Checks on Goods Entering UK

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Spencer]

The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be extensive costs. As I said, for low-risk products they are £10 per product, limited to a maximum of five products per common health entry document. That means that the costs are reasonable. We calculate that there will be a 0.2% increase in cost over three years. He says that these goods are coming from within the EU under the same regulations. African swine fever is moving across Europe. It is already present in Italy. Were that disease to get to the UK, it would be devastating for the UK pork market and the UK pig population. It would also damage our ability to export pork products around the world if we lost our credibility as being free from African swine fever.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Minister is absolutely right about the devastating impact of not having proper checks and the risk of African swine fever, so can he explain why Dover Port Health is having its costs slashed for essential checks at the border? Will he accept that the existing checks should be maintained in full at Dover Port Health; that Dover port of is the right authority, with its state-of-the-art facility, to do these important checks, in respect of which it is the most experienced body across the entire channel; and that we should not risk having these checks at some new, untested, supposedly trained facility 22 miles away in Ashford? That is a risk to this country.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tenacious campaign on behalf of her constituents and the port of Dover, but I hope she will not mind my drawing attention to the fact that these are separate regimes: goods coming in legally, via legal channels, with the right documentation will move to Sevington, but the port of Dover is the right place for Border Force to ensure that we are protected from illegal imports, and those checks will still take place. The conversations with the Port of Dover over funding continue, and we want to see Port of Dover continue to help to keep us safe and intercept any illegal imports that people may attempt to bring into the UK.

Draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 General Committees

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The two statutory instruments are part of the Government’s new border target operating model, which will manage import controls. Controls on the border are important, and it is important that dangerous and illegal meat and other products are seized at the border.

Evidence from the Dover port health team is that there has been an increase in the risks associated with the safety of food and drink, partly as a result of global food chain insecurity following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and partly because of poor slaughter, pesticide and goods transportation practices in some other countries that can lead to risks to human and animal health. Having the right risk-based checks in place is important to protect our country, our farmers and our food supply chains.

Despite the many hours over a great number of months that have been spent by informed and expert channel trade businesses; the Port of Dover; Dover Port Health Authority; the Kent and Medway business advisory board; food and drink organisations such as the Chilled Food Association; logistics businesses including Logistics UK; and myself, the Government have failed to listen to the representations made about the proposals. I believe those representations would make the border arrangements cheaper and stronger than those that have been proposed.

The statutory instruments risk creating a weaker new regulatory environment for decision making around fees and charges, and less control at the vital point of entry into our country. They must be viewed alongside another statutory instrument, which is currently subject to the negative procedure and therefore not open to debate, but which directly impacts the interpretation of the statutory instruments that we are considering. That other statutory instrument, which is still open for hon. Members to object to, as I have done—I encourage them to consider doing so—removes common-sense requirements that say that border checks should be done at the border.

The new arrangements under the Official Controls (Location of Border Control Posts) (England) Regulations 2024 allow the checking point for the border to be some distance from the point of entry at the border, with no obligation in the regulations to demonstrate, for example, how transit biosecurity risks will be managed if a checking facility is some way away, as the new regulations will allow.

That is directly relevant to the Committee, because the common user charge being imposed at the Dover border under the statutory instruments that we are considering is to pay for such a remote facility. The new border controls for Dover, to which the statutory instruments relate, will not be carried out at the point of entry in Dover, but in Ashford, some 22 miles away —basically the same distance as from Dover to France. As we have heard and as I will further explain, the basis for the calculation of the proposed costs and fees has caused considerable industry concern.

First, the draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 amends EU regulation 2017/625, which relates to the calculation and enforcement of charges and fees on imported animals and animal feeds. Regulation 2(2)(a) removes the requirement under the current regulation for fees and charges to be collected and enforced at border control posts.

[Mr Perkins]

I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Lady says. Is it her contention that the instruments before us are necessary but do not go far enough, or is she suggesting that they will make things worse?

[Mrs Elphicke]

I am grateful for that question. As I said in my opening remarks, it is my view that the regulations are weaker than those currently in place and that the new environment, in the context of the entirety of the new border target operating model, is less strong in protecting our country. I will go on to explain the measures to which that applies.

As I said, regulation 2(2)(a) removes the requirement on fees and charges to be collected and enforced at border control posts. We heard from the Minister that the intention is that they will now be collected online. However, the regulation does not specify where or how the fees will be collected, or whether it will still be possible for the fees to be collected in person at the border as well as online. Given the overall lack of maturity in some of the digital border control posts, that is clearly of concern to some businesses.

Regulation 2(2)(b) then removes the need for a competent authority to be “objective and non-discriminatory” when determining the application of fees. It allows a competent authority to reduce or waive fees with regard to any consideration that it deems relevant. That has given rise to concerns that it could give undue power to a competent authority to change prices on goods that are entering the country. Some businesses may be arbitrarily favoured or punished with additional fees, which will disrupt trade and may discourage businesses from trading with the UK if they deem those fees to be arbitrary or unfair.

I am sure that the Minister will reassure me that that is not the intent of the regulations, but it is none the less a grave concern. It should be noted that the removal of the objective and non-discriminatory criteria risks anti-competitive behaviour in the channel trade. The authority to which the Government have decided to give checking powers is home to the international rail terminal stop for Eurotunnel, which Ashford has been negotiating to get reopened.

The Ashford stop—the new border control point—is considerably closer to Eurotunnel than the Port of Dover. Why does that matter? As the Dover Port Health Authority has set out repeatedly to the Government, the overwhelming majority of the goods expected to be checked—around 90% of them—will come in through Dover, compared with around 10% coming in through Eurotunnel. Yet the new border control point is a great distance from Dover and much closer to a much less significant point of entry. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government feel it necessary to give themselves powers to act in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion, and why that change in regulation is required.

Regulation 3(a) will change the wording of article 81 of the existing EU regulation. This relates to the determination of costs. It changes the word “shall” to “may” and states that the costs may be determined on

“the costs of official controls and costs connected with official controls, including, but not limited to”,

and then sets out some features. That means that the previous criteria, which have been in place for some time, are now not binding, and a competent authority, which will not be the Dover Port Health Authority, can determine the charges to be placed on goods for whatever reason it decides. The SPS certification working group raised issues with that, alongside concerns about the common user charge being imposed through the regulations, as there has been no transparency on the cost basis for the new inspections.

