Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Minister for explaining this statutory instrument. It is very appropriate that we are considering it on the day after World Oceans Day.

On our precious planet, we are blessed to have oceans and seas rich in biodiversity. It is an asset that we share in common with the rest of the world—a good in itself that sustains a diverse range of life. From whales to coral reefs, we have a vast array of fish, animals, plants and microorganisms living in our oceans. Our oceans and seas contain more than 80% of the world’s biodiversity.

Biodiversity is vital not only for protecting species and preventing extinction, but for safeguarding human health. Oceans and seas are a key source of the world’s food and oxygen, but they also greatly contribute to our understanding of the natural and life sciences. The UK has long been a global leader in marine research, supported by world-renowned institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the national museums in Wales and Scotland, the National Oceanography Centre and our outstanding universities, many of which hold internationally important repositories of marine biological data.

Marine genetic resources in particular demonstrate the direct link between ocean biodiversity and human wellbeing. Compounds derived from marine organisms have been instrumental in developing new medicines. Treatments for coronavirus, cancer, inflammatory conditions and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s all draw in part from genetic material found in our oceans and seas. Protecting marine diversity is therefore not only an environmental imperative but a foundation for future medical breakthroughs.

The previous Conservative Government understood the need to conserve the biodiversity of our oceans and seas. That led Conservative Ministers to commit in the convention on biological diversity to protect a minimum of 30% of global ocean by 2030. In government, we Conservatives took real, practical steps to protect our marine environment. We strengthened England’s marine protected areas regime, establishing 181 MPAs, which now cover around 40% of English waters. Recognising that the UK’s overseas territories encompass 4.4 million square km of marine environment across every major ocean basin, we worked to conserve those precious ecosystems by halting biodiversity loss, supporting sustainable growth and connecting people with these precious natural environments.

We Conservatives also understood that the challenge does not end at our own shores. Around two thirds of the world’s oceans—roughly 61%—lie in areas beyond national jurisdiction: the waters outside any coastal state’s exclusive economic zone. Those vast areas are home to extraordinary biodiversity, yet no single nation can protect them alone. That is why Conservative Ministers championed general international co-operation to safeguard those waters and to support research into marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. As we look ahead, it is vital that we strengthen that co-operation. Safeguarding life in areas beyond national jurisdiction is a shared global responsibility, and only by working with our international partners can we preserve these ecosystems for the benefit of humanity.

The previous Conservative Government played a central role in negotiating the UN’s biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. Signed on 20 September 2023, that landmark agreement represented a major victory for ocean protection and multilateral diplomacy. As the UK follows a dualist approach to international treaties, Parliament must pass domestic legislation before such agreements can take effect. I am therefore pleased that the current Government have continued the work that the Conservatives began by bringing the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 into force. That ensures that the UK now has the legal framework required to implement the agreement fully, responsibly and in line with the commitments that we helped to shape on the global stage.

The Minister will recall that during the passage of the 2026 Act, His Majesty’s official Opposition repeatedly raised concerns that while the Government were seeking to champion biodiversity and conservation on the global stage, they were simultaneously threatening to surrender the Chagos Islands, which may have risked the Chagos marine protected area, particularly should Mauritius not be able to enforce the protection. We therefore welcome the fact that the Prime Minister appears to have listened to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Chagossian community and wider public concern, as it appears that they have stepped back from proposals that could have jeopardised both the future of the islands and the integrity of the marine protected area. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the case?

I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the draft order, albeit it is a shame that it has taken so long to be introduced, which has been noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Once the agreement is ratified, the onus will shift to implementation. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that the Government will continue to work closely with key stakeholders such as the cable sector and marine scientists? We look forward to further progress from the Government in this vital area.

[The Chair]

Before I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, I want to say that I am happy to have an exchange on the Chagos marine environment, but I do not want a wider debate on the Chagos Islands and their future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

Allow me to take a moment to reflect on the importance of approving this legislation. Without it, the UK would not be a position to ratify the BBNJ agreement. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, the “30 by 30” commitment was signed under the previous Government and that is an international undertaking which this Government take very seriously. It is all very well signing agreements—

[Dr Hudson]

It is good that you are carrying on with the good work.

