to continue to be subjected to foreign-made, unfiltered, unchecked law made by the EU. And the consequence is that my consumers in Northern Ireland can now only use and be supplied with batteries that meet that foreign diktat.

Of course, the EU is infamous for micromanaging everyone’s economy if it can. We can now only use, import and deploy batteries made not to United Kingdom standards. In fact, batteries made to United Kingdom standards will become illegal in a part of this United Kingdom, to the extent that a criminal sanction of imprisonment could be imposed for using a battery that meets UK standards. How absurd is it that in a part of this United Kingdom we are going to impose penalties on anyone daring to use a battery produced to UK standards? I am very disappointed that the primary concern of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, is why it took so long to enforce foreign jurisdiction on a part of the United Kingdom. That is a quite shocking observation.

When my consumers buy an e-bike, an electric car or a simple battery, the Government say they cannot buy one that meets United Kingdom standards. That is what we are doing here. I ask each Member whether they would do that to their constituents. Just think about that. Would members of this Committee impose on their constituents a foreign-drafted, designed and implemented law that means they cannot buy batteries made to the standard of their own country? That is the question.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. and learned Member agree that we will be aligning ourselves with this regulation? We will consult on aligning with it in the autumn. I understand that these regulations will make batteries safer and easier to recycle. In the long term, we need to do this anyway.

[Jim Allister]

I certainly recognise that, once again, Northern Ireland is being used in the reset as a cover to realign the whole United Kingdom with the EU. That, of course, is the gameplan of this Government, and this is but a small example of how they are going to deploy it. They hide behind Northern Ireland and say, “Oh, well, we are doing it in this part of the United Kingdom, so we will all simply align ourselves to laws we do not make—laws we cannot change. We will impose upon the whole United Kingdom the disenfranchisement we have already imposed upon Northern Ireland, which cannot make laws on this because it is subject to foreign jurisdiction. We are now going to say to the whole United Kingdom, ‘You do the same. You subject yourself to a similar disenfranchisement of your own electorate so that they do not elect the people who make the laws that govern them.’” That will be the ultimate outcome.

On the laws governing the type and use of batteries, which is one of a vast number of areas where this is going to happen, the Government will say, “You, the electorate, are not worthy of electing people to make those laws. No, we are going to be colony-like, subjecting you to laws that someone else makes.” The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth might think that is a good way forward, but I certainly do not.

I remind the Government that section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is very clear. It requires that in developing any regulations, these draft regulations included, the Government should have special regard to

“the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the…internal market”.

They are not maintaining an integral place if they are applying different rules—foreign rules—to a part of the United Kingdom. Section 46 also states

“the need to respect Northern Ireland’s place as part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom; and…the need to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the aim of…streamlining trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

That is the very opposite of what these draft regulations will do. They will impede trade so that a battery cannot be bought from Great Britain. Another aim in section 46 is

“maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of the internal market”.

Therefore, even under the statutory test of section 46 of the Internal Market Act, these regulations fail, and they fail lamentably.

I ask every self-respecting Member of this House simply to apply the test they would apply if this was being done to their constituents. They know that they would not do this to their constituents, so why do it to mine?

Rural Communities

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I represent a constituency that covers a small city, a town and a large rural area. Much of that rural area is the Roseland peninsula, and it is coastal. When I was researching for my maiden speech, I found that David Penhaligon wrote about the challenges that threatened rural Cornwall 50 years ago, and it was notable that they were very similar to the ones that threaten Cornwall today: roads, pressure on services, hospitals, sewage, lack of housing, summer lets, and the lowest average wage in the country, which Cornwall had at the time.

This Government are already acting on many of those challenges. Roads are being fixed, buses are better funded, and rural franchising is being piloted in Cornwall. Railways are being nationalised, and rail and bus fares are being frozen. The Government are putting in £39 billion for social housing, and we now have the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, meaning that tenants can no longer be evicted from their homes for them to be flipped into holiday lets. Stamp duty is being raised on second homes, and for holiday lets council tax is being doubled and registration is being introduced.

