Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I start by thanking the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this debate and opening it so excellently. It has offered Members from across the House the opportunity to discuss an issue that is central to our national interests and our values. The speeches we have heard today reflect a deep commitment across this House to our farmers, our food standards, animal welfare, the environment, and the integrity of British agriculture.

We have heard a range of contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—to whom I pay tribute for his expertise on the pig industry, and whom I thank for his work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—talked about the complexities of the global trade in meat, the importance of food security, and a sensible transition on husbandry regulations. He also touched on inappropriate antibiotic use, which I will speak about in due course. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the importance of the grain and sugar sectors in his part of the world, and of transparency in labelling. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and to her family on the farm. It is brilliant that she brings that expertise to the House of Commons, and I thank her for all she does. She talked about welfare standards, food security, and the importance of local food procurement.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), whom I also thank for his excellent work on the EFRA Committee, talked about the importance of food security and, again, transparency in food labelling. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), who is a proud advocate for high animal welfare standards, talked about the important bans that we uphold on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed poultry; I will touch on those in due course. Finally, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) spoke about the importance of both buying and exporting British. I thank him for his comments.

Standards are not abstract trade matters; they are questions of fairness, food security and moral duty. British farmers are rightly proud of producing food to some of the highest animal welfare, environmental and safety standards in the world. They do so not only to comply with the law, but because it is right. It is therefore indefensible to allow them to be undercut by imports produced to standards that would be illegal in the United Kingdom.

I am proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on advancing animal welfare. We banned the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, under the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and, importantly, enshrined animal sentience in UK law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the Animal Sentience Committee. That means that any new legislation that we consider must pay due regard to animal welfare. I was proud to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 to tackle the cruel puppy smuggling trade and the horrific practice of dog ear cropping.

In the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that. As I have said many times in this House, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. British farmers follow strict rules on banned growth promoters, on housing and welfare conditions, and on environmental protections. Those standards carry costs and responsibilities that farmers accept, because they reflect public values. The injustice arises when food produced to lower standards overseas is allowed to enter our market and compete directly with food produced under our higher rules. That does not raise global standards; it simply exports cruelty and imports unfair competition.

We Conservatives have consistently defended our standards. In 2024, when the Leader of the Opposition served as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade talks with Canada, after Canada insisted on including hormone-treated beef. That decision sent a clear message that the UK will not compromise on important bans, such as bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, or—we have heard about these today—chlorine-washed poultry and bovine somatotropin-treated dairy, all of which remain illegal in the United Kingdom. Those practices merely hide substandard—unacceptable, in some cases—husbandry methods, and are not positive at all for animal or bird welfare. I was proud that the previous Conservative Government stood firm on the bans on such products in our negotiations with Canada, and I urge the current Government to maintain that firm position.

The United Kingdom has among the strictest welfare laws in the world. By contrast, countries such as Canada and the US still allow hens to be kept in battery cages. Here, 83% of eggs come from free-range or barn systems, and the Government have committed to phasing out all cages for laying hens by 2032. The Opposition have made it clear that we very much support banning cages or close confinement systems where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the United Kingdom’s legislation on the use of cages and crates, which includes a law to ban keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; legislation banning keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and measures to ban battery cages for hens, introduced in 2012.

Under the Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates to be no longer used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states:

“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.”

I emphasise that last part. It is important that the industry is heard and, as we have heard today, that we have a sensible, workable, pragmatic transition that works and upholds animal welfare. Future trade deals must insist on core standards, or we risk encouraging systems that our own laws reject.

Transparency also matters; consumers should be able to see how their food was produced. In 2024, the Conservative Government consulted on improved welfare and origin labelling, but the Labour Government’s animal welfare strategy, released just before Christmas, offers only vague intentions on labelling; there is no timetable and no binding commitments. Clear, mandatory labelling would empower UK consumers and reward UK farmers who do the right thing.

The emergence in the UK of products that do not meet our animal welfare and environmental standards is potentially compounded by the alarming situation facing our national biosecurity. With disturbing reports of foot and mouth disease emerging abroad—including in Europe last year—African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe, and the ongoing outbreaks of avian influenza and bluetongue virus in this country, we must maintain our vigilance. After raising concerns in Parliament on 17 occasions, I was pleased that the current Government finally listened and agreed to commit funding for the vital redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s headquarters in Weybridge, which was started by the Conservative Government. I thank APHA, which I visited again last month, for its tireless work, particularly in the face of the ongoing avian influenza situation.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I have the Animal and Plant Health Agency in my constituency—it is confusingly named the Weybridge centre, but it is actually in New Haw—I thank the shadow Minister for his advocacy on this issue, and the Government for putting in the funding for the redevelopment.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind intervention. He proudly stands up for that important institution, which I know the Minister has visited, as has the Minister in the other place. It is important that, cross-party, we support something that is so critical to our national security.

As we have heard today, the very real consequences of illegal meat imports for human and animal health are a disaster waiting to happen, unless the Government maintain vigilance and step up now. Our ability to detect and seize illegal meat imports at our borders is being tested to its limits. According to DEFRA, the amount of illegal meat seized between January and April 2025—72,872 kg—was close to the amount seized in the whole of 2024, which was 92,382 kg. Dover Port Health Authority alone has seized 367 tonnes since 2022. Given the ongoing threat, it is essential that sufficient funding is provided to our agencies at the border, and that routine certification surveillance and spot checks can be carried out at Dover and other ports, to prevent illegal meat and products of animal origin entering the country.

It is vital that—in addition to upholding standards, protecting our biosecurity and safeguarding animal welfare—we ensure that the United Kingdom has enough veterinary surgeons. At this point, I must declare both a professional and a personal interest: I am a veterinary surgeon, a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and a graduate of Cambridge Veterinary School. The UK does not train enough vets domestically. They play a vital role in animal health and welfare, which we have been talking a lot about today, but also in food safety, public health and disease control—all things that come into this debate on standards. That is why I am deeply concerned about the possible closure of Cambridge Veterinary School, as recommended by the council of Cambridge University’s school of biological sciences. I know the Minister is very aware of this issue, as I have raised it with her in the Chamber, and with her colleagues in DEFRA. We cannot maintain animal welfare or food security without adequate veterinary capacity, so I urge the Government to press Cambridge University to stop this short-sighted possible closure. In addition, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 needs to be updated. Although that was mentioned in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, there was no timeline or urgency. Again, I urge the Government to act.