[Mary Creagh]

The difference is that we are actually now saying where the money is coming from, how we are going to meet that target, and how we are going to aggregate the land and seas. An undertaking to do something, without having a plan to deliver it, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Hon. Members will appreciate that future industry activity is difficult to predict in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Our consultation and previous engagement with stakeholders identified some likely activities in such areas, including telecommunications cable activity, marine scientific research, space flight activity, and deep sea mining, but not all such activities will be in the scope of marine licensing.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about licence applications and the costs. There have been only two licences granted for an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch in 2022—I am not sure if he was the Secretary of State at the time; there were so many in those two years that I cannot be expected to remember who was where at that time. It was before his time, was it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in shoe-horning in the Harlow coral farm. I am sure that an invitation for the Minister responsible for water and flooding is in the post and a visit is imminent. It genuinely sounds exciting. Of course, coral farms are important for working out which species are climate resilient and will be the coral reefs of the future. Coral is not just nice to look at when scuba-diving and snorkelling on holiday. In February, I managed to go on a snorkelling trip in Egypt with a broken wrist, for which I think I deserve some recognition. They make them tough in Coventry! Was Nemo swimming one-handed?

My hon. Friend asks a good question about the issue of coral and other states’ involvement. At all the international meetings I went to in 2024, which was my first year in post, people looked to the UK for our leadership on these UN conventions, particularly given the lack of leadership and withdrawal by other large players in the United Nations. We have been encouraged and exhorted to do that, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on treaties, so the actual treaty could not be DEFRA legislation. We found a spot to bring in the treaty in our second year, but I am sure it will receive great acclaim. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is soon to attend a conference in Kenya at which this SI and the further movement towards ratification will be warmly welcomed. There is also a Commonwealth summit to look at the ocean, as so much of our Commonwealth is affected and is marine facing or marine vulnerable.

The statutory instrument aims to strike the right balance, providing safeguards to protect the marine environment and meet BBNJ requirements, while avoiding disproportionate or unnecessary regulation. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the importance of the marine environment and the need for effective and appropriate regulation of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

[Dr Hudson]

I know that the Minister is winding up, and that she has spoken about Ministers going to summits and collaboration, but she spoke about the importance of implementation. I asked specifically about what the Government will do to liaise with key stakeholders in the area, such as the cable sector, marine scientists, merchant navies and so on. The UK has a global footprint, so it is important that this Government take the baton that the Conservatives passed to them and work closely with stakeholders. Can she reassure the Committee that the Government will work closely with stakeholders on the frontline?

[Mary Creagh]

Absolutely. I recognise that there are concerns about specified cable activity remaining exempt from regulation, but that is based on evidence provided in our consultation responses and discussions with other Government Departments, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I reassure hon. Members that, as a result of that evidence and those discussions, we consider cable-related activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction to be of sufficiently low impact as to fall below the threshold, which is why we are maintaining the current cabling exemption. However, science and industry are evolving in this area, so we are working on it. In the consultation, which we held jointly with the Scottish Government and which was open for four weeks in November 2025, we had only 22 responses from industry research organisations, environmental non-government organisations, consultants and consultancies, public bodies and DEFRA arms-length bodies, which shows that this is quite a niche area.

Eighty-nine other states have now ratified the BBNJ treaty and 145 states have signed it, so there is huge international support. We have only one ocean; although we may call it different things in different places, it is the mantle that wraps around the globe. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest says, we are often blind to the treasures that it holds in its deeps, whether that is the glorious seaweed baths on the Atlantic coast, or the next cure for an ailment or disease. Our ocean is vital to so many of our industries and provides proteins for billions of people, so it is important that we protect it for the future. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Water Companies

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Labour came into government promising major reform of England’s water sector, but progress so far has been slow. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was largely a rebadging of many Conservative reforms. During its passage, we tabled many sensible amendments, including ones to ringfence funding from enforcement fines to a bespoke water restoration fund; to guarantee that companies fixed the environmental damage they caused locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if 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 missed the opportunity to increase accountability.

