Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Hardy
I am pleased to be responding to the hon. Lady, because I think that the very first Adjournment debate I had as a Minister was with her and it was about flooding. It is nice that whenever I make a statement about flooding, I already know who will be in the room. I commend her on her tireless campaigning on this issue and the commitment she has shown to her constituents. I have been pleased to go and see those property flood resilience measures and the difference they have made to communities. Flood performance certificates will be piloted, and those communities are an example of where householders have taken measures—albeit in this case through the Environment Agency—to better protect their homes from flooding. When people do that, it should be reflected in their premiums, and there is not currently a way to do that. The system looks at postcodes and areas, and gives people a premium on that basis, but we want to make it more intelligent, so that it can recognise if someone has made their home more resilient to flooding—that should mean that they have cheaper premiums.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that I spent most of my career supporting the most vulnerable people in communities that had been flooded, and helping them to find ways to support their mental health. It is not unknown for many of them to have post-traumatic stress disorder post floods. That can be brought on by a number of triggers, including the sound of rain on the window or the anxiety of worrying about being able to insure a house post floods. The reduction of contents-only insurance to £25 a year for bands A and B will be transformative. Does the Minister agree that it will make such a difference in helping lower-income households and in ensuring that Flood Re protects the things that matter most to people?
Emma Hardy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because before he was elected as a Member of Parliament, he was running part of the Living With Water project in my constituency, which looked at bringing together the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and the council to create more sustainable urban drainage to improve resilience to flooding. He played a tremendous role and has made a real difference to many people’s lives. I share his delight that Flood Re is more than halving the premiums it charges insurers for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B to £25 a year. That will make a real difference to people’s lives, making insurance more affordable for everybody.
Animal Abusers
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(4 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all my constituents and everybody else who signed the e-petition. Of course, I also thank Bea, who is in the Public Gallery today, for bringing this issue to light.
This topic matters deeply to people across the country, including in my constituency. People expect those who cause suffering to an animal to face serious consequences. More than that, they expect the law to prevent another animal from ever being put at risk again. At home, our dog Foggy is a treasured member of our family, and that is how most people feel about their pets. They rely on us, they trust us and they absolutely deserve to be safe in our care.
I recently received a letter about today’s debate from a 13-year-old constituent, who is worried that someone convicted of animal abuse could go on to have another animal and cannot understand why someone who has already shown cruelty towards an animal should be given another opportunity to cause harm. It was a powerful letter, not because it came from a young person—although that certainly made it all the more striking—but because it put the matter so plainly: why should we wait until another animal has suffered before we act?
As we have heard, important powers are already available to the courts under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those convicted of an offence can be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them, taking part in their care, influencing how they are kept, dealing in them or transporting them. Those powers absolutely matter. Increasing the maximum sentences for the most serious animal cruelty offences was an important step forward, but the petition raises a fair question: is the current system clear, consistent and practical enough to stop people who have been banned simply going elsewhere and acquiring another animal? A conviction may be recorded and a disqualification order may be made, but what happens when someone approaches a rescue centre, a breeder or another organisation to take on an animal? How does that organisation know whether the person standing in front of them has a history of serious cruelty or has been banned by a court from keeping animals? At present, the answer seems far too uncertain.
Perran Moon
Does my hon. Friend agree that we surely need to close the loophole whereby banned owners can give their pets or farm animals to their wife or husband to own, and still live with them?
Lee Pitcher
Absolutely; there is no place for legal loopholes like that in our country, where we love our animals so much.
The Government have referred to the police national computer and to existing arrangements for information sharing. I recognise that there are important safeguards around personal information and data protection that we must be aware of, but a record held somewhere in the system is not the same as a practical safeguarding tool that can stop a banned person acquiring another animal. That is the point behind the petition, and it is a point that we should take very seriously. This Labour Government were elected on a commitment to strengthen animal welfare, including through action on puppy farming and smuggling, snare traps, trail hunting and hunting trophies. We should now look carefully at whether the animal protection provided after a cruelty conviction is strong enough in practice.
I believe there is a serious case for a properly governed national safeguarding scheme for those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences and subject to ownership bans. It would not need to be a public database. This should not be about naming and shaming people or allowing uncontrolled access to sensitive information; it should be a proportionate safeguarding measure, with clear rules on who can make a check, when they can do so, and what information they can receive. It can be managed, is what I am saying.
