Gene Editing

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the farming community. He and I, in my previous role, often discussed farming issues, and we both hugely support the importance of food production as a key part of our food security. He is right to draw attention to the fact—I will come to this—that gene editing and gene modification are often confused, when they are very distinct. The crucial point to share with the House is that the changes in gene editing are limited to those that occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding. That is the distinction I will come on to with gene modification. By using gene editing, we can get to a desired trait more quickly. Science therefore accelerates something that could happen naturally, as opposed to being an artificial intervention.

Let me give an example of how gene editing can provide a win-win in practice in our farming community. I represent North East Cambridgeshire, which is the centre of UK sugar beet production. That crop has been severely impacted by virus yellows disease. At the moment, the only way to tackle it is by using a seed treatment, Cruiser SB, which is toxic to pollinators such as bees. Given the downsides for nature, the treatment needs to be granted emergency authorisation on a year-by-year basis. The last time that the authorisation was not made available was in 2020, and 25% of the national sugar beet crop was lost. Without authorisation of something that is accepted as damaging to nature, the crop fell by a quarter, which is a severe consequence.

That led to an economic loss of about £67 million, in an industry involving 10,000 jobs. After some years of approval the current Government have decided that authorisation will again not be available in 2025, which has left the sector with a lot of uncertainty. But instead of requiring us to choose between nature and crop yields, gene editing provides a better solution. Under the previous Conservative Government, a £660,000 grant was made jointly to British Sugar, the agricultural biotechnology company Tropic, and the world-leading plant science institute, the John Innes Centre, to fund gene editing research into sugar beet resistance to virus yellows disease.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the potential for gene editing or precision breeding. Does he agree that one of the clearest examples of its promise is the humble potato? During a recent visit that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made to the John Innes Centre, which he mentioned, we met Tropic and saw at first hand how researchers are using precision breeding to develop a blight-resistant potato, a breakthrough that could dramatically reduce the need for fungicide use. It could cut costs for farmers and improve yield resilience in the face of climate change. Does he agree that public engagement and clear, science-led regulation will be key to ensuring that those advancements deliver for both farmers and consumers?

[Steve Barclay]

I very much agree. I will come on to public sentiment towards gene editing, which is extremely favourable, but it is helpful to have cross-party support because this is a win-win, as I have said. It boosts yields, helps farmers and reduces the cost of pesticide. It is also a huge benefit to nature. The hon. Member is right to praise the John Innes Institute, which is world leading. That is another reason why we should seize the opportunity that science offers.

Independent Water Commission

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Member’s support in principle for Sir Jon Cunliffe’s proposal, which I have accepted, to merge the four regulators’ water functions into one single super-regulator. I will publish the White Paper containing the Government’s full response during the autumn. If the hon. Member would like to peruse the 450-page document that Sir Jon has provided, he will find 88 separate recommendations in it, many of which will significantly strengthen regulation so that the new regulator can enforce much more harshly against the kinds of abuses that water companies got away with in the past.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has heard unbelievable statements from 10 major water companies. We also took a long, hard look at Ofwat, as Sir Jon Cunliffe did, and found a regulator that is too cosy in dealing with water companies and too bureaucratic in dealing with customers. A weak regulator and fragmented powers have let the public down for far too long. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the Conservatives have failed and Reform and the Greens make unachievable, unfunded promises, it is this Labour Government who will call time on failure and protect bill payers?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I believe that one of the reasons why the relationship between Ofwat and the water companies became far too cosy is the instruction that Ofwat received from Ministers in the previous Government to apply only light-touch regulation, when what was needed was a firm grip on what was going on. It is astonishing that the Conservatives thought it was a good idea to strip out resources and tell the regulator to go soft on the companies given the abuses that were taking place. That has ended now, and we are moving to a model of effective regulation that will protect bill payers and clean up our rivers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

As the hon. Member says, I do know of this situation because the facility is adjacent to my constituency as well. He will know that I cannot comment on what the Environment Agency is intending to do, because it is its decision. None the less, I certainly agree with him that the EA must listen to constituents and people living in the local area who will be affected by this decision.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

T2.  Whether it is cheap vapes littering our parks and town centres, or fly-tipping blocking country lanes in Norton Canes, my constituents are rightly fed up with waste crime. My local council has had to deal with 1,500 instances of fly-tipping in the past three years, and it is all too often paid for by taxpayers, not criminals. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to get tough on waste crime?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

We have announced plans to tighten up the regulation of those who transport and manage waste, moving them from a light-touch regime into a permitted system, which gives the Environment Agency a greater range of powers. It will also introduce the possibility of up to five years in prison for those who breach the new laws.

Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate; I heard her speak at the Humane World for Animals event, so I know her passion for the subject.

The petitions that we debate in this place always draw a great deal of attention, but there cannot be many that have the same level of awareness and passionate support as this one. Consistent polling shows that three quarters of the British public oppose the use of cages for hens, and two thirds oppose the use of farrowing crates. The petition is therefore clearly in the mainstream of public opinion. However, the reality is that consumers all too often cannot act on their values without the tools to do so, which is why labelling is so valuable to give consumers a choice.

I imagine that hon. Members may be growing used to seeing me in Westminster Hall debates on topics like this. This is the third debate on animal welfare that I and many other Members have attended in the last fortnight, so to curb the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will try my best not to retread old ground. I will speak to the prolonged suffering that cage and crate systems cause, preventing animals from carrying out basic natural behaviours such as dust bathing, rooting, grooming and even turning around. The result is stress, frustration and sometimes injury for the animals.

The animal health and welfare pathway acknowledged those challenges, identifying the need to transition away from so-called enriched cages. Labelling is a crucial method of doing so by ensuring that farmers invest in higher welfare and the changes are visible and rewarded, so we can show the public that we are in line with their values. If we are serious about welfare washing—outsourcing cruelty to other countries—we must empower consumers to choose products that meaningfully reflect their values.

Presently, farmers who move to higher welfare, cage-free systems receive little recognition at the point of sale. Labels such as “free range” vary significantly in their meaning, and in some cases are misleading for consumers. A robust method of production labelling would inform consumers clearly about how an animal was reared—battery cage, enriched cage, free range or organic. It would allow consumers to choose to support farmers who are rearing to higher welfare standards. It would reward farmers who are making costly transitions to higher welfare systems, helping to sustain rural livelihoods while staying competitive.

Every supermarket shelf should carry clear, visible information. Where did that bacon come from? Was that sow crate-free? Did that chicken live in a cage? Right now, consumers might be paying more under the assumption that they are supporting higher British welfare standards, but they cannot see whether those standards involve cages. Transparency is the friend of both the farmer and the shopper, and labelling is the bridge to achieving that.

To be clear, this is not about shaming farmers. Quite the opposite: it is about empowering them. The transition to cage-free systems has been supported by this Government, via grants for laying hen and pullet farmers, and by the major supermarkets that have promised to selling shell eggs from caged hens by the end of this year. Some are going further and are ending the use of processed eggs, too. Free-range eggs now account for 69% of the total egg throughput in the UK which shows, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) rightly said, that we are very far ahead of many other nations on high-welfare farming.

Sadly, however, those measures alone will not shift the dial quickly enough, particularly on meat products, as without a comprehensive labelling system, consumers cannot identify and choose higher welfare products. Without their demand, and the necessary investment from retailers, farmers lack the ability to transition in a way that ensures that their businesses are not damaged by the process.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the issue at length on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Does he agree that we have to be careful to ensure that labelling is clear and does not disadvantage British farmers? It is very likely that we will be unable to label imported products in the same way, so there is a danger that the consumer, who might not understand the complexity, may choose an imported product over a domestic product.

[Josh Newbury]

I absolutely agree and am always happy to take interventions from hon. Members with greater expertise than mine. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to bear that in mind. We also need to appreciate that it will probably be more difficult to verify the standards of imported products; it is much simpler for people to get around any system that we put in place. We must bear that in mind so that—to go back to the point about welfare washing— consumers do not end up buying products that appear to be of a higher welfare standard, but are not.