The NHS is a big thing in Cornwall. This Government have created 5 million more appointments, and neighbourhood health is being prioritised. Services are being moved out of urban cities and into rural areas, and community health workers are going door to door. We are fixing our broken sewerage system, and we now have an increased minimum wage.

In Cornwall, rural energy infrastructure will be a boon not a bind. The strategy for critical minerals and sustainable mining will fuel our economy and give us energy security, alongside tidal, geothermal and wind energy, which will power and support our rural way of life.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

In my constituency, we have a number of infrastructure projects being planned to produce and transport energy. While Plaid Cymru agrees that green energy production is necessary, the transition has to be made with community consent. The undergrounding of cables is project-specific and time-specific, depending on thermal rate values and cable type. Does the hon. Member agree that communities need to have a much greater voice when it comes to the cumulative effect of these projects?

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree that communities must have a say, but they must also benefit, and that is one of the things that the Government will ensure.

Another type of security is food security. We had a very difficult decade under the Conservatives. Brexit caused real problems at the border, which our sanitary and phytosanitary EU agreement will hopefully untangle to a certain extent by 2027. There were also the terrible trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which will allow an influx of beef in while very little will go the other way. It has been a time of flux for farmers since Brexit. We saw the rocky introduction of the environmental land management schemes. That money has been spent very quickly under this Government and is coming back in a new and improved sustainable farming incentive in April, which will hopefully give support to food production as part of that environmental stewardship.

Working with recommendations from Minette Batters, the Government can now focus on farm profitability, which is vital. Through the strategies that are due this year, the land use framework and the farming strategies road map, the Government will create a vision for farming in this country—and we will get there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We did debate this issue on the radio together. The reason we are making these changes is that the top 7% of estates account for 40% of inheritance tax reliefs—that is £219 million for the top 37 landowners—and we think that is unfair.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5.   Merry Christmas to everybody in the Chamber and beyond. I was very proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to end cruel practices such as puppy smuggling and to phase out animal testing and ban fur imports. Is the Secretary of State able to update the House with a little more detail on the progress of the animal welfare strategy and the dates when we may expect the legislation to follow?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am pleased to confirm that the animal welfare strategy will be published before Christmas, and I will have more to say about that shortly in the House. We are giving this country of animal lovers the legislation to match. The strategy will set out our priorities until 2030 and take forward the manifesto commitments on which Government Members stood.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The Father of the House knows that flattery will get him everywhere—obviously, I hold him in equally high esteem. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I am more than happy to work out how we can use this fund to do precisely as he suggests.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this fund. The Cornish fishing fleet, which has suffered, has put together a joined-up proposal for our part of the fund, so I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that. The proposal talks about front-loading the investment, multi-year project funding, science and research, and data collection about the number of fish that we catch and the way we catch them, and it particularly focuses on careers, skills and infrastructure. There was an announcement this week about an environmental lead regulator going into the development at Falmouth port, which will make a massive difference and speed up port infrastructure redevelopment. I urge the Minister, and the Government as a whole, to look at doing more of that, to look at local seafood production and to encourage people to eat local.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is rather odd that in this country we have to export more of what we catch because we eat what is caught elsewhere. Expanding the UK population’s view of what they can eat from the catch might make it easier to revive our fishing industry. I will be seeing a group of Cornish Members next week to talk about some of their detailed suggestions about the fund, and I am interested in all creative ideas.

Thames Water

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

As I said to the hon. Lady’s constituent, I would be happy to visit if my diary allows. In any case, I would be very happy to ensure she gets a meeting with the Minister for Water to discuss her concerns around Teddington.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it comes to something when the Opposition seem to be suggesting that Thames Water should maybe not be sanctioned, because that may put its preferred bidder at risk, when it had rejected others? Jon Cunliffe suggested stronger regulation, not weaker. Is it not clear that the direction that this Government are going in must be the right one?