Animal rescue and rehoming organisations, veterinary professionals, local authorities, licensing bodies and responsible breeders should be able to establish whether an individual is prohibited from keeping an animal before an animal is placed in that person’s care. We rightly recognise that information sometimes needs to be shared to protect children, vulnerable adults and the wider public. I believe we should be willing to consider a careful and proportionate approach that protects animals from people with a proven record of cruelty or neglect.
The petition calls for automatic life bans following convictions for animal abuse or neglect. I understand why it has attracted such strong support. For the gravest cases, particularly those involving deliberate, sustained or repeated cruelty, the future protection of animals must be at the heart of the court’s decision. There should be a strong presumption that someone who has shown such serious cruelty should not be entrusted with the care of an animal again. Courts must retain the ability to consider the individual circumstances of the case, but where a serious offender receives only a short ban, or no ban at all, there should be clear reasons for that decision.
This is not simply about punishment; it is about prevention. Animal cruelty can be part of a wider pattern of harm, as we have heard. It can sit alongside coercive control, domestic abuse and violence within a household, which makes early identification and effective safeguarding even more important, so I ask the Minister to look carefully at what more can be done. Will the Government consider consulting on a national animal welfare safeguarding disclosure scheme, so that responsible organisations can check whether a prospective owner has been convicted of serious cruelty or banned from keeping animals previously? Will the Government consider whether the law should create a stronger expectation of lengthy and, where appropriate, lifetime ownership bans in serious and repeated cases? Will they also publish clearer information on the number of disqualification orders made, how long they last, how often they are breached, and what action is taken when they are ignored?
My 13-year-old constituent is not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for a system that works, before another animal is intentionally harmed. That is a basic test of whether our animal welfare laws are doing what the public expect them to do. For my 13-year-old constituent, for Bea, for all those who signed the petition and for every wonderful, beautiful animal we love, we should always try to meet that test.
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Questions are far too long. Show us how it’s done, Lee Pitcher.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I wonder if the Secretary of State agrees that for far too long farming has been undervalued because we have focused only on what goes out of the farm gate. We should focus more on the holistic contribution of farming—that is when we get good policy and can take our success forward for farmers.
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more. We have to look at the agrifood sector overall. It is a huge part of our economy, employing 4.1 million people, and its gross value added is equivalent to the automotive sector. My hon. Friend is right that there has been a tendency to underestimate the value of farming. We have to look at it in the wider agrifood ecosystem and in the context of the GVA that the sector brings to the economy.
Water Safety
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important and timely debate. My heart, warmest thoughts and love go out to all those families and friends who have felt the loss over the last few weeks, or in the past, of anyone who has drowned.
Sam, I made your dad, Simon, a promise—and I made it before I even opened my mouth to respond to him that first day I met him. I saw your eyes looking up at me from a photo that your dad had put into my hand, and I could hear the pain in his voice—a pain that no parent other than one who has lost a child could ever say they have felt. I could see in that moment how he had given every single ounce of himself, having lost you, to ensuring that no one else ever felt that heartache again. Sam, I promised your dad then—and I make that promise to you now—that you will save lives.
Sam was 15 years old, his GCSEs completed, and there was hot weather and the chance to go for some fun with friends in a reservoir. Sam never came home, and in the past few weeks, as we have heard, 19 people have not come home. Drowning kills more people per year in the UK than cyclists, fires, floods or knife crime, yet that fact does not seem to be recognised—certainly, it is not recognised enough. Well, not any more.
Minister, we have a national emergency. This is a burning platform, a ticking time bomb, that needs sorting before the next hot spell. We must react. The Government must act. We have to do something about this, and we can. We have heard that drowning is not inevitable, and the World Health Organisation recognises it as a preventable public health issue. The heartache can and must be stopped, and the Government must act to help to stop it.
I pay tribute to the Mirror for launching its Save Lives for Sam campaign, and many people have stepped forward to join the fight to Save Lives for Sam right now. Sam’s face is looking at me as I speak. I thank the Mirror for using its platform and for being there.
I also want to recognise the work of the Royal Life Saving Society UK, Swim England, the National Water Safety Forum, the Swimming Alliance, the Canal & River Trust, the National Fire Chiefs Council and all those who have been pushing for years, often long before the issue received the public attention it deserves. I also thank all the Olympians who have stepped forward to support the campaign, Rebecca Adlington, Tom Dean and Michael Gunning. Those are powerful voices out there right now, and I ask even more to come together to spread the message so that we can save lives.
