Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024
Neil Hudson Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Hudson Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Food security is national security, and underpinning it are farmers and farmland. Labour’s ill-judged and heartless family farm tax will put all of that in jeopardy: family farms lost; tenant farmers unable to continue farming; communities hollowed out; rural mental health damaged; and precious food-producing land lost to developers or investors. No farms, no food. No farmers, no food. Will the Government please now admit that they have got this catastrophically wrong? Will they do the right thing by reversing this farm tax to protect our country’s food security?
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Let me say once again that it is important to treat this subject carefully. We must look at the facts and listen to people who know about it. I was asked earlier by someone else whether this measure was wrong, but we should look at what Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other tax experts have said. There are many ways in which this can be managed, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to join me in reassuring British farmers about their future.
Environmental Protection
Neil Hudson Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is an honour to be speaking for the Opposition on this important motion on environmental protection. May I begin by thanking the Government for laying this statutory instrument, which was originally put forward by the previous Conservative Government? This House is at its best when we are united in common humanity and working together across the House to pass legislation that will support and protect our precious environment, and also human and animal health. I am glad that the Government have agreed with our measures in bringing forward this ban on disposable vapes. I am happy to say, therefore, that we, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, will be supporting the passage of this important environmental statutory instrument.
I thank all those who have made this statutory instrument possible, from Ministers and MPs on both sides of the House to the charities, non-governmental organisations, parents, teachers and health professionals who sounded the alarm on the impact of disposable vapes. This legislation is a targeted step to ensure environmental protection and to mitigate the risks posed by single-use disposable vaping products.
To this end, we know that single-use vapes pose a range of risks to our environment, to animals, both domestic and wild, and even to people—especially our young folk, as the Minister said. It is estimated that almost 5 million single-use vapes are littered or thrown away in general waste every week.
The scale at which lithium-ion batteries are being improperly disposed of through single-use vapes is absolutely staggering. Astonishingly, it is estimated that, each year, the lithium in disposable vapes discarded in this way is equivalent to the lithium in the batteries of 1,200 electric vehicles or more.
Unfortunately, the number of single-use vapes being littered or thrown away each year is steeply rising. We know that the improper disposal of lithium-ion batteries already poses a significant risk of serious fires and pollution. As the Minister said, we are seeing such littering in both urban and rural areas, with vapes carelessly thrown to the wayside.
We also know that the disposal of single-use vapes can lead to plastics and toxic chemicals leaking into our natural environment and precious waterways. We cannot overestimate the seriousness of this or the long-term dangers that will result if we allow a steady or increasing flow of these materials into the environment. At a time when we are all concerned about the need to improve our waterways and rivers, it is vital that we tackle this very real threat.
The improper disposal of single-use vapes, which unfortunately occurs in the majority of cases, also poses risks to animals and wildlife that may potentially consume them. I declare a personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon and a pet owner. In fact, not long ago, when I was walking my young dog Poppy, she disappeared into the undergrowth and came out with a brightly coloured, melon-flavoured disposable vape in her mouth. Fortunately, I was able to get the vape out of her mouth quickly, but I shudder to think what could have happened if Poppy had chewed, crunched or swallowed it, given that it contained a battery, toxic chemicals and shattered plastic. I am sure the whole House will agree it is particularly concerning that we are allowing millions of flavoured, brightly coloured items containing incredibly harmful chemicals to be littered, endangering the health of any creature that might ingest them.
With that in mind, it is important to act, and the implementation date of 1 June 2025 should offer businesses time to adjust to the new measures. However, it is vital for the Government to clarify how they intend to tackle the disposal of existing stock that is not sold by June 2025. Therefore can the Minister assure the House that any unsold single-use vaping stock, as of the implantation date, will be collected and disposed of appropriately? Additionally, will the Government produce a plan to ensure proper disposal?
With this ban coming into force, it is also essential that the illegal importation of single-use vapes is targeted. There are extremely concerning reports of the importation of vapes into this country that flout legal safety regulations on the number of puffs and, potentially, the nicotine content. There are even reports of vapes that contain illicit or dangerous substances, as well as chemicals such as lead and nickel.