[Steve Reed]

I agree. The whole mess we inherited was due to the previous Government letting the water companies get away with it; people were paying themselves multimillion-pound bonuses as they profited from pollution. That ended when the Conservative Government were defeated. We are putting the water companies under tough special measures and we will focus them on serving their customers and the environment, not themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

As is so often the case from that particular source, that is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. Nothing of the kind is happening. Rather than trying to politicise and weaponise the matter, the right hon. Lady would help herself and people who are genuinely concerned about those issues by sticking to the facts.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7.   I must thank the Land Army, too. I am only here because my grandma met my grandad on his farm when she was working in the Land Army. Cornwall has a successful horticultural industry, specialising in cauliflowers, daffodils, potatoes and courgettes. The industry welcomed the extension of the seasonal worker visa scheme until 2029, but what metrics are being used to ensure that visa allocations will meet the industry’s needs? Without sufficient access to seasonal labour, there is a real risk to Cornwall’s horticultural sector.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and note that even in those times of distress, woe and horror, some good relationships were formed. The seasonal worker visa scheme for 43,000 seasonal worker visas was announced a few months ago. That number includes 2,000 extra for poultry. At the National Farmers Union conference, the Secretary of State announced a five-year extension to 2030. That will provide certainty, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to analyse and assess very carefully what the industry needs to ensure it has the resources required.

Sewage

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Savage]

I would be more than happy to back my hon. Friend’s calls for an equivalent system in Scotland.

Finally, I thank the Government for everything they are already doing to reform the water industry and look forward to seeing real results in our waterways. I will add that, while I welcome the Cunliffe review, I was disappointed to find out that the ownership of water companies is outside its scope.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and we are also making submissions to the Cunliffe review. I do not believe ownership of water is outside the scope of the review. It will be looking at how our water is owned—maybe not nationalisation, but certainly other methods of ownership.

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That was not what I had been led to believe from a roundtable with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but maybe I misunderstood.

The truth is that the profit motive has no place in a vital public utility such as the water industry. We are one of only two countries in the entire world that has a privatised water industry, and clearly it is not working and needs to be reviewed.

Veterinary Products in Waterways

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am delighted to secure my first Adjournment debate, and for it to be about veterinary products in waterways, specifically neonicotinoids such as fipronil and imidacloprid. From now on, for your sake and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall be referring to these neonicotinoids as neonics.

I have been extremely keen to secure a debate on this matter for some time now, having had it raised with me before the general election by a constituent, Ueli Zellweger, who is a vet. It is high time that we gave this topic the scrutiny that it so desperately needs.

We are a nation of pet lovers. It is estimated that there are around 25 million cats and dogs in the UK. I speak as a doting dog and cat owner myself and I know that our furry friends are an integral part of millions of British families. And so when fleas and ticks come biting, bringing discomfort and annoyance to our beloved pets, we of course want to act swiftly and efficiently to alleviate their suffering.

Flea treatment products containing fipronil and imidacloprid are seen as a highly convenient and effective way of dealing with the problems caused by fleas and ticks. In the UK, Imperial College London claims that fipronil is an ingredient in 396 different pet anti-flea and tick treatments, with imidacloprid authorised in some 138 veterinary products. However, this convenience comes at a cost to our waterways and associated ecosystems. Popular though these products are, safe they are not. These two ingredients are extremely toxic. They are very powerful killers indeed and the picture is not pretty. In fact, so powerful are these chemicals that just one drop of fipronil has the potency to wipe out 30,000 bees as well as causing serious neurological damage and hampering the mobility of thousands upon thousands more.

As well as this, according to extensive research conducted by Imperial College London, one monthly flea treatment for a large dog contains enough imidacloprid to kill a staggering 25 million bees. The decline in pollinator populations, which in part can be attributed to the use of imidacloprid, threatens agricultural productivity and has very serious long-term implications for our national food security. This is not simply a mere triviality to be neglected.

