Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The autumn Budget put family farms in jeopardy. Those farms also need biosecurity to protect their futures. With avian influenza spreading, bluetongue still with us and African swine fever at our doorstep in Europe, biosecurity is national security. Central to that is the Animal and Plant Health Agency, whose headquarters in Weybridge needs a £2.8 billion redevelopment to protect farming and animal, plant and public health. The Conservative Government rightly started that work with £1.2 billion committed in 2020. I note that Labour has committed £200 million to support that transformation, but that will not touch the sides. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will complete the project in full, as the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs called for in opposition, and commit the remaining £1.4 billion to protect our nation’s biosecurity and prevent an animal disease outbreak catastrophe?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who raises an important point. However, I find it a little ironic that Conservative Members are calling for this Government to commit to spending that their Government never committed to. The Weybridge biosecurity facility is so dilapidated that it faces obsolescence by the early 2030s—that is the legacy that the Conservatives left. The £208 million that we have committed will start the process of improving those facilities, and through the spending review phase coming forward, we will consider how we can commit further funding to ensure biosecurity for farmers, which the Conservatives absolutely failed to do.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Neil Hudson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to wind up for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in what has been a comprehensive debate tonight. I want to thank all Members, who have made so many interesting points across the House about many different aspects of policy.

The hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about water supply issues and when companies fail to deliver on their duties. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the fantastic Wave Project helping young people with their mental health in her constituency. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) raved about the magnificent Severn, and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) waxed lyrical about her local birdlife.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) talked about the importance of monitoring and of a holistic approach to water management, as was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) talked about the importance of fit-for-purpose water infrastructure for new developments. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) eloquently articulated the issues with our Victorian sewage network and about the importance of the water restoration fund. My hon. Friends the Members for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin) are proud advocates for standing up for water quality for their constituents.

As for those in the party sitting to my left, the Lib Dems seem to airbrush themselves out of Government history and seem to forget that they were in coalition Government for some five years. May I gently remind the Liberal Democrats that they actually had a Water Minister in that coalition Government who did absolutely nothing on this issue when they were in power? They pivot and posture as the party of protest, jumping on their stand-up paddleboard bandwagon, but far from being concerned about water quality and safety, they appear more than happy to strap on their wetsuits and dive headfirst under the water.

The amendments to the Environment Bill in the last Parliament that Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted for would actually have cost in excess of £300 billion to rebuild the entire Victorian sewage and drainage systems. That was completely unaffordable, and it would have put up taxpayers’ water bills by hundreds of pounds each year. They did not tell the public that when they cast their smears on Conservative MPs and peers who voted for sensible, costed plans to realistically address the sewage situation, but they never let the truth get in the way of stand-up paddleboard bandwagons.

Water quality and how sewage is dealt with are of vital importance to all our constituents right across the House, and we on this side—the Conservatives—are proud that we were the party that began the process of addressing this while in government. What we can now see with this new Labour Government is an attempt to copy and paste many of our Conservative achievements and plans, rebadging them as their own. It is an interesting approach and a recurrent theme. They opposed and blocked all of our plans when in opposition, and now they are scrabbling around and trying to say that they agreed with our plans all along. In fact, just look what the Government have been saying this week about the Conservative-delivered comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which Labour now thinks is the best thing since sliced bread, having distanced themselves from it when they were in opposition. That is the theme of this new Government.

The Labour manifesto promised to put failing water companies under special measures to clean up water and clean up our rivers that have been polluted by illegal sewage dumping. Now it is Labour Members’ turn in government to deliver on these promises to ensure that these are not more broken promises, such as their heartless family farm tax, which they promised they would not do and then cruelly went on to do, or their promise not to raise national insurance.

I note that we would not be talking about this issue today, or we would be talking about a worse situation, had it not been for the previous Conservative Government being the first to investigate the problem, grasp the nettle and meet the ambitious pledge to ensure that 100% of storm overflows are monitored, so that we could get accurate data on what is being put into our waterways. Without that, we would need to do far more groundwork to start determining what we need to do. We must remember that the last time Labour was in charge of DEFRA in England, when it left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored, compared with 100% when the Conservatives left office. It was left for us to sort and improve monitoring, so that we can have an accurate view of what is happening—an evidence base for policy making, rather than poking around in the dark under Labour.

I really hope that Labour does not break its promises to improve water quality in England, because the story in Labour-run Wales is sub-optimal to say the least. In 2022, the average number of spills from storm overflows was two thirds higher in Labour-run Wales than in England—not exactly the best blueprint for government that Labour at Westminster said it would emulate. Some 92% of English bathing waters meet water quality standards, but that still needs to be higher and we look forward to the new Government detailing their plans to achieve better results.

We have heard from many Members about Thames Water, which is a notable, critical issue at this moment, but so far Labour has failed to come up with a clear plan for how it will address that and protect both the bill payer and the broader taxpayer. The Labour Government are promising to review the water system, with more reviews and more reboots, but what they should be doing is rolling their sleeves up and continuing the progress that the Conservatives started. That progress includes our landmark Environment Act 2021, delivering our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account; our work on measuring storm overflows; our ambitious “Plan for Water”; and strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters—we have heard a lot about that tonight. That has included quadrupling water company inspections, meaning a pathway to 4,000 inspections a year by April 2025, and 10,000 a year from April 2026. That was part of our plan to crack down on poor-performing water companies.

We banned bonuses for the bosses of water companies that have committed criminal breaches, so that polluting our waters is not rewarded—a Conservative measure that this Bill copies. We also fast-tracked £180 million of investment from water companies to prevent more than 8,000 sewage spills this year, and stepped up requirements on water companies to increase investment in water infrastructure, with a commitment upwards of £60 billion over the next 25 years. We put pressure on those companies. We also prosecuted water companies that illegally pollute our rivers, making it clear that polluters must pay for damage to our natural environment. We tried to give more teeth to the regulator, Ofwat, and to the enforcer, the Environment Agency.

Let me touch briefly on the Bill’s passage in the other place. Our colleagues there tabled amendments to the Bill that we are happy were accepted, but we were disappointed that amendment 51, tabled by Lord Roborough, did not pass. It would have stopped customers across the country having their bills increased in the event of a water company being put into special measures. Under the current Bill, if a company in one part of the country is placed in special measures and costs are incurred, consumers in the rest of the country may still be liable to pay for it, despite not using the company that has been placed in special measures. The amendment would have provided a significant improvement to the Bill, and in Committee we will be asking Labour to think carefully about amendments to improve the legislation. It was disappointing that when the Labour Minister in the other place was asked about amendment 51, she failed to commit to protecting consumers from higher bills if a water company goes under.

Our Conservative colleagues in the other place also worked hard to bolster important nature-based solutions, and we are glad that the Government listened to them. We will look to strengthen that, along with the important role of the Water Restoration Fund.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support this Bill on Second Reading, and we will look to improve it in Committee, as our Conservative colleagues did in the other place. We will scrutinise the Bill as it goes through the rest of the legislative process, to ensure that it can be the best for all our constituents right across the House. This Bill must function in the way that the British public expect, to continue the work to clean up our British waters. The strong action that began under the Conservatives to improve our waters needs to be upheld by this new Labour Government.