It is hugely concerning to think that many of these single-use vapes have been getting into the hands of a large number of our under-18s. Advertisements on social media, specifically designed to entice young people with bright colours and appealing flavours such as bubble gum and cherry ice, are luring our young people into nicotine addiction and the risk of illicit substances.
All this could have serious consequences for the physical and mental health of our young people. There are reports of children having their sleep patterns disrupted, by setting their alarms for 2 am or 3 am so that they can have a vape during the night to avoid withdrawal symptoms in the morning, and students leaving lessons, or even examinations, because they simply cannot last without the use of a vape. The statutory instrument specifically targets the disposable vapes that are afflicting so many of our young people.
Sir Christopher Chope
The issue is not just disposable vapes but illegal vapes, of which as many as 120 million may be being sold each year. Should we not concentrate on that? These regulations deal only with legal vapes, but should we not be more concerned about the environmental impact and other health impacts of illegal vapes?
Dr Hudson
We need to get rid of all disposable vapes, legal or illegal. In fact, if any child is vaping, that is illegal. They are getting hold of vapes around the law and people are exploiting our young people. We still do not know the long-term consequences of vaping for their physical and mental health, so we just have to get on with getting rid of the single-use disposable vapes.
To be clear, we know that vaping has its part to play in helping adults to quit tobacco smoking, but we owe it to our young people and others to tackle the unacceptable risks of the illicit market and of existing nicotine addiction, and not to create a new generation of addiction.
On the risk of disposable vapes being imported for sale, will the Minister confirm what measures will be put in place to ensure border authorities have the proper powers and scope to ensure that there is no room for the creation of an illegal disposable vape import industry? In addition, as part of that, will additional resources be allocated to our Border Force, so that the legislation will have the teeth it needs to prevent potential illegal imports of vapes? It is deeply important that the proper enforcement measures are in place, as we know how difficult it can sometimes be to enforce such bans.
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend keeps using the expression “potential illegal imports”, but massive illegal import is already taking place. The number of illegal imports detected is a minute proportion of the actual number of illegal imports that are coming into the market. Will he concentrate on the current issue relating to illegal imports, instead of describing that issue as a “potential”?
Dr Hudson
I am well aware that there are illegal importations and we need to clamp down on them, but once the ban is in place, if single-use disposable vapes are still being imported into the country, then it will be illegal to put them on sale. I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes, but we need to crack on and get rid of disposable vapes.
Will the Minister confirm what measures will be put in place to ensure full and proper enforcement of the ban? Will she reassure the House that the Government will monitor, on an ongoing basis, the performance of enforcement measures in preventing the sale and distribution of single-use vapes? In addition, will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will keep a watching brief on unscrupulous people trying to create loopholes in the ban by adapting, in a sham way, disposable vapes to look like reusable, refillable or rechargeable ones?
I welcome the Minister’s comments about the devolved Administrations, but with this England-only legislation, and with similar versions of the regulations likely to be approved in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the coming months, will the Government assure the House that discussions are set in place with the devolved Administrations on specific timings, so that we do not inadvertently create the potential for disposable vape tourism in different parts of the United Kingdom?
In closing, as I said in my opening remarks, we will be supporting this measure. While I hope the Minister can provide clarity on the questions I have posed, I thank the Government for bringing forward this Conservative measure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I now call Lloyd Hatton to make his maiden speech.
Farming and Food Security
Neil Hudson Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
We in this country have the best farmers. They produce food to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be very proud of them. Food security is a key part of national security, and I urge the Government to look at the EFRA Committee’s report on food security from the last Parliament. The previous Government took up the recommendation for an annual food security report, and I urge the Government to continue with that. They must protect the farming budget, not cut it, and must protect land, not bulldoze it for solar. We have to make sure that solar goes in the right places: on industrial buildings, brownfield land and rooftops, not on prime food-producing land. We must also protect inputs. In the past few years, we have lost the ability to produce a lot of fertiliser in the United Kingdom. We need to look at that as a matter of resilience.