The current EU regulation is explicit in what inspection charges can be costed. These are specified in article 81, including staff salaries, the cost of facilities and equipment, consumables and tools, services delegated to other bodies, the cost of training, the cost of travel, and costs associated with testing in labs. The statutory instrument turns those required and limiting criteria into simply guidelines, which means that they are not the only way that costings for inspections can be determined, and the competent authority can use whatever reason it likes—it would not be limited in the way it is now—in order to change and charge inspection costs.

That means that there may be differences in the charges for inspection. Ultimately, they will be more expensive than the current checks and processes. This has raised concerns, as has been mentioned, that prices will rise and supply chains could be disrupted, which may have an impact on the UK’s food supply. Considering that the UK imports more than 40% of its food, and, as I have underlined, the Port of Dover plays a very significant part in our trade with Europe, this statutory instrument has the potential to be quite significant to the UK’s food supply.

The anti-competitive potential for this approach has been highlighted in discussion with trade businesses and the Port of Dover over many months. I would like the Minister to comment on what the port and industry have had to say. They say that the level of the charge is eye-wateringly high at £29 for shipments of a single commodity, and up to £145 for multi-commodity shipments. That means groupage in terms of how the trade operates. What we have already seen over the last couple of years is a change in shipments in terms of groupage and non-groupage facilities. There is significant concern that the groupage costs and the multi-commodity shipment costs will particularly impact small and medium-sized enterprises, as we have heard. By contrast, the charge that the Dover Harbour Board would levy on a lorry for such purposes would be £19, so there is a significant multiple of the charges currently faced.

Then there is the legal limitation on DEFRA’s statutory power to recover costs. Over-recovery is unlawful. DEFRA therefore needs to be transparent about what the costs are. It is the view of industry that it is simply not credible that the cost of operating a lorry park and a few checks is seven times higher than the cost of operating checks at the eastern docks in Dover, which already have heavy machinery and multi-storey infrastructure. It should be remembered that the new cost that will be levied is not the whole cost that industry will bear because additional charges will also be levied for examination and other costs.

That is a matter that Logistics UK has drawn attention to, because it is concerned about the disparity and the risk of significant disruption in costs between Government-run facilities and commercially-run border control points. It has said in its most recent briefing this month that commercial ports have yet to make public their fee structures. Logistics UK is calling for commercial ports to get visibility of the import of products, animals, food and feed systems to know which loads contain SPS goods, which are eligible for checks and charges at border control points. Logistics UK is also concerned that differing charging structures for a national import controls process could lead to a diversion of trade and increased admissions.

As I represent the area of Dover and Deal, it is of grave concern if a consequence of the new changes would be any kind of diversion or disruption to what is the most successful operation in terms of cross-channel trade.

The risk of market distortion is being raised by the Port of Dover, by businesses and by the people most closely involved who have made representation after representation, which has not been listened to.

The concern also is that if there is a change in the routes of traffic coming into the UK, this will also be a mis-analysis in terms of the costs and preparations made by the Government. They are preparing something without, as we have already heard, having made the impact assessment, which is necessary in relation to these important changes.

Finally, the Government have already set the user charge without having any operations up and running at the new facility. By contrast, the facility at Dover is long established and there is a state-of-the-art plant health facility that has already been paid for by taxpayers. Instead of using that, the Government have guessed the amount of the charge in a situation where it is legally able only to pass on costs incurred. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the costs will be reviewed and what steps will be taken to ensure that there is transparency, which there has not been in the process to date, about how those costs are reached and also that businesses will not be charged more than the running costs that are required.

Before I leave the topic of the common user charge, I should just say that the Allianz Trade organisation has suggested that there will be a total of £2 billion in additional costs, so these changes are not small. It is important that what seem to be very small changes in the statutory instruments will potentially have a huge impact on the border.

It has been announced that the Ashford facility is intended to be the new border control facility. It is some 22 miles away and is a remote, non-proximate facility. With regard to the new official controls, the Government have said that they would prefer this new, untested health authority, local authority, in Ashford to be managing these critical new processes for the country. No full impact assessment has been made, and that is noted in the statutory instrument. It is my view that a full impact assessment should be made, given the scale of the estimated costs—£2 billion—and given the potential impact and given the risks that so many businesses have raised with the Government.

Taking into account all the measures of inspection and the other port costs, businesses such as those represented by the SPS certification working group are left unsure as to what the total costs might be and how they can properly plan for this change. It is very late in the day indeed, notwithstanding the fact that this change has been a long time coming, for the Government to begin to inform business about how this might operate.

Let me turn briefly to the other statutory instrument before us, the Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. These regulations fail to list Dover as a relevant port. Considering that 18 million tonnes of cargo—mostly from the EU—comes in through Dover, the failure to include Dover as a relevant port is simply not sensible. The freight liaison group has been clear that the statutory port health function, which legally and operationally rests with Dover Port Health Authority, should continue to operate in full.

I have outlined in brief some of the very serious concerns that have been raised with me and with Ministers over a long time, but which have not been fully addressed to date. As I am not permitted to be a formal member of this Committee today, I cannot, as I would choose to do, vote against these statutory instruments. However, I hope that other Members may take time to reflect, note the concerns raised and weigh the gravity of the subject matter, because it affects food safety, security, businesses and a vital trading pathway that benefits our entire country.

Food Security

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), I thoroughly enjoy our Kentish honey, so I welcomed his encouragement of pollinators. May I start by putting on record my thanks to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee for their important work? I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the vital issue of food security.

Food security is important, as are other types of security, such as energy security or our national defence. Representing the area that is both guardian and gateway to our great nation for the European continent, I know that it is vital that there are robust measures and controls in place to protect our national interest. As outlined by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Government’s failure to bring forward an effective land use framework in time or an ambitious internal food strategy will leave our country continuing to be dependent on food imports.

The Environmental Audit Committee has reported that over 40% of the UK’s food is imported, and more than a quarter of that comes from the EU and wider Europe. A lot of that comes in through the port of Dover. Meat is the second highest import in our country, with a value of around £7 billion and an export value of around £2 billion the other way. It is of the utmost importance, when it comes to food security, that appropriate and effective checks are implemented and funded. The Environmental Audit Committee has noted:

“Since…food security depends on some degree of imports, it is vital that environmental harms are not exported abroad.”