We on the Conservative Benches have been clear: no one wants to see water companies such as Thames Water collapse. Although water supply would continue, failure would expose taxpayers to billions of pounds of liabilities and drive customer water bills sharply upwards, without addressing the underlying issues. Yet we have seen the third party in this place lead legal action that could have pushed Thames Water to the brink, and both they and Reform appear relaxed about the consequences for consumers and the public purse. Government have to be prepared to step in if a company fails, but that should be a last resort, so can the Minister update the House on the current situation at Thames Water?

Last week, this House again debated further unacceptable water outages from South East Water. With further hot weather expected, what action are the Government taking to ensure that water supplies are not disrupted again and that people, businesses, schools, hospitals and livestock owners will have sufficient water? Turning to the wider systemic issues in the water sector, can the Minister update the House on progress towards delivering new reservoirs and other strategic water infrastructure? Finally, can the Minister explain how the Government are tracking investment commitments across the sector?

[Emma Hardy]

I think the shadow spokesperson managed to read his statement out without actually listening to the answer that I have given. But I am always keen to update everybody on the action we have already taken, so just in case he missed it, I am happy to say it again. We have passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025; ringfenced customers’ money so that it cannot be diverted away from investments; secured £104 billion of private investment to upgrade our infrastructure; given the EA more powers to monitor water companies; banned unfair bonuses; introduced criminal liability for water bosses; introduced automatic penalties; reduced the burden of proof for many offences so that regulators are on the front foot; introduced cost recovery to shift the cost of pollution on to those who pollute; banned the sale and supply of wet wipes; reformed our bathing water regulations; established the water delivery taskforce; more than doubled compensation for customers when things go wrong; and introduced strengthened protections for vulnerable households through reforms to the WaterSure scheme. In fact, I would say that we have done more in 20 months than the hon. Gentleman’s Government did in 14 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

As more and more fishermen and fisherwomen in Scotland and across the UK are struggling to keep their businesses afloat due to soaring fuel costs, they are marking the one-year anniversary of the Government selling our fishing industry down the river in their negotiations with the EU. Twelve years of access for EU boats to UK waters was signed away as part of that deal, and in return there is still no access to the EU defence fund. Fishermen and fisherwomen are yet to see a penny from the fishing and coastal growth fund, and we remain in the dark about whether we will get a gene-editing carve-out and practical transition period in the SPS agreement. A year ago, we Conservatives warned that Labour was trading away our precious UK fishing waters for little or nothing in return. Twelve months on, the evidence speaks for itself. We were right, weren’t we?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are cleaning up the mess left by the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal that reduced exports by 22%, so I will not take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman.

Draft Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important statutory instrument. At a time when the Government have imposed significant new costs and burdens on businesses via their damaging economic policies, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are pleasantly surprised to see the Minister introducing measures to seek to reduce administrative tasks for both traders and regulators. We will, however, seek reassurance from her on a few key points, especially in relation to safety.

Under the regulations, the Secretary of State will be given powers to determine which additional specimens require an import notification rather than an import permit. Can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will be guided only by scientific evidence, and will the criteria used for making such a decision be published? Is she confident that the Secretary of State’s determinations will be regularly reviewed? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that any specimens deemed to be low risk initially but later flagged as high risk are identified to ensure swift action?

When consulting on the changes, it was found that businesses and trade groups viewed article 10 certificates as burdensome and unnecessary under CITES, favouring self-certification and use of export or re-export permits to reduce costs and duplication. In contrast, conservation NGOs and enforcement agencies supported retaining the current system to ensure traceability, prevent illegal trade and uphold environmental commitments. There was, however, broad support for proportionate regulation, so there is a balance to be struck.

Will the Minister assure the Committee that this SI will in no way water down our strong commitments under CITES to protect endangered species? It would be good to get a clear commitment on that. The Minister in the other place was asked to provide reassurance that the Government’s ongoing sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU will not undermine the changes. Can this Minister confirm whether that is the case, or whether the Government’s negotiations might render any of the changes redundant?

