Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 General Committees

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

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this instrument. This SI enacts policy from the groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act brought in by the Conservative Government in 2023. While this instrument specifically introduces measures on precision-bred plants, as it relates to that Act I must declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon.

I would also like to make it clear that when debating this issue, we are discussing gene editing or precision breeding rather than genetic modification. It is incredibly important that we make that distinction because the methods are very different. Gene editing is different from genetic modification, in which genetic material from an exogenous, or unrelated, species can be introduced. That does not happen in gene editing, a process in which any changes must be equivalent to those that could have been made using traditional plant or animal breeding methods. Gene editing therefore speeds up the natural process. Does the Minister agree that that distinction is acutely important and we must articulate it, particularly as there are concerns among the public about the use of genetic modification? This enabling legislation, further to the groundbreaking 2023 Act, is a fantastic innovation that we need to welcome and embrace. If we clearly articulate it to the public, they will come on board with us.

To return to the instrument that we are considering today, I very much welcome the Government’s decision to follow the Conservatives and lay these regulations. As I said earlier, this instrument implements the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, introduced by the last Government. Precision breeding has incredible potential; for example, it could lead to increased resilience to pests, diseases and the adverse impacts of climate change. As this instrument relates to plants, it will help to support food production by introducing desirable traits in plants and crops that could otherwise take many years to develop.

The measure could help to improve the nutritional content of plants, or make them more resistant to the threats that they face, including disease and extreme weather events. All that will be a vital tool in the fight for food security in the UK and around the world, with climate-resilient crops meaning a reliable supply of the food on which those living in certain climates depend. It also has environmental benefits, as it reduces the need for pesticides and fertilisers. In other words, this can be a win-win for producers, consumers and the precious environment alike.

Clearly, the most significant component of the regulatory framework of precision breeding must be safety. I hope the Minister will take a moment to reassure us that DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency will regularly review risk, and ensure that all precision-bred plants and crops are safe to be marketed for use in food and as a feedstuff. Does the Minister agree that precision-bred products should not be authorised if they are in any way a risk to animal or human health?

I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are very happy to support these regulations, although I hope that the Government will work at pace to deliver on the other potential benefits for which the previous Government’s legislation set the foundation, specifically gene editing for precision breeding of animals and birds, which once again has huge potential to combat diseases.

In the light of the extremely concerning developments in Europe in recent weeks, including foot and mouth disease in Germany, Hungary and now Slovakia; African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe; and diseases already present in the UK, such as avian influenza and bluetongue virus, will the Minister give the sector a timeline for the introduction of further secondary legislation on animal and bird breeding?

As an example, much work is being done to develop resistance to avian influenza in birds, and to develop pigs that are resistant to porcine reproduction and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS. Facilitating the roll-out of such innovative research and technology will be of huge assistance with that mission. It will also help to reduce the need for certain medicines and to combat antimicrobial resistance, as well as indirectly, and also very directly, helping human public health. I note that the territorial application for this SI is England only. What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations about ensuring that this technology can benefit all the United Kingdom?

The Minister will be familiar with my repeated calls for action on the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge. Once again I ask her, as I have asked her colleague many times, to make the case to the Treasury for the £1.4 billion of additional funding urgently needed to redevelop its headquarters. That programme was started under the Conservatives, with £1.2 billion committed in 2020, and I note that the Labour Government have committed an additional £208 million. For the sake of agriculture, animal health, rural mental health, biosecurity and national security, please will the Minister and her DEFRA colleagues continue to press that case with the Treasury?

I conclude by reiterating that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are pleased to support this statutory instrument, and we look forward to the Government speedily introducing further legislation on animals and birds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the most loyal Opposition for their support with this SI, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. It is incredibly important that we make clear the distinction between genetic modification and what we are talking about here, and that we note how different the two things are. I welcome the Opposition’s support with that clarification.

I will take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species’ traits we can benefit from. The overwhelming scientific advice is that it is not proportionate to apply existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnology when those plants could have resulted—this is the key point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made—from traditional breeding processes. These regulations provide a science-based approach and are proportionate.

I will cover some of the points that have been raised. On animals and birds, I recognise the professional view and real feelings of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and he is keen to know more about the Government’s plans for implementing the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for animals. While we are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration, no decision has yet been taken on introducing legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to precision-bred animals. I have no further information about that, because only plants are in scope of this SI.

[Dr Hudson]

I note that no decision has been taken on animals, but I asked about animals and birds. We have the pressing situation of avian influenza, and technology is under development in this country to breed birds that are resistant to that horrific disease. Can I press the Minister to make the case to DEFRA for enabling precision breeding of animals and birds forthwith? Will she write to the Committee with an update on when DEFRA will bring forward that SI?

[Emma Hardy]

I am happy to clarify that I was talking about animals and birds. I can attempt to provide further information, but without wanting to appear deliberately vague, no decision has been taken. However, if and when one is, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman knows.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the Minister give way on one final point?

[Emma Hardy]

Only because it is the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Hudson]

Can the decision be made quickly?

[Emma Hardy]

I will take that point back to the Farming Minister.

As for the assurance on risk, the advice is consistent across scientific sources and is supported by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, as well as institutions such as the Royal Society and the European Food Safety Authority. These principles also underpin regulatory approaches adopted abroad, where England is now aligned with countries such as Canada, Japan and Argentina. I reassure hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that there is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest: we are not talking about the same things.

Devolved Governments were also mentioned. We recognise that there are concerns about divergence in the UK, and that is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Governments. The Farming Minister recently sent letters to his counterparts in the devolved Governments to invite them to discuss these matters further. We recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved nations on these issues and we look forward to those meetings.

On the EU position, which the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned, although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission has published a proposal for the regulation of plants by new genomic techniques. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and note the recent progress made by the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. The proposal is similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, but it will take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU. However, we do not have time to wait.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

Capitalise.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—we can capitalise on the opportunity, because we will be the first country that takes this through. As I have noted, the EU position seems to be moving, but we recognise that that will take some time, whereas I hope we will agree to this SI today. On that note, I thank everybody for their contributions and the Opposition for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, for this important debate on the impact of quota negotiations on UK fishing. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I thank him for his thoughtful opening remarks about science and sustainability, and his interesting comments about species such as pollack, Dover sole and bluefin tuna, and bycatch.

We have had thoughtful contributions from hon. Members from all parties. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on the importance of fishing for food security were echoed by many colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) talked about the opportunities for UK fishing, after our departure from the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about the importance of not using fishing as a bargaining chip in EU negotiations, the importance of the UK as an independent coastal state, and the important issue of spatial squeeze.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) talked about the importance of the quota negotiations and what they mean to people in communities throughout the country, and made important points about paper fish and sustainability. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the diversity of businesses and the people that depend on UK fishing.

I am sure that Members need no reminding of the importance of our fishing industry. Fishing has always been vital to the UK across our four nations. It has been the lifeblood of many communities up and down our country. Island and rural communities are particularly reliant on a strong fishing industry for their local areas to thrive. It is incumbent on all of us in this Chamber to make sure that the views of fishing communities are heard.