Together, we are calling for the Government to launch an urgent public awareness campaign ahead of the summer holidays to target parents and children on relevant TV and social media platforms. We are calling for water companies and those in control of large, high-risk water bodies to do the right thing and provide the correct safety equipment through refreshed risk assessments. Ahead of the holidays, we are calling for compulsory lessons in schools on how to survive getting into difficulty in the water.
We are also calling for the Government to ensure that a single person has accountability for water safety, as the Governments in Wales and Scotland have, because drowning must be accepted as a preventable public health issue. Finally, and very importantly, we are calling for Sam’s law to be put in place—that was my private Member’s Water Safety Bill in the name of Sam. Contrary to what the Government say, it had full cross-party support. It would create a legal responsibility to provide, maintain and ensure easy and rapid access to safety equipment around reservoirs and water bodies; it would create a specific criminal offence of vandalising safety equipment around those water bodies; and it would expand water safety learning outcomes in the national curriculum to include a requirement to understand dangers related to swimming in open water.
The Government have already started to transform the water sector through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and have indicated that they will go further, having included a clean water Bill in the King’s Speech. If that is to be a serious public health Bill as well as an environmental Bill, drowning prevention must be part of it. I call for the Government to include water safety as part of that Bill.
Sam’s father, Simon Haycock, is not here today. He has done something extraordinary and amazing with unimaginable grief looking over him. He has fought with dignity and determination to make sure that other families do not go through what his family have gone through. In fact, right now, he is at a school teaching children about the dangers of swimming. He has spoken to communities and campaigned for Sam’s law. He has turned loss into action. The very least this House can do is listen.
In the late 1880s, an unidentified woman, now referred to as Annie, was found in the River Seine. A mould of her face was used as the first CPR training dummy. It was a tragedy, but it resulted in millions of lives being saved since. The darkness of the tragedies of Sam and Mackenzie, who recently died in the River Don, and all those we have lost through drowning, will bring light to others. Their legacy will be that Sam saves lives.
Independent Water Commission: Final Report
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Edward Morello
During my speech, I will outline some such recommendations. This is a good opportunity to thank Surfers Against Sewage for all its hard work. Like my hon. Friend, I use the app regularly before deciding whether to swim at my favourite beaches.
It is an understatement to say that the public’s confidence in the water sector has been damaged; it has been eroded by years of sewage pollution, repeated flooding, poor decision making, too little regulation, scattered legislation and a business model that has too often rewarded failure. This debate is more important than ever in the light of recent flooding, not just in West Dorset but across the south-west and the country as a whole.
Following Storm Chandra, communities again saw the devastating consequence of a system that has reached breaking point and that can react only after failure, rather than preventing it in the first place. Emergency services, whom I pay tribute to, have done an outstanding job, but residents were left dealing with sewage in their homes, damaged property and uncertainty about when it will happen again. In West Dorset alone, 84 homes in Yetminster experienced raw sewage flooding their properties. In Maiden Newton, one family has been flooded repeatedly since 2024, including just days after finally returning home following 15 months of repairs after the previous flood.
As the climate continues to change and extreme weather events become more frequent, that will only become a more common occurrence. Our infrastructure must become more resilient to deal with today’s problems and tomorrow’s.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am chair of the APPG for sustainable flood and drought management, and of the all-party parliamentary water group. On the White Paper, there is 25-year strategic planning, which is absolutely brilliant; regional knowledge and tactical interventions, which are absolutely brilliant; putting engineering capability at the heart of that strategic decision making; and a regulator that brings the economy and the environment together as one for the first time, which I think is important. Does he agree, however, that this is an opportunity to ensure that we do not miss out the maintenance of existing assets, as well as putting new ones in the ground with the extreme amount of investment that will go in over the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? Does he also agree that we therefore need some sort of resilience standards to provide knowledge for the people applying such investment in the future?
Edward Morello
We as the Liberal Democrats always try to be a constructive Opposition, so I absolutely will identify where the White Paper makes steps in the right direction. I hope that the hon. Member will agree with some of our recommendations for where it can be improved.
The Independent Water Commission’s final report was a major and long-awaited milestone. It reflected unprecedented public engagement with more than 30,000 submissions from a public who are angry, frustrated and rightly demanding change. The report contains important proposals embedding public health into law, improving regional planning, strengthening monitoring, and replacing Ofwat with a new, integrated regulator. Those are steps in the right direction.