What is the Government’s current position on protecting endangered species? Last year, we marked 10 years since the tragic killing of Cecil the lion, a moment that caught the world’s attention, ignited global outrage and inspired the campaign to ban the import of hunting trophies into the UK, but despite the outcry, the global trophy hunting industry has continued unabated. Sadly, Cecil’s story was not unique, and every year trophy hunters kill tens of thousands precious and majestic animals around the world. Trophy hunting is a barbaric and outdated practice that should be consigned to the history books. Those majestic animals should be shot only with cameras, not lethal weapons. The King’s Speech made no reference to animal welfare and no reference to action to protect endangered species. When will the Government act to end the importation of hunting trophies?

Here in the UK we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am also proud of the work the Conservatives did on animal welfare in government, 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; banning the keeping of primates as pets; passing the Pet Abduction Act 2024; increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; 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. I was delighted to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated and drafted Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 and to support again the passage of the Conservative-initiated and drafted Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury.

We are talking about the importation of products and things that can compromise the biosecurity of the United Kingdom, so it is key that the Government keep a watching brief on this. In that spirit, I put on the record my thanks to all those involved in supporting the UK’s biosecurity standards. The UK’s CITES regime is administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs through the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which the Minister cited, with advice from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and is delivered by Border Force and the police. Those bodies are all fighting on the frontlines to keep our nation safe and our biosecurity firing on all cylinders.

The UK sees ever-rising risk from biosecurity threats, amid the advance of foot and mouth disease and African swine fever across Europe, on top of avian influenza, bluetongue virus and tuberculosis, which are already in the United Kingdom. We are all deeply indebted to the staff who keep our country safe. I again stress the importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and thank its staff for all that they do. Although we should always look to introduce efficiencies, which is what this SI is about, we must do so safely. Ensuring that we have safe, robust systems that are kept under review must be a priority for the Government. The case for that has never been more urgent.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important points and for contributing to the debate. I say “citeez” and he says “cites”—let’s call the whole thing off. We will have to agree to differ on the pronunciation, but I will respond on to the important work that he cited. He rightly paid tribute to Border Force and Customs and Excise officials involved in the operations to track down and detect illegal wildlife trade. Members in all parts of the House are in passionate agreement on wanting to eradicate that trade.

The other day, I had the privilege of seeing the Animal and Plant Health Agency exhibit at the Chelsea flower show. Last year, it discussed the Colorado potato beetle, which thankfully has now been eradicated. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the biosecurity risk: if such animals got in—for instance, if somebody brought a brightly coloured beetle back from America and it suddenly hit the potato crop—we would be in a world of trouble. This year, APHA had a sniffer dog who was trained to help by sniffing out infected and diseased wood; later that day, the dog had the privilege of meeting His Majesty the King. World-leading science is going on in our Animal and Plant Health Agency.

I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the role his party played in banning keeping primates as pets. I was heading up to Manchester on an Avanti West Coast train when an animal, which turned out to be a spider monkey, escaped from its holder. Sadly, the wi-fi on the train was quite shonky, but I was pretty certain that it was illegal to have a monkey as a pet. It was being kept in a transparent cat carrier, and by the time we got to Manchester, I was feeling like saying, “See it, say it, sorted—there’s a monkey on the train.” My first thought was, “Does it have rabies? I don’t want to be bitten,” and my second was, “I’m pretty certain that this animal is not being kept in an enclosure that is suitable for its needs,” so I reported it to the British Transport Police. I also took a photo of the person who had the monkey, but given that, when asked by somebody on the train, he said that he had gotten it off a bloke at a market, I felt pretty certain that there was no CITES certificate for the monkey and that it had been brought into the country illegally. There is a point about legislation, about enforcement and about what you actually do when you see a monkey on the train.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the new deal for the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and CITES controls. CITES is not currently in the scope of the SPS agreement negotiations. The CITES convention allows for the waiving of controls only where a comprehensive customs union agreement, such as the EU customs union, is in place, so any SPS agreement would not provide a sufficient basis for the waiving of CITES controls between the UK and the EU. However, the reforms in the statutory instrument seek to reduce the burden of CITES controls for movement to and from the UK. Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the border and the police enforce them inland. The amendments in the statutory instrument will support their efforts by introducing civil sanctions and other changes, giving them a greater range of tools to help the targeting of efforts to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the article 10 regime. We have taken a deliberately targeted and risk-based approach to article 10 certificates. We have not removed the framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering. We have simplified requirements in a very small number of low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit, or where there is duplicate paperwork. Those changes do not weaken protections. They apply only in a very small number of low-risk circumstances, and strong controls remain firmly in place for higher risk species and activities. We will keep that under review and consider further changes where they are supported by the scientific evidence.