We Conservatives admit that we did not get everything right in negotiations on fisheries while in government— I am very open on that point—but as we head towards 2026, we have at least made some progress. When we were in government, we worked to secure the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement for fisheries in 2021. The TCA represented the UK’s first domestic fisheries legislation in nearly 40 years, and the last Government took advantage of the agreement to increase our fishing quotas. In 2024 the UK negotiated 785,000 tonnes in quota, worth almost £1 billion to the UK fishing industry—a major achievement and an important step in the right direction for UK fisheries. By 2026 that will amount to £146 million, or 25% of the previous annual EU catch from UK waters. Significant quota increases have benefited the pelagic sector, particularly for species such as herring and mackerel. We also secured new deals with other coastal states, including Norway. These agreements, negotiated by the last Conservative Government, were designed to get the best outcomes for the fishing industry.

After June 2026, the Labour Government must take a strong stance in negotiations with the EU to secure the fishing industry’s long-term future. Despite attempts to reassure the industry, it is undeniable that many people remain concerned that the Labour Government will simply use fishing as a bargaining chip in their attempts to negotiate a reset with the EU. It is vital that the Government do not cede fishing grounds to France or other countries as the price for a closer relationship with the EU, as any such deal would be a major blow to our UK fishing industry.

I note that when asked about that by the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), in Defence questions on Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence failed to deny that fishing could be a sacrifice in discussions on defence. It is absolutely incredible that we are hearing reports out of Europe that the UK may be excluded from the £125 billion EU defence fund unless the UK capitulates and gives the EU what it wants on fishing rights. Our collective EU defence and security that the UK contributes so much to must not be jeopardised, and nor should our fishing communities be used as a bargaining chip. Will the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs confirm today, as the Secretary of State for Defence did not on Monday, that the Government will not bargain away our fishing industry in such important deliberations about our international security?

There are already questions to be raised over the negotiations for fishing opportunities concluded by the Government in 2024. DEFRA’s own research on the economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities in 2025 has shown a 38,000 fall in tonnage for this year’s quota compared with last year, a decrease of 5%. Negotiations with other coastal states saw a 15% fall in tonnage for this year’s quota compared with last year, representing a loss of £65 million. It is vital that the new Government secure good deals for the fishing industry. I urge the Minister and the Government to provide more clarity on why the quota negotiated for this year has gone down.

It is also important to note that the benefits of negotiations are seen not just in the raw numbers of tonnes secured, but in ensuring that we have a proper process, using rigorous scientific data, so that the right types of fish are also available to UK fishermen and the fishing industry, meeting economic and environmental concerns under the Fisheries Act 2020. As we have heard today, pollack is abundant in UK waters, but the UK has only 24% of the pollack quota. The previous Government put in place support in this regard, and again we ask the Minister what the Government will do in the future about the management of pollack.

It is important that we fish sustainably. I note that in Scotland around 70% of key commercial stocks are fished at sustainable levels. Although that shows scope for improvement, the upward curve from a figure of around 35% in 1991 is welcome. The UK can be proud that our fishing industry follows the science and looks to care for our waters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan articulated so strongly, no one has a greater vested interest in the health of their seas and the health of their fish stocks than the very communities whose livelihoods depend upon them.

The need for proper rigour in process must extend to energy policy, including offshore wind policy, to ensure that while we certainly do what we can to meet our energy security needs, we are not at the same time enforcing a spatial squeeze on our hard-working fishing industry without properly ensuring that we are meeting our needs under fisheries legislation and policy. As with much of our environmental approach, we should make sure that the right projects are pursued in the right places, balancing competing priorities fairly. I shall be grateful if the Minister assures us that his Government are looking to do this.

Although economic considerations must properly be considered in debates such as this one, it is important that we do not lose sight of the human element and the welfare of protected marine species. Both are important to ensure that the fishing industry can continue to succeed and precious natural resources are protected from the impact of quotas.

Also important for the future of fishing is the mental health of the people in our fishing communities. Fishing is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry, and the stress and anxiety that comes with the job is only made worse by the financial pressures and uncertainty that many fishing communities face. The fishing industry does incredibly tough and dedicated work to support the UK’s food security, and I urge the Government, as I have done previously, to work on a cross-party basis to improve safety and access to mental health support for all those working in the industry.

In the last Parliament, after an inquiry that I initiated, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its cross-party report on marine mammals. In particular, the report highlighted the issue of bycatch, where seals, dolphins and other sea life are tragically snarled in fishing gear. The Minister and I have debated and discussed this issue a lot. An estimated 650,000 marine mammals are believed to die each year worldwide after being needlessly caught and snarled in fishing gear, including more than 1,000 in UK waters. Steps have already been taken to end these unnecessary deaths, including work on the introduction of remote electronic monitoring that began under the last Government, yet it remains clear that more action is needed.

The last Government’s ultimate goal was to make electronic monitoring systems on fishing vessels, including non-UK vessels, mandatory once we were in a position to do so. According to the Marine Management Organisation, only six marine mammals were reported by fishing vessels to have suffered bycatch injury or death in 2023, yet the last Government’s bycatch monitoring programme had estimated that between 502 and 1,560 harbour porpoises, 165 to 662 common dolphins, and 375 to 872 seals were captured as bycatch in UK fisheries in 2019. Do the Government believe that bycatch of marine mammals remains under-reported? Also, can the Minister provide further clarity on the timescale for introducing electronic monitoring systems in a sensible and pragmatic way?

The UK also has a very important role to play with our global soft power. Like all Members, I am sure, I strongly oppose the hunting of any cetaceans—dolphins, whales or porpoises. There is no humane way to kill a whale, so that barbaric practice must end. Although there is a tradition in the Faroe Islands of killing pilot whales and dolphins for meat and other products, the previous Government long expressed their concern about the welfare issues surrounding those cetacean hunts and the domestic regulation currently in place. Ministers in the previous Government urged the Faroe Islands to look at alternatives and encouraged its representatives to consider the many economic and social benefits that responsible cetacean watching can bring. We very much welcome the fact that the Government recently secured 2,000 tonnes of fishing in this year’s round of quota negotiations with the Faroe Islands, but will the Minister comment on whether the Government used our soft power to set an example to the world by raising our stance on those hunts with international partners such as the Faroe Islands, and on whaling more widely in negotiations and international meetings, given that, horrifically, whaling is still practised by countries such as Norway, Iceland and Japan?

The next few years will be decisive for the UK fishing industry. As we approach June 2026, when the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement expires, the Government must make clear their plans for negotiations to secure the best outcomes for the fishing industry. In any negotiations we must ensure, as a sovereign coastal state, that our fishermen and women retain unrestricted access to our own waters. The Opposition will work tirelessly to scrutinise any deal put before Parliament to ensure our fishermen and women get the best possible outcome. National security, food security and energy security are all critical, and need to be addressed sensibly and strategically in their own right, but our fishing communities must not be treated like a bargaining chip within these domains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Crown Estate plays an important role, and we are working together closely. Things have improved. It has not always been an easy relationship, but we have a strong process and I am confident that it will work successfully.

I am conscious of time, so I will address some of the points that have been raised, particularly in relation to the south-west. I am very much taken by what the hon. Member for St Ives said about low-impact fishing. These are complicated issues, but I am pleased that, from January 2025, the licence cap of 350 kg of quota species has been removed for the under-10s. That was quite contentious a while ago, but it gives fishers greater flexibility to diversify between quota and non-quota species.

The pollack issues are clearly fraught and complicated, and I am afraid that my advice to the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not entirely what he wants to hear. We agreed with the EU a bycatch-only TAC for pollack, which equates to a UK share of 172 tonnes of pollack in area 7 for 2025. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about abundance, but the ICES advice is what we have to follow. Its advice is for a zero catch, as last year, and it does not see signs of recovery. That is clearly a problem in the short term. We are forecasting to allow for a 20% increase in stock biomass next year.