A failure in import biosecurity on food exports, such as in the case of African swine flu, would decimate our domestic production capability for years, and clearly it would affect our export markets as a result.

In spite of biosecurity warnings and concerns from me, the EFRA Committee, Dover Port Health Authority and businesses operating across the channel routes, the Government remain steadfast in their decision to do the wrong thing when it comes to protecting biosecurity at the Dover border. The Government have been formally and persistency warned over the past two years that, as we have heard, Russia’s war on Ukraine and global food price spikes and constraints have impacted the quality and availability of food. That has also resulted in increased biosecurity risks, as we have been informed.

Food producers and customs businesses have echoed some of the concerns made by the Committees. One customs business wrote to me in scathing terms:

“Throughout this saga DEFRA and the Cabinet Office have been disingenuous at best, arrogant certainly but in the care of UK human and animal health, appear to be derelict in their duty. The blatant attempt to cover up scandalous spending and shall we say misdirection regarding safety, removing the internationally recognised safeguard of within the port of entry’s accepted legal area for BCP checks.”

It goes on to say that there will be an increase in

“biosecurity breaches and, for the less compliant a great opportunity to undermine all those seeking to do the right and safe thing.”

To what was this business referring? It was referring to the Government’s new security control regime, which puts the Dover port checks 22 miles away in Ashford. That is the same distance as from Dover to France —a long way.

The EFRA Committee has written to the Government to ask for assurances about biosecurity management along that route. Many Members of the House will have heard me speak about that route as being prone to traffic congestion from time to time. It is a “single point of failure” road where, from time to time, no traffic moves in either direction. Yet 22 miles away is where the Government have put these new controls, even though there is a ready-to-use, state-of-the-art border control facility raring to go on the Dover frontline.

In the next few days, if not today, the Government will table a statutory instrument to underpin their new biosecurity structure. I want to draw it to the House’s attention because it reflects on the important work of the Committees. There will not be an automatic consideration by a Committee of this fundamental change to how our borders are managed, because this measure, which will weaken future border controls and our country’s biosecurity, is to be laid under the negative procedure. We will therefore not have an opportunity to debate it.

This new statutory instrument covers animal health, plant health and genetically modified organisms—important for us all to keep an eye on. It also covers poisons, plant protection products—pesticides and the like—and other pollutants. It will remove the requirement for these checks to be done at a location immediately proximate to the border. That will be the case for the first time because currently, under retained EU law that our Government confirmed after we left the EU, there is a requirement for proximity—the nearest place possible to make these important checks. I am sure we would all agree that it is very sensible to do border checks at the border—why would we not?

The new statutory instrument will elevate visual and local character at a border point of entry over and above standards of protecting goods and food. It will elevate both visual and environmental issues over and above biosecurity and national interest food security management. It contains no requirement for there to be effective biosecurity controls between the port of entry and the place of checking. Just to remind Members, that is 22 miles of open, or sometimes congested or closed, Kentish road. There is no role for the current port health authority to inform the decision that will be made. It will be the decision of the new port authority, which in this case will be not one but two local authorities away.

That matters because at the Dover frontline we have a really remarkable, effective and committed port health team. It has brought to the Government’s attention in formal reports over the last two years—not once and not twice, but several times—that biosecurity risks have increased and continue to be of great significance at the border. I pay tribute to its work and believe it should be better supported. It said, and this is a matter I have raised in debates in this House over the last two years, that

“To not mobilise the facility”—

the existing facility at Dover—

“would be an act of negligence that would significantly increase the risk of devastating consequences of another animal, health or food safety catastrophe.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the importance of controlling pesticides, and he is absolutely right. But we cannot just control pesticides here, because of the very significant role of product coming into our country through imports. Let me refer to just one example. One item that was stopped by the port health team at the Dover port was pesticides on eastern European flax seeds, of the sort we might sprinkle on cereal. They were found to exceed the maximum level for UK health safety. In other words, they were dangerous to human life. That is illegal for the UK market and, given our own focus in the UK on wanting to improve the position on pesticides, it is unquestionable that we do not want product to come into this country that is both a danger to human health and could potentially damage our farming and food producers.

Biosecurity is a real concern. For example, on African swine fever the Government have said:

“The disease poses a significant risk to our pig herd and our long-term ability to export pork and pork products around the globe.”

So on food security we need robust measures on African swine fever in particular, because it is a known concern in terms of animal disease and its effects are devastating where they occur. In spite of that, the Government decided to slash African swine fever funding at the port of Dover and significantly reduce its capability to do checks. That does not protect our farmers or our food security. That decision puts our country and its farming at risk. I urgently ask the Government to reconsider that decision.

Food security is not just about what we grow; it is about protecting the very food on our table, and our farmers and food producers too. We cannot secure our food and food production without having strong borders and effective controls. I am grateful for all the work of the Committees, in particular the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is doing such important work on this issue. I thank all Members for their contributions today.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Selaine Saxby]

That is an excellent intervention. I will come to ferrets, but unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of one at home myself.

The companionship of pets was highly valued during the covid pandemic, when there was a surge in demand for puppies and kittens, which unfortunately led to even more upsetting cases of pet smuggling in the UK. During covid, legal commercial imports of dogs rose by nearly 60% to more than 70,000 dogs in 2021, and trends in illegal imports could be expected to be similar.

Puppy and kitten smuggling came on my radar as an MP shortly after the first lockdown began in March 2020, when I was one of those people trying to find a new pup, which were hard to find. I am grateful to my great dog-loving friend Bethany Sawyer for her advice not to see the cute puppy that was the wrong age without both parents available in the advert. While Henry, my fox red Labrador was not smuggled into the country—I met his mum and dad at their farm just above my North Devon home—I understand how the emotions in adopting a new pet and companion often leave some of the rationality and questioning behind. Prices for specific dog breeds doubled, and the UK market struggled to keep up. With huge profits to be made, that imbalance provided ample opportunity for people acting illegally and irresponsibly to import puppies and take advantage of innocent pet buyers, who may not have known that their furry friends were suffering. YouGov polling shows that 83% of the public want the Government to crack down on puppy smuggling.

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee, and I am delighted to be flanked by my Whip from that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) and other members of that Committee who are supporting this Bill. Just this week alone, more than 100 colleagues have dropped in to see the Dogs Trust and support the Bill.