I want to put on record my thanks to the commissioners and the countless campaigners and volunteers, such as the River Lim Action group, Surfers Against Sewage and River Action, who have fought for cleaner rivers and seas for years. The report exists because of their continued pressure.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate. He shares my passion for tackling water pollution, which is why we work together on the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, which I set up when I joined this place to represent the interests of my constituents and citizens across the country who are passionate about the issue. I did so in recognition of the fact that, unfortunately, the all-party parliamentary water group has a secretariat run by the water industry. It was therefore vital to get citizens’ voices into Parliament on this issue.
Lee Pitcher
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary water group. It is managed in-house; it was all brought in-house, so there is absolutely no external body. That is why we did it: because we wanted the APPG to be totally independent.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this important and timely debate on the Independent Water Commission’s final report and the Government’s White Paper, which will move forward with many of the commission’s recommendations. I put on the record my thanks to and respect for the Minister for setting up the commission. I also thank Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team for their forensic assessment of our water industry—many recognise its fundamentally flawed, if not completely broken, state.
Since being elected, I have heard from constituents about flooding, sewage discharges and water infrastructure failures. I have heard from families worried about river pollution, from businesses concerned about the resilience of supply, and from residents frustrated that the problems they see locally are addressed so slowly. For too long, the sector has been characterised by fragmented planning, overlapping regulation and ageing infrastructure, so the proposal to establish a single integrated regulator, alongside setting out a clearer long-term strategic vision for the sector, is an important step forward in restoring public trust and delivering the resilient water system our country desperately needs.
As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am particularly conscious that reform has to be judged not only on its intent but on delivery. As Sir Jon did, the White Paper is right to identify the historical lack of joined-up, long-term planning as a central weakness. About 60% of water mains were built before 1981, and a significant proportion are now more than a century old. I have seen the effects of that in my village of Norton Canes, and in Rugeley, where water companies have struggled even to work out who owns the broken pipes.
Public confidence in the sector continues to be shaped by the visible impact of pollution and sewage discharge. My constituency is served by Severn Trent and South Staffs Water, and performance across the sector demonstrates both areas of progress and ongoing public concern. Although Severn Trent has achieved long-term strong performance ratings in some operational areas, data shows that in 2024 there were more than 450,000 hours of discharge in its area alone. That contrast illustrates why stronger transparency, oversight and accountability are essential if reforms are to rebuild public confidence. I therefore welcome proposals to move towards open monitoring, to ensure that companies are no longer effectively marking their own homework.
As has been said, agricultural run-off contributes significantly to water pollution in some catchments. That has to be part of any long-term strategy if we are serious about improving river health and water quality, but it needs to be tackled in partnership with farmers, rather than characterising them as wilful polluters of the waterways that they rely on. The move towards integrated regional water planning could be a significant step forward in that respect. In constituencies like mine, effective co-ordination when it comes to flood prevention, agricultural practice, environmental regulation, planning and economic growth is essential. Regional planning could deliver more preventive and nature-based solutions, but it will require clarity about governance, accountability and its relationship with water company investment decisions.
On accountability, as a member of the Co-operative party I was glad that the Government make powerful customer panels a key plank of last year’s reforms. For too long, customers have felt completely disempowered, but with the incredible work of citizen scientists, and the action taken by the Government, that is starting to change. I note that the commission’s final report was lukewarm about the mutual model for water companies, because of a perceived risk to customers, but I hope the Minister will continue to look at ways we could incorporate co-operative principles into reforms to the sector, up to and including mutual ownership if that would resolve some of the issues.
Before I conclude, I cannot speak on this topic without referring to executive bonuses, given the galling payments we have seen for senior figures in failing water companies, despite the action taken by the Government in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. It is shameful that we have got to a point with the water industry where the Government cannot trust bosses to follow the spirit of the law, and instead have to take further action because bosses who would not earn performance-related bonuses would rather spend their time cooking up creative ways of re-labelling bonuses with their legal teams, or re-routing bonuses with their accountants, than spend their time cleaning up the filth that our constituents are paying through the nose for. If they will flout the spirit of the law, the letter of the law will have to change. I am glad we have a Government who are decisive about the need to do that.
The Independent Water Commission has provided a clear diagnosis of the challenges facing our water system. The Government’s White Paper sets out an ambitious pathway for reform in many areas, and I welcome its focus on long-term planning, stronger regulation and improved environmental outcomes. Clearly, the task ahead is to ensure that reforms translate into real-world improvements that our constituents can see and feel.
Lee Pitcher
It is important to put on the record that lots of the people who work for the water companies and lots of farmers out there are feeling the reputational hit from what is going on. Accountability needs to be held at the decision-making level. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to recognise the people who are out there on the frontline day in, day out, and in the offices, making sure that pollution incidents do not occur and that leaks are fixed, and that it is not their fault at all? They are working really hard, including by leaving their families late at night, to try to make things better.