I understand the strength of feeling on the recreational pollack fishing industry, and we have sent a clear signal that this is the last opportunity for this to work for the recreational sector. Voluntary guidelines have been developed by the Angling Trust and the Professional Boatman’s Association to encourage anglers to adopt a bag limit and a minimum conservation reference size, as well as closed seasons to avoid the spawning period, and the use of descending devices to reduce pollack mortality. We want to see whether those measures can work, but if they do not, I am prepared to introduce mandatory measures. I appreciate that this is still a very difficult question.

Moving on briefly to sole, the issue of 7h and 7e is quite complicated. This is probably an incomprehensible conversation for people outside the industry, but we are looking closely at the potential genetic connection between the two. We are working with the EU in the Specialised Committee on Fisheries to facilitate consideration of the data by the relevant ICES working group to improve our scientific understanding and to encourage the most appropriate management. There is ongoing work, but I appreciate that this is a concern.

The scientific work on pollack is due in June, and I will go away and look at it more closely before coming back to the hon. Member for St Ives.

I want to give the hon. Gentleman a minute to respond, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I very much appreciate the wide range of challenges facing the sector, and I understand why people are feeling anxious and fraught. This is a difficult time, but we tackle it by working together in close collaboration. I am determined that we work and listen closely.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the Minister give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Conservative Government protected over 600,000 properties from flooding, introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and committed to a £5.2 billion investment in flood protection. However, we know that the mental health impacts of flooding remain long after the waters subside. Rural communities face unique challenges, including outbreaks of diseases such as avian influenza and foot and mouth—a clear and worrying threat, given the recent cases in Germany and Hungary. Unfortunately, this Labour Government are exacerbating such stresses with their family farm tax and by scrapping the farming resilience fund, which supports mental health. Can the Minister confirm, for the sake of mental health, what support will be offered to rural communities in place of the scrapped fund?

[Emma Hardy]

That all started so well—we nearly managed to get through the question with me agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right about this issue, which he has mentioned before. I am in complete agreement with him about the impact of flooding on mental health, and I know that we all take it seriously. We are investing £500,000 in mental health charities to support rural communities, but I completely recognise the devastation that flooding causes, and I am always happy to work with Members from across the House on how we can support people’s mental health.

Draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 General Committees

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

It is a delight and a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the Minister for laying these important regulations.

I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are happy to support this measure, which will help to ensure that Flood Re can continue to operate effectively. As the Minister articulated, the Flood Re scheme is vital. Since its inception in 2016 under the Conservatives, many people have relied on the scheme. We have sadly seen increasingly frequent extreme weather events in recent months and years, with the number of named storms continually going up, so it is important that people have coverage. When those extreme weather events cause flooding in the United Kingdom, they have brought horror and devastating consequences to many people’s livelihoods and finances.

The Minister and I have great mutual respect. We have talked a lot about the severe financial implications when floods hit, and about the human implications—the mental health impacts, the stress and anxiety of people who worry about being flooded and then the trauma when they are. The Flood Re scheme is vital to mitigating, to some degree, the things people go through. Enabling the effective use of Flood Re to support those affected by flooding will not only mean that people receive the financial support they need, but reduce harm to their mental wellbeing, because they know that some support is there when they need it most.

With that, and given that not having an effective Flood Re scheme may result in high-risk households being left without flood insurance, it is a clear and common-sense decision to support this statutory instrument. The increase in the levy is therefore a pragmatic decision, which I note takes into account inflation. According to the Government’s assessment, the cost of the increase in the levy, which will most likely be passed on to consumers through the premiums, is estimated to be about £1.60 per policy.

Although I welcome reaffirming the importance of Flood Re, I hope to see more ambition from the Government about the scheme’s future expansion—I have talked to the Minister about that before. There is potential to expand the scheme, and we have talked a lot about whether businesses can come under its umbrella. What discussions has the Minister had with businesses about the potential merits of expanding the scheme to include them? Equally, there are people who live above their business, so a composite home and business could be affected by flooding. Again, in the spirit of cross-party consensus, I hope the Government will move forward to help more people when floods hit.

Furthermore, the eligibility for Flood Re states that a home must have been built before 1 January 2009. Although I appreciate that regulations have since been strengthened to consider flood resilience, the Minister will be aware that properties continue to be built on at-risk floodplains. In the light of the central, top-down Government targets that are coming for house building, which may mean that more houses are built in at-risk areas, will the Minister ensure that homes built after 2009 have the security of flood insurance? Will she consider expanding the Flood Re scheme to include homes built after 1 January 2009? Labour Back Benchers have also called for that.

Helping people who are traumatised by flooding is above party politics. I have been calling for the expansion of the Flood Re scheme for some time. I hope that the Minister, her colleagues and her officials in DEFRA can look at its merits and talk to the Treasury about that too.

More broadly, as well as insurance, prevention is key. The last Government protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding between 2010 and 2024, and published a policy statement to make England more resilient, with 40 actions and five ambitious policies stemming from that. Furthermore, in March 2020, it was announced that the flooding budget would be doubled to £5.2 billion over the next six-year spending period to deploy more flood schemes. The Minister has confirmed that the Government will bring forward a flood resilience strategy. When can we expect it to be published, and will it include specific targets?

The Government have also launched the floods resilience taskforce. At the last count, we believe it has met only a couple of times recently—if it has met more than that, I stand to be corrected—despite the increase in drastic and devastating flooding. We want it to meet more frequently. Can the Minister assure us that it will meet regularly, and sometimes in advance as these frequent events come down the pipeline? We know flooding will happen in the winter months, so can the taskforce meet more regularly? What has the taskforce done to tackle flooding, especially after the storms that have recently hit the UK? How will it protect residents, farmers and businesses from the next set of storms that we know will come?

For properties that are sadly flooded, support is required. The last Government introduced the frequently flooded allowance, which was a ringfenced fund of £100 million to protect areas that had been affected by repeated flooding. The Government have yet to confirm whether that funding will continue and whether it will be ringfenced. Can the Minister enlighten us on the Government’s plans?

The support available to handle the aftermath of flooding, such as the Flood Re scheme that we are talking about today, has also included discretionary funding, such as the Bellwin scheme. Again, the Minister and I have had exchanges across the Dispatch Box on this issue. When such events happen, can she assure us that there will be cross-Government talks to make sure these support schemes can be activated on a pragmatic, compassionate and case-by-case basis?

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that engagement must happen with councils as well? North Yorkshire has suffered very badly from floods recently, but the engagement with North Yorkshire council has often been lacking, from not only this Government but previous Administrations. That is largely based on cost, but that engagement is key.

[Dr Hudson]

I totally agree. There needs to be joined-up thinking at all levels of government, including local authorities. There also needs to be engagement with local emergency resilience groups, many of which are volunteers. When storms and floods hit, can people get the information they need? DEFRA could work with the Environment Agency, local authorities and emergency resilience groups to help people when they are flooded. There needs to be a co-ordinated effort that considers things such as planning, insurance, flood prevention, support and response. I hope that my questions are constructive in helping people when they experience dreadful flooding events. We support helping Flood Re to do its excellent work.

[The Chair]

Before I call anyone else, I remind hon. Members that the regulations increase the levy from £135 million a year to £160 million a year. Could Members focus their comments on the topic of the regulations?