When the kept animals Bill was withdrawn and divided up, I made a commitment to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Dogs Trust that if I came high up in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I would take part of that Bill through. As I am not a regular raffle prize winner, I was more than a bit perplexed to find myself come sixth. I looked at Henry—I am still not sure whether he fully understands all the media attention—and explained that we were going to be helping puppies for many months to come. I am delighted that I have been able to keep that commitment here today.

As a dog owner myself, I find it horrific to hear stories of puppies and kittens being smuggled across the border and the poor conditions they have to endure. Pets are more than just property; they are family. The Bill will ensure that pets are not sold or traded as objects.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

This is such an important Bill, which my hon. Friend is bringing forward with passion and eloquence. Does she agree that the Government must put in funding at the border to deal with the problem and stop the smuggling of puppies, kittens and, indeed, ferrets? It is a worry that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has reduced, or proposed to reduce, biosecurity funding at the port of Dover and in the Dover area. Money must be put behind this important initiative.

[Selaine Saxby]

My hon. Friend is a huge advocate for her constituency and the port of Dover. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is indeed looking at some of those matters. The Bill will deliver a manifesto commitment to crack down on puppy, kitten and ferret smuggling by closing loopholes exploited by unscrupulous commercial traders.

Pet Abduction Bill

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Firth]

Subsection (6) provides that, in relation to the three safeguard defences or exemptions set out in clause 1, as long as sufficient evidence of the defence is established, the burden will move on to the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

Regarding the penalties for these offences, a dog abduction will be a triable offence either way. Conviction on indictment will carry a maximum term of five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. Summary conviction in England and Wales carries a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrate’s court, which is currently six months, a fine or both. Summary conviction in Northern Ireland carries a penalty imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. Lastly, subsection (8) of clause 1 includes definitions for “taking” and “detaining” for the purposes of the clause.

We come on to clause 2, which deals with cats. Cats have been added following a lot of work by the pet theft taskforce and the all-party parliamentary group on cats. It makes it an offence for a person to take a cat in England and Northern Ireland so as

“to remove it from the lawful control of any person”.

While the taking of a cat can be an offence, detaining a cat will not be, thus reflecting the different behaviour, with cats being more free-roaming than dogs. That definition also avoids criminalising well-meaning behaviour where a person looks after a cat that they thought was stray, abandoned or lost. That is the “Granny Meow” difference, which was much discussed on Second Reading.

As with clause 1, subsection (2) creates a mirror exemption, identical to the case of dogs, to exclude from the scope of the offence domestic disputes over the custody of a cat between partners going their separate ways. Again, as with clause 1, subsection (3) sets out a mirror defence of

“lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for taking the cat”

and again, as with clause 1, the cat abduction offence is triable either way and the penalty provisions are identical to that of dog abduction. There is no hierarchy or difference between dogs and cats.

Clause 3 is the enabling clause, which enables other animals commonly kept as pets to be protected at a later date. Clause 3 gives a power to the appropriate national authority in England or Northern Ireland to amend the Bill to extend the offences in clause 1 or 2 to include further species of animal commonly kept as pets. The power may be exercised when there is evidence that there is a significant increase in incidents of unlawful taking or detaining of animals of that species.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important Bill and on its cross-party support. She and I have discussed the issue of indoor pedigree cats, particularly ragdolls, which are beloved of me, Taylor Swift, Holly Willoughby and others. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, should it be necessary to extend some of the dog provisions in relation to holding indoor cats, the provision in clause 3 would allow a consideration of further extension of powers to protect indoor cats?

[Anna Firth]

My hon. Friend has been a champion for cats, the ragdoll breed in particular—what an absolutely beautiful breed it is. I can assure her that clause 2, which deals with cats, will deal in its entirety with the taking of a ragdoll cat. I do not immediately see any need to amend clause 2, but should that be necessary, my hon. Friend is right that clause 3 should enable further provisions. I thank her for bringing that point and the whole issue of indoor cats to the Committee’s attention.

Under clause 3, I was just saying that the power can only be exercised where there is evidence of not only one incident of unlawful taking or detaining of another pet, but an increasing picture. The regulations that apply the offences to other species of animal can allow for different exceptions or defences, which again brings us to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Dover was talking about. However, they cannot alter the penalties set out in the Bill.

Subsection (5) requires that the appropriate national authority consult appropriate persons before making such regulations under the clause. The appropriate national authority is defined in subsection (6) as the Secretary of State in relation to England and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. Any regulations made under this enabling clause are subject to the affirmative procedure in the normal way, meaning that the draft regulations must be laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

We now come to the technical provisions. Subsection (10) allows regulations under this clause to include different provision for different purposes, and consequential and other standard provisions. Subsection (11) includes explicit provision to amend the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 in that respect.

Clause 4 makes an amendment to the 1981 order, consequential to the penalty provisions in clauses 1 and 2. That means that a defendant in Northern Ireland who is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with a summary offence of cat or dog abduction cannot claim trial by jury.

Clause 5 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, which extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The only exception is clause 4’s consequential amendment to the 1981 order, which extends only to Northern Ireland. However, the provisions of the Bill apply only in England and Northern Ireland.

Pet Abduction Bill

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making an important point. The two offences are slightly different. The offence of dog abduction will be the taking and detaining of a dog, whereas only the taking, and not the detaining, of a cat will be criminalised, because cats roam. The behaviour of the two animals is different. There is also a defence of reasonable excuse. We do not seek to criminalise the good behaviour and good intentions of old ladies and many other people.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am hugely supportive of the Bill. The pain, upset and grief of losing a pet in these circumstances is terrible, as has been very well illustrated. Not every cat is a roaming cat. There are some very beautiful breeds—I might say the most special breeds—such as the Ragdoll that blesses my household, that do not roam. They are indoor cats. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could reassure me that the indoor nature of some cats, which is very similar to that of a dog, has been adequately taken into account by her Bill.

[Anna Firth]

It is absolutely being taken into account; I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. There is no discrimination between cats and dogs when it comes to the penalty—they are being treated equally. It is only the way in which the offences are framed that is different. I absolutely take the point, and hope to illustrate it in more detail later.