Sadly, the Government’s record on supporting farmers gives us cause for concern. Just look at their treatment of the sector, as instanced by the ill-judged and awful family farm tax, on which they have only partially U-turned. I do not believe that we are in the right place, and there is much more that we still need to do on that.

By permitting imports produced under weaker standards, the Government risk favouring overseas producers over British ones. Ministers say that they are passionate about animal welfare and food standards, and I take them at their word, but their record and their rhetoric tell a slightly different story. Their keenness to merge with EU standards is worrying, especially on animal welfare, given that our standards in the UK are higher. Returning to EU regulatory alignment would make us rule takers, not rule makers, preventing farmers from adopting innovations such as gene editing.

The Labour manifesto spoke about food security, but it failed to set out a clear plan to protect farmers from low import standards. The Conservative Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for the development of disease and climate-resilient crops and the breeding of animals and birds that are resistant to harmful diseases such as avian influenza and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. As I have mentioned, the landmark Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act, ended the inhumane export of live animals for slaughter or fattening. These are important achievements, yet the Opposition have concerns that these vital Acts may be repealed, watered down or weakened because of this Government’s pursuit of a reset with the EU. I hope the Minister can assure the House that those safeguards will remain intact and that we will not take a backward step on animal welfare and innovation in the agriculture and food security sectors.

We have already seen how sectors such as fishing can be treated as bargaining chips in international talks, with our UK fisheries sold away to Europe for 12 years to try—at this stage, in vain—to get access to the European defence fund. Farmers are watching closely and are understandably worried that agriculture could also be a bargaining chip. If import standards are watered down in the name of smoother trade or convenient deals, British farmers may lose out by being denied access to revolutionary tools such as gene editing and precision breeding that the EU is slow or reluctant to adopt. Moreover, animal welfare will be weakened, consumer confidence will be damaged and the long-term resilience of our food system will be jeopardised.

This is not about protectionism. It is about our values. Farmers are asking for a fair and level field on which to compete, which means import standards that reflect the standards required of British farmers and demanded by British consumers, as well as clear red lines in every trade negotiation, proper enforcement at our borders and no agreements that sacrifice agriculture for political expedience. Can I ask the Minister directly whether the Government will guarantee that no food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers will be allowed into our market? Will they commit to not trading away our standards in future negotiations?

I would welcome the Minister’s response on the public procurement of food, which we have heard a bit about today. Sadly, the Government buying standards still have a loophole that allows public bodies to bypass high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost. If we are to lead globally on animal welfare, we must uphold such principles here at home.

Import standards are fundamentally about trust—trust between farmers, consumers and the Government. British agriculture depends on that trust. Opposition Members will examine every agreement, every regulation and every concession that may risk undercutting our farmers and weakening our standards, or indeed compromising animal health and welfare. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition urge the Government to support agriculture and defend the standards that the British people hold dear.

Fishing Industry

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my friend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee, on securing this vital debate. I have a huge amount of respect for him, given his expertise in, and dedication to, these and other important areas.

We have heard many contributions from Members across the House today. The Chair of the Committee spoke passionately about issues such as spatial squeeze, and also talked about the imbalance in the situation with Norway. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about how dangerous a profession fishing is and the importance of people in this sector, as well as about the importance of data and science.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about the importance of bringing the next generation into this profession. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the importance of fish for our food security; she also talked about spatial squeeze and about fish being an important part of a balanced, healthy diet for the UK population. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) talked about some of the key logjams of logistics, bureaucracy and red tape facing the sector, and about a pragmatic approach to workforce issues.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about some of the debates regarding the designation of marine protection areas, about conservation, and about striking accords on workforce issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about the importance of the industry to his rural and coastal communities, and also highlighted workforce issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) again talked about spatial squeeze, the importance of the next generation, and flaws in the recent EU negotiations. I fear he was starting a bit of a lobster war with our hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway; I remind him that lobsters are indeed sentient creatures. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always a passionate advocate for his industries and communities in Northern Ireland, also talked about some of the key issues, including workforce issues and food security.

Finally, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the significance of the fishing heritage in his community and its importance to his local economy.

Fishing has always been vital to the United Kingdom—it is the lifeblood of communities up and down this country, across all four nations of our UK. I pay tribute to the brave and hard-working fishermen and women, the processers, the transporters, the traders, and everyone else who does so much to harvest and deliver that precious food source, which is so vital to our food security and to local economies across the land. I also thank representative bodies such as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for all they do to champion and advocate for those vital industries. His Majesty’s official Opposition are committed to standing up for, and supporting, our coastal communities and fishing industries. As an independent, sovereign coastal nation, our fishing rights are a fundamental asset; we cannot weaken them, and they are crucial to maintaining our food security and our economy.

The previous Conservative Government made progress in making us an independent, sovereign coastal state, including through our work to secure the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement for fisheries in 2021. We used that agreement as a catalyst to secure £970 million in fishing opportunities by 2024 and an uplifted quota at a value of £146 million, including significant gains for the pelagic sector. The current Government had to renegotiate on quota and access under the terms of that agreement. Unfortunately, the fruits of the Government’s negotiation with the EU were somewhat spoiled. It was quite simply a sell-out that throws our fishing industry under the bus for the sake of closer ties to the EU. Industry representatives have described the deal in no uncertain terms as a “horror show”, and as giving away

“the best card that we still had”.

We Conservatives are fundamentally clear that we stand with all our hard-working fishermen and women, who will be significantly impacted and have their fishing capabilities restricted because of this retrograde deal.

Back in March, when it was first being seriously suggested in the public discourse that fishing rights might be bargained away for access to the European defence fund, I asked the then fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to confirm that the Government would not capitulate on our fishing rights. The Minister responded that he was

“determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 366WH.]