Josh Newbury
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has often heard from water company bosses that the criticisms of their companies are impacting morale on the frontline, but we point out that if any bonuses are available to people on the frontline, they are certainly not of the order of those the bosses are receiving. I absolutely agree that we need to respect those people and make sure their voices are heard as we reform the sector.
As I was saying, we need to see safer waterways, more reliable infrastructure and a water system that is fit for the future. I am grateful for the opportunity to have spoken in the debate.
Agricultural Sector: Import Standards
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, agriculture is a key part of our local economy and our identity. The Isle of Axholme alone consists of 50,000 acres and is characterised by a mix of intensive agricultural land, including significant arable land, and a historical, unique system of open-field strip farming, particularly around parishes such as Haxey and Epworth. One farmer in Ealand categorically assures me that we have the best soil for growing the tastiest spuds in the world—so for the Burns night festivities this weekend, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know where to shop for neeps and tatties.
No one takes up life as a farmer because they want an easy time. Farming is hard. Farmers pour their heart and soul into their land; I know that from my wife’s family. I see it from my window at home: they are up before the break of dawn and out after the owls have emerged. My farmers meet the rules—they pay for assurance, inspections and traceability—but when the time comes to sell their crops, their meat and their products, they find that they are not on a level playing field. They are undercut by imports produced to lower standards at a lower cost. That is just not right.
Over the past year or so, I have spent a significant amount of time understanding the issue. I have been out with farmers in my constituency. I have visited farms across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, have attended roundtables with local farmers and have held surgeries. I have attended farmers’ shows, markets and fairs and have hosted several here in Westminster. I hope soon to meet representatives of Epworth and District young farmers club, which is raising money for the Yorkshire air ambulance and the Lindsey Lodge hospice. In the autumn, I will attend the first ever Isle country show. I have spent time listening directly to the concerns that farmers have raised. Today, I want to feed back clearly to the Minister what they are telling me and what we can do to support them. I will give some examples that they have shared with me.
Let us start with grain. Grain merchants can import grain that is not Red Tractor-assured. Too often, it arrives without the paperwork that we would expect for something that goes into our food chain. UK grain is grown to higher standards. That really matters, but our grain also costs more to produce, so when imports come in cheaper it drives prices below UK production costs. When UK-assured grain is then bulked out with imported grain, it makes a mockery of the premium that our farmers have earned through the quality of their production.
We can grow excellent potatoes in this country, yet we are seeing vast quantities being imported from as far as Portugal, simply to shave costs. That is madness when we factor in the distance, the carbon and the message that it sends to domestic producers who are doing the right thing day in, day out. It is the same story with beef. When we import beef produced to lower welfare standards at a scale that drives down unit costs, we are effectively punishing British farmers for maintaining higher welfare standards and traceability.
There are double standards on crop protection. Oilseed rape became far harder to grow successfully here after key plant protection products were banned, leaving growers exposed to pests such as cabbage stem flea beetles, yet imported crops can be treated with products that our farmers are not allowed to use. That is not a level playing field; it is a tilted one. I will keep repeating that point.
Finally, I turn to sugar. We have sugar beet growers close to processing plants in this country who sustain jobs and local supply chains, yet sugar cane can be imported from countries in which it has been treated with chemicals that are banned here, and then be processed in the UK. I am told that it then ends up on our supermarket shelves with packaging covered in a Union flag that implies British provenance.
I call on the Government to do three things for our farming community; I would love the Minister to respond if she can. We need stronger equivalence in our import standards: if a product cannot be produced here under the rules, it should not be able to undercut our farmers on our shelves. We need robust enforcement and paperwork checks at the border, because standards on paper are meaningless without compliance in practice. We need honest, clear labelling that protects British trademarks and gives consumers the information they need, not marketing that blurs the origin or standards of what they are buying.
UK farmers are frequently inspected, licensed and held to higher welfare and environmental rules. That approach delivers food that is safe, traceable and trusted. The least we can do is ensure that our trade and import regime rewards their efforts rather than undermining them. Let us help our farmers to plough their fields successfully in future by levelling the playing field for them right now.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, isn’t it wonderful to get to Thursday and find that business has run fast, so there is no time limit on speeches and some time to go? Rejoice! [Interruption.] I shall rejoice; whether others do is a different matter.