Let me complete the story. Two cats reappeared, although one, sadly, reappeared dead on the road, and the other two are still unaccounted for. These tales abound wherever we go. Debbie Matthews, the daughter of the late, great Sir Bruce Forsyth—the only host, in my opinion, of “The Generation Game”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Firth]

I am almost certain that it does, but I will have to refer to my notes to be precise. Perhaps I could come back to my hon. Friend on that, but it extends wider than ownership. It is designed to encompass a vet, a dog sitter or somebody else with a role in relation to the animal in question. I hope that helps my hon. Friend.

I hope that many hon. Members in the Chamber will volunteer to be on the Bill Committee—indeed, I consider that they almost have volunteered. It is so important that we do not over-criminalise well-meaning behaviour. The situation in relation to stray dogs, where people have simply meant to provide shelter to an animal for a reasonable period of time if they believe it to be without a home, will not be caught by the Bill. In Northern Ireland, a defence will apply to a person finding an unaccompanied dog.

Most importantly, the Bill will introduce a new offence whereby if someone is found guilty of dog or cat abduction, the offender will be liable to a fine and up to five years in prison. The maximum term of imprisonment is comparable with provisions for animal welfare offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The Bill lays a marker that the abduction of our beloved pets will not be tolerated. Any distress caused should be taken into account, and the Bill will also give the opportunity for monitoring.

[Mrs Elphicke]

I would like to reflect on cats, particularly the enormously precious indoor cat breeds. In relation to the sentencing provisions, how will the distress to the animal be demonstrated to the court? Does my hon. Friend consider that there might be a victim witness statement from the owner or usual keeper, or a statement from a vet? In what way does she consider that the distress may be evidenced adequately to the court?

[Anna Firth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I cannot be prescriptive today about how that will be demonstrated, but I can assure her that there would have to be evidence. The court could not take distress into account without some reasonable evidence. Sometimes, that evidence will be self-evident. Sometimes, it will be provided by owners or passers-by. I am not suggesting that it would have to be expert evidence, but there should be some evidence for the court to look at.

Finally, I pay tribute to all the organisations that have been involved in getting us to this stage. I have mentioned the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation; I should also like to mention Cats Protection, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Refuge, Iain Dale and LBC, and of course Southend’s own Tilly’s Angels, and thank them for all their invaluable support and engagement with the Bill.

If the Bill is enacted, we will have better protections for our pets, we will have offences that duly recognise that our pets are sentient beings, we will be better able to record and track pet abduction, we will have a better deterrent, and I hope we will see a prosecution rate greater than 1%, which is what it is now. Pets are valuable and much-loved members of our family. They ask little of us in return for their love and loyalty—

Draft Wine (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 General Committees

[Mark Spencer]

That is a very good question. It is quite simply because the ice wine brand, as it were, is not currently protected in the UK. In signing up to CPTPP, an obligation was placed on us to recognise this product and register it in the UK. Ice wine is mostly made in Canada, which is a signatory to that agreement. This is about protecting their ice wine producers’ brand, as it were.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Minister is very helpfully explaining this product. Will he say whether the change will be to the detriment of Eiswein produced in Germany, which is obviously a more popularly known product in the UK?

[Mark Spencer]

This is about ensuring that UK consumers, when choosing which wine to purchase, understand the process and the methodology by which it has been made and can make that choice for themselves. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the right hon. Member. Obviously, there are wild deer and deer farmed for venison; both types exist in this country.

I do not want to hold up the debate for too long, so I will conclude. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, the Labour party is the party of animal welfare—that is a strong priority for Labour. We have long called for a ban on live export for slaughter. Every year, millions of farm animals are at risk of facing long-distance journeys, including the new animals that we have tabled amendments to cover. Amendment 5 aims to future-proof the Bill. Particularly as the climate changes, farming will change, and we need to be able to evolve and update the legislation as practices change. I support amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend, and I hope to see the Bill go much further.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. It is absolutely right that we ban the disgusting practice of live export for slaughter. We have driven it from Dover, and when the Bill becomes law, it will mean that it cannot come back. That is fantastic news.

This is an issue of great interest and impact for my constituency, because at the peak of that activity, we saw 100 transportations through the port of Dover. Excellent local campaigners, particularly Yvonne and Ian Birchall from Kent Action Against Live Exports, have worked tirelessly over decades to get us to this position, and I congratulate them on that. They have been very diligent in keeping me and many Members from across the House informed of the pernicious activities involved in this particularly despicable trade, but I have never heard them mention a concern about reindeer, which are dealt with in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I will come on to the other breeds mentioned in the amendments that are before the Committee.

This issue is still live in the constituency that I have the honour to represent. It came to the fore with the introduction of Irish Ferries, which became the third ferry provider into Dover a short time ago. I strongly welcome Irish Ferries to Dover, but when that company arrived, I had to seek assurances from it that it would not be engaging in live exports across the channel. The reason for that has been very well explored in the instruction debate: it is something that can and does happen in the island of Ireland. In relation to the land bridge issue, it is concerning that a difference between parts of our United Kingdom will continue to exist. It is unfortunate that a change as important as the one we are making today, which is enabled by our Brexit freedoms, throws fresh light on a gap that has been growing since the implementation of the Windsor framework. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the effectiveness of the road bridge, because we are legislating, which means that this issue is important enough to legislate on. An answer that relies on a commercial solution suggests a weaker position in relation to that land bridge than some of us would like to see.

Let me turn to the Opposition’s amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). I note that it seeks to apply a regulatory extension—secondary legislation—for deer, llamas and alpaca in relation to this important issue. I am mindful that even the campaign group Compassion in World Farming has said in the last 48 hours that it is not aware of any activity that would fall into the fattening and slaughter definition we are looking at today for those particular breeds. The reason I draw this to the Minister’s attention is the context of the comments he made about the World Trade Organisation and other international trading laws to which the UK is subject. I pause at that point to repeat that those are laws to which the UK as a whole is subject, not just Great Britain.

Border Target Operating Model: Food and Biosecurity

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Border Target Operating Model for food and biosecurity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Today is Back British Farming Day. However, supporting our farming and food producing industries is not just about buying British and replacing EU subsidies; it is also about our food security, and protecting our biosecurity is an essential part of that. We must support our farmers and food producers with a level playing field and high quality standards. Why do border checks matter? This has been very well expressed by the National Farmers Union:

“Proportionate and effective controls are necessary if we are to prevent outbreaks of pests and diseases that threaten human, animal and plant health, the safety, quality and biosecurity of our food products and the confidence of our trading partners.”