On the import of annex B, we have taken a targeted and risk-based approach on those import permits as well. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling higher-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited, low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or duplicate paperwork. Import permits remain firmly in place for higher-risk species and activities, and core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply.

A low-risk list will be developed and kept under review based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence. All annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, and the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight so that we can respond to changes in risk.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is talking about low risk and high risk, and I welcome her comments. Can she give categoric reassurances that the Department and all the enforcement agencies can actually flip to make sure that we can clamp down and change and classify something as high risk if it was classified as low risk initially but subsequent evidence then shows that it has become a higher risk? It needs to be dynamic. Can the Minister assure us of that?

[Mary Creagh]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. One of the things that we are currently discussing in CITES is the classification of funga. I know the hon. Gentleman is a fun guy—that is my attempt at a joke. I better not do that again.

South East Water: Disruption of Supply

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). I thank the Minister for her approach and engagement on this vital issue.

It is deeply regrettable that we are here yet again with unacceptable outages from South East Water following the events back in December and January. The shortage of water supply in Kent in these hot conditions has had a terrible impact on local communities: homes have been without water supply; schools and businesses have been impacted; farmers and horse owners, again, feared not having enough water for their livestock; and local residents have lost confidence in their water supply and are switching to bottled water. That is simply outrageous.

These repeated failures from South East Water are simply not good enough. We have heard repeated accounts about poor communication and logistics from South East Water, including difficulties in accessibility to collect bottled water, compromising vulnerable residents. Can the Minister please provide guidance on what is being done to ensure that, moving forward, people can reliably access adequate supply, particularly vulnerable households? What is being done to ensure that vital healthcare delivery can continue uninterrupted? In these hot conditions, what measures can be put in place so that farmers and horse owners have enough water for their livestock? What meetings has the Minister had with South East Water, Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, local resilience fora and affected councils since this latest disruption?

We have seen resignations at the top of South East Water, but we are yet to see any change in performance. What enforcement action is being considered against South East Water if it is found again to have failed its statutory duties? What investment has South East Water committed to improve resilience in Kent, Sussex and other areas, and how will Ministers ensure that it is delivered? Do the Government accept that repeated water outages are unacceptable, and what steps will Ministers take to support people in South East Water’s area so that they do not face yet another period of interrupted supply?

[Emma Hardy]

Access to water for livestock was raised with me after the last outage—I think by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). This time, South East Water did make deliveries of alternative water to farms across the region during the incident—or that is what I have been informed, but if there is intelligence otherwise, I am keen to learn about that and to understand. South East Water has said that it continues to monitor farms in at-risk areas.

The issue of vulnerable customers continues to be a challenge. I have been talking to the Cabinet Office about whether there are ways to share more accurate information and data. The water companies say that it is challenging to keep a priority register up to date because people sometimes fall in and out of being classified as “vulnerable”. For example, a lady who is pregnant is classified as being vulnerable and needing water, but after she has had the baby, she is no longer classified as vulnerable in the same way. We need to ensure that we can maintain accurate records of who is vulnerable and in need of additional water, so I am having conversations with the Cabinet Office about whether there are ways of sharing data, while bearing in mind the sensitivities and complications of sharing information. I ask all colleagues to encourage their constituents to self-identify through the priority services register if they are classified as “vulnerable”, so that they can access water as they expect.

I met the interim chair of South East Water, and we had a productive conversation. She is keen to reset relationships, and she wants to meet MPs who represent constituencies in the area and talk to them. She is committed to rebuilding the relationship with the local resilience forum and looking at how the company can improve communications. To be fair to her, she has been in post for only a few weeks, so this incident has happened very early in her interim chairship, but there are things that we can work on and build on. There are things that the company can do now around communications and I am concerned by what the hon. Gentleman says about accessibility problems at drinking-water stations.