Animal welfare need not come at the cost of British farming. With the right transitional support, we can lift the whole sector. It is important that we spell out how that transitional support would work and how quickly it could come about. On farrowing crates, according to the National Pig Association, it could cost around £4,000 per sow to convert an existing building and up to £8,000 per sow to build a new structure. Those figures do not include planning permission, which, as we know, does not come free. We also need to acknowledge that higher welfare animal products carry additional costs for farmers, which have to be passed on to consumers. That is not a reason not to raise standards, because the desire to do so is not limited to higher socioeconomic groups.

A separate issue is the time that such conversions would take. Given the complex planning and permitting requirements, and constraints in the supply chain, it is estimated that it could take at least 15 years to transition all farrowing systems to higher welfare alternatives. The Government are reforming the planning sector to speed that up, but we still need to acknowledge those barriers and work with farmers. We can reward good practice, reduce suffering and ensure that our farms are known not just for productivity, but for principled production. If the science is clear, the public are supportive and the market is adapting and willing to go further if supported, what are we waiting for?

I thank the petitioners. This is our chance to end the cage age, to deliver real transparency and to reward those farmers who are already doing the right thing. By giving consumers the tools to make informed ethical choices, we can build a food system that reflects the compassion of the British public and upholds the standards that we all believe in.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesman.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject, so I, too, thank the petition author, Mr Osborne, and the signatories for enabling us to do that.

I declare that I am personally against non-stun slaughter. I am not religious, and I would never knowingly buy products from animals that had not been stunned before slaughter. Some 301 of my constituents signed this petition to ban the non-stun slaughter of animals. That is the second highest number of signatories from any constituency across the UK, so it is clear that people in Cannock Chase feel very strongly about this topic. I appreciate that many of my constituents will have signed the petition to voice their concerns about animal welfare—a topic that I am always keen to discuss. I hope that across the House, we can balance that valid question with respect for those for whom non-stun slaughter is part of religious observance.

I affirm that animal welfare is, and must remain, a core concern in the UK. We are rightly proud of our high standards, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that our animals are treated with dignity and suffer as little as possible in life and death. Just last week, I was in this room for a debate on animal welfare in farming, discussing low-welfare farming practices, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who is no longer in his place. I am glad to be in another debate with the Minister so soon.

Although the religious aspect of slaughter methods might make headlines, I have brought my passion for animal welfare to this House long before today, and I will continue to do so long after this debate is over. As representatives of the British people, parliamentarians must recognise that both the Jewish and Muslim faiths have deeply rooted religious practices around slaughter—kosher and halal—which are grounded in principles of respect, discipline and faithfulness to scripture.

In preparation for the debate, I spoke at length with a friend of mine who is a practising Muslim. He told me that in the Koran, cruelty towards animals is considered to be a sin. There are also several rules around Islamic slaughter, as other hon. Members have said. Animals must be well treated before being killed and they must not see other animals being killed. The knife must not be sharpened in the animal’s presence, and the blade must be free of blemishes so that it will not tear the wound.

The demonstration of life protocol is an industry-led initiative that provides assurance to Muslim communities that stunning is compatible with halal slaughter requirements while protecting the welfare of the animals involved. Because of that, already a significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that were stunned before slaughter, as has been said. Last year, that was 88% of halal meat. There is widespread agreement in the Muslim community in Britain that stunning is compatible with halal slaughter principles as set out in the Koran. As has been pointed out, stunning is deemed incompatible with Jewish requirements, so exemptions for non-stun slaughter are particularly used for the production of kosher meat.

This debate is an opportunity for us to reflect on whether, as raised by the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the law should evolve once again. The British Veterinary Association shared a briefing note with Members about changing labelling requirements so that meat from animals that have not been stunned prior to death is clearly labelled, so that consumers can make informed choices. As the Minister knows, I am keenly interested in improving labelling for consumers, particularly welfare labelling, which would give a far broader perspective on welfare than simply “stun” or “non-stun”. I appreciate that we could end up crowding food packets with way too much information, but as part of the Department’s ongoing review of food labelling, I ask the Minister to consider the BVA’s proposals; perhaps he could comment on that.

The BVA also shared ideas on introducing a non-stun permit system to ensure that the number of animals slaughtered without prior stunning does not exceed demand. I imagine that others across the House will focus on those suggestions, so in the interests of timekeeping I will not dive any further into them, but I want to place them on the record as I feel that they are important for us to consider.