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know how much he cares about this and many environmental issues. Amendment (a) refers only to the reporting arrangements for levels of debt rather than specifying the levels of debt that would be acceptable. It is about increased transparency, whereas his points fall more into the remit of the water commission, which is looking at all those issues as part of its wider work. I stress that the amendment is just about how information is reported and transparency.

The information must be made available in a prominent place on the water company’s website, ensuring accessibility for members of the public. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 35E also provides Ofwat with the power to determine the information that a water company must publish, as well as the ability to review requirements on financial reporting from time to time. That addition will ensure that reporting requirements keep pace with changes in the expectations and needs of bill payers. I would like to be clear, however, that the Government expect the power to be used to ensure that reporting requirements remain relevant, rather than to dilute or diminish the ambition of reporting requirements.

Financial reporting will also continue to be underpinned by pre-existing statutory obligations and licence conditions. In line with other requirements brought forward in clause 1, this new requirement will commence on Royal Assent. These amendments will help to rebuild public trust in the sector and provide the public with the levels of openness and transparency that they deserve.

I turn to the other Government amendment, which relates to the requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed by way of affirmative statutory instrument, as reintroduced by the motion tabled by Lord Blencathra in the other place. While the Government recognise that there were calls in the other place for increased parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules, we have significant concerns that a requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be finalised through an affirmative statutory instrument would delay the rules being implemented.

We are clear that Ofwat’s rules should be brought forward as soon as possible. That will ensure swift and meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of water companies as they begin to deliver on the largest investment package in the history of the water sector. Requiring the rules to be confirmed by statutory instrument would risk delay to the rules coming into force. We also maintain concerns that the Lords amendments would compromise the independence of Ofwat, because they would require Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed through legislation prepared by the Government. That independence must be protected if we are to ensure investor confidence in the water sector.

The Government are confident that the Bill already provides for sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules as it is required to conduct a statutory consultation on the rules before they are finalised. Separately, Ofwat has already concluded an initial policy consultation on a draft of the rules and how they will apply. It received 11,700 responses on the rules through its consultation, which it is actively considering. As such, the Government are seeking to reverse the requirement and to introduce provisions in its place that will require Ofwat to provide its first set of rules in draft to the Secretary of State at least seven days before they are issued. I hope that hon. Members across the House will support that change, which will ensure that Ofwat’s rules are put into place as soon as possible following Royal Assent, in addition to the Government’s amendments to introduce new financial reporting requirements.

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this final stage of the Bill. Before I start my remarks, I will respond to the pertinent question about levels of borrowing for water companies asked by my friend and former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The Minister is right that Government amendment (a) is about reporting rather than the levels of borrowing. It is regrettable that the Government chose to reject the Conservative amendment in Committee that would have allowed the Secretary of State to set the amounts of borrowing for water companies. I hope that, as we move towards Cunliffe review, the Government may look at that again so that we can have tighter control on the water companies and their levels of debt.

Before I make my remarks on the Lords messages, I will say that getting to the Bill to this stage has been the result of much hard work across this House and the other place. I thank everyone, both front of house and behind the scenes, who has worked hard to get us here. That includes: the Minister for her willingness to listen to those across the House throughout the Bill’s passage; similarly, her counterpart in the other place, Baroness Hayman; those who have worked to draft the Bill and amendments; the Bill Committee; parliamentary staff from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and campaign groups and stakeholders who provided their insights to the Committee to help make the Bill even stronger, not least the Conservative Environment Network, the Angling Trust, and the Wildlife and Countryside Link.

Sadly, however, as the Opposition have stressed throughout the Bill’s passage in this House and the other place, this final stage of the Bill risks being yet another missed opportunity to act holistically on this important issue. It is unfortunate that the Government have been unwilling to go much further than their copy-and-paste approach, rebooting measures that the Conservatives took in government to address this issue.

We heard in previous stages how the bans on bonuses for water company chief executives and ensuring that 100% of storm overflows are monitored—up from 7% under Labour—were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. None the less, ever the optimist, I came to the Chamber hoping that the Government might be willing to reconsider their position on the issues of the amendments and the reasoning from the other place, which cover familiar ground. We debated these issues in the previous stages, not only in this House but in the other place.

At the heart of the Lords amendments is a theme that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have emphasised throughout the Bill’s passage: accountability. The previous lack of accountability for water companies created many of the issues that the water industry has faced. The Conservatives in government and now this Government have attempted to try and address that. This is another chance for the Government to go even further and inject some of what is really needed into their approach.

I turn to Lords amendment 1B, which reverses the Government’s decision to remove measures from the Bill that would require financial reporting to be collected by Ofwat for its remuneration guidance. We know that one of the most worrying aspects of our water industry has been its financial resilience, as Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report back in November made clear, with 10 companies at need of increased monitoring and three in the highest category of risk, with closer monitoring required at a more senior level with Ofwat.

We all know, too, the cases involving specific water companies and the real risk that financial mismanagement brings for the survival of those companies and the water provision that their consumers rely on. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government have been unwilling throughout the Bill’s passage to accept Conservative amendments, or Cross-Bench amendments such as this one by Lord Cromwell, offered in a constructive spirit, which may have gone some way to address the issue. None the less, the Opposition truly want to see better financial resilience. Therefore, on financial reporting in particular, we want the Government to accept this as a reasonable step to regain accountability on financial resilience.

The Lords amendment to clause 1 would quite simply mean that, when it comes to financial reporting, there would be nowhere to hide for water companies and the decisions they make in this area. I note that, following the Lords’ rejection of Commons amendment 1, the Government have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1B, which will go some way to improving the financial transparency of water companies, as a formal concession to Lords amendment 1B.

Subsection (4) of Government amendment (a) states that what water companies must publish should be decided “from time to time”. I hope the Minister can see that such vagueness might be a problem moving forward, as “from time to time” could allow the regulator not to review when the need arises, because it had done so a few years prior or even longer ago, and justify that by arguing that it was doing so “from time to time”, as the law outlines. Even if nothing or little would need changing from year to year, or every few years, surely it would be better to require this at least to be reviewed at precise regular intervals so that the most valuable information is provided in the best possible format.

That aside, however, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition acknowledge the Government’s concession on financial transparency, and indeed public access, including characteristics of capital and debt. We are pleased to see that addition to the Bill.

In the same spirit, I move on to Lords reason 2A to disagree with Commons amendment 2, which urges this House to consider again the requirement that any rules under clause 1 be brought into force by means of a statutory instrument from the Secretary of State. Again, this amendment is familiar territory that we have debated at many stages, having been a measure consistently called for by His Majesty’s Opposition in the other place and in this House, both in the Chamber and in Committee. We have maintained throughout that accountability is needed to deliver and enforce change in the water industry, but that must include the Government of the day, no matter which party they are.

It is odd that, on the one hand, this Government have claimed that they want a tight grip on water companies, while on the other, they consistently oppose a measure that would allow them to do exactly that. It is odd, too, that in Committee, the Liberal Democrats sought to amend the same part of the Bill that would have that effect. Their intentions were to bring in guidance as soon as possible, but there is a distinction between intent and effect. Removing some of the same lines would have had the same exact effect in ridding the Bill of the statutory instrument requirement that this amendment seeks to maintain.