Biosecurity

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and to have the opportunity to contribute to this vital debate on biosecurity. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on bringing the topic to the Chamber. Of the B-words that I have mentioned in this place over the last five years, biosecurity is right at the top. It is something that I am absolutely passionate about. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in the topic as a veterinary surgeon.

There have been great speeches today on this important topic. The hon. Member for South Norfolk touched on the important issues of blue tongue, avian influenza, African swine fever, and the vital importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. He also touched on virus yellows and the significance of the topic for animal, plant and tree health across the United Kingdom. It is so important, so I thank the hon. Member again for introducing this debate.

I am gutted that I did not get a chance to intervene on my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked about the importance of biosecurity and joined-up thinking right across our precious United Kingdom. He made a powerful intervention on the impact of bovine TB on farmers, speaking of how distressing and devastating it is when there is a positive reactor. I am going to touch on the mental-health impacts of biosecurity breakdowns.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who is the chair of the UK food security APPG, again talked about the importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and the people within that great institution working on the frontline to keep the United Kingdom safe. He stressed the importance of more support for the APHA, which I will touch on firmly and robustly with the Minister in due course. The hon. Member highlighted, as Members across the Chamber have done, the distressing and alarming situation of illegal meat imports coming into the country and the risks that African swine fever and foot and mouth disease may bring to our agricultural sectors.

The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) has personal experience of being on the frontline in his constituency. He spoke of the pivotal risks to both the poultry and pig sectors if those diseases come in. Some of the diseases, such as avian influenza, are here, as we have heard, but heaven forbid we get African swine fever. It would be devastating and catastrophic for this country.

I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for championing the veterinary sector. She cited the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on which I served during the last Parliament. I chaired the emergency session on veterinary medicine when we heard powerful evidence from the chief veterinary officer, Christine Middlemiss. I take the opportunity—shamelessly—to give a big shout- out to people like Christine Middlemiss, as well as the chief vets right across our precious United Kingdom. The joined-up thinking of those veterinary experts working together to keep our nation safe is important, and we must champion and support them.

I want to state firmly that biosecurity is national security. What we are here to discuss today is not a niche concern but something that is vital for human public health, food security, protecting our precious environment, and upholding animal health and welfare. The priority for the Government must be to shore up the nation’s biosecurity or risk the grim consequences of an animal disease outbreak, which could ravage wild and kept animal or bird populations, and doing untold damage to our economy and international trade standing.

My journey to Parliament, as the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884, started in 2001, when I spent a period as a veterinary inspector on the frontline of the foot and mouth outbreak. I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime. The mass culls that devastated our rural communities showed the horrific reality of what can happen when Government gets biosecurity policy wrong. I gently but robustly say to the Minister that that remains an ever-present warning to Ministers of any political party. We must never forget, we must be vigilant and we must stand prepared.

In 2001, previously bustling farms and fields were left empty, and even the hardiest of stoic farmers could not contain their grief. One memory I cannot shake off came after we worked through the night, with logistical support from the Army, to cull an entire herd of cattle, including the calves. In the morning, the farmer and his wife invited my veterinary colleague and me into their home for breakfast. He said to me, “Do you know, Neil, this is the first time of a morning that the only thing I can hear on my farm is complete silence.”

Beyond the personal tragedies and the 6 million animals culled, the outbreak was estimated to have directly cost the public sector more than £5 billion and the private sector £8.7 billion in today’s prices when adjusted for inflation. Tragically, we saw lives, livelihoods and community mental health impacted.

Fast-forward 20 years, and the UK now faces a significant threat from diseases, as we have heard today, such as bluetongue virus, avian influenza and—heaven forbid, if it crosses from the continent—African swine fever. As we have heard today, we still have the chronic presence of bovine tuberculosis. This year, we have seen cases of bluetongue across the UK, stretching from Cornwall to North Yorkshire, and Anglesey to East Anglia. In recent weeks, we have seen new outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza strains, including in Cornwall and Yorkshire. We also have the ever-present threat of African swine fever, which is advancing across Europe and now present in many countries, including Germany, Italy and Poland, to name just a few of the countries that are facing that virus. As we have heard, we have seen alarming levels of illegal meat imports being detected.

During the 2022-23 avian influenza outbreak, 5.4 million birds died or were culled, and were then disposed of for disease-control purposes. Distressingly, huge numbers of wild birds also died. That is worrying not purely for birdlife but for other species, including humans. Avian influenza has been reported in the US in dairy cattle, and in South America in marine mammals. We all know the dangers of diseases that cross the species barriers, including zoonotic diseases, which move from animals to people.

I return to the subject of bluetongue, which is spread by midges. Between November 2023 and May 2024, there were 126 identified cases of bluetongue virus serotype 3—BTV 3—in England. As of 25 November this year, 168 cases have been identified. The Minister has previously confirmed that bluetongue is

“challenging to control without vaccination”,

so will he assure the House that the Government are increasing work on vaccine manufacturing and procurement, for ultimate delivery and roll-out?

The European Commission has published figures detailing cases of African swine fever in more than 20 nations across the continent this calendar year. Although we remain incredibly fortunate to have avoided cases in the UK, we must remain vigilant; otherwise, there is a risk that that highly infectious disease will cause catastrophe for our pig sector. The need for vigilance was underlined by a recent freedom of information request by the BBC, which showed that Border Force seized 70,000 kg of illegal, and therefore unregulated, meat in the 2023-24 financial year, up from 35,000 kg the year before.

The Minister has updated us about the border target operating model. Will he update us on its capacity to keep us safe from diseases such as African swine fever and foot and mouth disease? We know that checks will be starting at Sevington, 22 miles inland from Dover. Will the Minister reassure us that we will still be able to carry out random spot checks within the port of Dover itself? It is important that the unscrupulous and immoral people who are trying to smuggle in foodstuffs that could potentially devastate our farming and food sectors know they can be targeted with checks.

Live animal imports to this country can also pose a risk to animal and human health. There have been reports of Brucella canis, a disease in dogs that we have not heard about today, which sadly has limited treatment options and which in many cases ends up with the dog being euthanised. There were no cases in 2019 but 187 in 2023. It is a zoonotic disease, which means that it can transfer from animals to people, and there have been reports of dog-to-human transmission in the UK. It is therefore vital that the Government look at pre-import health testing of animals such as dogs coming in from countries in which diseases such as Brucella canis are endemic. On Friday, I was on the Front Bench supporting the puppy-smuggling Bill—the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill—which is now going into Committee. I urge the Government to look closely at the possibility of introducing pre-import checks to keep animals that are coming in safe, and to protect human and animal health in this country.

I hope the dangers of the infectious agents that I and others have talked about today are taken seriously. We cannot afford to be complacent about the risks that threaten not just animal but human health, as well as our economy, our trading links and standards, and the wider agricultural sector. To put it simply, if a major outbreak were to occur and we were not fully prepared to deal with it, the consequences would be catastrophic.