Through the National Farmers Union food and farming fellowship scheme, I recently had the opportunity to visit a beef farm owned by ABP Food Group in my home county of Staffordshire. We met abattoir managers who talked to us about how the industry is continuing to innovate and push for higher welfare standards during slaughter. For example, they are introducing new forms of lighting, which mimic the way that light falls in barns, to ensure that animals are as relaxed as possible. Although there are lingering examples of outdated and bad practices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) rightly highlighted, I hope that innovations in modern abattoirs will ensure that they are consigned to history.

We also discussed non-stun slaughter at Bromstead farm. Contrary to what people might think, there are ways to minimise the suffering of animals being slaughtered without prior stunning. Many of the stunning methods that have been described in this debate are instantaneous, so I do not believe that it is correct to say that they always cause excruciating pain to animals.

Scientific evidence continues to develop, and discussions in faith communities about how animal welfare can be improved are growing. Examples of improvements include shortening transport times or increasing transparency in abattoirs. That brings me to the importance of the role of small and local abattoirs. They must be part of this conversation. Small abattoirs offer something that larger industrial systems often cannot: shorter journey times for animals, more human handling and the possibility for community oversight.

The long-term plight of abattoirs is not spoken about in this House frequently. In the 1970s, around 2,500 abattoirs were operating in the UK, but today that number has fallen to just 200. That collapse in capacity has left many farmers with no choice but to send their animals long distances for slaughter, which increases the animals’ stress and undermines efforts to maintain short, local supply chains from farm to fork. I know that is a concern for some religious communities.

The Food Standards Agency has been consulting on increasing fees and removing a discount scheme on the inspections. Concern has grown in the industry about the future of the current discount, which represents up to 90% of charges for some abattoirs, according to the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, which states that 45% of small and medium-sized abattoirs could close without this discount. Our commitment to farming and our record £5 billion investment into the agricultural sector needs to support small local abattoirs. They are essential not just for animal welfare but for rural economies, food security and diversity in our food system.

If we are serious about welfare and about balancing our values and standards with religious traditions, we should support a system that allows more ethical, more local and more transparent slaughter. That includes investing in small abattoirs, supporting training for specialist staff, and encouraging respectful dialogue between religious and non-religious groups, vets, farmers and regulators. Our task is to hold all those principles together with seriousness and sensitivity.

Animal Welfare in Farming

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for enabling us to speak on this important topic.

I will start by sharing how valuable it was to spend a day of last week’s recess at Staffordshire’s county show. As always, I came away full of admiration for our farming community. I am a little biased, but Staffordshire is a shining example of some of the best of British farming, and everybody at the show seemed to agree. That is not just in terms of productivity and innovation but in the deep care many of our farmers have for animal welfare.

That brings me to the complex and often uncomfortable balance we are trying to strike in this debate between raising animal welfare standards and the environmental, financial and logistical realities of making that happen. When we talk about moving away from practices such as caged systems—a move that, for the record, I absolutely support—we are also talking about the need for more barn space, more land use and more infrastructure, all of which mean higher running costs for farmers and sometimes greater greenhouse gas emissions.

To be clear, those are not reasons for rejecting higher animal welfare standards, but they are reasons to approach the issue with farmers in mind. That must be our starting point, because farmers are not charities and, more than ever, they have to look at the bottom line, which all too often is dwindling. Let us be frank: supermarkets will always demand higher welfare, but they are not always willing to pay more for it. That is disingenuous to consumers and squeezes producers even further, pitting welfare against farm viability.

An area where we could make a real difference is animal welfare labelling, which is being looked at by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member; I am glad that the Committee’s Chair is present. For the average shopper, labelling is a minefield. Information on nutrition and the country of origin has been simplified in the past decade, but in the animal welfare space we have statutory minimum standards and the “Red Tractor”, “RSPCA Assured”, EU organic and Soil Association organic labels, all representing different standards.