The Government have argued—as the Minister has again today—that they fear that Ofwat’s flexibility to adapt their rules as necessary could be impeded in some way. But statutory instruments remain a timely measure to introduce any changes if needed. So once again, the Government’s argument does not stack up. It is only right that we, as parliamentarians elected by the British public to represent their interests with our voices and votes, are able to look at the proposed rules and exercise our ability to voice concerns if they risk falling short of protecting the public’s interests. Why deny the public and Members of this House the ability to uphold accountability of the water industry, which has been missing for too long? As such, once again we have urged the Government to accept what we believe is a reasonable set of amendments in the name of accountability.

Now, at the 11th hour, the Government have tabled Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords reason 2A that disagrees with Commons amendment 2, the amendments tabled and argued for by my Conservative friends in the other place the noble Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and add that the remuneration and governance rules may not be not be enacted until they have been provided in draft to the Secretary of State. There is a move towards some Government accountability, but sadly, not what the Opposition had wanted: a statutory instrument laid by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses.

None the less, I am grateful that the Government have listened to Lord Roborough, me and the other Conservative colleagues who have argued for more accountability, and that they have moved a little towards us with this amendment. However, I am still unclear why the Government appear scared of full accountability. Sadly, I fear that some of these last-minute concessions, which we would like to go further, look like the Government trying to avoid double insistence and the Bill failing. We do not wish the Bill to fail, as we all want the same thing: to see our waters improve and for the Government to continue with the measures that the Conservatives set in train in the last Parliament. In that spirit, we will not stand in the way of the Government’s amendments.

There has been many a chance for the Government to grab opportunities to bolster the Bill with both hands. Many chances have been missed throughout its passage, not least by the Government continually rejecting our water restoration fund to ringfence fines to restore local waterways, rather than to balance the Treasury’s books. They did not accept our sensible proposals to go further with nature-based solutions to flood risk. They rejected our proposals for fines on water companies to result in equivalent reductions in customers’ bills, and our sensible proposals to allow the Secretary of State to place limits on the amount that water companies can borrow. They blocked our proposals to protect consumers in different parts of the country from paying for failing water companies that do not supply them.

As the Bill progresses and the Cunliffe review begins, I again urge the Government, for the sake of our water, environment, constituents, communities and, indeed, fairness, not to let political pride and dogma stand in the way of doing the right thing and making water legislation the best it can be. We wish the Bill well as it ends its journey in this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Lady is right. Previous Governments of all parties have not tackled these issues as they should have done—including, of course, the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. There is no doubt whatsoever, however, that we are now looking at a massively changed situation. Why do the public care so much more about this issue than five or six years ago? It is because—I say this neutrally—we were in the European Union before then, and we had different levels of scrutiny. It is also because this House went through the process of basically lifting the bonnet to see what was already acceptable, at which point people in this place and around the country became utterly outraged at what was permissible. Yes, parties of all sides bear a responsibility, and not least the party that privatised the industry in the first place and let the cat out of the bag.

Ofwat does need to be scrutinised; that is what I find most frustrating. Now that the UK is not in the European Union, our own regulations are not scrutinised from outside—so if we do not do it, who will? We have heard many times of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise properly and hold to account the water companies; we heard on more than one occasion in Committee, as well as in this Chamber, of the £164 million in fines that Ofwat has levied against three water companies, of which, four years on, it has collected precisely zero pounds and zero pence. Our argument throughout this process has been that Ofwat, despite containing many very good and valuable people who are working their hardest, is nevertheless a regulator not fit for purpose. The amendment seeks to force Ofwat to give six months’ notice of bonuses it has signed off, rather than the seven days that the Government want, which is inadequate.

[Dr Hudson]

I am slightly curious as to why, at the eleventh hour, the third party is now changing its position. In the other place, when this amendment was pushed to a vote, the Liberal Democrats abstained on two occasions, but now they are playing political games and actually risking the progress of the Bill. The amendment, as it stated, was to introduce a statutory instrument to increase parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The Government have moved some way—although not as far as we would like—but the third party is now playing political games, and risks the progress of a Bill that is trying to improve the state of our waters.

[Tim Farron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I can do maths, so I know there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the progress of this Bill—I know what the numbers will be, roughly, when and if we divide on this matter.

I am not a late convert but an early convert—a convert long before the hon. Gentleman—to the importance of scrutiny. It is therefore important that we make this case: imperfect though this proposal is, it is far better for this House to be given six months’ notice of Ofwat’s intention to allow bonuses than seven days. That is surely better, and that is why we insist as we do. This is Parliament scrutinising Ofwat because of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise the water companies.

That is our simple point. It is why we have proposed much more radical reform throughout this process, including the abolition of Ofwat altogether. It is not the fault of the people who work for the organisation specifically. When regulation of the water industry is fragmented across parts of Ofwat and other agencies, which do not have the necessary powers and resources, the water companies will, of course, run rings around the regulators, and it is our constituents and our waterways—our lakes, rivers and coastal areas—that bear the brunt and suffer.

[Dr Hudson]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He talks about a number of fantastic amendments the third party made in Committee, many of which were so poorly worded that they were not actually worth voting on. His particular amendment about abolishing Ofwat actually contained no suggestion as to what the third party would replace it with, or how much it would cost—

[Tim Farron]

It did.

[Dr Hudson]

It did not. It did not set out how much it would cost or how long it would take. While we want Ofwat to have the teeth to hold water companies to account, the third party proposes getting rid of it. Again, is it the party of protest that is not offering any credible solutions.

[Tim Farron]

Well, first of all, if the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention, he would know that we proposed a clean water authority, which would gather up all the powers of Ofwat and the environmental and water regulatory powers of the Environment Agency.

I say this gently, but, again, there is a pattern here. Both in opposition and in government, the Conservative party shows greater levels of fury and anger over Liberal Democrats campaigning to clean up our waterways than over the fact that our waterways are full of poop in the first place.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

I have already taken two interventions from the hon. Gentleman, so I will not.

My simple comment is that this Bill will do good, and we are supportive of it. We wish only to trouble the House a short time to ensure greater scrutiny is brought in. We have accepted throughout this process, with some reluctance, the Government’s position that this is part 1, and that part 2 is to come, and that the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe will potentially consider more radical action. We hope that is the case, and we shall engage with things on that basis. I have in my hand some pieces of paper that I propose to send to Jon Cunliffe, which tighten up some of the smorgasbord of amendments, as they have been called.

We care deeply about our waterways. I am honoured to represent the bulk of the English Lake district, with so many lakes and rivers, as well as our coastal areas in Morecambe bay. The quality of our waterways is deeply personal to me and to my communities. We shall continue to campaign unashamedly for something far better for our constituents, and indeed for our water right across the United Kingdom.

[Emma Hardy]

With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and valuable contributions to today’s debate. Without stepping into the territory of a Second Reading debate, I suggest gently to the House that we are here today debating the Water (Special Measures) Bill precisely because of the public outrage caused by previous lack of investment, and the fact that every single river, lake and sea in our country has been polluted. Had the previous Government, as stated by the now official Opposition, done the marvellous, wonderful job that they seem to want to suggest they did, there would not be the need for this Bill in the first place—neither would there be the need for all the campaigns that have taken place up and down the country. However, I will go no further into that.

I have respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as he knows. However, I say gently that it is dishonest to suggest that legislation is needed for the water restoration fund, because, in fact, the Conservatives created the fund without legislation. To imply that legislation is required to have the fund would, therefore, be inadvertently dishonest. It was created without legislation, and therefore it does not need legislation to be held.