The Government, of whatever colour, must protect our nation’s biosecurity. To do that, they must fully back the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is in urgent need of support, as we have heard. I pay tribute to the veterinary professionals, animal officers, scientists and officials at the APHA, who do so much to keep our country biosecure. The APHA’s Weybridge site in Surrey is the UK’s primary capability for animal health science. In the previous Parliament, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and we strongly called for the redevelopment of the APHA’s Weybridge facilities. A 2022 report by the National Audit Office outlined that the APHA’s HQ needed a complete redevelopment, and I guested on the Public Accounts Committee when we looked at that report.

The site needs an estimated £2.8 billion redevelopment; otherwise, we risk being left unprotected against a major animal disease outbreak or, as we have heard today, if we face simultaneous outbreaks of different diseases. The APHA is hanging on by its fingertips, and if it is challenged with multiple cases, we could have a catastrophe. It is therefore vital that the Government—and I look again at the Minister—invest fully in the APHA to ensure that it maintains state-of-the-art facilities that can identify, respond to and manage emerging risks.

The previous Conservative Government rightly initiated plans, with a £1.2 billion commitment in 2020, so that work could begin, but that must now be followed up by necessary further capital investment as a matter of urgency. I note that in the Budget the new Government have committed £208 million to support Weybridge’s transformation—I am sure the Minister will cite that today. But they need to go much, much further, because that does not touch the sides. I therefore urge the Minister to make the case to Treasury colleagues for the site to be funded in full, and for the remaining £1.4 billion to be committed. I repeat: biosecurity is national security. Without the full funding, the APHA’s ability to respond to simultaneous infectious disease outbreaks will be severely limited, and we may have a national security disaster.

I ask the Minister to please relay this message to his counterparts at the Treasury: investing in the redevelopment of the APHA headquarters is an investment in our nation’s biosecurity, our national security, our economy and the lives and livelihoods of generations to come. Before the general election, many Labour Members, including the Minister himself, called for this funding and for the full redevelopment. I now urge Ministers to put their money where their mouth is and urgently safeguard our biosecurity. If the Treasury will not deliver it through the DEFRA budget, I would urge it to consider delivering it through the Contingencies Fund. I repeat: biosecurity is national security—it needs to be paid for.

I want to come back to farming. We need to support our farming communities when adversity strikes, such as acute disease outbreaks or extreme weather events. Where something is more chronic, as the hon. Member for Strangford said—such as when farms get a positive result during regular bovine TB testing—we need to make sure that the mental health of farmers, vets and everyone else is supported. I again cite the EFRA Committee, which in the last Parliament produced a report on rural mental health that looked at these issues very closely.

The pressures on our farmers’ mental health are increasing day by day, with extreme weather events, animal disease outbreaks and financial pressures. The issue is now more important than ever, with the increased pressures that this Labour Government are unnecessarily putting on farming communities with—I have to say it—their incredibly ill-judged and heartless family farm tax. I look to the Minister and say, “Please reconsider.” Today we are holding a debate in the main Chamber on this heartless tax, and I hope that every Member in this Chamber, including Labour Members, and their colleagues, will vote for their farmers and their rural communities. That will send a strong message to the Government that they have got this wrong, and that they need to reverse this heartless, awful family farm tax.

We have talked about mental health today, and I am keen for the Minister to reiterate what support the Government will give to the mental health of farmers and others in rural communities, who face infectious disease outbreaks when biosecurity breaks down, as well as extreme weather events, and financial stress and pressure. On that point, I want to mention the tremendous work of charities up and down the land in support of the mental health of our farming communities. They include YANA—Opposition Members will know it well, and I met it recently to discuss its outreach coming over into Essex from Suffolk and Norfolk—as well as RABI, Farmerados, the Farming Community Network, Yellow Wellies, Vetlife and many others. I say a deep and sincere thank you to them.

In conclusion—I am being repetitive, but I think it is worth it—biosecurity is national security. Compromised biosecurity affects everything from animal health and public health to the price of food, trade, our position on the world stage and our precious environment. The covid pandemic sent us a clear message that some infectious diseases do not respect borders or species barriers. We ignore that at our peril. I urge the Government from the bottom of my heart to fully fund the APHA HQ redevelopment, to make sure that the burning pyres of slaughtered animals, and the economic and mental health devastation of foot and mouth, remain resolutely confined to the history books.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), not just for securing this important debate—and for winning South Norfolk, which is very precious to me—but for his continued commitment to championing our agriculture sector. East Anglia is a crucial part of the UK’s livestock and, in particular, arable sectors and provides quality produce that underpins our nation’s food security and is in demand across Europe and beyond.

We have had a thoughtful and sensible discussion this morning. Let me start by reiterating the Government’s total commitment to all those who work in the agriculture and horticulture sectors, and all those beyond. They are on the frontline, not only producing our food but protecting our national biosecurity. I was struck by the passionate interventions by all speakers this morning. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talking about the impact that bovine TB has on people. I was struck by the account that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) gave of walking through Thetford and seeing the dead birds after the avian influenza outbreak. Of course, I could not help but be struck by the way my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) summed up biosecurity as being like a Yorkshire wall—solid, well-built and designed to keep out things we do not want here. I paraphrase, but he gave a very good account of what we are trying to achieve.

I also listened closely to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). I do not think anyone could have failed to be moved by his powerful personal account of the foot and mouth outbreak, and I echo his warm words for those in our Government Departments, such as the chief vet, Christine Middlemiss, for the work they do. I think there is actually a lot of agreement in the Chamber this morning about the importance of the issue and our support for those working on it.

Biosecurity is vital. It underpins safe food, protects animal and plant health, and supports a prosperous economy and trade. It is a joint endeavour: Government, animal keepers, horticulturists and the public must do everything we can collectively to keep disease out. As we have heard from Members this morning, the costs are significant. Plant diseases alone are estimated to cost the global economy over $220 billion annually, and up to 40% of global crop production is lost to pests each year. Those are huge numbers, and are sadly unlikely to reduce as climate change drives the geographic expansion and the host range of pests and diseases. Healthy plants and animals are not just an important tool in the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss, but contribute directly to many of the UN’s sustainable development goals—in particular, ending hunger, achieving food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture.

Pests and diseases know no borders. New and emerging threats are often the result of trade and globalisation, and are then further exacerbated by climate change. Safe trade is essential to food security in a thriving economy. We want healthy trade to support food security and the economy, but at the same time we need to protect ourselves from risks. That is why DEFRA is a key delivery Department of the UK biological security strategy, which takes a UK-wide approach that strengthens deterrence and resilience, projects global leadership and exploits opportunities for UK prosperity. In parallel, the environmental improvement plan sets out how we will improve our environment at home and abroad, including through enhancing biosecurity. I can assure the House that we have in place robust measures to maintain and improve our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond and recover from outbreaks that affect animals and that affect plants.

One of our first defences is to understand the threats and monitor the risks, which we do through established expert groups, the veterinary risk group, the human animal infections and risk surveillance group, and the plant health risk group. Our programmes of research support the expert groups. For example, for plant health, DEFRA has invested more than £8 million into ash dieback research, including the world’s largest screening trials for resistant trees, the Living Ash Project, while for animal health, DEFRA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council are funding £6.5 million of research projects to better forecast, understand, mitigate and avoid vector-borne diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks.