Unfortunately, the Government caved in to pressure to seek closer ties with the EU at any cost. Worse still, we have learned that despite the Government caving in, the EU has still refused them those closer ties on defence. While nations as far afield as the Faroe Islands have the option of negotiating with the EU yearly to improve their lot when it comes to both quotas and access, the Government’s deal means that our fishing industry is locked into current arrangements for 12 years.

[Seamus Logan]

The shadow Minister is speaking about the European Union. Just today, I have heard about requests from the European Union regarding the size of fishing nets, which the British Government have apparently accepted without question. Is the shadow Minister aware of that?

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. When requests like this come in, we have to take a very logical view across the United Kingdom and the UK Government have to be strong in their deliberations, because we have to make sure that our waters are protected.

The Leader of the Opposition explicitly set “no reduction in our fishing rights” as one of the five tests for this Government’s agreement with the EU. The Government have not even come close to meeting that test. His Majesty’s Opposition also note that in the most recent discussions, technical management rules were brought into the frame of negotiations for the first time. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has intimated, that is a clear sign of the increasing influence the EU is starting to have as a result of these changes.

While of course we all welcome any funding to support the fishing sector and improve the welfare of coastal communities, the Government’s fishing and coastal growth fund was really just a sticking-plaster exercise—yes, it was a significant amount of money, but it was really to try to cover up their errors in their fishing policy so far. As the Minister will remember, when that fund was announced, I asked her to confirm any practical details of how the fund would be delivered; how it would support fishermen and women and coastal communities; and, importantly, whether the funding would be front-loaded, which is the only way that the Government can begin to repair some of the harm they have started to cause since taking office.

As I have said, we absolutely support any funding provided to fishing and coastal communities. When we were in Government, we brought in the £100 million UK seafood fund to support the future and sustainability of UK fisheries and the seafood sector, allocating funds for science, research, infrastructure, skills and training across the sector. Today, we have heard from Members across the House about the importance of data, research and science—we need to collect that, and we need to fund it. From the autumn Budget documents, we also know that the Government plan to spend £25 million in the financial year 2026-27, which is a small part of the £360 million in the fishing and coastal growth fund. They must provide that funding as soon as possible, in a way that makes an actual difference to fishermen and women and to coastal communities.

Speaking of the Budget, like most of the country, people in fishing and coastal communities will have been anxious about the autumn Budget and the changes it contained. We in the Opposition are concerned about the impact of the tourist tax on coastal communities that rely on tourism—that tax will serve a double blow on top of the difficulties the fishing industries and coastal communities have already faced. Owing to the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, employers have been left to make very difficult choices, such as refusing to hire new staff, freezing pay or—worst of all—letting people go. This is really hitting the fishing industries.

A scientific, evidence-based approach is non-negotiable if we are to ensure high ecological and environmental standards in fishing across all fishing countries, including the UK—standards that are paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade. However, a delicate balance has to be struck. While ensuring ecological and environmental standards, we must also ensure that the fishing industries are able to survive and, indeed, thrive. When we talk about improving marine welfare and addressing some negative practices, we must be clear that fishermen and women in the UK are trying to act in the best interests of the ecosystem on which they depend. As we have heard from Members across the House, the experts on nurturing and protecting that precious resource are the people who fish it. Likewise, an evidence-based approach must be at the centre of the solution tackling spatial squeeze, which we have heard a lot about today.

It is vital, as we enhance our abilities to deliver clean energy, that offshore wind is delivered in the right way and in the right place, looking at all the evidence, including on how offshore wind impacts on the fishing industry, ecosystems and marine life. While the Marine Recovery Funds Regulations 2025, which came into force in December, compensate for environmental damage caused by offshore wind, they fail to compensate fishermen and women for any harm to their livelihoods done by offshore wind projects. That is just another missed opportunity to protect the industry by this Government. Unfortunately, it is their embedded approach at present.

Seafish’s recent report on employment in the fishing industry in 2024 showed an increasingly ageing demographic in the sector, with difficulties for many to access the skilled labour that fishing demands. Pretty much every speaker today talked about the importance of workforce moving forward. Without new fishermen and women, the industry will not have a future. Will the Minister please confirm what the Government are doing to tackle this existential threat to the industry?

Part of solving the problem must look at the practice of fishing itself, which is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry. Financial instability, the tough conditions and the physical stress can have a significant impact on people’s mental health. I commend the work of several charities, including the Bearded Fishermen Charity, the Fishermen’s Mission, FishWell and the Angling Trust, to support fishermen and women with their mental health. What measures are the Government taking to make fishing safer and to help improve the physical and mental health of our fishermen and women?

In conclusion, fishing is vital for our local communities, our economy and our food security, which is national security. This Government had the room to make real progress on the good—albeit not perfect—legacy they were given. Unfortunately, they are adrift from the shore when it comes to truly grappling with the challenges facing the industry, or they have actively worsened the situation with their decisions, such as this awful EU deal. The Government must wake up and steer their ship in a new direction, or they will see the industry sink on their watch.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to speak in this important debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and for his opening remarks. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber.

Today’s debate once again reinforces what everyone here and the public know: the water industry needs fundamental reform—work that the Conservatives started. Because of the Conservatives, 100% of storm overflows are now monitored, compared with just 7% in 2010, when the last Labour Government left office. We now know the scale of the problem and can start holding water companies to account more transparently and, importantly, with an evidence base for incidents such as illegal sewage spills.

Our landmark Environment Act 2021 delivered our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account. We had our ambitious plan for water, and strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters. The last Government brought in measures to ban executives from receiving bonuses where water companies are found to have committed serious pollution incidents. That is why it was so disappointing to see the current Government simply recycling and repackaging some of those measures, while leaving out major improvements, such as the water restoration fund, when they introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act.

Existing measures to allow Ofwat to change the conditions of water company licences in the Environment Act 2021 were already sufficient to ban bonuses for executives where that was deemed necessary. Although the Opposition supported and constructively scrutinised the Water (Special Measures) Act, that primary legislation, despite the measures it included, was not necessary to enforce a ban on bonuses in the first place. During its passage, we tabled many sensible amendments, including ones to ringfence funding from enforcement fines to a dedicated water restoration fund, to guarantee that companies fixed locally the environmental damage they caused; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules, on which MPs would have been given a vote; to reduce consumers’ bills if their companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sadly, the Government failed to support those amendments, and very much missed an opportunity to increase accountability through them.