Consumers need to understand what labelling means in practical terms and how to interpret it when they shop. That will not be easy, but I believe that is a challenge that we can and should take on. However, in doing so, we must make sure producers have a say, alongside consumers and animal welfare organisations, so that they can realise the benefits of clearer labelling too. The lack of coherent and clear information on welfare on the shelf is a concern for farmers who are producing to higher standards because they do not have a clear way of differentiating their products for consumers. They therefore do not reap the rewards from the quality of their goods that should incentivise higher welfare standards. Research indicates that the current systems of farm assurance, regardless of the label, are not working as best as they could for farmers, consumers and, most importantly, animals.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. Does he also agree that there is a significant error in not properly labelling animals subjected to non-stunned slaughter?

[Josh Newbury]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that that is a perfect example of where stronger, more consistent animal welfare labelling would give consumers that kind of information. In other countries, such as Germany, systems take that into account, and consumers should have access to that information.

On farm assurance, for example, the campaign group Animal Rising has uncovered failings in “RSPCA Assured” farms and abattoirs.

We also have to ensure that fairness for the farming sector is paramount. I raised that in Select Committee sessions and it has been raised today, but it bears repeating: we cannot ask our farmers to invest in higher standards and then leave them exposed to undercutting by imports. We are all in favour of better welfare. In fact, a 2022 poll revealed that 71% of the British public want the Government to pass more laws to improve animal welfare, but we cannot hold our farmers to a gold standard while turning a blind eye to imports that are produced to far lower standards. Trade deals without adequate safeguards will negatively impact the UK’s animal welfare standards for decades to come, undermining our farmers and the hard-won animal welfare improvements that we need to build on. That risks putting more farmers out of business, jeopardising our food security and offshoring animal cruelty.

To put it simply, if it is too cruel to produce here, it should be too cruel to import. If it is not good enough for our farms, it is not good enough for our shelves. Ultimately, we need to get the balance right by supporting our farmers to raise standards, making sure that consumers understand what they are buying and ensuring that the whole system—domestic or international—reflects our values as a nation of animal lovers.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and for her frank and wide-ranging speech. I will use my time to highlight the significant and growing concerns within the hospitality sector, particularly in our pubs.

The principle behind EPR—ensuring that producers take responsibility for the packaging waste that they create—has my full support. It is absolutely right that we strive to reduce waste, increase recycling, and shift towards a more sustainable circular economy. In delivering these changes, however, we must also ensure that we do not unfairly burden working people or the businesses that serve our communities, especially when many of them are already doing their part.

A truly circular economy means designing waste out of our systems and reusing valuable materials like glass. Glass is one of the most recyclable materials that we have, and in the hospitality sector it has been instrumental in supporting closed-loop recycling systems, not just recently but for decades.

The Government have highlighted the development of the EPR policy since 2019. I acknowledge the points raised in a written response to me from the Minister, which outlined the extensive consultations undertaken in 2019, 2021, and 2023 on the implementation of the legislation. It is clear that the Government have engaged with stakeholders, including glass manufacturers, to shape the policy and assess business impacts. Despite the consultation, concerns remain, particularly among those at the frontline of hospitality, about the unintended consequences of this otherwise positive step forward.

I echo what has been said about the specific challenges those on the frontline face, and ask whether the Minister will consider targeted adjustments that would maintain the integrity of the scheme while ensuring fairness for businesses that are already contributing to recycling efforts. Specifically, the classification of glass packaging used in pubs as household waste, as has been said, is estimated to cost pubs £2,500 a year on top of the other cost increases they face. That is despite them already managing their waste through commercial channels, at a relatively high cost that often rises above inflation.

Pubs are assets to communities in Britain. They are not just alcohol vendors, but places for people to hold what might be the only conversation they have that day. They are community centres, workplaces, incubators for the hospitality staff of tomorrow, and linchpins of many village economies. However, the British Beer and Pub Association estimates that the double charging that the EPR could inadvertently bring in could add between 5p and 7p to every bottle of beer sold in the UK. The risk is that the producers of beer will be discouraged from using glass and could gravitate towards alternatives, such as plastic, which although lighter, does not offer the same level of recyclability.

There is a level of unfairness in the proposed EPR fees for pubs, which, as other hon. Members have stated, will effectively pay twice for waste collection. The fact that the OBR has defined EPR as a tax but DEFRA deems it a levy, has left pubs uncertain as to whether costs will have to be absorbed by businesses or whether they will be passed on to their customers, something that could depress demand and make it even harder for businesses to plan for the future.