[Dr Hudson]

I am slightly concerned that the Minister is raising questions about my honesty. The water restoration fund exists, but where is it now? What has happened to it? Are the Government going to use it again? That is why we wanted to push, at every stage of the Bill, the point that the water restoration fund needs to be used to ringfence money so that fines on water companies can be ploughed back into restoring local waterways. I will be very happy if the Minister says today that the water restoration fund is carrying on, and then my honesty will be intact.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

To have growth in agriculture we need healthy animals, and for that, farms need biosecurity. Crucial to that is the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which deserves our thanks in these challenging times. With the alarming recent foot and mouth outbreak in Germany, avian influenza again surging, bluetongue still with us and African swine fever at our doorstep, we must act urgently. Please can the Government release the further necessary £1.4 billion to redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge? The programme was started under the Conservatives, with £1.2 billion committed in 2020. For the sake of agriculture, animal health, rural mental health, biosecurity and national security, please will the Minister act now?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important set of points about the biosecurity needed to protect our country. Over the past few weeks we have had a series of questions across the Dispatch Box about the foot and mouth outbreak in Germany and avian influenza. We have had this discussion about the investment in Weybridge, and I am delighted that this Government have brought forward a £280 million investment there. Of course, we need to do more in future, but what on earth were the previous Government doing over the past 14 years?

Draft Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 General Committees

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

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Furniss, and to be sitting opposite the Minister again, as I have done on various issues. I thank her for bringing these important regulations to the Committee.

The principle of improving our recycling is one that I wholeheartedly support. I believe the Conservatives have a strong track record in this area; I thank the Minister for graciously acknowledging the importance of our landmark Environment Act 2021. Between 2010 and 2022, we reduced the amount of waste going to landfill by about 47% and cut the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 46%. We also introduced a simpler recycling collection system to make it easier to recycle, saving people time and stopping confusion, to boost recycling rates. Additionally, our introduction of the single-use plastic bag charge in 2015 led to a remarkable drop in plastic bag usage, significantly reducing plastic waste.

I am pleased to see that the Labour Government have drawn on our previous consultations to shape this statutory instrument. In 2021, the Conservative Government conducted an initial consultation on consistency in household and business recycling, followed by an additional targeted consultation in 2023 that focused on exemptions to allow co-collection of recyclable waste streams. The process engaged English waste collection and disposal authorities, the Environment Agency and key stakeholders across the waste sector.

These regulations, set to take effect at the end of March this year, introduce mandatory waste separation for businesses and non-domestic premises. Businesses with fewer than 10 employees—microbusinesses—have been given an extended timeline until March 2027 to comply. Under the regulations, businesses will need to separate their waste into three key streams: dry recyclables such as glass, plastic, metal, paper and card, food waste and residual waste.

Recycling is important, and we must continually look at ways to increase it and make it easier for councils to carry out their waste management roles. However, I do have a couple of clarification questions for the Minister that I hope she may be able to address. First, can the Minister confirm what specific campaigns or initiatives will be launched to ensure that businesses and non-domestic premises are fully aware of the changes coming down the line? Secondly, what measures are being put in place and what reassurances are being put out there to help businesses—particularly small and microbusinesses—to comply with the regulations without facing financial burdens?

This is an important issue; I look forward to seeing how these regulations and this important recycling agenda progress in future.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have many contributions to come and quite a tight deadline, so Back Benchers will be limited to four minutes. I call the shadow Minister.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this vital issue of water quality once again. As His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have maintained through the passage of the Bill, it is just an attempt to copy and paste some of the work done by the previous Conservative Government and the measures taken to identify the problem. We will not shy away from the fact that the Conservative Government were the first to identify the scale of the sewage problem and actually to start to address it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we Conservatives left office last year, 100% were monitored and our landmark Environment Act 2021 paved the way to improving the quality of our precious waters.

However, we are under no illusions: there is always more that can be done, and we have always said that we will seek to work constructively to make the Bill as effective as possible. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her willingness to discuss matters of the Bill with me and with colleagues across the House; the Minister in the other place, Baroness Hayman, showed an equal willingness to listen to suggestions from colleagues. I also thank members of the Bill Committee for their constructive approach and all the Bill team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and parliamentary staff supporting this legislation and our scrutiny of it.

As a result of that dialogue, the Bill now includes welcome improvements in several areas, such as company requirements to produce implementation reports to outline how they envision their commitments on improving water quality happening, as well as consideration of nature-based solutions in licensing activities. However, in that same constructive spirit, the Opposition today ask the Government to go even further. We want the Government to back our new clause 16 mandating the water restoration fund, which had cross-party support in Committee. I thank the good folk of the Conservative Environment Network and Wildlife and Countryside Link for their support and campaigning on the new clause, as well as the Angling Trust for its discussions. I also thank the former MP for Ludlow and former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee Philip Dunne for his assiduous efforts to see the fund introduced.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

These are very substantial sums. A water company in my region was fined £100 million the year before last. It is vital that these amounts go to our chalk streams, which are in desperate need of them.

[Dr Hudson]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. It is right that if water companies do the wrong thing, the money levied from them is ploughed back into improving the water and not back into Treasury coffers. The water restoration fund, since being introduced by the previous Conservative Government, provided £11 million for communities to repair their local waterways and restore them to the quality they should be.

[Graham Stuart]

To follow up the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), that money will ultimately come from water bill payers. It will be ordinary families across the country who must contribute to the £100 million fines or whatever is imposed on our water companies. For that to be taken and then swallowed by the Treasury, rather than used to improve water, would be a disgrace. Does he not agree that the Government must accept new clause 16?

[Dr Hudson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to an amendment we have also tabled to ensure that if fines are levied on water companies, customers’ bills go down accordingly, so that taxpayers and bill payers are not penalised for water companies doing the wrong thing.

The Government have made ejections in this House and in the other place to the principle of ringfencing the funding and have stated the need for the Treasury to have flexibility on how it spends that money, but in this specific case, their argument still does not stack up. Where money comes from taxation, ringfencing is not always the most reliable way to ensure that the Treasury can have the spending power it needs to deliver that spending, but here we are talking about something very different. Fines are much more uncertain and provide less of a guarantee regarding the amount of money they will bring in. To rely on those funds for day-to-day Treasury spending does not make sense. Ringfencing those penalties for our water restoration fund is a sensible measure that enables Governments to guarantee they can meet a specific need. Water companies pay the fines for the damage they have done, and the local communities affected are empowered to have their local waterways restored.

It is worth repeating the finer detail of our amendment; it should not go ignored that this will also improve chalk streams. It was incredibly disappointing that over Christmas, the Government revealed that they had abandoned plans by the Conservatives to recover our chalk streams. Given that England is home to 80% of the world’s chalk streams, a failure to act on this issue neglects a vital duty to protect a key part of our environment. In light of this, we believe that the Government need to think again about rejecting our important amendment, which is a matter of principle, a matter of justice in righting wrongs, and a fundamental commitment to water quality.

When it comes to improving our waters, it is supporting those who are most affected when water companies fail to abide by their duties that are at the heart of the Opposition’s concerns —the British public, as individual consumers, bill payers and members of local communities. Customers must not pay the price for water companies’ failure to do their duties, whether financial, environmental or otherwise. As such, the Opposition have tabled new clause 19, which would require the DEFRA Secretary of State to provide that where a water company has faced financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, a financial amount equal to those penalties must be removed from the bills of that water company’s consumers.