I am sure the Minister, for whom I have great affection and respect, will reassure us that the Government have set out all their plans to improve accountability in the water industry in the water reform White Paper published today—although I have to say that that is nearly six months after the water commission published its final report, which the Minister said the Government would respond to promptly.

We need only look at the example of Thames Water, which we have heard about a bit today, and which is still in a precarious financial situation, to see that we really cannot afford to delay wholesale reform much longer. It has been wrung dry of capital, and it has failed to invest to expand its supply and clean up sewage spills. Alarmingly, the interim financial report showed that between the end of March and the end of September 2025 its debt, as a percentage of company equity, increased by £833 million—a 5% increase. All of that is only heightened by the fact that Thames Water has had £123 million pounds of enforcement fines because of Ofwat’s findings last May.

His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we do not want to see Thames Water fold, because although water supply would continue, there would be a serious risk of higher bills for consumers and the issues facing the company would not be solved. Strangely, the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company, and both they and Reform seem happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government are taking action to help find a market-based solution for the Thames Water rescue deal?

When it comes to water supply, we need only look at recent events in the south-east, which we have heard about today, to see directly how urgently customers need changes to regulation. In recent days and weeks, we have heard powerful testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and other colleagues. Communities across Sussex and Kent have faced terrible impacts, with tens of thousands of homes left without water supply, medical procedures cancelled, some hospital appointments moved online, schools and libraries shut, hospitality businesses having to close their doors, and farmers and horse owners fearing they will not have enough water for their livestock.

On the subject of animals, water companies have been saying that they have no duty to provide water for them. As a medic, Dr Allin-Khan, you will be very familiar with the fluid requirements of a person, but to put it in perspective, the average 500 kg horse needs 25 litres of water a day, and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres a day. That is a hell of a lot of water that the companies are not providing when we have outages, creating animal welfare issues and pressing local communities. Farmers, animal owners and local communities have had to step in, roll their sleeves up and help each other out—it should not be like that.

Given the clear need for wholesale reform and accountability for water delivery and quality, can the Minister provide any clarity today as to when we will actually see tangible, beneficial changes to the quality, but also quantity, of fresh water supplied to households, medical establishments, schools and businesses? One aspect the Government have articulated is that the regulatory system will see reform, with some of the current bodies abolished and merged into one. The Opposition accept that that is necessary to improve the current state of the water industry, but can the Minister confirm that the Government are working at pace to provide a new regulatory structure that genuinely improves regulation and delivery; to provide clarity as to how that regulator will be organised to efficiently deliver its responsibilities; and, as we have heard from colleagues, to ensure that standards that are currently working better—such as in the Drinking Water Inspectorate—are not worsened by regulatory reform?

His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have always maintained that we will support serious efforts to continue the last Government’s work in holding water companies accountable and improving our water sector. Ministers have said that they will not tolerate any attempts to work around the ban on bonuses and will instruct Ofwat to enforce fines and other penalties if it finds the rules have been broken. Ofwat has said it is considering updating its company reporting requirements for next year’s performance-related executive pay assessment to ensure that there is greater transparency around exactly what renumeration companies receive and, as we have heard today, why they are receiving that payment.

The Opposition fully support the Government in seeking to enforce the law and ensuring that executives do not receive unfair bonuses where water companies have been found to commit criminal breaches and are not delivering a good service. We would also support genuine efforts by the Government to hold water companies to account and build on the work of the last Conservative Government to improve water quality. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline exactly how the Government will ensure existing laws are properly enforced. I am sorry to say that, so far, the meaningful reform that they have promised, and that is rightly expected, has under-delivered when it comes to the change that we need. Their response to the Cunliffe review, although slow in coming, is now their biggest opportunity to make sure they get this right. We need not just words, but action, and sensible measures that the whole House can get behind.

Water Supplies: East Grinstead

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

May I, from this side of the House, offer my sincere condolences to the Minister and her family for their sad loss?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). The shortage of water supplies in Sussex and Kent continues to have terrible impacts on local communities. Tens of thousands of homes have been without a water supply, schools and libraries are shut, businesses—in particular, hospitality businesses—have had to close their doors, farmers and horse owners fear not having enough water for their livestock, and some hospital appointments are being moved online. This is simply not good enough from South East Water, especially given its repeated failures, and given that this is the second major incident in a matter of weeks.

I understand the distress, anger and, frankly, exhaustion that many in the local area feel. They need clear communication, rapid action now and reassurance for the future, yet we have heard from my Conservative colleagues in Kent and Sussex repeated accounts of poor communication and logistics from South East Water, including bulk sharing issues with Southern Water. We have been told that constituents have travelled to and queued at vital bottle collection points, only to find that no water has been delivered.

Can the Minister confirm when the thousands of households affected by the shortage can expect their service to be restored to normal, and can she provide guidance on what is being done to ensure that homes can access adequate supplies, particularly vulnerable households in more isolated areas, where travelling to bottle collection points is not feasible? When will schools reopen, and what is being done to ensure that GP surgeries and hospitals can deliver their appointments and care? What measures have been put in place so that farmers and horse owners have enough water for their animals? Finally, given the Cunliffe review’s focus on ensuring water supply, can the Government confirm what they will take forward from that review to address this as a structural issue, to ensure supply and consumer confidence for the long term?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments regarding my father.

We have doubled the amount of compensation available. That has had a huge impact, particularly in Tunbridge Wells, where for the first time people will be compensated for being on a boil notice. We are looking at tightening resilience standards. As I mentioned earlier, it is about moving from the system that we have at the moment, which is “fix on failure”, to proactive maintenance. Part of the reason for this problem—aside from the short-term impacts of freeze and thaw—is that there is not enough long-term resilience in the system. There are too many points at which it can easily fail.

The hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) said that we need to make sure that we have bottled water in villages in more rural areas, and I have raised that directly with the company. As the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, it is difficult for some people to get to the bottled water stations, so we want to make sure that we have them in the right places. I have told South East Water that I expect it to communicate regularly with its Members of Parliament to make sure that the stations are in the right places and that it is sharing intelligence about that. I completely agree with him on communication: there has not been enough use of social media and the website has been too slow to update. There should be much more and much clearer communication going to Members of Parliament.