Authorities have recognised the toxicity levels and the hideous harm that these chemicals can cause on the natural world. Since 2017, fipronil has been banned in agricultural use, and imidacloprid has been banned since 2018. But given the unregulated nature of these chemicals in relation to flea products, we are allowing these products into our environment through the back door, and our aquatic and nearby ecosystems are paying the price.

There is not just one route for these neonics to enter our British waterways. It is important to be aware of all the various pathways towards this pollution. The most obvious, and most direct, is simply the contact of pets with water bodies themselves. If a dog goes swimming in a river after receiving their course of treatment, the product is then introduced into the waterways, allowing it to enter our rivers, lakes and streams and go wherever the water takes it, wreaking havoc as it travels. Dissemination can also occur because of rainwater run-off, with residual product washing off from treated animals into drainage systems and ending up in our waterways. Equally, the washing of pet bedding and even pet owners’ hands are thought to be common ways in which these dangerous products enter our waterways.

There are some less direct pathways that still pose a problem—and at this point I must apologise to those currently eating their supper. These products are generally harmless to our dogs and cats, but they can be absorbed by our four-legged friends. Once absorbed, the products can be excreted, and even when responsible owners clean up after their pets—something that is not universal, unfortunately—the traces of fipronil and imidacloprid left behind can still prove incredibly damaging once washed into our waterways.

Studies have revealed that imidacloprid is one of the most frequently detected pesticides in dogs’ urine, but the level is still comparatively low, with the National Office of Animal Health finding that only around 11% of topically applied fipronil is systematically absorbed. The shedding of treated hair or skin can also lead to a pathway being created.

Once these products are in our waterways, not only are they utterly deadly for the thousands of native aquatic organisms in the UK, but they are highly toxic to sea and freshwater fish. Even at low concentrations, fipronil can be disruptive to aquatic life cycles. River sample data gathered by the UK Environment Agency over the course of a two-year period between 2016 and 2018 from 20 different waterways in England discovered fipronil residue in 98% of freshwater samples and traces of imidacloprid in 66% of all samples.

Beyond the effect on our waterways, other studies have found fipronil to be incredibly toxic to birds. It brings me no joy to report that this is not just an aquatic problem. Indeed, through a process of collecting 103 different bird nests, researchers found that every single one without exception contained fipronil, and an overwhelming majority had significant remnants of imidacloprid.

The truth is that the decline in aquatic insects that emanates from the flowing of these products in our waterways affects fish populations, who rely on these insects as a primary food source. This in turn impacts bird species that prey on fish, producing a dangerous snowball effect that reverberates throughout the ecosystem. This deterioration of biodiversity greatly diminishes the overall resilience of our ecosystems, exposing a vulnerability to factors of climate change and invasive species.

One of the most troubling aspects of the likes of fipronil and imidacloprid is their persistence in the environment. The chemicals disintegrate slowly and can remain in soils and waterways for extensive periods of time. In the case of imidacloprid, scientists say that the residual effect lasts in soil for months, sometimes even years, and the breakdown product of these chemicals is understood to be even more toxic than the parent compound.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member agree that some pet owners may not be aware of how bad this issue is, and so packaging, usage guidance and point-of-sale advice for pet treatments should give some warning of the danger that the product could affect aquatic life if it ever entered watercourses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

rose—

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Emma Hardy]

I will give way to the hon. Lady on the Liberal Democrat Bench and then to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Yes, we are going to look at all the evidence on the available options. As I say, there is a difference of opinion over the best way forward; people have different views on that. It is my job, as we are a responsible Government, to look at all the evidence and try to find a balanced way forward, so that will be included as part of the evidence base.

[Jayne Kirkham]

Is there a rough timeline for that group to come back with a report?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is always very dedicated to DEFRA-related issues, and it is always nice to see her here. I will check to see whether I can give her a more detailed decision on timing—if I cannot do so in this meeting, I will ensure that I let her know afterwards.

