Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her response to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who always brings forward interesting matters for this House to consider. I always underline the importance of farming, fishing and food in Northern Ireland, and would not want a change to the public ownership of markets in Northern Ireland to impact us in any way. May I, very respectfully and genuinely, ask the Minister whether she has had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that nothing similar to what the hon. Lady says may happen in London, happens to us?

[Mr Speaker]

Good luck with that!

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Mr Speaker, all I can do is express my admiration of the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in ensuring that his question is in order.

[Mr Speaker]

I would not say it was in order.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It gives a new meaning to the London Irish.

[Mr Speaker]

It was so bad. Even I did not mention Chorley market, wonderful though it is.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Only 55% of Britain’s food is produced in Britain, so food security should be a much bigger priority for this Government. Donald Trump’s war in the middle east, Putin’s war on Ukraine and all the other global shocks have not woken up the Government to this, yet England is now the only country in the UK, and the only country in Europe, that does not financially support farmers in producing food. Is that not recklessly foolish, and will the Minister not amend the farm payment scheme to change that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very thoughtful question. I have heard that from farmers in different parts of the country, and I know it is an issue in his constituency. We are looking to see what we can do, because there are many whose agreements are expiring towards the end of the year, and the second window will open in September. The intent to act is there, but we must ensure that we have the systems in place to enable that to happen.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

So here we are: after stopping and starting, and chopping and changing, the Government are finally working on the roll-out of the new SFI scheme, which will be launched this summer, but it comes with lower payment rates for key environmental delivery measures, and a £100,000 cap. We learn that thousands of upland farmers will be excluded altogether, and that those on historic agreements will still be locked in and unable to apply. Farmers are already struggling as a result of rising costs, the family farm tax and choices that this Labour Government are making. How will the Secretary of State focus on ensuring the effective delivery of the scheme? What does she say to the many farmers I have spoken to, who say that the new SFI creates more cost, more risk and less reward for our farmers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

We are keeping in touch with all sectors that are affected by the agrifood deal, but I recognise my hon. Friend’s work, particularly with the fishing industry. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs would be very happy to attend a meeting of her APPG, and to talk to it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Obviously, there are real opportunities to be had from the completion of an SPS agreement, but those who import fresh produce, in particular citrus fruit, are concerned that imports from countries outside the European Union will become more difficult and more expensive as a consequence. May I encourage the Secretary of State to engage more vigorously and in greater detail with the Fresh Produce Consortium, which brought these concerns to my desk recently?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

A successful SPS deal will bring huge benefits to the shellfish industry, which was, as my hon. Friend said, very badly affected by the botched Brexit deal that we inherited from the last Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Stakeholders have expressed alarm about the fact that the Government’s guidance for businesses on the UK-EU SPS agreement, published last week, has legislation in scope on the use of hormones, including bovine somatotrophin, in livestock. The use of growth-promoting hormones for livestock and of bovine somatotrophin are rightly banned in the UK and EU because of serious animal welfare issues and public health concerns, and bovine somatotrophin is linked to a 25% increase in mastitis in cows. For the sake of animal welfare, will the Minister give a clear assurance that the UK will maintain our bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork and bovine somatotrophin-treated dairy, and that none of those standards will be weakened or traded away in the EU SPS negotiations, or in trade deals with other countries? Will she also confirm whether the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which ended the export of live animals for slaughter or fattening, will be retained in the reset?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Dr Hudson, I have the greatest respect for you; you have more knowledge of this than anyone in this Chamber. However, we cannot have five questions. I have to get others in. Secretary of State, pick whichever question you want.

[Emma Reynolds]

I do not know which one to answer! I reassure the shadow Minister that the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining high animal welfare standards, and we made it clear to the United States when we were doing the deal with them that we will not tolerate hormone-treated beef and certain other products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

This Labour Government are committed to doubling the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, as we laid out in our manifesto. We already have some very successful agricultural co-operatives such as Arla and Openfield, which benefit the farmers in those co-operatives and their local communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State announced yet another supposedly significant policy this week—the land use framework—outside Parliament, and has not offered an oral statement so that Ministers may be scrutinised. This is the fifth time she has done this. The other four occasions were the Baroness Batters review, the animal welfare strategy, the family farm tax fiasco and the SFI scheme, which has attracted many questions today because colleagues need to know more details for their constituents. What can be done to encourage the Secretary of State to make a proper announcement in the House so that Members of Parliament can—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You have put the point on the record. While I have got the Secretary of State here, I will ask her if she wishes to respond.

[Emma Reynolds]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to respond. We issued a written ministerial statement yesterday. I have done oral statements on big issues such as the water White Paper. I note that when my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), made an oral statement on water in September, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) did not care to attend.

[Mr Speaker]

A WMS was out there, and I say to the Government that priority should always be given to the House. I am sure that will be noted. Far too many statements are made outside the House, but there was a WMS on this occasion. I will leave it at that because we have other things to get through.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that listing is a matter for the judiciary, but one proposal is a national listing framework to ensure that cases are listed as soon as possible. We are committed to supporting victims of rape and serious sexual violence. That is why we launched our landmark strategy in December to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It is why we are investing over half a billion pounds in victim support services, including for victims of rape and serious sexual violence.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

At her annual press conference this week, the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, said:

“I have grave security concerns if there are going to be judge-alone trials.”

Does the Solicitor General share those concerns, and what are the Government doing about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

As always, my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I understand that measures are being taken to recruit more magistrates from more diverse backgrounds. Magistrates are the cornerstone of local justice and it is right that they represent the communities in which they are taking decisions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

On Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, told the House that “politics is about choices”, so let us be clear about the choices that this Government have made. They chose to bring forward a Bill with no consultation, no manifesto mandate, no Green Paper, no White Paper and no robust modelling. They chose to go further than Sir Brian Leveson had recommended. They chose to remove the right to trial by jury for offences carrying up to three years in prison—sentences that will cost defendants their jobs, their homes and their families. And they chose to do all this in five days of Committee scrutiny. What does the Minister think about the choices that her Government have made? What will she tell the victims of miscarriages of justice and the thousands of legal professionals who oppose the measures?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point, and am happy to engage further on these really important matters.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

First, can I ask the Solicitor General to please follow up on her kind offer to chase the Justice Minister responsible for legal aid, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), about meeting me to discuss support for domestic abuse victims?

The 2024 domestic abuse joint justice plan aims to improve early co-ordination between police and the CPS. I am aware that a review was conducted as part of the plan, highlighting concerns about the quality and timeliness of police referrals and CPS decision making. However, based on recent cases I have heard about from my North Cornwall constituents and from other Members, I am rather concerned that the plan’s focus on high-risk victims does not ensure accurate identification of those genuinely at high risk. Professionals could misinterpret or overlook risk factors, meaning that some of those high-risk cases might be wrongly assessed and their severity underestimated. Does the Solicitor General agree that while the plan has improved investigations and prosecutions, a needs-based approach is absolutely essential, especially to show victims that coming forward is worthwhile and the justice system will not fail them?