The hon. Gentleman asked about who I have met. I have met the new interim chair and the senior people involved. I regularly meet the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Ofwat. There are currently live investigations into the company following the last incident and those will continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber.

As the Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, I recognise the importance of biodiversity and protecting our environment. Epping Forest, the heart and lungs of north-east London and our part of Essex, hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran trees, and has a wonderful mix of ancient woodland, open grassland plains, heathland and wetland habitats. It hosts 10 bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 1,500 fungal species and 28 butterfly species. However, it is sadly affected by actions, including fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour, that can significantly impact wildlife and nature. I urge the Minister to work closely with the Home Office to help to tackle, deter and prevent such rural and semi-rural crimes.

Epping Forest is not immune to the Government’s intrusion into the green belt with centralised housing planning and excessive solar development, which harm our biodiversity, food security, and the communities that depend on it for leisure, sports and access to local environments. This is not the answer. The Government must work to build on brownfield first and protect nature and biodiversity.

The previous Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 established legally binding targets, including on increasing species abundance so that by 2042 it is far greater than in 2022, and at least 10% greater than in 2032, and on restoring or creating more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. It also set the framework for local nature recovery strategies, seeking to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, map the most valuable existing natural areas, and create or improve habitats and meet wider environmental goals. All local authorities should have published their strategy before the end of last year, but some have not. Will the Minister update us on when all the strategies will be published?

Our Conservative environmental improvement plan built on that Act. It committed to protect 30% of our land and sea by 2030, supporting the COP15 global target to protect 30% of global land and ocean that we agreed. We also announced the species survival fund—£25 million of funding specifically to protect our rarest species, from red squirrels to water voles. In farming, we provided the innovative farming in protected landscapes funding, which helps biodiversity and nature restoration. The previous Conservative Government laid the foundations. The current Government must continue that work in earnest.

The recent Government report “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security” highlights the danger of inaction and raises serious questions about the UK’s preparedness if action is not taken or is not successful. I hope that Ministers will take the report very seriously and consider how some of the Government’s actions, such as the family farm tax, have pressured food production and supply.

Habitat loss and ecosystem collapse are also threatening countries and their resilience across the world. It is extreme folly for the UK Labour Government to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius and charge UK taxpayers £35 billion in the process, for the British Indian Ocean Territory is home to one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on Earth. Mauritius does not have the record to maintain these high conservation standards. In the 2024 environmental performance index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, 83rd for marine habitat protection and 131st for marine protection stringency. Quite apart from the adverse defence implications, I am deeply concerned by the Labour Government’s wilful blindness to the fact that Mauritius does not have the record to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems.

The Government report highlights how ecosystem degradation can threaten UK national security, and we know that biodiversity and food security depend crucially on strong biosecurity. Just last week, foot and mouth disease was confirmed in Cyprus. The Government must be vigilant and not hesitate to take action. We need to act at many levels, in the UK and internationally, to protect our ecosystems for the sake of national and international security.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I declare a professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I welcome the fact that the Government have launched a consultation to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. This necessary and long-overdue reform can deliver significant benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and public health. However, I have serious concerns about DEFRA’s communications, which conflated reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act with the Competition and Markets Authority inquiry, resulting in a media narrative focused entirely on veterinary pricing. That has caused real distress across the sector among frontline vets, nurses and reception staff, impacting on morale and mental health. I have been contacted by voices from across the profession expressing their extreme alarm at this approach. Will the Government reassure us that they will work closely with key stakeholders to get this vital, much-needed legislation right? Can they guarantee that they will prioritise the parliamentary time it requires?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question and for, I think, his kind words that we were doing something that the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years. He brings great expertise to this House, but I would gently say to him that the Competition and Markets Authority’s finding that vet fees have risen at nearly twice the rate of inflation is something that the Government should take into account, is of concern to pet owners across the House and across the country, and is something that, when the CMA comes out with its final report, we will be responding to later this year.

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.

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.