Biosecurity is a key part of national security. As we have heard, we have a lot of cases of bluetongue in the south and east of England; we know what happened in the past couple of years with avian influenza; and we have African swine fever advancing up the continent. The Government must act, and they must support the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is in urgent need of full redevelopment. The EFRA Committee has called for that redevelopment, and I know that DEFRA wants it, so I urge Ministers to make the case to the Treasury for it to be funded in full.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend guested on the Public Accounts Committee last year, when we had a full inquiry on this issue. There is a real need for proper capital investment, because the biosecurity of the nation is at risk if we do not have properly biosecure laboratories.
Dr Hudson
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for that intervention. It is so important that the Government listen to this request and fund the redevelopment of the APHA in full.
My journey into politics started in 2001 with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I know what the implications are—I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime—and we have seen what happens when biosecurity breaks down. That brings me to mental health, which has been touched on.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the point of farmers’ mental health. As my constituency neighbour, will he join me in championing YANA—You Are Not Alone—a local charity that is now stretching into Essex, and supports the mental health of farmers and rural workers?
Dr Hudson
I would be happy to champion YANA, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Yellow Wellies, and all the other institutions and charities that support mental health. I urge the Government to look at the EFRA Committee’s report last year on rural mental health, which touches on many of these issues and makes key recommendations. We need to support our farming communities when serious things happen, such as flooding or disease outbreaks. When something more chronic happens—say, when farms get a positive result during periodic tuberculosis testing—we need to make sure that the mental health of farmers, vets, and everyone else is supported. That is so important.
We have talked about flooding. People in rural and urban communities in flood risk areas have not only the trauma of being flooded, but the anxiety of worrying about being flooded. Ministers will be called out in their wellies in floods, but communities need to be supported when the waters go down and the blue lights leave—that is another key recommendation of our report. We need to protect the farming budget and make sure that the money goes out through the farming recovery fund to support flooded communities.
We can help our farming and food-producing communities. We encourage people to buy British, and I pay tribute to the NFU and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for the Buy British campaign that all the British supermarkets have signed up to. We need to support our local communities by eating local and buying local. That is so good for local communities, and it is also good for the animals: it reduces distance and time to slaughter, and food miles.
George Freeman
As a distinguished vet, my hon. Friend is making a powerful case on welfare standards. Does he agree that one of the great prizes of British agriculture is that it sets such high welfare standards, and that one of the good things the last Government did was pass legislation on transporting animals, setting ever higher standards for UK farmers?
Markus Campbell-Savours
My understanding is that the 2019 Conservative party manifesto said:
“When we leave the EU, we will be able to encourage the public sector to ‘Buy British’ to support our farmers and reduce environmental costs.”
What went wrong?
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Hudson Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
What has been going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency is completely unacceptable. I know that she has been a huge champion for cleaning up the water in that part of the country. One of the things we are looking at doing is doubling the rates of compensation from water companies when they let down their customers as she described.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new seat and congratulate him on winning the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ Massingham advocacy award. The Department remains vigilant to potential global disease threats and has robust measures in place to prevent and detect disease incursion. We will be looking at funding as part of the spending review, but I pay tribute to those officials and veterinary officers who are working so hard to tackle the outbreaks that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Sport Horse Industry: Import and Export Controls
Neil Hudson Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. I recognise the great economic, social and cultural benefits of the sport horse industry to this country, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Government’s support for it.
On the introduction of the new import controls under the border target operating model, the introduction of biosecurity controls on imports is not optional. Now that we have moved away from the EU’s rigid biosecurity, surveillance and reporting systems, we are responsible for protecting our own biosecurity from threats such as foot and mouth disease, African swine fever and the African horse sickness virus, which we must remain alert to despite it never having reached these shores. Otherwise, such threats could devastate UK industries and cause significant damage to the environment, public health and the wider economy. We remember the impact of foot and mouth in 2001, which cost British businesses nearly £13 billion in 2022 prices. It caused massive disruption to many industries, including the sport horse industry.