Our second line of defence is detection through strong surveillance systems. Our network of official laboratories, veterinary investigators, border inspectors and bee, fish, and plant inspectors all contribute to the early warning detections for signs of disease or antimicrobial resistance.

Thirdly, prevention is key. As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure, so this Government will take action to prevent pests and diseases from arriving in the first place. Preventing an outbreak of African swine fever in the UK, for example, remains one of our key biosecurity priorities. Although, as has rightly been said, we have not had an outbreak of ASF in the UK, the overall risk of an incursion is currently assessed to be medium. We continue to prepare for a possible outbreak.

To help prevent ASF incursions in the UK, robust safeguards are in place, prohibiting live pigs, wild boar, or pork products from affected European Union areas from entering Great Britain. Enforcement is carried out by Border Force and Port Health Authority officers at seaports and airports. Under the enhanced safeguard measures introduced in the autumn—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for referencing them—travellers are no longer allowed to bring pork products into Great Britain unless they are produced and packaged to the EU’s commercial standards and weigh no more than 2 kg. DEFRA and its agencies continuously review the spread of ASF and other diseases, and are ready to introduce further biosecurity restrictions, should they be deemed necessary, in response to new scientific and risk data.

Our fourth line of defence is our response capability. Our disease contingency plans and underpinning legislation are regularly reviewed to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, and that we have the necessary capacity and capability to respond. We exercise our plans regularly and work closely with stakeholders on their own preparedness.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is turning to the contingency plans, so let me take us back to African swine fever, as he has not really touched on my question in that regard. Will there be the capability to have random spot checks within the port of Dover itself? We know that the inland centre will be up and running, but it is so important that unscrupulous people coming in know that they could be targeted within the port, so that these illegal meat imports can be snapped out.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We are working closely with the Port Health Authority to make sure that everything that needs to be done can be done.

As I was saying, we exercise our plans regularly and work closely with stakeholders on their preparedness. The ongoing response to bluetongue and highly pathogenic avian influenza are cases in point. Officials from across the UK are working closely with sector representatives on the implementation of control measures.

Early identification was crucial in enabling a rapid response to the bluetongue outbreak. DEFRA provided free pre-movement testing to animal keepers in counties at the highest risk of incursion from infected biting midges originating from the continent. A restriction zone covering the counties affected by bluetongue has been established. That measure has been carefully considered to protect the free area from disease spread while allowing the free movement of animals in the zone, keeping business disruption to a minimum. On the question asked by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, permitted use of the BTV-3 vaccine is available, and I am told that just over 14,500 animals have been vaccinated so far.

To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, I am aware of reports that some meat processors may have taken unfair advantage of the bluetongue outbreak to reduce prices. That is dreadful; I do not condone that behaviour at all, not least since bluetongue does not affect the meat. My understanding is that it is not a widespread issue, and that prices paid to farmers for beef and sheep continue to be stable and at five-year highs. That is a good example of why this Government consider fairness in the supply chain to be critical for farmers across all sectors. I also reassure hon. Members that the bluetongue virus is not a public health threat and does not affect people or food safety. While no sick animal should enter the food chain, meat and milk from infected animals is safe to eat and drink.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of virus yellows. A lot of work is going on with British Sugar, particularly at the John Innes Centre, which is just outside Norwich; I understand that there is a project involving the biotech company Tropic. I have stood in fields and looked at sugar beet suffering to varying degrees from yellows. Our proposals on genetic engineering may provide a solution in future, but in the shorter term some new innovations are being looked at. Those should give us better ways of tackling this disease, which is serious, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said—particularly for our region in the east of England.

On plant health in general, joint working with the horticultural sector takes place with the Royal Horticultural Society and the Horticultural Trades Association through the plant health accord, the tree health policy group and plant health advisory forum, and the Plant Health Alliance, which leads the plant healthy certification scheme.

As I have said, biosecurity has to be a shared endeavour. The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and we are working with the European Union to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit. We have been clear that a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could boost trade and deliver significant benefits to the European Union and the United Kingdom, but delivering new agreements will take time. It is important that we get the right agreement, meet our international obligations, and protect the UK’s biosecurity and public health throughout the process.

Furthermore, maintaining our high standards requires constant investment. The hon. Member for Epping Forest made a powerful case about the Animal and Plant Health Agency at Weybridge. This Government are not in the business of making unfunded commitments, but we have announced £208 million for the next phase of the redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s Weybridge laboratory. I echo the powerful praise from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for Jenny Stewart and her staff—we should thank all those, right across the piece, who work on our behalf.

We believe that the £208 million investment will help to safeguard and enhance the UK’s capability to respond to the threat from animal and plant diseases, help to protect public health, and underpin the UK’s trade capability with animal export products, which are worth £16 billion per year to the UK economy. The APHA is also looking to grow its external income streams over the coming years to support the delivery of key services, recognising the efficiencies that we all need to deliver in these challenging times.

I have talked about bluetongue, so let me turn to the threat to our poultry sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I have a lot of respect for the Minister and I like him a lot as a person, too. I will ask a question about the APHA before he moves on from it. I acknowledge that the Government have put forward £208 million. The previous Government committed £1.2 billion. The APHA still needs £1.4 billion. I know that he cannot make Treasury commitments on behalf of the Chancellor, but please can he give assurances that DEFRA will keep making representations to the Treasury that the refurbishment we have discussed needs to be undertaken in full? The £208 million is a start to help with the transformation, but more money needs to be committed for national security. Please will he and his DEFRA colleagues make that case to Treasury? If the money cannot come from the DEFRA budget, it can come from the Contingencies Fund.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear and respect the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I gently point out to him that the country is in an economic mess and we can only spend the money that we have. That point will be reiterated in debate after debate. Every part of our rural economy, indeed every part of our country, needs a sound economic basis upon which to proceed. The previous Government did not take that view, but we will.

In response to the detection of two new cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry in England this autumn, DEFRA and the APHA have stood up the well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and assist the recovery of local communities.

We are in a better place than in previous years, but there is absolutely no complacency. Hon. Members regardless of party have referred to the situation that we are in. It is too early to predict the outlook for future seasons, and risk levels may increase further this winter; obviously, we hope that they do not. However, this situation is associated with the migratory pattern of wild waterfowl and the environmental conditions becoming more favourable, sadly, for virus survival. As I have said, I was very taken by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk about the impact on the wild bird population as well as on our kept birds.

So, we continue to monitor closely the avian influenza outbreak and any effects it might have on bird keepers, poultry producers and processors, in addition to those wild bird populations that have been mentioned, particularly those of conservation concern. We urge all bird keepers, whether they have pet birds, commercial flocks or just a few birds in a backyard flock, to maintain stringent biosecurity in order to protect the health and welfare of their birds.