On when we expect the situation to return to normal, I sent the latest sitrep to all the MPs affected and I will continue to do that. We are having another strategic group meeting with everybody tomorrow to see where the situation is in the next 24 hours. I do not expect all this to be resolved in the next 24 hours, which is why I am holding another meeting tomorrow. South East Water should phone each individual Member of Parliament impacted and update them on what is happening.

Finally, livestock were mentioned by a number of colleagues on yesterday’s call. South East Water is supporting 11 farms with bottled water, and it has made some deliveries of alternative water to farms across the region, but the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that this is having a huge impact on the welfare of animals, so the water company needs to take it seriously. I hope that, following this urgent question, it intends to do so.

Future of Thames Water

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing this important debate. We have heard many contributions from across the House.

Thames Water is a distressing example that brings to light several serious issues that require ongoing attention from the Government and regulators. During the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, His Majesty’s official Opposition tabled many sensible amendments that would have ensured that companies did not leverage too much debt. Puzzlingly, and disappointingly, the Government failed to support those amendments.

Companies should be held to the highest standards, and the last Conservative Government took a range of measures to try to do exactly that. Only 7% of storm overflows were monitored when the previous Labour Government departed office in 2010; the Conservatives took that to 100%. Our landmark Environment Act 2021 delivered our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account. We had our ambitious plan for water and took strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters. We also banned water company bosses from receiving bonuses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment.

Quite rightly, there is huge frustration that Thames Water has been wrung dry of capital over the years. It has failed to invest to expand its supply and to clean up its sewage spills. His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear that we do not want to see Thames Water fold, because, although water supply would continue, it would carry the serious risk of higher bills for customers and would not solve any of the issues facing the company. Bizarrely, the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company, and, with it, Reform appears to be happy for the company to go under, exposing the taxpayer to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high. If the company were taken into a temporary special administration regime or permanent public ownership, the taxpayer would ultimately end up paying the price. That cannot happen, it should not happen, and the parties calling for it seem to be in denial about what it would mean for the British taxpayer.

Ofwat, as the independent regulator for the sector—for now—has responsibility for the sector’s financial resilience and must continue to work closely with Thames Water. In the 2025 to 2030 price review, Ofwat challenged the efficiency of Thames Water’s proposed spending. That led to Thames Water being expected to deliver all schemes that it had proposed, but for £491 million less than it put forward and without any reductions in scale or standard. While Thames Water had initially proposed to appeal Ofwat’s final determinations for 2025 to 2030, it has deferred the appeal while it seeks to secure a rescue proposal.

Talking of spending, the Government have repeatedly made it a talking point that they have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system. They are not telling us, however, that £93 billion of that investment had been submitted by water companies in October 2023, while the Conservatives were in office.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I have to finish—I only have a certain amount of time. Can the Minister outline what action the Government are taking to help find a market-based solution for a Thames Water rescue deal, specifically in the light of reports that current lenders are preventing or shutting out competitors? What are the Government doing to encourage fair competition that puts the long-term interests of the company and customers first, rather than the interests of those seeking to minimise losses?

We are all agreed that Thames Water is in urgent need of a rescue plan. It must be a market-based solution that protects the taxpayer and customers. With the alarming example of Thames Water, which we are discussing today, and with the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, His Majesty’s official Opposition continue to urge the Government to rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing, in order to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.

The Government must enact policies that benefit farming communities. They have a chance to do that now with another critical issue that impacts our farming, food security, animal welfare and biosecurity. A recommendation was made this month by the council of the School of the Biological Sciences to close the University of Cambridge’s vet school. I declare my strong personal and professional interest as a graduate of that school and as a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We do not produce enough vets in the UK. We face threats to our food security and our biosecurity, both of which vets are pivotal to. The health and welfare of animals depends on vets, as indeed does public health. Will the Government act now to press the University of Cambridge to block this closure proposal and save Cambridge’s vet school, for the benefit of animals and people here in the UK and across the world?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

This is a matter for the University of Cambridge, but having visited the veterinary school at Harper Adams University, I am all too aware—as clearly the hon. Gentleman is—of the importance of having enough well-qualified vets in our country. We need to ensure that the supply and the opportunities to train are there, but this particular decision is one for the University of Cambridge. I am happy to talk to the university, but I am unsighted on the reasons. If the hon. Member wants to talk to me afterwards, I would be more than happy to hear what he has to say.

Animal Welfare Strategy

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s animal welfare strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)]

We are a country that cares deeply for animals, and we have a proud history of being pioneers when it comes to ensuring the very best for them. We had the world’s first known animal welfare law in 1822, and produced animal welfare pioneers and organisations known across the globe today.

As announced this morning in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs oral questions, next week we intend to publish our animal welfare strategy, which takes forward our manifesto promises through the most ambitious reform to animal welfare in a generation. It will be a comprehensive package of reforms that will improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK. It covers all our relevant manifesto commitments, such as the commitments to give farm animals greater freedom and dignity, and to protect our wildlife. By improving animal welfare standards, we are supporting healthier, more productive livestock that deliver better outcomes for farmers, farm profitability and food security, and the high welfare standards that British consumers expect.

The animal welfare strategy builds on this Government’s proven track record of delivering reforms for animals, including introducing new world-leading standards for zoos earlier this year and supporting the passage of the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, to tackle puppy smuggling, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, whose Royal Assent you have just announced, Mr Speaker, and which is about the worrying of livestock. Labour has always been the party of animal welfare. During our last term in government, we enacted the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and we banned foxhunting.

[Dr Hudson]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I know that you are an animal lover, as indeed we are as a nation.

As a veterinary surgeon, I have animal health and welfare very close to my heart. We have now reached the end of the year for Parliament, and we still do not have sight of the Government’s animal welfare strategy. The Prime Minister has said on the record that the strategy would be released by the end of the year. That has been repeated by Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs many times in the Chamber and again today, as well as in answers to repeated written questions from many Members across the House.