Biosecurity controls are also essential to protect our exports and international trading interests. Our trading partners want to be reassured that we maintain the highest biosecurity standards. Maintaining our reputation for high biosecurity standards is in the interests of the sport horse industry, to ensure that we can continue to move first-class animals and germinal products in and out of the country.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a veterinary surgeon. The Minister will be aware that a couple of years ago the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published our report on the movement of animals across borders. There is a balance between allowing the smooth movement of animals and protecting the biosecurity of our animals in the UK. We looked at the key issues of trying to replicate the tripartite arrangement, which allowed for the smooth movement of high-health horses between the UK, France and Ireland, and progressing the digital identification system for horses, both of which would allow smooth but safe movement. Government progress in those areas would help to protect our industries and our biosecurity.
Sir Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his work in this subject area. He is very informed on these matters and the House benefits a great deal from his expertise. We will continue to work with the sector. We want to have as much freedom of movement as possible, but in a way that protects our biosecurity. I am sure there will be more opportunity for us to benefit from my hon. Friend’s expertise as we find solutions to the challenges.
The new controls begin today. They require high-risk consignments, including equine germinal products from the EU, to enter GB via an appropriately designated border control post, where 100% documentary, 100% identity and 1% to 5% physical checks are undertaken. We are aware that the sport horse industry and its representatives, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire, have been concerned about the controls coming in during the peak season for the import of equine germplasm. We have been glad of their engagement on this topic and for their having drawn their concerns to our attention so that we can address them and make sure we get the implementation right.
The import of equine germinal products provides for genetic diversity and the rapid genetic improvement of British breeding horses. Using the chilled rather than frozen product enhances conception rates, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire pointed out. We know that the movement of these goods is highly time sensitive, if they are to be successful, so we have to consider appropriate measures that work for the sector. We have considered that in the context of the new BTOM controls.
Thanks to representations from the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others, we are aware that on some import routes logistical challenges mean that some checks required by the BTOM cannot currently be undertaken within the required timeframe for the products to reach their destination mare. DEFRA officials have therefore worked closely with the main importers of chilled equine germinal products, port health authorities and the British Equine Veterinary Association to develop and secure approval for a temporary contingency measure with an optional additional adaptation. That will facilitate trade while maintaining essential biosecurity controls.
The contingency measure temporarily reduces the requirement for official identity checks from 100% to 20%, and allows them to take place at a border control post or at the destination, using the optional temporary adaptation pilot process with the BEVA. As a result, the consignments, which also benefit from 100% documentary checks before arrival in GB, complete official import controls in the minimum time possible.
On the movement of live horses—which the hon. Member for North Shropshire was keen to address—in planning and implementing controls we aim to reduce any disruption or administrative burden as far as possible. We recognise that in the case of the sport horse industry we can often rely on robust industry processes that are in place to assure the health of the animal. For that reason, when new border controls on live animal imports come into force, we have developed and agreed, with the help of industry, an exemption for certain horses that meet a definition of high health. Verified equines used in racing, competition, breeding and sales can all qualify for that facilitation if arriving from the EU and sanitary group A countries.
We estimate that approximately two thirds of equine imports will be eligible for the exemption. They will be cleared for import on the basis of a documentary check, and their identity as a high-health horse will be verified with industry databases. That provision will allow them to avoid attendance at a border control post for a physical inspection unless a concern raised during the documentary check triggers such an inspection.
We are also focused on ensuring that the border control post infrastructure, which we will have in place for equines that must come through one, works as well as it can for the animals and their requirements. It is intended that the existing airport BCPs will be supplemented with Government-run BCPs at Holyhead and at Sevington in Kent, which will have the additional impact of assisting animals transferring from the island of Ireland and our friends in Northern Ireland. We are confident that we will have sufficient infrastructure, given the planned exemption for high-health horses, but we will continue to test that position over the intervening months.
We have already been fortunate to have had the benefit of the expertise within the industry to help to shape the physical design of the equine facilities at Sevington, and we have made many adaptations because of that advice. That co-design will undoubtedly make the site more effective in the way it operates. We hope to continue that joint work to test and challenge the operational procedures at the border control post in relation to the way horses travel to the site and are handled and inspected. Of course, that will be an area of focus for our work over the coming months.