We must get the implementation of EPR right, so that we achieve environmental progress without putting an unfair burden on the very people and businesses who keep our communities going. Pubs, brewers, and hospitality businesses are already doing their bit. I hope that the Government will ensure that their policies rightly reflect and reward that effort.

Farming

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I thank our Chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for securing the debate.

The future of farming is not simply about keeping our fields green, livestock sheds full or supermarket shelves stocked, but about securing the future of our rural communities, protecting the environment and supporting the farmers who are the backbone of our nation’s food system. This Government inherited underspent farming schemes, resulting in hundreds of millions of pounds not reaching farmers’ pockets. A record 50,000 farms now use these schemes, and more money than ever before is being spent through the sustainable farming incentive and countryside stewardship.

The recent publication of the land use framework set out the changes and complementary use of land needed to achieve our environmental targets. Alongside support for the environmental land management schemes, the framework will help to drive improvements on food security, biodiversity, carbon emissions, water and air quality, and flood resilience. The Scottish land use strategy has shown that we also need clear policies to give certainty on how to deal with directly competing interests on land.

As we know, England is in the midst of a transition. If we are to make this transition successful, we must ensure that farmers are supported in this shift, ensuring new schemes are accessible, flexible and equitable. I welcome the progress the Government have made on freeing up bottlenecks in applications; as the MP for most of the Cannock Chase national landscape, I also welcome the extension of the farming in protected landscapes programme.

We know that any sector that does not have certainty in its workforce lacks certainty for the future. I commend the strides the Government have made on expanding apprenticeships across the UK, but our agricultural and land management sectors need to share in the benefits of that. Figures show that only 5% of the 285,000 people working in agriculture are under 35, and, with the twin pressures of climate change and global food insecurity, the next generation of farmers need to be equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Automation is another way of addressing these challenges, but the harsh reality is that smaller farms cannot shoulder the burden of the risk of investing in expensive new tech. There is good work being done on this, with 20 and 25-year agreements being signed with farmers to unlock long-term investment, which I hope will become the new normal. Without that certainty, farmers will not be able to do everything we want to see.

Lastly, I want to raise the long-term plight of abattoirs. It is not frequently spoken about, but while there were 2,500 abattoirs in the 1970s, there are now just 200, making it far harder for many farmers to keep their supply chains small and local, from farm to fork.

To bring my remarks to a conclusion, the reality is that for many, many years, our farmers have been worried about their future and the future of their sector. We need to ensure they feel confident that their concerns are being heard and addressed so that we and our farmers can achieve the world-leading ambitions we have for our agricultural sector.

Climate and Nature Bill

Josh Newbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak on the Bill, given the twin challenges of tackling climate change and ensuring that our natural world not only survives but becomes a far greater part of our lives. Those priorities are shared by the vast majority of my constituents in Cannock Chase, many of whom have written to me over the last few weeks.

As others have done, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who deserves great credit for using her private Member’s Bill to push for strong ambitions and action on both climate and biodiversity. That decision has enabled a huge amount of discussion to take place on those issues not just today, but over the last few months and, no doubt, in the months and years to come. In particular, she has worked incredibly hard to ensure that those discussions radiate out of this place by engaging with passionate campaigners from up and down the country. I have no doubt that that will make the public debate both wider and deeper, which I am confident all hon. Members in the Chamber welcome.

As I noted in my maiden speech, my constituency is best known for its forest. While there is far more to Cannock Chase and the fantastic people who call it home than that, I am happy to have the welcome excuse of this debate to focus on the natural beauty and serenity that it has to offer. The truth is that Cannock Chase has a far more complex and diverse range of habitats than simply a 2,700-hectare forest. About a third of the wider Cannock Chase national landscape is agricultural land, which I will come to later, and a large proportion is heathland, which is a vital but endangered habitat.