Those dangers to our food and biosecurity are there every day at the border. Spot checks at the Dover border have highlighted some very serious concerns.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is outlining some of the problems and she will also be aware that the outstanding issues with the remnant of the insidious Northern Ireland protocol and Windsor framework have yet to be addressed. How will the model that she is describing and the suggestions that she is making ensure free and fair passage of food to Northern Ireland without reams of paperwork checks and other wastes of time and money that are designed only to pacify Europe and which harm Northern Ireland business? Surely we are in a worse boat than anybody else.

[Mrs Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is exactly right, as ever, in bringing out the very serious issues with the management of the Northern Ireland issue. Controls have to be modern, proportionate, effective, and fair to business. He makes that point very well.

What we have seen on the Dover border is rancid meat, seeds with dangerous levels of pesticides and meat that could contain livestock-infecting diseases. All of these have been detected coming through Dover from the EU.

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

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is fitting that the debate is taking place on Back British Farming Day. Biosecurity is pivotal to protecting UK farming. As she has mentioned, infectious disease is coming in. We know the implications of foot and mouth disease and African swine fever. Does she agree with me that getting this targeted border operating model up and running and working is critical to the nation’s biosecurity, animal health and welfare and public health, and that pivotal to all that is to ensure that we have the Animal and Plant Health Agency resourced and staffed so that it can monitor the borders properly, and also to upgrade the facilities at Weybridge in Surrey, its disease HQ?

[Mrs Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is incredibly knowledgeable on this issue, as we have just heard, and he is exactly right. We cannot wait any longer. I will be explaining how, at the Dover frontline, we have had a ready-to-go, state-of-the-art facility mothballed for 18 months. It should be put to work straightaway to protect our nation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to put these facilities and these new measures in place urgently.

What are we finding at the moment? With global food disruption and increased costs of production getting worse because of the war in Ukraine, threats to food safety are on the increase. It is not just food. Farm animals are threatened by the diseases carried in infected meat. We need to be very clear about that. This is not the odd rogue import. Dover Port Health Authority has found it happening on an industrial scale—tonnes of this stuff. It has formally warned the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the increased risks and findings.

This meat does not meet our—or even Europe’s—required standards for slaughter, storage or import. It is not just unhealthy, but dangerous. The danger is not just to humans, but to our livestock and therefore to the livelihoods of our farmers and food producers. That is because this rancid, illegal meat can contain live viruses of some of the most serious threats to our animals. As we have heard, diseases such as African swine fever have steadily spread from eastern Europe to Germany and now France. The NFU has said:

“A breakdown in biosecurity is one of the most serious risks we face as a nation.”

I agree with that.

It is welcome that the Government have, at last, published the border target operating model. However, the long delay and continued uncertainty around the new arrangements is worrying. Concerns have been raised with me by Kent-based import-export businesses, national food and drink trade bodies, the British Poultry Council, the NFU and the Dover port health authority. As I mentioned, it is some 18 months now since Dover’s ready-to-go, taxpayer-funded, state-of-the-art post-Brexit facilities were mothballed, awaiting the publication of the proposed target operating model for the border. At the time, the model was expected in some weeks. In the end, it was published just a couple of weeks ago, on 29 August 2023.

Almost a year ago, last October, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on this subject. The then answering Minister said that for traders, the target operating model

“will explain what must be done upstream of the border before goods arrive at it, and what must happen at the border—including border control posts”.—[Official Report, 18 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 271WH.]

We finally have the border target operating model, but in relation to the short straits, which means the port of Dover and the Eurotunnel, we have no confirmed border control posts even now.

The target operating model says that a decision will be published soon and that facilities will be operational in April 2024. However, as I have outlined, the Dover facility has been ready to go for some 18 months. April 2024 would represent a delay of some two years from when the facility was due to be made live, during which time the operating environment for food and biosecurity has significantly deteriorated, as DEFRA has been told time and again.

Given the importance of these issues, the delay is unacceptable. The state-of-the-art facility at Dover needs to be opened right away. Dover has the expertise needed to secure our borders, but it is not being supported as it should be. Dover needs to be backed in its vital role in keeping our country’s food and farming safe. Government action is needed now to ensure that we are properly protected from dangerous food and diseases coming into the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm when the new Dover facility, which is so obviously needed, will be opened.

I would like to address why things have taken so long and what needs to happen. There are three issues. The first is the dreaded phrase “cross-governmental working”, which, in layman’s terms, means that no one person is in charge and the buck does not stop anywhere. As I have before, I make the case for a Department for the border to draw together all the border-related functions, as many other countries do, including America and Australia. It would be a single window under a single Department responsible for order at the border. From customs to trade, and from biosecurity to visa entry and migration, there is an urgent need for a single Department in charge of setting policy, overseeing operations and—importantly—taking responsibility for what is happening at our borders.

[Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, particularly about being joined up. We are talking about the risks, but there are also opportunities for UK businesses. If we get the level playing field right—if we get a post-Brexit regime that not only deals with all the UK concerns and needs but provides a level playing field for businesses here and abroad—it is a great export opportunity for small businesses such as Tozer Seeds in my constituency.

[Mrs Elphicke]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. If we can get the import border checks right, we will boost our export potential as well, whereas if we have weak import controls we will put at risk the very businesses that should be taking the opportunities provided by our new trading agreements in our post-Brexit world. I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.

The need for a single department and a single focus at the border also applies operationally, because accountability matters. It is imperative that Dover continue to be the sole port health authority responsible for the short straits. Anything else would weaken accountability, introduce new risks in our border controls and make our country less safe. Dover is best placed to manage resources between multiple facilities to keep trade moving and manage the ebb and flow of volume traffic movements. It is well used to doing so and is the most cost-effective and sensible option to manage the border. I am aware that Dover port health authority has written to Ministers to express its strong wish to oversee all relevant border control posts for the short straits in order to manage and control the risks. I hope that the Minister can give some update or assurance on that issue tod-ay.

The second issue is that the Government hope to introduce so-called digital borders. Unfortunately, that has not proved possible to achieve quickly, as the Government’s own wonderfully named ecosystem of trust evaluation report, which was published last month, sets out. Let me be very clear. Having digital borders is a very good idea that I am very keen on—later today I will be chairing the all-party parliamentary group on blockchain, and I wholeheartedly agree that the future border is a digital and even a smart one—but there is a problem. At the moment, neither industry nor Government are ready for digital borders. That is made clear by the ecosystem of trust evaluation report in relation to biosecurity and food security. Page 8 of the report says:

“The UK government believes that transforming the border means moving physical processes away from the frontier wherever possible.”