We continue to welcome the open and supportive dialogue that we have with the sport horse industry. I again thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire for securing the debate. This is an important set of issues, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them.
Question put and agreed to.
Checks on Goods Entering UK
Neil Hudson Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mark Spencer
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and his interest in this topic. What is clear is that there is a distinction between those goods that are coming into the country illegally, which will still be inspected at the port of Dover by Border Force, and those that are coming in via legitimate routes, by legitimate trade links, from areas that have been inspected by their own country’s equivalent of the Food Standards Agency to make sure that those port goods are safe to come into the UK with the correct documentation. Those goods will go to Sevington. But if someone tries to do something illegal, they will be picked up by Border Force at the port of Dover, via inspection, including intelligence-led inspection. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says that there is no money, but we are in conversation with Port of Dover to resolve that.
The other challenge that the shadow Minister put to us was that we have delayed this a number of times. That has happened because we have been in conversation with those people and hauliers who have had comments on how to improve the system. We have listened to those concerns and now have the model that will operate, given the advice and liaison we have had with those companies.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
As a veterinary surgeon, I am passionate about biosecurity. I am reassured that our Conservative Government are taking this matter very seriously indeed. I thank the Animal and Plant Health Agency and everyone at our borders who do so much in this regard. Prior to leaving the EU, we did not have the opportunity systematically to check animal and plant products coming into the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we now have the opportunity to strengthen our biosecurity and that the introduction of the border target operator model will protect animal, plant and, ultimately, human health in the UK moving forward?
Sir Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area and his expertise in it. Moving forward, we will be in a much stronger place in terms of our phytosanitary and sanitary protections. That is the right outcome. We will continue to ensure that we are safe in the UK and that we protect our borders proportionately.
Food Security
Neil Hudson Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a privilege and honour to speak in this very important debate.
Food security is part of national security. It is a vital issue. The fact that three major Select Committees tabled this debate to the Liaison Committee shows its importance for our country. I am very proud to represent a constituency with a large farming footprint, both as the Member of Parliament and as a proud member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
I pay tribute first to our fantastic farmers and growers up and down the land who produce the highest-quality food to the highest production standards and look after the precious environment, and to the bodies, such as the National Farmers Union, that champion the sector. Producing food and looking after the environment can and should go hand in hand, and our UK farmers are the best in the world in that regard.
Our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at this issue directly in producing our report “Food security”, and it has examined other aspects in studies including our ongoing study entitled “Fairness in the food supply chain” and previous inquiries such as “Moving animals across borders”, “Labour in the food supply chain”, “COVID-19 and food supply”, and “Soil health”, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who chairs the Committee.
The challenges to our farmers and growers are huge. The importance of how we produce our food has been brought into sharp relief first during the pandemic, and now with the war in Ukraine. In Britain we have seen our excellent farmers and growers battle through this geopolitical context, dealing with factors such as extreme weather events, whether they involve a lack of water or flooding, and showing real tenacity in delivering for our country.
We all remember the startling headlines and the shortages on our shelves at the beginning of the pandemic. The concept of key workers was very much in our minds at that time. First and foremost we thought of NHS workers, but we also thought of the importance of all those involved in the food supply chain—farmers, growers, vets, drivers and abattoir workers. They were classified as key workers, and it is important to remember that.
The tragic illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has again brought this issue into sharp focus. Again our producers face mounting challenges: increased fuel and energy costs, increased animal feed costs and increased fertiliser costs, as well as a lack of supply of fertiliser. Bolstering our food security is an urgent task, given inflation costs and the challenges around the world such as the war in Ukraine. We must think hard about becoming more self-sufficient. We produce about 60% of what we consume, and I firmly believe that we need to produce more.