In many ways, the decline and continuing plight of Britain’s heathland is symbolic of the decline of our natural world, which we are discussing today and which the Bill rightly seeks to address and reverse. It is often said that Britain is one of the most nature deprived countries in the world, but for us in Cannock Chase that can be hard to believe because of all the natural beauty right on our doorstep. Indeed, no one living in my constituency is more than a 15-minute drive from our stunning forest and heathland. Having said that, inequality and poor bus services mean that the most deprived parts of my constituency are also the most nature deprived. I hope we will bear that intersection in mind as we continue the debate.

When I knock on doors on new build estates in Cannock Chase such as those in Hednesford, which is often described as the gateway to the Chase, people who have recently moved to the area often tell me that having nature a stone’s throw away is what drew them to our communities, particularly those who grew up in urban areas. The Chase attracts a huge number of visitors—about 2.5 million a year—which, if hon. Members can believe it, means that the density of visitors we receive is four to five times greater than that of the Lake District national park. That intensity of tourism shows how passionate we are about nature and our instinctive need to get lost in it, but also that we can sometimes pose the greatest risk to the natural world. In my area, it is sometimes said that we are at risk of loving the Chase to death, so the agenda of this Bill and this Government to prevent outcomes like that is very important.

As I mentioned, no habitat in my constituency illustrates this better than lowland heathland. Rarer than tropical rainforests, lowland heath is found on Brindley heath and Moors Gorse, just north of Hednesford, and at the iron age hill fort of Castle Ring in Cannock Wood. As well as being a scheduled ancient monument, Castle Ring is home to a variety of rare habitats such as sphagnum bog and acidic grassland.

The UK is fortunate to have a fifth of all the heathland in Europe, yet sadly we have lost 80% of it over the last two centuries. It is particularly concerning that much of that loss has occurred over the last 70 years, echoing the picture of ever increasing species and habitat loss that Members have drawn attention to today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). I know, from taking my daughter to see the stunning carpets of purple heather over the Chase every August, that the cutbacks to conservation work due to austerity are allowing scrub and ferns to creep in more and more year after year.

That is why I was delighted that just before Christmas, to mark the 75th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Environment Secretary announced that national landscapes such as Cannock Chase will be granted new powers to boost nature’s recovery and improve sustainable access to these beautiful landscapes. Refining the role and authority of national parks and national landscapes will benefit our rural economy and mean that more people can enjoy spending time reconnecting with nature. It is also fantastic to see stronger regulations to ensure that public bodies, including water companies, do more to respect and support these precious landscapes.

I am confident that that ambition will be extended to the protection of sites of special scientific interest, of which we have many in Cannock Chase. Often SSSIs are under greater ecological threat than national parks or landscapes because they are more dispersed or designated for a particular species. For example, the Cannock extension canal in my home village of Norton Canes plays host to one of the country’s largest populations of floating water plantain, which I have to admit is not particularly special to look at but is none the less an ecologically important endangered plant that thrives in gently undulating waters such as canals.

As I mentioned, farming is absolutely present in the Cannock Chase national landscape, and in my view, there is nowhere better than national parks and national landscapes to see that farmers are stewards of the land and keen to work in harmony with nature. Support must be in place to enable farmers to realise this ambition, which is why I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of £5 billion over the next two years through the new deal for farmers, which will help to ensure that natural recovery is taking place on every English farm, alongside sustainable food production.

To the credit of the previous Government, they introduced the farming in protected landscapes programme. Four Oaks farm, near Slitting Mill in my constituency, was one of the recipients of the funding, but it was a very time-limited programme, so I hope it will be renewed beyond the next financial year.

Alongside many Members of the House, particularly my fellow members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I look forward to continuing the work of finding a way forward to a financially and environmentally sustainable future for British farming. For protected landscapes like Cannock Chase, funding streams such as the higher tier of the countryside stewardship scheme will be vital. These bespoke, delicately balanced projects need the expertise of Government agencies such as Natural England, and while significant progress has been made in recent months on expanding capacity and speeding up decisions, we still have a long way to go to ensure that all farmers can access environmental land management schemes and improve sustainability and biodiversity in the best way for their farm.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and compliment him on his speech. Does he agree that biodiverse farming and biodiverse areas near high-production farms are not the enemy of good-quality food production, but in fact enhance that production and reduce the need for the use of chemicals and herbicides on our land?