Slaughtering of turkeys and other birds for the Christmas market has already begun and we do not currently anticipate avian influenza to have any impact on supplies. Further information on the latest situation and guidance on how keepers can protect their birds from avian influenza can be found online from Government sources.

Future of Farming

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important, forward-looking debate, and for highlighting the challenges facing our farming communities—not least their mental health.

In Parliament today, we have had the biosecurity debate in this Chamber, which I spoke in, the family farm tax debate that has just concluded, and this current debate. Three debates related to farming in one day show how important these issues are to this House, to our constituents and to the farmers who feed us and look after our precious environment.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I will not give way, I am afraid.

Hon. Members will all be aware of the ongoing situation with bluetongue virus, avian influenza, bovine TB and other diseases, of threats from outside the UK, from African swine fever to foot and mouth disease, and of the challenges that they pose to our livestock farmers, our economy and our national security. As I said this morning in this Chamber, biosecurity is national security. While I note that the Government have chosen to allocate £208 million for the transformation of the Animal and Plant Health Agency HQ in Weybridge, I urge the Minister to make representations to the Treasury to ensure that that HQ is funded in full. In 2020, the previous Government rightly committed £1.2 billion to start that off, but now we need the further full £1.4 billion to complete that critical national security measure.

It is vital that we also make use of new technologies to further build our national resilience against livestock disease, and to protect human, animal and plant health. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, brought in by the Conservative Government, will help with that, in terms of disease resistance in plants and animals, and climate-resilient crop development. Likewise, wider innovation in machinery, horticulture, farming practices and sustainability are all positive processes.

The elephant in the room today is family farm tax, and we cannot have a debate in which we do not include it.

[Sarah Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I am not going to give way, I am afraid. That tax hits at the heart of future thinking in farming, taking aim at the bond between farming parents and their sons and daughters, and punishing farming families who have worked their land for generations for acting in the best interest of their children and grandchildren, and of our country by looking after our environment and feeding our nation.

What possible incentive can there be for sustainable, thoughtful farming or for improving the productivity of a field, flock or herd when, after a farmer has passed, the farm will have to be broken up to pay that unfair inheritance tax?

There have also been, as we have heard today, worrying developments in the Government’s approach to capital grants. Those vital lifelines, which make possible the wider environmental objectives of the environmental land management schemes, have for some bizarre reason been suspended by the Labour Government, with no warning or phase-in period. Farmers want to be able to deliver food for our country in an environmentally friendly way, but that will only be possible if the Government of the day, of whatever political colour, is prepared to support them on that journey. The slashing of those grants is another hugely damaging development in relation to future impact on our farmers, which is what we are considering in this debate.

We must clear away the dark clouds of the ill-judged, short-sighted Labour Budget, in particular the heartless family farm tax, which will damage food security, hollow out rural communities and deeply impact the mental health of the people living and working in those sectors. The Government must start listening now. They must reverse this awful tax, and we must help our farmers to see some sunlight on the horizon.

In conclusion, biosecurity is national security. Food security is national security. The Government must start listening and actually look after the communities that nurture those critical factors for our country. I urge them to consider what they are doing and to do the right thing.

Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 General Committees

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the draft regulations for the Committee to scrutinise. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about them, however, because of the impact that they might have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. Although we welcome the fact that some Northern Ireland goods that qualify will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain and will not be subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls, we have some concerns regarding the rest of the so-called non-qualifying goods and the impact that the regulations will have on businesses that regularly trade across the Irish sea.

The Opposition will continue to scrutinise this secondary legislation and assess its impact. As was raised by the hon. Member for Worcester, given the temporary nature of the guidance, impact assessments will be needed on what it means for secure unfettered trade between GB and Northern Ireland.

How will the Labour Government support businesses in Northern Ireland when trading across the sea to Great Britain? What about the other way around, where businesses in England, Scotland or Wales want to do business with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade? How will the Minister monitor the impact of this secondary legislation on the trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? How will the Minister monitor its impact on businesses in Northern Ireland dealing with the regulations, and their success?

Goods from Northern Ireland must be able to make it across the sea so that businesses there are not at an unfair disadvantage. Accordingly, as we have some concerns and reservations, the Opposition will be formally abstaining on this piece of secondary legislation.

We look forward to scrutinising further, and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea, so that we all benefit across our entire United Kingdom.

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

Neil Hudson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Animal welfare unites us in humanity. As a veterinary surgeon, a Member of Parliament and the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I can proudly say that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition strongly support this Bill in the interests of animal health and welfare.

Fishing Industry

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is Chair of the EFRA Committee, on securing a debate on such an important topic for fishermen and women in our coastal communities right across the United Kingdom. Fish are one of the most valuable and powerful resources for our country; we must protect, preserve and nurture them, and support the industries that harvest them for us. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are committed to supporting our coastal communities and our fishing industries.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. There have been powerful contributions from across the United Kingdom, and there was a lot of expertise within them. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke powerfully about the negotiations, the importance of science, and the balance between economics and conservation. He also touched on the importance of safety in the industry, a point echoed by many Members.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the importance of data and monitoring, while my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who is a proud champion of her local farming and fishing communities, spoke about the issues of food security and the role fishing plays in that. She talked about spatial squeezing and the TCA negotiations and, at the end of her speech, she talked powerfully about the importance of the RNLI and how much we owe them for keeping people safe at sea.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about sustainability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), who is also a proud champion for both his farming and fishing constituents, talked powerfully about safety and danger in the fishing industry. He also talked about spatial squeezing and gave his expert analysis of the ongoing fishing negotiations, which was welcome.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the negotiations and the need for a longer-term perspective. She spoke about the importance of the processing industry, which was valuable. I was pleased that she heaped praise on the £100 million UK seafood fund, which was brought in by the Conservative Government in 2021 to support the future and the sustainability of the UK fisheries and seafood sector. I thank her for praising that Conservative policy.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about safety and echoed many of the scientific themes, and the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—with whom I served in the previous Parliament on the EFRA Committee, where we received regular briefings from DEFRA about the complexities of the fishing negotiations—talked powerfully about the importance of science and sustainability, data monitoring and the safety implications of fishing.

I will move now to the Western Isles, the name of which I am going to struggle to pronounce, so help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—

[Torcuil Crichton]

You can say the Western Isles.

[Dr Hudson]

The hon. Member spoke powerfully about safety from his unique perspective representing island and rural communities, and he talked passionately about the appeals for quotas to the Minister as well.

It is important to highlight the benefits that we can and should reap following our departure from the European Union. For our fishing industry, that departure gave us the opportunity to increase our fishing quotas, which I am pleased the last Conservative Government took advantage of. As Members will be aware, the last Government began the process of replacing the EU’s common fisheries policy, which I think we agree was flawed, with a new bespoke framework for UK fisheries.

Six fisheries management plans were consulted on, covering major species, including bass, scallop, lobster and crab. The last Government negotiated quotas of 750,000 tonnes in 2024, an 80,000 tonne increase compared with 2023 that was expected to deliver a £70 million boost for the fishing industry. Can the Minister provide clarity, for the sector and for Members present, on what the Government hope to achieve in the quotas for next year and how they will approach negotiations for 2026 and into the future?