Fertiliser became an important issue as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Select Committee took a close interest in that, suggesting that the UK needed to be more resilient. The fertiliser company CF Fertilisers UK has mothballed its Ince plant and ended ammonia production in its Billingham plant. A by-product of fertiliser production and ammonia production is carbon dioxide, which, as we know, is vital for our food and beverage industry, but which is also vital to the process of slaughtering pigs and poultry. I strongly believe that the Government need to keep a watching brief on how we can secure a resilient supply of fertiliser and carbon dioxide.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) mentioned, biosecurity is pivotal to food security, and it is also pivotal to national security. As a veterinary surgeon, I have seen how crucial it is, and not just for our nation but for our world. I started my journey into politics as a veterinary surgeon on the frontline, witnessing and supervising the culls during the foot and mouth crisis of 2001, and I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime.
As we have heard, African swine fever is advancing upwards through the continent of Europe. It is yet to reach the UK, and I pray that it never does, but if it does it will be catastrophic for our country—catastrophic for our animal health in terms of the pig sector, but also for human mental health. Another major inquiry undertaken by our Committee, entitled “Rural mental health”, examined the challenges and pressures faced by people working in rural communities and the food production chains, such as animal disease outbreaks, extreme weather events and rural isolation. In the event of a catastrophic animal health outbreak such as swine fever, the mental health implications for people across the country would be devastating.
I pay tribute to the Government and the Animal and Plant Health Agency. We are facing many threats, including, as I have said, African swine fever, but there are also ongoing threats such as avian influenza, which is still bubbling away. I know that Ministers and officials are currently very exercised by the threat from the bluetongue virus; we have seen cases in Kent, Suffolk, Norfolk and Surrey, and when the Culicoides midge season arrives we will be under real threat. There are also ongoing, chronic threats from diseases such as bovine tuberculosis.
Philip Dunne
I hesitate to intervene on my hon. Friend, but he has just referred to TB and the mental health implications of animal health crises for our farmers. I would like to mention to the House that, on my own farm, we have just gone down with TB for the second time in six months. We have had 13 cows in calf—some have just calved, and some are about to calf—that were reactors. We do not yet know whether they were positive or were just reactors—in other words, whether they received false positives.
There was confusion between DEFRA and the vets about whether those animals could be taken to the slaughterhouse or had to be shot on farm. DEFRA was telling us that they had to go to the slaughterhouse. It turned out that had we done that, we would have been in breach of the law, because one cannot take an animal to a slaughterhouse within a month of its giving birth. Consequently, the animals had to be shot on farm, including calves and pregnant cows on the brink of giving birth. The mental health impact on the farmers who have to look after those animals is very significant. At this time of the year, this terrible disease affects many people.
Dr Hudson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that powerful testimony. In the EFRA Committee’s rural mental health inquiry, we took similarly powerful evidence on the implications of TB when there is an outbreak, but also when farmers are involved in testing. There are implications for vets and farmers while they are waiting for the results to come through, and from what happens when there are positive results, so I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
The APHA is part of our frontline in protecting our biosecurity. It has its headquarters in Weybridge, Surrey, and the EFRA Committee visited the institution, which needs a radical refurbishment and redevelopment. The Government are committed to that, but I urge them to press ahead at full steam. It requires a lot of money— £2.8 billion. Some £1.2 billion has been allocated so far, but the EFRA Committee took evidence from the chief veterinary officer, who pressed the case for how important it is that the APHA is redeveloped. I hope that the Minister takes that message away. I know that DEFRA is on the same page and is making the case to the Treasury that we need to spend a fair amount of money now to prevent a future crisis.
We have talked today about some of the international challenges that our farmers and growers have faced, not least the ongoing situations in Ukraine and the middle east. As we have heard, Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe. It is important for supplies of grain and sunflower, but also fertiliser. What we have seen throughout that crisis is a choking of supply through the Black sea, and the deliberate and cynical decision by Putin to pull Russia out of the UN’s Black sea grain initiative, leading to its subsequent collapse. That has choked off supplies to the rest of the world. What we have seen as a consequence—I am sure this is intended by Putin—are food shortages and potential famine in the developing world. As a country, we need to be cognisant of that. It is so important that the Black sea route gets back up to speed.