As a border MP, I cannot see any logic in the suggestion that the starting point would be moving checks away from where the goods come in. Checking at point of entry is regarded globally as the gold standard for border control, with very good reason: to stop bootleggers and smugglers and to contain the risk of contamination of the food chain. Those risks are not trivial. The evaluation report makes it crystal clear that digital borders, at this time, will not work. There is no effective substitute for the physical border checks that need to happen. Page 4 of the report says:

“The pilots show us that new models are not yet ready to replace traditional mechanisms of border control.”

The reasons for that are not high-tech. As pages 22 to 24 of the evaluation report set out, they are very basic things like descriptions of the load and weight of a consignment being available only in formats that are not machine-readable by digital border systems or are

“incompatible with government-systems specific risking rules.”

What does that mean? It means that they cannot be read by the IT system, so we cannot have an intelligence-led, risk-weighted approach. We therefore cannot, at this time, have a digital borders programme.

The report says that

“there was no way to replicate identity and physical checks. Defra notes biosecurity assurance capabilities from consortia”—

the pilot partners—

“are limited and do not provide the same level of information/assurance as regular import processes.”

The report also identified gaps, one of which was

“Lack of transmission data (ie likelihood of a disease hazard surviving on a commodity).”

That could mean rancid meat carrying a serious disease, which cannot be found through these digital processes. There is also a lack of “mitigations and prohibitions data”—information about whether there is a disease outbreak or an export ban in the country that the food is coming from. That is a very serious concern that I hope the Minister will address.

For the Food Standards Agency, the information gathered through the digital process was described as being of “little value”. The report concluded that there are serious threats that need to be addressed and that an

“effective import regime is therefore essential to protect domestic food safety and animal and plant health and welfare.”

That brings me to my third and final point. The evaluation report is clear that physical border checks will be needed for the foreseeable future to keep our country safe, and that that is the right and responsible thing to do. Digital borders will come, but not yet.

Much has been made of the costs of making checks at the short straits—we still await the final charging structure, which is expected at some point in autumn 2023—but against them we have to set the cost of doing nothing. We cannot allow toxic food to enter the food chain. We cannot risk disease threatening our national livestock herds. We know how much this costs, because we have been here before. The costs are even set out in the Government’s own report, at page 56: the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 cost an estimated £8 billion, the horsemeat scandal of 2013 cost £120 million, and ash dieback in 2014 cost £15 billion.

There needs to be a level playing field—that is important. The British Poultry Council has said that its industry is paying £55 million a year to export to the EU, while imports to the UK are free for EU exporters. That is unfair and undermines our British farmers and food producers. DEFRA needs to stand up for our farmers to have a disease-free level playing field with the highest food standards. As we have touched on, if we import from a country that is suffering an outbreak, we can expect that other countries may ban our own produce. That could affect our ability to make the most of the trade agreements we have made, so it is important that that does not happen.

The bottom line when it comes to border security on food and disease is that we must invest to keep our food, our farms and our exports safe and secure. We cannot rely on the EU to check our food for us. We are an independent trading nation, so it is right that we now do this for ourselves. That is the clear lesson from the evidence found at the Dover frontline.

I ask the Minister to join me in thanking the Dover Port Health Authority team, under the leadership of Nadeem Aziz and Lucy Manzano, who is here today, for the work they do every day to protect our country from food and biosecurity risks. They need to be better supported, particularly with the immediate opening of the new Dover facility. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will keep our country safe and, on Back British Farming Day, keep our farmers and their livestock safe and biosecure.

Environmental Protection

Natalie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The title of these statutory instruments is “Environmental Protection”, but they should perhaps properly be named as the continued protection of the over-mighty quangos of Natural England and the Environment Agency. I am concerned to see that no additional powers or extension of their powers are given without their also being fundamentally reformed, together with a modern, fit-for-purpose water regulation structure, and I have made that case before in this place.

I understand that the purpose of these regulations is to change the balance of costs and fines for water-based pollutions so that the natural market drivers will make it less expensive to comply with investing in upgrading infrastructure, rather than to pay the cost of pollution. If a water company gets an eye-watering, attention-grabbing fine, the investors and managers will be pressed to take action. I understand that the intention is that no consumer will pay, either by increased charges or decreased investment. Furthermore, I understand that arrangements will be made to keep the value of fines for investment in the particular region affected.

I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow)—are personally deeply committed to this issue. They have led the way in this House with groundbreaking legislation and action. However, it has been my experience of Ofwat, Natural England and the Environment Agency that good intention may not translate into effective delivery, and I would like to expand on that.

Tackling sewage has been one of my primary pieces of work as the Member for Dover and Deal. It is an issue I care about very deeply, because repeated sewage flooding into people’s homes is incredibly damaging, and devastating for those affected. They find themselves constantly on alert for flood warnings, with carpets and possessions damaged or destroyed, and back gardens watered by things other than rain, while insurance premiums soar and houses are difficult to sell. That is why repeated sewage flooding is subject to specific regulatory intervention.

One of my earliest challenges has been to address decades-long sewage flooding in the town of Deal, and in Albert Road in particular. I did all the things that MPs normally do. I met residents, wrote letters, spoke in this place, met Ministers, asked Ofwat to use its regulatory enforcement powers, and met the chief executive of Ofwat to make the case, but none of that moved the dial. Why was that? Because, when I finally managed to get out of Ofwat what was going on, it would not use its regulatory powers because there was not an agreed solution.

At the heart of the problem was a traditional Bazalgette system, or the combined surface water and sewage approach that we have had in our country for a very long time. That system applies in one part of Deal, but not in the rest, and it was not physically possible to separate out the combined system within the historic structure of the town, even if it were financially viable to do so. Every party involved following every sewage issue—from the highways authority to councils, the drainage board and the water company—each had a different technical report and view, and each of them put responsibility for solving it on the other.