This has been an excellent debate, and I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies). I went through her constituency last summer on the way to go and see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). Next time, I shall stop off for a cuppa and see her in action. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I married a woman from a family of farmers, so I share his experience and interest in these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) gave an excellent speech to open the debate, but I want to focus my remarks on the farming industry and the brilliant farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), I am on the National Farmers’ Union fellowship scheme this year. I am also the vice-chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have heard me say before, Newcastle-under-Lyme is an age-old market town in north Staffordshire, surrounded by the green, rolling hills for which England—and Wales, of course—is known and of which we are all proud. I promised every single farmer I met in the months and years before the general election, and in the time since, that I will do whatever I can to support farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire and across our country. That means defending our standards every single day. That is why this debate is important, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing it.
That is also why I am pleased that we got to the right place on agricultural property relief and the inheritance tax threshold for farmers and farming families. There has been much commentary on this issue and much genuine concern felt by farmers in my constituency and up and down the United Kingdom. A number of us raised it loudly, repeatedly and, thankfully, effectively. I thank the NFU and all the farmers in my patch who spoke out, and I am grateful to colleagues in government for ensuring we are now in the right place. It is also why I set up my farmers’ forum soon after the general election, because after years of being let down and forgotten, I wanted my farmers back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme to get the hearing they deserve, the support they need and the opportunities to thrive, to keep us fed and to keep going.
There is so much in our United Kingdom that we should be proud of, and Britain’s farmers are just one example. I feel sure that our farmers in Staffordshire, and particularly those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, are leading the way. They are the backbone of our food system. They tend to our land, they produce the clear majority of what ends up on our dinner tables, and they allow us all to feel a sense of pride. Their contribution underpins our food security and strengthens rural economies.
The Speeds at Betley Court farm are responsible for a brilliant fireworks display in November each year, and the Betley show each August, and all colleagues—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker—would be welcome to join the festivities this year. At the Kennerley’s Plum Tree Park farm, grass-fed lamb boxes are supplied seasonally, and there is a dog playground; they have diversified their offer to consumers, their neighbours and our community, and helped to put our part of the world on the map. I hope the Minister will come to see those success stories in Newcastle-under-Lyme for herself before too long.
I am firmly of the view that we should always buy British, as that is smart and necessary for our farmers and for the future of British farming. It is also good for our pubs, shops and restaurants, and I hope that Front-Bench colleagues—not this Minister as there is plenty for her to do, but others—will do what the previous Conservative Government did not do: get a hold of the challenges facing the hospitality sector in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the nation, and ensure that support for our town centres and local businesses is delivered speedily.
As I make that call to support those businesses, which are in turn supported by our farmers and local farming sector, I also think about brilliant local businesses that stand with our farmers every day. Plant and Wilton in Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre is a wonderful family butchers, which of course gets meat from farms both locally and up and down the kingdom. Pubs like the Swan in Betley and the Albert in town are moments away from farms that are tended to by brilliant farmers, some of whom, I suspect, enjoy a pint or two from time to time.
At the Butchers Arms in Audley, Mark the landlord is known for his excellent cooking prowess—again using British food from British farms, many of which are located in Staffordshire. It is similar at the Archer in Wolstanton. When we think about the standards required for the meat and other food that we eat in the pubs I have referred to, and that people enjoy up and down the country, it is important that we make the case for the highest and strongest British standards every step of the way.
Lee Pitcher
When we talk about food standards, we are also talking about the kind and quality of food that we get in our public services. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as contracts for Government services fade out, one of the best things we can do is to ensure that, going forward, at least 50% of food provided in those services is sourced locally?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Royal Stoke University hospital, which is across the road from my constituency border but is staffed by and serves the vast majority of my constituents, is ensuring that its patients and workers enjoy the highest standards and the best of British food. I feel sure that the Minister will agree that that is an excellent point when she sums up the debate.
Constantly thinking about the impact and benefits of the highest British standards leads me to highlight how important it is to remember that the issues facing the agriculture sector and British farmers—who work day in, day out to deliver those highest standards—did not start in July 2024. The price of milk, trade deals that undercut our farmers and access to labour are just some of the long-standing challenges that, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin pointed out, farmers like her, and many in Newcastle-under-Lyme who are working to the highest of British standards, have been forced to endure for far too long.