We need to find out, and be able to scrutinise, the Government’s plans for our animals. We face significant issues: animal digital identification; disease outbreaks such as avian influenza and bluetongue; the threat of foot and mouth disease or African swine fever coming into the UK; a Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into veterinary services; the need for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act; a shortage of vets; and a farming community struggling with anxiety and financial pressures caused by this Labour Government.

I put on the record this House’s thanks to all the vets, farmers and frontline officials in the Animal and Plant Health Agency who are on duty over the Christmas period, tending to and protecting our animals. The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.

We should be very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in improving animal welfare, such as banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for fattening or slaughter in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; increasing from six months to five years the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and enshrining animal sentience in UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and establishing the Animal Sentience Committee, so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. The baton has now been passed from the Conservatives to Labour. Please can we hear what the Government plan to do in this crucial area, so that the House can scrutinise what the future is for our animals and the people who care for them?

[Emma Reynolds]

I want to reassure the shadow Minister that we will publish the animal welfare strategy before Christmas, as we have promised. He is right that we face a number of significant issues. We will be tackling those issues head-on. I disagree with the shadow Minister’s characterisation of our Government. This will be the most ambitious animal welfare strategy in a generation. However, I agree with and echo his thanks to the vets, farmers and regulators for their work all year round, but particularly over the festive period.

Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. These draft regulations seek to lay the legislative foundation for the transfer of many of the powers currently held by the scheme administrator, PackUK, to a private producer responsibility organisation. The PRO will remain an independent body working closely with the devolved nations and the public sector.

In March 2025, Karen Graley was appointed head of the EPR PRO, bringing extensive experience from the Food and Drink Federation. I ask the Minister whether she or her colleagues have met Ms Graley to discuss the issues already identified with the scheme. I note that should the PRO fail to meet the expectations set out in its conditions of appointment, the scheme administrator, acting with the consent of the four nations, may revoke its appointment. Can the Minister reassure us that if such a step were ever required, there would be no adverse disruption to the scheme and no consequential adverse impact on businesses?

The Minister will also be aware that Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Environmental Investigation Agency and Everyday Plastic wrote jointly to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to seek clarification from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on certain aspects of the scheme. They expressed concern that they found the explanatory memorandum to contain insufficient information about intended implementation. Although DEFRA has responded to their three specific questions, I hope the Minister can set out in greater detail the evidence required for the producers.

Under the packaging extended producer responsibility scheme, producers must demonstrate that they have collected and recycled packaging waste that is either reusable or not ordinarily collected by local authorities. As I understand it, there is currently no requirement for that evidence to be third-party verified. Can the Minister explain how the accuracy and reliability of such information will be ensured? I discussed the extended producer responsibility scheme in a recent Westminster Hall debate with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), so the Minister will be aware of my concerns about its general implementation.

The Minister will also be aware that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently chaired a food and farming emergency summit with farmers, fishermen and food producers. One of the issues raised repeatedly was the impact of the EPR scheme on food, drink and hospitality businesses, many of which—local pubs included—feel that they are being unfairly charged twice. Following that summit, and after listening carefully to industry representatives, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Government urging them to work with the Conservatives on a rapid review of the scheme’s impact on the food, drink and hospitality sectors, including the problem of the double charging of pubs.

That emergency summit took place before the autumn Budget, in which the Government announced that they will consult in early 2026 on proposals to measure the performance and effectiveness of local authorities’ use of the packaging EPR scheme. Has the Minister considered extending that consultation to include stakeholders so that practical issues with the scheme’s operability can be identified sooner?

The amendments contained in these regulations are sensible and show some movement in response to feedback and concern from the frontline. However, they do not address some of the wider concerns raised in our recent debate or those voiced by stakeholders, particularly regarding glass recycling and the consequences for hospitality businesses. Tackling these issues should be a priority for this Government not just in 2026, but as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am happy to address some of the points that have been raised. I welcome that the official Opposition are broadly supportive of this system, and I will come to their questions in a minute. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, sounded like she was in favour on principle but not quite in favour of this particular system. That is an interesting approach, but ripping up the whole thing and starting again would not help our recycling rates. I prefer to think that the best way forward is to keep refining what is happening, to see how it works and to see if there are obvious things that we need to change.

These draft regulations are part of that iteration, because they introduce, for example, a change on the closed loop for food-grade plastics, and they shift to a producer-run organisation so that we can integrate how packaging is produced and try to drive up recycling rates. These measures will be responsible for returning over £1 billion to local authorities through fees and structures that enable them to recycle waste collected at people’s doors.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked whether Ministers have met industry groups affected by dual use, and I hope to reassure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has done so. We recognise the strength of feeling on the need for a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced, given the impact of pEPR on packaging that remains in scope of fees.

Through our workshops, we are looking at what we can do to refine the system further to deal with the issues of double charging, as the shadow Minister put it. He asked what would happen if the PRO collapsed. PackUK can take control in the event of a catastrophe while it seeks to establish a successor, so that there does not have to be any other system.

We recognise the issues with glass, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, and the issues with measuring by weight, on which we are in touch with producers. There is also Government support for energy costs in the industry, which will hopefully deal with some of the additional costs that traditional industries are having to shoulder. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that we will continue to keep all of this under review.

To conclude, the amendments made by these draft regulations are necessary to maintain the circular economy for packaging in the UK, to ensure that the key industry request that producers are involved in running the scheme is taken forward, and ultimately to ensure that materials and products are kept in use longer. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee understand and accept the need for these draft regulations, and accept that the changes will benefit the scheme.

[Dr Hudson]

As I mentioned, the Budget document talked about a consultation on this going into 2026. I raised with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), in the Westminster Hall debate that such consultation needs to be urgent, rather than kicking the can down the track. Can the Minister reassure us that she and her DEFRA colleagues will urgently review the system and act to mitigate any adverse consequences? A consultation is good on paper, but unless it is urgent, stakeholders on the frontline are going to suffer.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are trying to take the scheme forward in a positive, iterative way. The consultation is not kicking the can down the road; it is recycling the can to see what we can do to ensure that the system is changed and iterated to fit more effectively, to drive up recycling rates in our economy and to move towards a circular economy. I hope the hon. Member feels reassured by that response.

Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this critical debate.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, the hon. Lady has heard first hand from many stakeholders, including the British Beer and Pub Association, about how the extended producer responsibility regime is directly affecting businesses. We have heard contributions from Members from across the House today, and indeed from across the United Kingdom, proudly standing up for the businesses in their constituencies and highlighting some of the challenges that the scheme is creating, as well as the challenges facing the hospitality, pub and brewery sector in the United Kingdom in the last year under this Labour Government.

As well as the hon. Lady, we have heard powerful representations from the hon. Members for Woking (Mr Forster), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I had to hold myself back from intervening on the hon. Gentleman—for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who talked powerfully about steel packaging, for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) and for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies).

I am extremely proud of the positive action taken by the previous Conservative Government on packaging and waste. Between 2010 and 2022, the amount of waste going to landfill was successfully reduced by 47%, and the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 46%. In 2015, we introduced a charge on single-use plastic bags, resulting in a 95% cut in sales of plastic bags in major supermarkets. Building on that, we went further and banned the use of single-use plastics such as plastic straws, cutlery and cotton buds, which also restricted businesses’ use of other single-use plastics such as plastic plates.

The last Conservative Government also introduced a tax on plastic packaging containing less than 30% recycled plastic, which encouraged businesses to reduce the use of single-use plastics in their supply chains. Finally, we introduced a simpler recycling collection system, which I am pleased the current Government have taken forward from us, thereby continuing to make recycling more user-friendly, cutting down on confusion and the time spent recycling, and ultimately improving recycling rates, which is good for our environment. These actions were achievable and proportionate.

Importantly, the last Government also laid the correct economic foundations to make those changes and supported businesses—which, I have to say, stands in contrast to what we heard yesterday when the Chancellor delivered her autumn Budget. Many Members here joined me to speak in this Chamber in May, when we had a Westminster Hall debate on glass packaging and the EPR scheme. Back then, I raised my concerns with the Minister about the economic situation and spoke about how, when introducing measures that place costs on businesses, the Government have a responsibility to consider whether this is the appropriate time to impose new burdens on businesses. The British Retail Consortium has said that retailers support the “polluter pays” principle, but it is concerned that the levy will not deliver value for consumers in these challenging economic times—times made far worse by this Labour Government and their mishandling of the economy, as we saw in the run-up to, and the delivery of, yesterday’s retrograde Budget.

The hospitality industry is a key growth sector. A June 2023 report by Ignite Economics, which was commissioned by UKHospitality, found that, for every pound that the UK hospitality industry directly contributes to GDP, it creates a further 58p indirectly and a further £1.30 when including the induced impact. That report also outlined that between 2016 and 2023, hospitality increased its annual economic contribution by £20 billion, to £93 billion. Furthermore, since 2016 employment in the sector has risen to 3.5 million, making hospitality the third largest employer in the country. Finally, hospitality contributed £54 billion in tax receipts to the Treasury last year.

Unfortunately, it appears that this Government do not understand that higher costs and taxes burden businesses and can cause them to close, leading to job losses and destroyed livelihoods. Since the autumn Budget last year, figures published in August of this year show that two hospitality venues are closing every day—including over 100 pubs and restaurants.

Turning again to glass, which is a key reason behind this debate, glass packaging is 100% recyclable—and infinitely recyclable, meaning it can be recycled again and again without losing quality. The previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), received a joint letter from the British Beer and Pub Association, British Glass Manufacturers’ Confederation, Scotch Whisky Association, WineGB, Wine and Spirit Trade Association and UKHospitality. The letter warned the Government about the “numerous economic headwinds” that businesses are facing, and highlighted that, while glass represents only 5% of the volume of containers placed on the market, the glass charges cover approximately 30% of the scheme’s cost. The fees are much higher for glass than any other materials, at 10p per average bottle of wine and 17p for every average bottle of spirits, eight times as high as equivalent EU schemes. Indeed, those organisations said in a joint statement:

“There is a risk that without action from the UK government to reduce these fees and move to meaningfully support businesses rather than restrict them, the scheme will result in producers switching to less sustainable materials and that many producers will be charged twice—further restricting investment into the economy.”

Does the Minister agree that that is clearly not how a circular economy should run?

The Minister may be familiar with Mermaid gin and its iconic bottles, which are so beautiful that some companies have upcycled empty bottles into drinking glassware. The Isle of Wight Distillery, which produces Mermaid gin, has said that bottles were designed to be reused and returned to the circular economy. As their compliance and sustainability manager noted,

“it would actually be cheaper to put our liquid into plastic bottles.”

Does the Minister agree that no environmental or recycling policy, however well-intentioned, should end up incentivising companies to think about switching to packaging that is actually less environmentally friendly?

Furthermore, in an article published 31 October by Food Manufacture, Josh Pitman, managing director at sustainable packaging firm Priory Direct, is quoted as saying that he is still receiving hundreds of queries from its over 21,000 customers who do not understand EPR and what they need to do. Mr Pitman outlines how his firm has effectively acted as “EPR customer service” and is quoted as saying that

“there appears to be a lack of clear, helpful guidance and limited proactive engagement with affected businesses from government, aside from some overly exclusive and expensive events featuring official spokespeople.”

What action will the Minister take to provide clearer and more accessible guidance to affected businesses?

The Minister may also be aware that One Water, a water brand that seeks to provide clean water and sanitation to communities around the world, has warned that EPR is placing a disproportionate burden on compliant companies, with the scheme estimated to cost the firm £140,000 in 2025. It is estimated that the scheme has already contributed to a £400,000 loss in glass product sales, mostly through lost hotel, bar and restaurant sales. How will the Minister work with stakeholders to ensure that compliant companies are not disproportionately affected?

Climbing food prices, record levels of farm closures, two pubs or restaurants closing a day and business confidence at a 15-year low, as well as the awful costs of the family farm tax—even before it has fully come into force—outline why we are currently in a food and farming emergency. As the Minister may know, last week the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), hosted a food and farming emergency summit to ask farmers, fishermen and food producers what urgent measures they need to survive the next 12 months. The EPR was raised as a key issue that is causing the sector significant concern because food, drink and hospitality businesses, including local pubs, are currently being unfairly charged twice.