A significant fear is that the Government will use fishing as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the EU. Can the Minister quash those rumours now and assure our fishing communities across the United Kingdom that this Government will not let them down, as they are currently doing to farmers with their policies on the family farm tax on inheritance? We would like some reassurance from the Minister on that point.

The new Government have published consultations for the next five fisheries management plans, which I welcome. Can the Minister confirm that they will remain live documents, constantly open to review, updates and improvements, to ensure that those FMPs reach their objectives?

As has been said, in December 2021, the Conservative Government allocated £100 million specifically to support the long-term future of our UK fishing sector, supporting job creation and boosting seafood exports to new markets. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government will continue with that support or provide any additional funding to benefit the long-term future of the UK fishing sector? Can the Minister also commit to publishing an impact assessment of the Government’s new labour and employment reforms, including the increase in national insurance contributions and its specific impact on the fishing industry, including the fish processing sector and coastal communities?

I am also keen to press the Minister on several issues that we encountered on the EFRA Committee in areas that I led on in certain respects. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on the Government’s position today, not least because the sector has been waiting with considerable concern following the general election, as Labour’s manifesto was pretty short on fishing—in fact, it failed to mention it at all.

Last year, in the last Parliament, the EFRA Committee published its cross-party report on marine mammals, after an inquiry that I triggered. The report highlighted the issue of bycatch, in which seals, dolphins and other sea life are tragically snarled in fishing gear. Sadly, it is estimated that more than 650,000 marine mammals die each year from being needlessly caught worldwide, including more than 1,000 cetaceans in UK waters.

The last Government consulted on the introduction of remote electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring systems utilise a range of technology, including cameras, gear sensors, GPS units and more. The last Government began to implement electronic monitoring systems in all priority fisheries, with the aim of achieving that by 2029. Those monitoring systems apply to all vessels over 10 metres in length and active within fisheries in English waters, including non-UK vessels.

Once we were satisfied that the implementation issues had been resolved for each priority fishery, the plan was to make it mandatory to have such systems installed. It was noted that there would be two years’ notice to give vessels time to adapt and for installation to take place. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do in that regard? Does that remain the plan? What are the timescales?

Marine Management Organisation rules state that fishermen and women in UK waters must self-report all cetacean bycatch within 48 hours of their fishing journey, but very few reports are submitted. According to the MMO, six marine mammals were reported by fishing vessels as bycatch injury or mortality in 2023. In stark contrast, the previous Government’s bycatch monitoring programme estimated that between 502 and 1,560 harbour porpoises, 165 to 662 common dolphins, and 375 to 872 seals—both grey and harbour—were captured as bycatch in UK fisheries in 2019. Does the Minister agree that that suggests there is significant under-reporting of cetacean and other marine mammal bycatch? Will the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to improve the monitoring, reporting and prevention of such tragic and upsetting bycatch?

I have worked closely with Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the World Cetacean Alliance, the Sussex Dolphin Project and the Blue Marine Foundation, which are great organisations that seek to make fishing safer for the marine mammals that share the seas and oceans that we harvest fish from. Will the Minister commit to working with such organisations to tackle this issue, which unites us in humanity? No one wants to see those air-breathing mammals horrifically caught up by the fishing industry.

The UK has a very important role to play as a global soft power. Like all Members, I am strongly opposed to 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 to the hunting of dolphins and encouraged its representatives to consider the many economic and social benefits that responsible cetacean watching can bring to coastal communities.

During the joint committee on trade with the Faroe Islands in 2022, Ministers raised the UK’s opposition to the continued hunting of dolphins in the Faroe Islands on animal welfare and conservation grounds. I therefore hope the Minister will confirm that the new Government will uphold the previous Government’s position and use every appropriate opportunity to advocate for the end of cetacean hunts in the Faroe Islands.

This issue sadly stretches further than the Faroe Islands. Horrifically, whaling is still practised in various countries, including Norway, Iceland and Japan. Will the Minister outline how the Government are approaching countries that still conduct whaling?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman missed out the United States of America from that list.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

What steps are the Government taking in international negotiations to stop that cruel practice? When negotiating fishing arrangements, trade deals or anything else, UK diplomats and Ministers must make the ethical case to countries that those unacceptable practices must end. Can the Minister reassure the House that the new Labour Government will continue to play their part on the world stage to end whaling once and for all?

It is important to work collaboratively with our international partners to ensure that global waters can thrive. Sustainability in fishing is pivotal to preserve these diverse ecosystems. Indeed, using a scientific, evidence-based approach that ensures high ecological and environmental standards in fishing from all fishing countries is paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade.

I welcome the introduction of highly protected marine areas that protect all species, habitats and associated ecosystem processes within the site boundary, including the seabed and the water column. HPMAs allow the protection and full recovery of marine ecosystems. By setting aside some areas of the sea with high levels of protection, HPMAs allow nature to fully recover to a more natural state, and allow the ecosystem to thrive. Can the Minister update Members on the Government’s plans regarding the development of HPMAs?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about HPMAs. Does he agree that the Government in Whitehall should learn the lessons from the experience of the Government in Edinburgh? That is, if we are to move to that level of protection, it is of primary importance that the communities that are going to be most closely affected are brought along as part of the process, rather than it just being visited on communities in a top-down closure that would result in the economic ruin we would have seen in Scotland.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that it is important to have joined-up thinking across the United Kingdom, and that communities should be consulted. If we are designating different areas of our seas and oceans, we should make sure that harvesting the sea goes in parallel with conserving it.

It is important to touch on how dangerous fishing is, an issue that has been spoken about powerfully by many Members across the Chamber today. It is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry, so I welcome measures to improve safety in fishing. There is more that we need to do, and today’s debate has shone a light on that. I urge the Government to move ahead on a cross-party basis to see what we can do to make this industry much safer.

The hon. Member for Brent West touched on the stress and anxiety within the profession, and I want to touch briefly on mental health. The mental health of our fishing communities is very fragile, because it is such a tough and unsafe industry, there are financial pressures, and those communities do not know what is going to happen as the negotiations move forward.

The statistics show that people who are struggling with their mental health are more likely to have accidents, certainly in the farming sector, and the same is probably true in the fishing industry. It is important to acknowledge that and to support the mental health of our fishing communities. I commend the work of several charities that help in this area, such as the Bearded Fishermen Charity, Fishermen’s Mission, FishWell and the Angling Trust. All those charities do an amazing job in working with fishermen and women to support their mental health. Will the Minister join me in commending their work, and outline what specific support he believes can be put in place—as a Government and on a cross-party basis—to support our fishing communities with their mental health? If we want sustainability of fishing, we need to have sustainability among the people who work in that profession. We need to nurture it and support it moving forward.

To conclude, fishermen and women, fish processors and coastal communities all do incredibly tough and dedicated work to help the UK’s food security, as has been powerfully said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan and by Members on both sides of the Chamber. The work that they do is important for feeding the nation with healthy, locally sourced and locally processed food that is key to a balanced diet. Mike Cohen, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, has said:

“The costs of doing business as a fisher and the rewards to be obtained from it also need consideration in government policy.”