This is very important, as a toxic cocktail of poor behaviour by water companies and rising bill prices has led to many people feeling that they are receiving poor value for money and not getting the quality water services that they deserve. A concomitant reduction in customer bills that people will see directly on their statements will be a real and tangible sign that poor behaviour is not going unchecked. The Government have previously rejected the proposal, but we urge them to think again about this simple yet effective amendment that would do so much to underpin all the work that is being done and protect bill payers.

I turn to some of our further amendments. Our concerns about the water industry and finances extend to what is in the Bill as it stands—in particular, the provisions for special administration orders in clauses 12 and 13, which the Opposition have raised in the other place and in Committee. Those clauses would give the Government the power to recover any losses they make through placing a company in special administration by raising consumer bills. My Conservative colleagues in the other place sounded the alarm on this issue, and I put on record again my thanks to them for doing so. If water companies require the Government to place them in special administration through their own failure, why should consumers foot the bill for failures they have had no influence on or responsibility for? That is particularly the case if a customer’s bills will rise as a result of mismanagement by a company whose services they do not even rely on.

This proposal runs contrary to the nature of all the action taken in recent years to improve water quality, whereby companies that are responsible for failing to get their affairs in order must take responsibility. We have all been starkly aware of concerns surrounding the financial resilience of Thames Water, and as many will know, Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report in November identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. We acknowledge that the Government believe that they expect to use special administration orders as a last resort and in limited circumstances. However, it is the Opposition’s firm belief that an injustice remains, with people having to pay for companies that they have no connection to. We have therefore tabled amendments 26 and 27, which would explicitly forbid the raising of prices for consumers who do not use the services of the water company that is in special administration. We believe this is a fair and reasonable compromise that the Government should accept, so that we can work to improve the water industry’s financial practices.

We have also tabled new clause 17, which would amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new rules regarding limits on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water company. Regrettably, the Government rejected this sensible measure in Committee, so we have tabled it again to ensure that water companies do not excessively borrow money, which is ultimately bad for bill payers. When we talk about financial resilience, the heart of the issue is concern about borrowing, and the resultant over-leveraging in the industry. We will be pushing that new clause to a Division. We will also be supporting the measures on nature recovery that we tabled in Committee.

We will be looking very closely at some of the amendments from the Liberal Democrats. New clause 2, which they tabled in Committee, would abolish Ofwat. At that stage, we pointed out that the new clause was not explicit about what it would transition to, so we do not believe that is a sensible way forward.

New clause 18 would grant the Government a power to create a unified scheme of charging arrangements for customers in need of support regardless of the specific supplier, and introduce a consultation for that purpose. Although the Opposition welcome looking at that, can the Government please ensure that others consumers do not face rising bills as a result? It will be interesting to see what the Government do with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Unfortunately, colleagues making interventions have eaten into time, so I now have to call the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson.

[Dr Hudson]

It has been a wide-ranging debate, although shorter than we had hoped for. I thank Members for participating today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for her passion for enhancing the accountability of water companies and protecting watersports, which we are all passionate about, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for passionately advocating for the water restoration fund.

New clause 16 would establish the water restoration fund, to ringfence money from fines to restore local waterways, not to balance the Treasury’s books. This was a Conservative fund, and the Labour Government must not let ideology stand in the way of evidence-based policymaking. They must take the baton forward and ringfence this money, so that waterways can be restored locally.

[Pippa Heylings]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Hudson]

No, I have no time.

New clause 19 is designed to ensure that fines on water companies result in equivalent reductions in customers’ bills. That is only fair, and we urge the Government to take forward the new clause.

New clause 17 seeks to strengthen the financial resilience of water companies by enabling the Secretary of State to stipulate the limits of borrowing, so that these companies do not leverage too much debt. That is an important new clause that needs to go forward.

Through amendments 26 and 27, we want to protect customers in different parts of the country so that they do not have to pay for the misdemeanours of water companies that do not serve them. We urge the Government to take forward our amendments and make this Bill stronger, so that we can improve our precious waterways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am sorry, but I will have to stop taking interventions if I am to respond to all the amendments.

Water UK has published a centralised map on its website of discharge data from all storm overflows operated by English water companies. I genuinely found it clear and useful, so I encourage all hon. Members to have a look.

I have heard calls from across the House for reforming the planning frameworks, the regulators and the incentives that govern the water industry model. Although I understand and, believe me, fully share hon. Members’ frustrations with the performance across the water sector, the fundamental issues facing the water industry and the regulatory framework in which it operates can no longer be addressed in a piecemeal way. I have spoken at great length throughout the Bill’s passage about the independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which will make recommendations to fundamentally transform how our water system works.

The broad-ranging commission is bringing together a wide range of expertise to make recommendations in line with eight objectives to deliver the necessary reset to ensure a resilient, innovative and sustainable water sector in England and Wales. It will report to the Government by summer 2025. This includes specific objectives to review the roles, structures, duties and powers of the regulators, the planning frameworks—including the price review process—and the resilience of water companies. That includes financial resilience, which I know matters to many hon. Members.

Points have been raised about taking water companies into public ownership, and the Government have repeatedly made it clear that we do not consider nationalisation to be within the commission’s scope. Nationalisation would cost over £90 billion, and it would take years to unpick the current ownership model, at the expense of delivering and addressing more immediate public priorities. However, the commission will consider alternative water industry models within its scope. I take this opportunity to invite all hon. Members to put forward their views to the commission through the upcoming call for evidence, which will be launching soon.

[Dr Hudson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I suspect that the Government do not agree with our water restoration fund, but if the Cunliffe review says that the water restoration fund should be reinstated, will the Minister commit to doing so?

[Emma Hardy]

Despite our political differences, the hon. Gentleman and I had a very interesting and—what is the right word?—comradely debate in Committee.

As we explained in Committee, conversations on the water restoration fund are still ongoing. I honestly do not believe that primary legislation is needed, which Conservative Front Benchers know, as they established the fund without primary legislation. I gently point out, as I have already mentioned, that within the 18 months of its establishment under the previous Government, the fund did absolutely nothing.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Charlie Maynard]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. Using West Oxfordshire as an example again, we have installed Grampian conditions, which I encourage other Members to look into, where we have said, “You may not occupy this house.” We could not stop the houses being built by arguing that there was insufficient capacity, but we could put a Grampian condition in force that says, “Those houses may not be occupied. Any buyer knows this, so they will not buy them.” It is flagged to any buyer so that they do not buy a house they cannot occupy, which will continue until the capacity has been added. That puts some heat underneath the water companies to get on and increase their sewage treatment works capacity. I really encourage the Government to look into those. We have vast amounts of housing that will be built, and under the current law, they will be steamrolled through and the capacities will not keep up. That is a real problem for everybody, and it puts more pressure on our rivers.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I have a lot of respect for the new clauses that he has tabled to put pressure on water companies to provide more information at critical stages. The Opposition have tabled amendments requiring water companies to publish data on their websites to enable citizen science, so I respect what he is saying. I guess some of the issue is in the detail of the wording of the new clause. I am sure we are all in agreement about water companies providing information, but proposed new section 37(1A) says that we want them to be “full and accurate” and “honest”. I guess the devil is in the detail. How will that be judged? If this new clause were to come into play, how will people judge that? Is an “honest assessment” whether something is not false, or whether something is complete or incomplete? There is an element of challenge that could be put in. I understand the sentiment, but the devil is in the detail of the wording as to how this could actually work.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words, and I look forward to his support in some of the votes at some point. In the meantime, if he has recommendations on the wording that he would like to put forward, I ask that he please do so. These new clauses are already in place, so maybe that is impossible, but let us by all means try to improve them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

We will not press this new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Dr Hudson]

It is a great pleasure to again serve under your chairship today, Dr Huq. May I first, on behalf of the Opposition and, I hope, colleagues from across the Committee, give a vote of thanks to everyone involved in this process? I have a list here, and please shout out if I miss anyone out.