Pretty much my whole career has been one of problem solving in one form or another, and I knew a bit about water infrastructure and regulation because I carried out a year-long research programme into it before I came into this place, so I decided to do what I would do if I was not an MP. I picked up the phone to the chief executive and asked to meet. I put forward a proposal to set up a joint taskforce that was chaired by the then chief executive, Ian McAulay, and me as the Member of Parliament. Southern Water agreed to fund a top expert team, led by Doctor Nick Mills and Rob McTaggart, to work out what was possible.

Southern Water agreed to this approach, provided I could convene the other statutory bodies to take part with the same degree of commitment to solve this long-standing problem, and that is what is happening. Six months’ work has led to 12 months’ work, and it is now one of the pathfinder projects, bringing hundreds of thousands of pounds of new investment to Deal—more than £500,000 to date, with more committed expenditure—and bringing in innovation in “slow the flow” work right across the town of Deal. Work is ongoing on technical engineering solutions and environmentally based solutions, which are the so-called nature-based solutions.

We are determined to see the programme through in order to tackle long-standing flooding and be an early adopter of the elimination of sewage outflows. There will be a showcase to Parliament in the autumn, and I very much hope that Ministers and Members who are interested, and who are perhaps speaking in today’s debate, will come and see how we are approaching this.

What matters to our constituents is what works, and what works is technical solutions to technical problems. That has been my experience on the ground, and it is also the expert advice on this issue from the Institution of Civil Engineers. It has advised that the water regulatory framework needs updating, that there needs to be better testing and assessment of the nature-based solutions, and that nature-based solutions need to be better incorporated into the planning system for the built environment.

Who has not been in the room, and who has not been part of the solution? That is either the Environment Agency or Natural England. That matters because these new mega-fines will be imposed by bodies that have no ideas, and no role in solving these issues. The fines will be imposed on water companies, without requiring other relevant and necessary parties to come to the table and work through proper technical and deliverable solutions for the benefit of our communities. The fines could be imposed on water companies that have already agreed an investment strategy to tackle this issue, including the cost to the consumer, and agreed to by their own regulator, Ofwat. There is a clear disconnect in what is being discussed today.

Although one must hope that the agencies will act responsibly, holistically and sensibly, current evidence does not support that. Natural England’s first moratorium on house building was imposed in June 2019. Since then, bans on new builds have spread to more than a quarter of England’s local authority areas, affecting around 145,000 homes across 74 local authority areas, from Cornwall to the Tees Valley, and a further 41,000 fewer homes are expected to be built each year until a solution is found. That solution will not be found in Natural England.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to bring up the problems for house building from the nutrient neutrality programme. Does she agree that the way to solve that problem and reinforce the Government’s welcome efforts to prevent pollution lie within the water industry itself, and with better treatment of sewage, so that we achieve nutrient neutrality without the slightly blunt instrument that Natural England has chosen to use over the past couple of years?

[Mrs Elphicke]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments, because he is absolutely right. Blunt instruments will not solve the issues that are blocking house building in our communities, and we have not seen a solution from Natural England that will bring those solutions forward. He is correct to comment on the failure of water companies to invest, which has contributed to this issue, in addition to the root cause of agricultural run-off in river pollution. It is estimated that all existing development—residential, commercial and the rest of the built environment—contributes less than 5% towards the phosphate and nitrate loads in our rivers. That means that occupants of any new homes built would make a negligible difference to that issue, yet it has an enormous cost and impact on the communities where those new homes are not being built.

While those much-needed new homes with their negligible impact are blocked by Natural England, the Environment Agency is allowing farmers to pollute with high-nutrient fertilisers, which are themselves a source of nutrient polluting problems. Planning permissions continue to be granted for high-intensity poultry units, for example, resulting in the absurd situation where a developer may be forced to buy a pig farm and close it down, in order to get permission to build homes, only for the now cash-rich farmer to open another new pig farm just down the road. While the rich farmer gets richer, the small and medium-sized enterprise developer goes bust. A delegation of SME builders brought their case to Downing Street this month. The large developer Redrow has just announced plans to close its offices in the Southern and Thames Valley region, which is one of the areas affected by the nutrient issue.

The Secretary of State is aware that I and many other colleagues are gravely concerned about the proposed approach of keeping Natural England in control, as currently set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That continues to put immense uncontrolled power over the shape and delivery of our homes and communities with an unelected, unaccountable, single-purpose quango in Natural England.

[Mr Francois]

As the House may know, it is not often that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and I agree on much, but on this he is absolutely right. Natural England is becoming an over-mighty regulator, and it is referred to directly in the regulation that we are debating. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should stay in its lane, do what it does well, and not keep trying to expand its empire into areas where it is not best qualified to judge?

[Mrs Elphicke]

I am struggling to think of those lanes where Natural England does things well. An overhaul of these quangos is required, because they are now making decisions about community policy and economic matters without any of the accountability and balance that Ministers would have over these issues. I thank my right hon. Friend for making those points.

Moving on, the water restoration fund is where all these mega fines will be put. The Department’s press release in April 2023 refers to some £141 million in fines that have been collected since 2015. They currently go to the Treasury but will now go to the new water restoration fund. It seems that £140 million in the fund is clearly not enough, so we now have an unlimited amount—perhaps billions of pounds of fines—that will be available for, as set out in the press release, community-led projects. I have visions of an army of green wellies wading through rivers, removing non-native and invasive species, picking up nets and unblocking blockages that would cause barriers to fishes’ natural movement in rivers, as the Department’s press release mentions.

However, the Government already have a proper water regulator, although it needs reform, for the industry. It needs to be the body driving through the change needed to deal with the historical Bazalgette-style water engineering. That change can only happen with big-ticket investment and complex technical solutions. It is not one for the green welly brigade or the orange Just Stop Oil brigade.

To conclude, will the Secretary of State look again at the relationship between Ofwat—the water regulator—the Environment Agency and Natural England in relation to this matter? I have set out a case for the reform of those bodies. In relation to today’s statutory instruments, higher fines will not in themselves lead to solutions. The only solutions to this issue will be detailed, complex, technical and professional, such as those we have pioneered with the Deal Water Action Taskforce with Southern Water, and also those set out by the Institution of Civil Engineers and the National Infrastructure Commission. By failing to keep big quangos in check, I am afraid that DEFRA is responsible for a substantial fall in house building in this country. It is vital that does not happen to investment in our water companies too, and that we see better regulation, effective working and technical solutions delivered on the ground and in the waterways for the benefit of our communities and constituents, and for the natural environment.