I hope that the Minister agrees, and that the views of all the key fishing stakeholders and communities will always be considered at the heart of future policymaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes an important point—one that I used to make when in opposition, and one that I have impressed on officials. The effort has been made to ensure that is considered wherever possible. It is not always easy to find the right times, but we are doing everything we can.

This Government will always back the British fishing industry. We are absolutely keen to boost trade, deliver benefits to UK businesses and push for sustainable fishing opportunities for British vessels; but we recognise the huge challenges that the sector is facing and are engaging closely with industry to create a more secure, sustainable and economically successful fishing industry that we believe will in turn support local communities.

On some of the specifics raised around post-2026 access, as I am sure hon. Members will be aware, a full and faithful implementation of the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels to the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is significant. We will always listen to what the EU has to say on the matter, but we are absolutely determined to protect the interests of our fishers and continue to fulfil our international commitments to protect the marine environment.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly asked who would be leading those discussions; they will be led by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office. He asked who would speak up for UK fishers; the answer is the UK Fisheries Minister, which is me. I admired the slight cheek of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in challenging me not to let fishers down in those negotiations. I do not want to dwell on past misery, but let us say we are determined to do much better.

[Dr Hudson]

Does the Minister not acknowledge that in the last year, the tonnage secured for the United Kingdom was greater, and that was one of the benefits of the negotiations? Does he not acknowledge the fact of tonnage?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I recognise that there have been some opportunities—not many, but some—and we will do our very best to make more of them. But I do not get a general sense that people in the fishing sector look back and think that was our finest hour. We can do better.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I am grateful that the Minister is acknowledging the importance of protecting marine mammals while harvesting from the seas and oceans. When he is around the table with his officials, will he address the other countries, such as Norway? Perhaps it will be his colleagues in the Department for International Trade when they are negotiating arrangements with Japan. On talking about the horrific nature of whaling continuing in the 21st century, can he assure everyone that this UK Government will stand firm and use their power in those rooms to put an end to whaling right across the world?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think we can speak with one voice from this Parliament on those kinds of issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at events such as the G20 and the G7 that I have attended, we have raised those important questions.

I turn to the coastal state negotiations on quota shares.

Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to be a member of this Committee opposite the Minister, for whom I have huge respect.

I thank the Minister for bringing to the Committee these important regulations to enhance our strong record on environmental protection. I am happy to put everyone’s mind at rest: we, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, have no opposition to these regulations, and we appreciate the current Government’s effort to build on the strong Conservative track record of increasing recycling and waste disposal.

The system of packaging producer responsibility has been in place for many years and will continue to play a role in reducing packaging waste. An initial consultation held in 2019 by the last Conservative Government showed strong support for the proposals from respondents. In response to the consultation, we adapted the amendments, leading us to many of the proposals we are discussing.

I am appreciative of the important fact that charities and the voluntary sector will be excluded from these regulations, as that ensures that they are not adversely impacted. I politely encourage the Labour Government to consider applying similar exclusions to their more controversial proposals on the charitable status of independent schools and on national insurance contributions increases, which will have a significant effect on the charitable sector, including hospices and the like. I am extremely pleased that the instrument aligns with the Windsor framework and will be adopted nationwide.

Although Conservative Members offer no objection to the regulations, we will ensure that there is proper scrutiny of any further Government proposals. I would like to point out some wider issues for the Minister to address. First, can she elaborate on what the Government are doing to assist businesses in general to recycle more so that we protect our environment? Secondly, can she explain what the Government plan to do to support businesses to reach the recycling target rate of 75% by 2030? Finally, what consultation or conversations will the Government have with businesses and other relevant stakeholders to ensure that businesses are on board with any future changes that may be coming down the line?

This crucial issue affects us all on this precious planet. I am happy to work with the Minister to ensure we continue to do all that we can to create a cleaner environment and cleaner communities, to increase our recycling efforts and, ultimately, to protect our precious environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I thank hon. Members very much indeed for their kind and constructive words. We are seeing today an outbreak of unity on the basis of a project of seven years’ gestation. I remember the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs telling the Environmental Audit Committee, which I then chaired, that they would introduce a DRS scheme back in 2017. Here we are, and it falls to a Labour Government to introduce it. Once we pull one thread out of the packaging bin, we affect the income streams on which councils depend—I have a little joke in the Department that simpler recycling is actually hellishly complex recycling. It is a very complex project. There were issues with it during the covid pandemic and there have been four consultations on these reforms, so it has certainly taken a long time to see the light of day.

I would gently say to the shadow Minister that when we left Government in 2010, the recycling rate was more than 40%. It is now at 44%, and kind of going backwards. The original target in 2002 was for us to be at 50% recycling by 2015. The real lesson for all of us as lawmakers of whatever party is that, if we do not continually update policy, encourage behaviour change and give business certainty, these things do not happen on their own. The shadow Minister asked me about taxes; I welcome his constructive comments on charities, but obviously he knows that taxes are a matter for the Chancellor. I believe that the Finance Bill is still being debated in the main Chamber and I am sure he will have an opportunity, should he want to intervene there.

We talked about support for businesses. My officials have worked incredibly closely with businesses on this scheme. I met with a very large bottled drinks manufacturer yesterday in the Department, and I met with other businesses this morning as part of an all-party parliamentary group. We are not getting any comments from businesses that they have not been heard. There has been a consultation. There have been some philosophical questions about where glass should sit, and glass is now in pEPR. We want anyone involved in the production of packaging, such as the great Quaker Oats brand that the hon. Member for North East Fife has near her. That is an example of absolutely perfect cardboard packaging. It is sort of the perfect recycled package—wholesome on the inside and wholesome on the outside.

Most people know that the hard-to-recycle packaging is the plastic films. That is the really tricky stuff. If we look in our waste bins, by the time we have taken out the cardboard, plastic bottles, milk bottles and cans, what is left is food waste—collected in some areas, but not others, and the main source of methane in our landfill—and then the plastic film. Similarly, coffee cups have a plastic liner a few microns thick and then the thick cardboard around it, but they need the plastic to hold the drink. It is a question of product design and innovation. None of this is new, and a lot of it is happening, with pEPR happening in around 30 other countries in the world. Industry and representative groups have actively engaged with Government on developing these schemes and have offered support by sharing their data on recycling.

I take the point from the hon. Member for North East Fife about the two schemes. In a way, it is a bit like Brexit—we have the old regulations, the new regulations, and there are costs. What was supposed to be a bonfire of legislation actually ends up causing more regulation. We also have a number of industry representative groups taking part in the co-design of the future of scheme administration, including consideration of greater value chain involvement in the scheme. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom—this is the first time we as a nation are doing this.

[Dr Hudson]

I note that the Minister is saying that businesses are feeding in, but my earlier point was that, with changes coming down the track, dialogue needs to go both ways. What plans do the Government have to talk to businesses and sectors in future? They are taking in information, but it is important that information goes the other way, so that people can plan and put measures in place.