Following that summit, and having listened to the measures the industry said are needed, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Secretary of State to ask the Government to work with her on the industry’s call for a rapid review of the impact of the Government’s EPR scheme on the food, drink and hospitality sectors, including through the double charging of pubs, about which we have heard many times today. I hope that the Minister will consider the merit of that request, which came directly from those attending the emergency summit.

I noted in yesterday’s Budget that the Government will: consult in 2026 on the extended producer responsibility and proposals to measure how often and how well local authorities use fees; appoint a producer responsibility organisation by March 2026 to give industry a role in the scheme’s operation; and consult on reforms to the packaging waste recycling note system. Perhaps the Minister will repeat that in due course. That is all well and good, but the sector needs urgent action now to ensure that the EPR system is fit for purpose and that our fantastic food, drink, retail and hospitality sectors are protected and encouraged to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for his follow-up questions. Several colleagues have raised the issue of cost being calculated by weight and not by unit, but waste management costs are largely driven by weight. We have taken into account other factors that influence collection costs, including the estimated volume of each material in bins and collection vehicles. Glass is a heavy material with a low resale value. A unit of glass packaging costs more for a local authority to manage as waste than an item made up of more lightweight and high-value material. Our recycling assessment methodology changes are published on defra.gov.uk, so people can see the changes that we are proposing to bring in next year and how we are ramping up the fees payable for less recyclable packaging.

Reuse and refill of packaging provides a real opportunity for economic growth and job creation. Earlier this year, GoUnpackaged produced economic modelling that made a compelling case for scaling up reuse in UK grocery retail. That work showed end-to-end system cost savings of up to £577 million a year, highlighting the economic viability of reuse in the UK. In response to that research, major grocery retailers have committed to working together to scale reusable packaging systems. Innovate UK has commissioned a scoping study to develop the blueprint for the first wave of this bold multi-retailer reuse scheme, so change will be coming in this sector pretty fast.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is talking about economic viability. I mentioned that the Government said in the Budget yesterday that they will consult on the EPR scheme, and she has repeated that. The Conservatives are calling for an urgent review. A consultation is not good enough; proverbially, that just kicks the steel can down the track. Will the Government commit to an urgent review so that businesses do not suffer in the coming months?

Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this important debate and allowing us to address the important issue of flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the north-west. We have heard powerful contributions from across the House today: from the hon. Members for Warrington South, for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane).

The hon. Member for Warrington South started off by highlighting the key points about the mental health impacts of flooding and the anxiety and trauma that people face. As we face ever more extreme weather, it is right that we discuss the Government’s role in flood prevention, preparedness and management. The devastation brought in the past two years by Storms Babette, Kieran and Henk is a grim reminder that vigilance and forward planning remain essential. When thinking about the north-west, we remember the catastrophic impacts of Storm Desmond in 2015. Across the north-west and beyond, families, farmers and business owners know all too well the havoc that flooding brings to bricks and mortar but also the livelihoods and mental health of those living in fear of the next storm. Just this weekend we have had another named storm: storm Claudia. My thoughts go out to the people affected by the flooding, especially in Monmouth. As I said in the Chamber in the urgent question to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we cannot overstate the mental health impacts of flooding events and on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I pay tribute to our emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteers who demonstrate extraordinary dedication time and again.

However, our compassion for those affected must be matched by decisive action. The previous Conservative Government took the responsibility of flood resilience extremely seriously. Between 2010 and 2020, four Conservative-led Governments protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding. Our record includes a £2.6 billion investment in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, followed by a further £5.2 billion commitment in 2020. We introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and set out a comprehensive policy statement containing 40 practical actions and five ambitious policies for a more flood-resilient Britain.

Equally, the establishment of Flood Re created an essential safety net, making insurance viable for hundreds of thousands of homeowners. Today, I urge the Minister to build on that by expanding the eligibility. Many small businesses remain excluded, particularly where people live above their shop, and properties built after 2009 are ineligible. Will the Minister commit to reviewing those restrictions to enable fairer access to affordable flood insurance?

We Conservatives recognise that in our rural communities, flood management and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. Through the environmental land management schemes, we rewarded farmers for natural flood management. Farmers across the north-west and across the country have embraced these schemes, restoring wetlands and investing in sustainable land management, which not only reduces flood risk, but improves biodiversity, captures carbon and enhances soil health. Innovative tree-planting programmes, with the right tree in the right place, and river re-wiggling are brilliant examples of natural flood management.

I ask the Minister to confirm that these actions will continue to be funded under ELMS and that this Government remain committed to supporting nature-based solutions as part of our national flood defence strategy. Regrettably, many farmers and communities are now anxious and uncertain. They have been watching this Labour Government abolish the farming resilience fund, which was a lifeline for mental health, and introduce their heartless family farm tax—all at a time when many are still repairing the damage from last season’s storms.

The flood resilience taskforce was designed to co-ordinate national response and readiness, yet the answer to my parliamentary question shows that it has met only infrequently since Labour took office. Can the Minister tell us what tangible outcomes the taskforce has achieved so far? Given the increased frequency of severe storms, the taskforce must be proactive. Will it start to meet more regularly than at quarterly intervals?

I want to acknowledge the charities that provide vital support to those affected, such as YANA—You Are Not Alone—and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Yellow Wellies and the Farming Community Network. The impact of flooding is not only physical or financial, but deeply emotional: the anxiety of waiting for the next storm, the trauma of seeing homes and businesses lost and the long path to recovery all leave scars that last for years. Too often, that is ignored. I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to deliver holistic support for flood victims not just in the immediate aftermath, when the water subsides and the blue lights leave, but for the long term.

In summary, communities who face the threat of flooding need certainty. They need reassurance that preventive measures will be sustained, that robust support is available when disaster strikes, and that their physical and mental wellbeing is taken seriously. I very much hope that the Minister will use this debate to provide that clarity and to guarantee that the Government will stand by our rural and urban communities, protect funding for flood defence and address the toll, both physical and mental, that flooding continues to inflict on our country.