Across the last three years of the previous Government there was a £358 million underspend in the agricultural budget. I hope the Minister will confirm that under this Labour Government, farmers will always receive the support they need not just to maintain the highest of British standards, but to ensure that food production is more sustainable and profitable. While the Conservatives sold out and undercut farmers in trade deals—we must not forget that—I urge my colleagues in the Government to continue with their principled approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme pointed out, we must always back British standards, we must always back British food and we should never bargain either away. We must never sign trade deals that leave our farmers, including those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, exposed or allow lower quality imports to undercut what British producers deliver day in, day out and to the best of standards.
There is big and serious export potential for British food. I want people from across the world to buy British, to eat British and to benefit from the highest of British standards. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State are planning targeted overseas missions, so I urge them and other colleagues to look at the Commonwealth, with which we already have age-hold historical ties, as the default partner of choice. As we look to ensure that we export British goods that have been produced to the highest of standards, we will benefit greatly from that partnership.
I suggest that the Minister speaks to colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that all our trade envoys are banging the drum for British food, because we know that it is produced to the highest of standards—standards that the rest of the world can only look to for inspiration. While Scottish salmon is the kingdom’s leading food export, I hope that the Minister will also do whatever she can to help me to increase exports of Staffordshire oatcakes, because the world deserves nothing less.
To put it simply, we must protect our farmers, uphold our standards, and back British food at home and abroad. Notwithstanding the challenges over agricultural property relief, I welcome the steps being taken by the Government to give British farmers the tools, investment and confidence that they need to thrive. We are creating a new farming and food partnership board, chaired by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that will bring together farmers, processors, retailers and the Government, so that those working on our land have a real voice in how policy is made to ensure that we always maintain the highest of British standards.
We rely on trade to complement what we grow here, to give families year-round choice, to help stabilise prices, to protect our supply chains when global shocks hit and—I know the Minister will agree—to ensure that the highest of British standards are maintained and supported. We will not always get everything right and nor will we always make everyone happy, but we do need to listen to our farmers and our food producers. They are the ones flying the flag for the highest of standards, so we need to ensure that they are not undercut when food with lower standards comes from elsewhere. My message to farmers and producers in Newcastle-under-Lyme is that this Government hear them loud and clear, and they have our full support.
Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Our waterways in Bath are the envy of the country. Across England and Wales, more than 30,000 boats are licensed to navigate our canals and rivers, and Bath stands out as a particular hotspot. Many boaters choose to make Bath their home, whether moored permanently or passing through as part of a longer journey. The Kennet and Avon canal flows gracefully through our world heritage city, shaping our landscape and connecting our community through nature. We value every one of our boaters in Bath, especially our live-aboard boating communities, many of whom work locally, raise families and care deeply about the waterways.
Riverside businesses contribute so much to our local economy, and they create welcoming spaces enjoyed by people across the city. We have a shared responsibility to keep these places safe, clean and accessible to everyone. Rising rents, a lack of social housing and the increased cost of living mean that living on the water is a more affordable option for many. There are more boats on our canals than during the peak of the industrial revolution, with a quarter of those estimated to be live-aboard residential vessels. A study by Promarine Finance found that three quarters of live-aboard owners have never owned a home, with 90% of them citing the cost of living as a factor.
In Bath, boaters and residents of houses along our waterways have co-existed peacefully for decades as neighbours and friends, but it is not just residents who make use of our canals and waterways. People from all over Bath and beyond come to see the beautiful scenery and nature that the canal provides. The towpath also serves as an important active travel route for walkers and cyclists. These areas must be protected for boaters, local residents and visitors alike.
That brings me to the purpose of this debate. In recent years, residents along the Kennet and Avon canal have experienced persistent and at times dangerous antisocial behaviour on the part of a small minority of individuals. Our canals are residential areas, but all too often families and individuals have been subjected to loud music late into the night, bonfires, and acts of vandalism that make it impossible for them to enjoy their homes in peace.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The hon. Lady mentions vandalism. I have tabled a private Member’s Bill on water safety, which covers a range of issues, in memory of a young lad who lived in Yorkshire and who passed away from drowning in a reservoir. I promised, in the name of Sam, that I would do something about vandalism by making it a named criminal offence for anyone to vandalise water safety equipment. The risk, in terms of the penalty, would be much higher, and would therefore prevent such vandalism from taking place. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is something we should fight to do, in honour of Sam and for his dad, Simon Haycock?
Flood Defences: Chesterfield
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in areas where we have significant risk of flooding, it should be compulsory for schools to educate children on building flood plans as part of the curriculum? If people knew that there was a flood coming, they would then actually know what they should be doing. I know for a fact that, if people have a plan, they bounce back and their resilience is greater afterwards, if they become flooded.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the importance of plans and the issue of ensuring that children feel supported. The Minister and I are both former shadow Education Ministers, and we know there is no end to the number of things that people think should be on the school curriculum, but that is something that should be considered.