The actions of the Houthis in the Red sea have affected trade and the free passage of vessels, which has implications for the security of shipping and trade routes. Costs have increased due to diversions around the Cape of Good Hope, adding an extra 14 days to journeys and sometimes upwards of an extra £1 million for a vessel’s voyage. That will have unintended consequences for the price and availability of food and other supplies. Securing the passage of goods throughout the world is part of global security, and we need to think about the Black sea, the Red sea, the Panama canal and the Suez canal to make sure that such routes are viable.
Amid all these challenges, I am proud that our Government are supporting the sector. We have a Prime Minister, a Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a Government who are fully aware of the issues and challenges facing our farmers and growers, and I know the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), personally feels it too.
I was pleased to attend the Prime Minister’s Farm to Fork summit. Food production and food security being brought into the heart of No. 10 is an important statement to the country. It is important that we are maintaining the farming budget for England at £2.4 billion a year through this Parliament and, coming into this election year, we need clarity that that level of funding will continue. Farmers and growers need to be able to plan, so we need to have security.
Our horticulture and agriculture have been bolstered by additional visas, allowing people to come in to harvest crops. That has been expanded to the poultry sector, but we need to keep a watching brief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) talked about animals being put down on farms. In the pig sector, where we have had labour shortages in the abattoir and processing sectors over the past couple of years, upwards of 60,000 healthy pigs were culled on farms. That is awful food wastage, but it is also harrowing and incredibly distressing for the people who reared those pigs. We need to keep a watching brief so that those situations never happen again.
Our Committee and the EAC have called for food security to be reviewed annually. I am pleased that the Government have announced an annual food security index that will underpin the food security report, which is an important statement. The last food security report was in December 2021, prior to the Ukraine war. We need annual check-ups, and I am pleased that the Government have responded to the Select Committees’ reports.
The Government are also very aware that good farming and food production and a healthy environment go hand in hand, and that the ELM scheme is pivotal in supporting both those goals. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has announced an expansion of ELMS in recent months.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) mentioned the situation in Wales. If that is going to be Labour’s blueprint for England, there is a real concern that 10% of food-producing land will be diverted to planting trees and that another 10% will be diverted to wildlife habitats. That is a noble intention, but the idea of forcing farmers to take 20% of their food-producing land out of production is deeply alarming. We have talked about TB policy, and the statistics for cattle herds in Wales and England show that the TB situation is worse in Wales. We need to be cognisant and follow the science. We need evidence-based policymaking to control the dreadful threat of bovine TB.
I congratulate the Government on their important Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. The Act, which some of the reports touch on, allows the technology to produce climate-resistant and disease-resistant crops, as well as disease-resistant animals and birds, which will reduce the need for drugs and antimicrobials and will indirectly help public health. It will help animal health, bird health and public health, and it will support the environment. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited the world-leading Rothamsted Research to look at its work.
I support the Government’s animal health and welfare pathway, their legislation to ban the live export of animals for fattening and slaughter, and their £4 million fund for small abattoirs. Those measures will help animals to be produced, reared, slaughtered and ultimately consumed locally, which is a win for local communities and for animal welfare, because animals will not have to be transported long distances. We have the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and we can be a beacon to the rest of the world in our policymaking. I am proud that our Conservative Government have done that.
The Government paused their trade negotiations with Canada, which was an important symbolic statement. They said, “No, we have red lines on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork and chlorine-washed products. These are red-line products that are illegal in this country, and we will not import them.” I congratulate the Government on standing firm, because that says to the world, “This is where we stand and these are our values. If you want to trade with us, meet our standards.”
We cannot shy away from the need to do more to bolster our food security, domestic production and standards. The environmental land management schemes are good measures. We must ensure that all types of farmer are fairly rewarded, including commoners, tenants and upland farmers. Our Committee has looked at the issue and we have been calling for that. We also need to make sure that we are training up the next generation of people to go into farming by supporting our land-based educational sector. My colleagues have talked about food waste and we need to tackle that. We also need to think about fairness in the food supply chain, which our Select Committee is very much looking at.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to all our farmers, growers and producers, and everyone else involved in producing food in our country. Doing that and looking after the environment go hand in hand. We are a beacon to the world in our production standards. This area is vital for our communities and it is so important that our Government continue to support it, and I commend our reports to the House.