First, I thank the Chairs—Dr Huq and Mr Vickers—for guiding us through the process. I thank all the Bill Committee staff—the Clerks and officials—for their assiduous, thorough work, which keeps us on message as Members of Parliament scrutinising this legislation. We thank them for that. Dr Huq, thank you—I will use the word “you” for you. I thank the DEFRA officials for all their hard work on this and for engaging with the Opposition as well. I very much appreciate the Minister allowing the officials to do that.

I thank the Doorkeepers and Hansard. I do not think I have missed anyone in the room except the public. This gives me the chance to thank the members of the public who have come in and watched our proceedings, as well as people who have watched online from afar. There are also, as the Minister said, the stakeholders: the environmental groups, the volunteers and the experts who have fed into this Bill and the water debate that we are having and who are helping legislators across the House to improve and refine legislation. We thank the public very much as well.

We have had a very interesting few days. It has shown us that there is a lot of cross-party consensus on what we are trying to do to improve our water quality. There is some disagreement about how best we do that, but this Committee has shown the House that, actually, there is a lot of agreement about the scale of the problem and the fact that we need to address it.

I respectfully say that I am disappointed with the comments from the third-party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, about the Bill Committee stage being a charade. I do not think that line-by-line scrutiny of Bills is a charade. Yes, there is a process as to how Committees are populated, but that is democracy. I would have thought that that particular party, given its title, would respect election results. That is how democracy works. We have seen that they have had some disagreement among themselves about some of their votes as well, but I will leave that point there.

We have had some interesting discussions, and it would be remiss of me not to talk about teeth. We have had dental analogies aplenty: we are wanting to give more teeth to the various regulators. Finally, I think I did detect—we will have to check Hansard—the Minister using the word “Ofwet”. When this matter goes to the commission, “Ofwet” might be an interesting term for a new body that might be set up, but I will leave that with the Minister.

[Tim Farron]

Thank you, Dr Huq, and Mr Vickers, in his absence, for brilliantly chairing our five Committee sittings. I will not list everyone that the hon. Member for Epping Forest just did, but I endorse what he said. I thank the Clerks, the DEFRA officials, the Minister’s team and colleagues on both sides of the House for their courtesy and the seriousness with which they have engaged with the Opposition, the members of the public who attended the Committee in person and those who have followed it from afar.

There is no doubt that the voluntary sector and the public have been ahead of politicians on this issue for many years. I would argue that the UK leaving the European Union was a key moment, because we had to go back and look under the bonnet to see what was already accepted and already permitted. We could argue about whether the previous Government gave us regulations and standards that were as good as what we had before we left the European Union. That might be an additional issue, but none the less, the likes of Surfers Against Sewage, Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign and so many others in all our communities have led the debate on this and created great scrutiny. That is why we strongly approve of a significant part of the Government’s ethos in the Bill, which is to put an awful lot of power in the hands of those who care so much in our communities.

I do not mean to offend people by referring to this as a charade, but the reality is that we spent five years in Government, and I am pretty confident that the Government that I was part of never allowed a single Opposition amendment to pass in Committee. There is a little bit of pretence in this. All the same, it is an enjoyable pretence. Having gone through the Bill line by line, we all understand it better, which means that, on Report, a dozen and a half of us can speak about this Bill in the Commons with a greater awareness than beforehand.

We support the Bill. If anybody was to call a Division on it, we would go into the Aye Lobby. Our frustration is that we feel that the Government have missed an opportunity. Their answer is obviously, “Here comes the Cunliffe review, and we will see what happens next.” Are we going to get an undertaking that there will be another Bill in the next King’s Speech? If there is, that is exciting and interesting, and that could answer many of our concerns.

The Bill could have been much clearer about limiting bonuses and about recognising that a fundamental problem with the water industry is the fragmentation and the weakness of regulation. It could have recognised that the financials are clearly all wrong, unfair and wasteful. We are looking at duration, but not volume, content or impact, and we are not supporting the citizens behind the citizen science enough by giving them the information, the resource and the place on the water company boards that they need. There are many areas where we think the Bill could be so much better, and where we do not need to wait for Sir Jon to do those things.

Having said that, what is wrong with this Bill is what is not in it, not what is in it. We are therefore happy to support it and are very grateful for the constructive nature of the debate throughout.

Draft Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the Minister for bringing the draft regulations to the Committee. I am pleased to say that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are supportive of the statutory instrument and offer no objections. The initial consultation conducted by the previous Conservative Government in January 2024 demonstrated strong support for the proposals, leading to this statutory instrument.

Current marketing standards allow hens to be housed for 16 weeks before their eggs are required to be re-labelled as barn eggs. Recent avian influenza outbreaks have once again necessitated the introduction of mandatory housing measures for free-range poultry in certain areas, which can sometimes exceed the 16-week limit. Consequently, producers adhering to these essential measures have been penalised through the loss of their free-range status.

In the previous Parliament I served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and we looked into this issue extremely closely and fed our work in to the Government. I am pleased that the previous Government responded positively, and that the new Government have picked up the baton. The changes in the statutory instrument will remove the 16-week derogation period, thereby protecting producers who are doing the right thing by responsibly housing their birds under the chief veterinary officer’s instructions during the imposition of avian influenza controls. I should declare an interest: I am a veterinary surgeon so I have a strong personal and professional interest in this subject.

The changes are made in the knowledge that once the restrictions are lifted, the birds will be back out and free-range. Furthermore, they will ensure that English free-range producers maintain parity with the EU, where the 16-week time limit was removed from egg marketing standards legislation in 2023, as the Minister articulated. This will create a level playing field for our producers and reduce the likelihood of English free-range eggs being substituted with imported eggs.

Although we support the statutory instrument, I do have some questions for the Minister. Before I ask them, I put on the record my thoughts and sympathy for farmers and bird keepers who have been affected by avian influenza outbreaks. The virus is still with us and there are still outbreaks. I also pay tribute to everyone at the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Vets, officials and scientists are working hard on the situation, as they are working on many different disease situations. Avian influenza is with us, bluetongue is still bubbling away, and we now have the real concern of foot and mouth disease having been confirmed in our near neighbour Germany.

As a veterinary surgeon, I am all too aware of the devastating impacts that animal disease outbreaks can have. Avian influenza outbreaks obviously affect not only reared domestic birds but wild birds, but there are also significant human impacts, not least on the mental health of those in the frontline. Given the ongoing avian influenza situation, will the Minister outline the additional measures the Government are taking on avian influenza to preserve our nation’s biosecurity? What is the current policy and status in terms of vaccine development and deployment?

In addition, will the Minister clarify what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the changes with Welsh authorities? We know they are introducing changes, but we must make sure that we have a consistent approach across the UK. We strongly support these crucial measures and I am grateful that the regulations have been brought to the Committee today.