More broadly, communities need to understand that the Government cannot always build a wall and save them. On some occasions, particularly as we go forward, floods are going to happen, and there needs to be a local plan for how we support people during floods and protect life in those times. The whole community needs to be involved, and that is a very important point.
If the Government accept that in some cases they cannot do more to protect an area such as Tapton Terrace, can the Minister explain what mechanisms might be in place? Who do we need to get around the table to discuss a plan, which might involve knocking homes down and potentially building flood-resilient ones there? We previously had a plan about having all the living space on the first and second floor, and just garage space downstairs. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how we can look at getting people around the table to discuss that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member is right to suggest that the root causes of the backlog are a direct result of Conservative choices and inaction. The previous Government closed more than 260 court buildings—in one year alone the Tories closed 84 magistrates courts—which clearly led to this considerable court backlog. I am pleased to say that the Lord Chancellor is taking action on that backlog by funding 108,500 sitting days in the Crown courts and increasing magistrates courts’ sentencing powers.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
New technology has the potential to bring transformative benefits to the criminal justice system, as indeed it does to public services more broadly. The Government recognise that technology has the potential to radically enhance the way in which public services are delivered to the benefit of all of us and the public purse. For example, the Serious Fraud Office is trialling technology to improve the speed and quality of its disclosure work. The results have been promising. The tech identifies relevant documents 40% more quickly than traditional methods. I am pleased to say that it will be rolled out to more cases in the coming months.
Lee Pitcher
My constituency is home to three prisons: Lindholme, Hatfield and Moorland. Given the challenges faced in our local criminal justice system, particularly in managing caseloads in prisons and capacity, will the Solicitor General outline what specific technological innovations are being prioritised to speed up court processes and improve access to justice for victims and defendants?
The Solicitor General
The work to improve our public services has to include the better use of technology. The Government are taking decisive action to enable law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities to harness innovative and cutting-edge technologies to reduce the court backlog, improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and lead to better outcomes for victims. I am pleased to say that the Government Legal Department is providing leadership in this area through its artificial intelligence centre of excellence, which offers expert support to colleagues across Government.
Rural Communities: Government Support
Lee Pitcher Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate.
Representing a rural area and having spent a lot of my career working with rural communities and the land, I am keenly aware of the challenges that the communities in my constituency face. When services fail, it is our rural communities that are hit first and hit hardest. Because of their size, small rural schools and doctor’s surgeries are already working with smaller margins than their urban cousins. When budgets have been cut, those cuts have gone straight to the bone. Rural broadband and phone services lag behind, making it more challenging to set up businesses to work from those areas.
I have seen areas where rural bus services have been reduced to almost nothing—when they have not disappeared completely—cutting off communities and massively affecting the lives of elderly and disabled people. The big bus companies have pulled out of many of our rural areas, but I know that those routes can work. Hornsby Travel, a local family company in the Isle of Axholme, is doing amazing work in finding ways to provide vital connections for rural villages. Even roads, the one lifeline to country villages, are falling deeper and deeper into disrepair, as squeezed budgets force local authorities to focus on only the busiest roads.
I recently visited Wroot Travis primary school, which has fewer than 30 pupils. The children had sat down and worked out the one thing that they wanted to speak to me, their MP, about: they wanted a sign outside their school, warning drivers about children crossing the road. I was happy to write to the local council to champion their cause, but I cannot help but feel that a school in a town or city would not even have had to ask; it would have been done automatically. That is such a small thing, but it is symbolic of the way that rural communities have been treated as an afterthought or not even thought of at all.
If that street sign is a symbol of how things have been, I hope that the steps this Government are taking are symbolic of a new relationship with rural communities. The rural England prosperity fund is one such step, helping to support local businesses to establish, grow or diversify and supporting charities and community groups to enrich their areas. Another is the additional funding brought by the rural community assets fund, which will help to preserve and improve cherished local community facilities. Finally, the Action with Communities in Rural England grant will help rural community groups and others to offer social inclusion activities. I am sure that the Minister will talk about many of those measures and more, but I welcome them, and especially their focus on empowering and developing capacity within our rural communities and working with people to give them the tools they need to make their communities flourish.
The knowledge and expertise of generations that have worked and bring great value to our local communities need to be recognised, particularly as we start to meet the challenges that climate change brings. New blue-green engineering will be a huge and vital part—