[Mary Creagh]

That is a valid point. We have had to collect the data, but the data is not 100% there yet. Illustrative base fees were shared in August and we did new base fees in September to reflect some of the comments from business. We are looking at 2024, which has not ended yet, so we need to look at the tonnage and packaging for 2024 before we publish the final, definitive fees from April. We have tried to share illustrative fees with people, because we know there are long supply chains and they need six to 12 months to plan properly.

Further iterations will follow up to the summer next year, when we will share those final fees. They will be invoiced in October 2025, which will cover the period from 1 April 2025 to March 2026. At that point there will be absolute clarity and certainty. If there is anything that we feel is not working or that is driving behaviour in the opposite direction from what we want to see, we will not hesitate to change things further. As a new Government—we have been in power for only five months—this has been a big elephant to digest, one bite at a time.

The hon. Member for North East Fife asked me about producer obligations in the two schemes. The regulations carry over the obligation on the Environment Agency to publish a list of large producers from the 2023 data regulations, as amended. That should help producers to reduce the risk of double obligation, because we do not want people to be obligated under two separate schemes. If a producer discovers that it has reported packaging that it was not required to report, the regulations enable it to make a resubmission to correct any errors. We will continue to review the reporting requirements and engage with industry to ensure that the regulations operate effectively.

The payments will also apply to online marketplaces, something that is important for all of us as constituency MPs. We have seen the displacement of traditional high street businesses by online retailers, where it is usually cheaper to buy something. These regulations try to reset the level playing field.

We have legislated for that by creating the online marketplace producer class to address the rising prevalence of products imported into the UK as a result of sales on a third-party website. Where that happens, the operator of an online marketplace established in the UK must now take responsibility for that packaging under pEPR. At the same time, we do not want to unnecessarily burden small producers, so we are retaining the current de minimis thresholds. We will use the data gathered in the first year of the scheme to review the approach to small producers after that first year. We need to see if it is working as intended.

I hope I have covered most of the questions raised by hon. Members. The legislation is necessary to kick-start the circular economy, drive up our recycling rates, drive down our carbon emissions and change our approach to packaging in the UK, to ensure that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I hope that hon. Members understand and accept the need for the instrument, and I am grateful for the Committee’s time.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 General Committees

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and a pleasure to be opposite the Minister. This is a little like “Groundhog Day”; I think we are going to be up against each other quite a lot. I wonder whether I will be like the gopher to Bill Murray’s greenkeeper in “Caddyshack”, another Bill Murray film.

I am happy to put everyone’s mind at rest: His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not oppose the regulations. We appreciate the Government’s effort to build on our strong Conservative track record in managing persistent pollutants. This instrument adds three substances—UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor—to the assimilated persistent organic pollutants regulations. It also updates and clarifies the terms under which articles, substances or mixtures containing certain persistent organic pollutants can be manufactured, sold, used and disposed of. The updates ensure that we remain aligned with our commitments under the United Nations Stockholm convention. I am also pleased to note that the development of these changes was subjected to a public consultation in 2023.

Importantly, there is no indication that the amendments in this instrument will negatively impact businesses or disproportionately burden small businesses; we must always keep that consideration in mind. Furthermore, I am extremely pleased that the instrument aligns with the Windsor framework and will be adopted nationwide.

Although we offer no objection to the instrument, I would like to briefly highlight some broader concerns for the Minister to address. First, although the amendments build on our strong track record in managing persistent pollutants, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have identified any areas within the regulatory regime around persistent organic pollutants that they intend to change? Secondly, will the Minister provide clarity on the current trace levels of the persistent pollutants discussed today and how they compare with the limits set in this instrument? Finally, will she clarify the steps the Government are currently taking to monitor the levels of so-called forever chemicals in our environment and to ensure that they fall within a safe range?

To conclude, we will be supporting these important measures and I am grateful that the regulations have been brought to the Committee. I will be happy to continue working with the Minister to ensure that we continue to do all we can to maintain environmental safety, protecting our precious environment, animals and human public health.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate and Members from both sides of the House on all their contributions. There is a large degree of cross-party consensus on this issue.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of a joined-up approach to this issue and said that prevention is much better than treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has shown great leadership in this area with his Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about the importance of welfare support for victims, and that was echoed by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) when it comes to the mental health impacts of flooding.

As we face more extreme weather, it is right that we discuss the Government’s role in flood prevention, preparedness and management. In the last 12 months or so, we have seen the terrible effects of Storm Babet, Storm Ciarán and Storm Henk all within a few weeks of each other. I sympathise with anyone who has ever been flooded. We know the huge impact it has on people, homes, businesses, farmland, animals and so much more. It is heartbreaking. We must not forget that the mental health impacts on at-risk communities are huge, from the anxiety about being flooded to the trauma of being flooded itself.

We must support our communities long after the floodwaters have subsided and the blue lights have left. I pay tribute to the amazing efforts during floods of Environment Agency staff, the emergency services, first responders and local volunteer groups. In serious floods, I have seen at first hand the importance of all that these folk do to help people in awful and sometimes tragic circumstances.

I also pay tribute to the mental health charities that Members present will be familiar with: You Are Not Alone, or YANA, in East Anglia, as well as RABI, Yellow Wellies and the Farmers Community Network. I ask the Minister to set out the steps the Government are taking to provide the holistic support that flood victims need to get back on their feet, and particularly to address the mental health consequences that flood victims face, too often in silence.

The last Conservative Government had a strong record on flood preparedness. They published a policy statement to make England more resilient, with 40 actions and five ambitious policies stemming from it. Between 2015 and 2021, the last Government invested £2.6 billion in flood defences, which better protected 314,000 homes all over England. 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.

While the new Labour Government have sadly shown their hand and cruelly disregarded farmers with their heartless family farm tax, the previous Government backed the farming sector and introduced several schemes to introduce climate or environment benefits and to compensate farmers simultaneously. Environmental land management schemes paid farmers to increase our resilience to flooding through nature-based solutions and natural flood management techniques such as tree planting or re-wiggling rivers. That rightly rewarded farmers with public funding for providing public goods, on which we all rely. I urge the Government to move forward in these areas.

The last Government also provided £50 million to expand the farming recovery fund to ensure that farmers on farms of all sizes across the country who are hit by flooding and exceptional wet weather receive support. The Labour Government have been very slow in getting some of that money out. I know that things have moved in the past few days, but I urge them to get that money out the door. We have to reward our farmers both for producing food and for their stewardship of the environment. Yesterday’s protests in Westminster showed the passion of our farming communities. I urge the Government to think again and reverse their cruel family farm tax.

As we have heard, the flooding budget is under review. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not cut it when they review it in the coming years? We must invest in flood defences, given climate change and the extreme weather events that are upon us.

The Minister will be familiar with the Flood Re scheme. There are concerns that it supports homes and not businesses. I urge the Government to consider expanding it, because many people who live above their businesses are not covered. We have also heard about the importance of the IDBs. I urge the Government to ensure that that vital service is maintained.

In summary, communities at risk of flooding need certainty and holistic support. They need prevention measures and response when flooding arrives. I hope the Minister will outline how this Labour Government will provide that.