As I said, the VMD is developing the evidence base and has commissioned scientific research to investigate how these substances reach rivers and streams. It is working closely with stakeholders to collect data and address the issue. It is supporting calls for a review of the internationally agreed environmental risk assessment standards. The VMD and the Environment Agency are working closely together to understand the risks posed by these chemicals and to respond appropriately.

To further address this issue, the group on pharmaceuticals in the environment has developed a road map for reducing levels of two veterinary substances in UK surface waters. The priority for this road map is to raise awareness and improve pet owner education on risks and appropriate use—I know that point has come up here. Once finalised, that road map would be available to all stakeholders. As unresearched policies can fail badly, any changes we implement must be evidence based and measurable to achieve success.

This Government will not turn the other way or continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, the independent Water Commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a comprehensive reset of the water industry and will drive long-term transformative change. We remain dedicated to addressing the environmental impact of veterinary medicines, and will continue working with relevant stakeholders to find solutions that protect both animal health and the environment. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead on securing the debate. The public want clean water and we are determined to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

Well, really! I had hoped that the shadow Secretary of State would understand how the schemes that her own Government created actually work. Let me explain the problem that we inherited—there are some on the shadow Front Bench who, I think, understand this better than her. This time last year, these schemes were undersubscribed; they are now oversubscribed. It is not a complicated thing to say that, when the budget is spent, a responsible Government responds to that. The budget is spent. [Interruption.] The budget has been spent and what we are doing in a sensible, serious way—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should actually be celebrating the fact that so many farmers are now taking up these schemes. I am confident that we will be able to sort out the mess that we have inherited. Basically, if you set up schemes without proper budgetary controls, you end up in this kind of position. We have had to take the hard decisions that the previous Government ducked.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that environmental land management scheme agreements will remain in place under this Labour Government, including SFI, and that there will be a new and better targeted SFI on offer as soon as possible, with details to follow in the spending review?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She makes absolutely the right point. We should be reassuring people out there that farmers who are in schemes are absolutely safe and are carrying on as before, but the basic point is that when a scheme is full, it is full.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Jayne Kirkham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is lucky that within six months we will have the Cunliffe review, which will look in great depth at ownership, regulation and everything to do with the water industry? Maybe this is something that we could take further at that stage.

[Charlie Maynard]

That may be a chink of light, because all I have heard from the Government so far is “Only private companies welcome here.” My understanding is that the Cunliffe review’s remit purposely excludes ownership. If that is now on the table, it is great news, because it is one of the fundamental problems in the water sector. If the commission’s remit now includes ownership structures, I am delighted. I would love the Minister to clarify the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

There are only three new clauses to go; I will highlight the key parts of new clause 33. Subsection (2)(1A) states:

“When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide full and accurate information, and an honest assessment, in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsection (1)”

Subsection (3)(2C) states:

“Where, in providing information required under subsection (2A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time.”

What does that mean? It means that if an undertaker does not have sewage treatment work capacity, they must commit to draw up a plan to install it by a relevant time. The “relevant time” means that if 200 or 2,000 houses are being added and the sewage treatment works do not have sufficient capacity, then the undertaker will be saying, “By the time those houses are occupied, we will have increased capacity by the amount required.”

This is all very common-sense, but many hon. Members will have been district councillors in their time—I currently am one—and I am sure they will have seen it happen time and time again in planning committees where, guess what, the response from the water utility is: “Fine, no problem. Hook ’em up.”

[Jayne Kirkham]

Is it not the case that the water companies used to have more power to object? Did they have a veto which the previous Government removed? Do they now have to cope with whatever the planning authority decides?

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I do not know when that changed. [Interruption] In 2015, was it? There we are: maybe it was changed in 2015. Perhaps all of us, or most of us, recognise that is not a good situation. Time and again—I have seen this in Witney, Ducklington, Bampton, Aston and Carterton—this is just waved through. When I quiz people from Thames Water about why they have waved it through, they say, “We have a duty to connect.” They do have a legal duty to connect, which they take seriously, but they take their duty to add capacity to match that increase much less seriously.