[Josh Newbury]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I completely agree that we need to ensure that our farms are properly supported and that we highlight best practice, so that it is spread across the country. Sustainable food production and national self-sufficiency need to go hand in hand with that work. We must encourage and enable farmers to be stewards of the land, which we know they absolutely are.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to farming. While I am very supportive of regenerative agricultural techniques, does the hon. Member accept that yield decreases by 25% to a third when we use those techniques? They are suitable in some areas, but not in all.

[Josh Newbury]

This is why I mentioned that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is holding an inquiry on the future of farming, as part of which we are looking at this issue of balance and ensuring that we strike the proper balance. The underlying principle has to be that we empower farmers to do what is right for their farm and enable them to make that judgment on the correct balance.

The fact that water quality has been a feature of this debate is welcome. We talk about the state of our rivers, lakes and seas a lot in this House, but there cannot be too much discussion about it. As I am sure is sadly the case in every constituency, in Cannock Chase we have waterways that are rated poor for quality: the River Trent on the edge of Rugeley and the Rising brook. In 2022, untreated sewage was discharged into watercourses in my constituency 254 times, for a total of 372 hours, which disgracefully is typical in this country today. We know that has consequences for wildlife. When I met the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust in May last year, it highlighted to me that in just two decades the water vole has completely disappeared from Cannock Chase, and there has been a 96% decline in records of grey partridge. The consequences for those two species paint a grim picture indeed.

A key ask from the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, of which I am a proud member, was for Labour to commit to the 30 by 30 pledge and protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. I am proud to say that this Government have committed to that. Unlike the last Government, we are putting it into action. Through the Water (Special Measures) Bill, the Government are ensuring that water companies will be held to account for the improvements that are being promised in exchange for hefty bill increases, while empowering customers, who for far too long have witnessed the decline in the health of our waterways but have been unable to challenge it directly.

I have spoken a lot about nature, but in Cannock Chase we also have a story to tell about energy. In my maiden speech, I explained that the closure of the coal-fired Rugeley power station had a huge impact on the communities I represent, but that a new community on the now-cleared site will ensure energy-efficient homes and new infrastructure, marking a new era for Rugeley and Brereton. There are plans to ensure that the power station’s energy legacy is maintained, with a battery storage facility and, I hope, rooftop solar. On very few sites in the country will there be such a clear transition from the energy sources of the past to the homes, jobs and technologies of the future.

Finally, I will turn to the principles of the Bill. When it comes to the climate and nature crisis, holding people in positions of power to account is perhaps more important than ever. Knitting together work across Government into a coherent strategy will be essential to making sure that the targets in the Environment Act 2021, to which this Government have made an unwavering commitment, become a reality. We all know that we do not have time to waste in the battle to limit global temperature rises and avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change and the battle to halt and reverse nature loss. The last Government talked the talk to some extent, but they dithered and delayed so chronically that they did not end up implementing much.

As with the last Labour Government, this Labour Government have set a world-leading agenda on climate and nature. As some countries backslide on international commitments, this Government stand firm in asserting the importance of sticking to our targets and making meaningful progress towards meeting them. Whether it is increasing woodland cover, seeing the return of water voles in constituencies such as mine, or stopping islands sinking into the sea on the other side of the world, this Government will always make our climate and natural world their priority and, on behalf of the people I represent, so will I.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

With the greatest of respect, the hon. Lady’s party was in government for five years, and the Conservative party was in government for 14 years. It is always good after five months in office to be criticised for previous failures.

I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservatives cannot be trusted on animal welfare. They failed to pass the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which would have stopped selfish hunters who slaughter and display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification, and they dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which would have ended puppy smuggling, puppy farming and pet theft. As I say, we are looking for a suitable legislative vehicle, and we will do it in Government time.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. This time of year brings festive cheer, but it also brings the Boxing day hunts. Alongside many of my constituents, I am keen to see an end to the smoke- screen that is trail hunting. Following the last Labour Government’s historic foxhunting ban, will the Minister confirm this Labour Government’s commitment to banning trail hunting once and for all?

[Mary Creagh]

We have indeed committed to a ban on trail hunting, which will provide significant protections to wild animals, including foxes and hares. Work to determine the best approach for doing so is ongoing, and further announcements will be made in due course.