Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the reforms that Flood Re is announcing today, with the support of this Government. The changes will ensure that Flood Re remains fair, sustainable and focused on those who need it most, while supporting a transition to a more resilient insurance market by 2039.

Flood risk unites Members across this House. We all recognise the devastating impact that flooding has on people and communities and the importance of having access to affordable insurance. That is why this Government have put a record amount of investment into flood protections and simplified the funding rules. This year alone, we have unlocked £1.4 billion to enhance flood resilience across England, funding more than 600 projects and better protecting more than 70,000 properties from the devastating impacts of flooding. Despite that record investment, flooding is an ever-increasing risk.

Flood Re was established to manage a transition to prices that better reflect underlying flood risk and promote the affordability and availability of insurance. Since its launch, Flood Re has been a big success, and it is a strong example of Government and industry working together to address systemic risk—a partnership that started to be strengthened under a Labour Government after the 2007 floods.

Flood Re works by receiving a subsidy paid for by households that buy insurance. That money is used to purchase insurance so that households that would not be able to get insurance in an open market have affordable premiums. However, the context in which Flood Re operates has changed; rising claims, higher reinsurance costs and more properties being identified as at risk are placing increased pressure on the scheme.

We now have a perverse system in which money collected from all insurance customers, from all parts of the country and all income brackets, is flowing to the richest households in the country. That is not fair and needs to change. In three of the last four years, Flood Re has spent more on repairing homes in the most expensive council tax bands of G and H, which make up less than 4% of UK homes, than it has spent on repairing homes in council tax bands A and B, which make up around 45% of homes.

Let me give an example that shows why change is necessary. In 2025 a property near a river was flooded, resulting in a claim cost to Flood Re of more than £3 million. The property had very limited flood resilience measures in place, and the claim covered extensive restoration costs, including a quad garage, an indoor swimming pool, a jacuzzi and gym, a music room and den, a machinery storage unit, an outdoor astroturf padel court, and a five-a-side football pitch.

It is right that all properties are insured, but without reform of Flood Re, we will continue to have a system in which average-income and low-income households are subsidising flood insurance for the richest households in the country. That is why reform of Flood Re is needed—not to set a new policy direction, but to restore it to its original purpose. That is what we are doing.

First, Flood Re will work with insurers to reform its premium model so that support is better targeted. It will aim to make premiums as fair as possible across different council tax bands, regions and areas. Secondly, Flood Re will introduce a cap on the claims that insurers can pass to it, limiting payouts to an agreed level, with insurance companies covering the remainder. That will be worked out with Flood Re and insurers.

Thirdly, I have spoken to people who have lost everything through flooding and have been unable to afford contents insurance, so I am delighted that Flood Re is more than halving the premiums it charges to insurers for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B to £25 a year from April 2027. This Government are restoring fairness. We are making insurance affordable and helping with cost of living pressure. Finally, Flood Re will improve efficiency, make better use of its resources and reduce reliance on costly reinsurance while maintaining financial resilience.

However, to protect all homes from ongoing flood risk, we need more than just floor insurance and large flood defences; we need individual homes to become more flood resilient. That is why Flood Re will work with insurers and lenders to introduce flood performance certificates, helping households to better understand their flood risk and ensuring that if they take actions to make their homes more resilient, that is reflected in the cost of their premiums. That builds on the work of the recommendations in the “FloodReady” report. Flood Re will also strengthen incentives for Build Back Better, a UK home insurance sector initiative that, instead of simply restoring a home to a condition exactly as it was before, allows an additional £10,000 as part of the insurance claim to improve the flood resilience of the home.

These reforms will be implemented from 2028, with the reduction in contents premiums for council tax bands A and B taking effect from April 2027. Flood Re will keep the scheme’s eligibility criteria under review, including how it applies to leaseholders.

Under this Government, more homes are better protected from flooding than they were when we came into government. Our country will become more resilient to flooding as homes are incentivised to take action with flood performance certificates, and the 45% of people living in average-income and low-income households will be able to afford to protect their homes from the devastation of flooding. That is the difference that a Labour Government make, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

We Liberal Democrats support the Flood Re scheme and the protection it provides, but we are concerned that the package still risks falling short in a few ways. We agree that it cannot be right for lower-income households to subsidise the most expensive properties. Targeting support more fairly is overdue, but fairness must also mean reducing costs at source, which means a far stronger focus on prevention. We are still spending billions reacting to floods rather than systematically reducing risk. Flood Re’s future must be tied more clearly to resilient homes, sustainable drainage, and a planning system that stops putting people in harm’s way in the first place. That includes progressing schemes such as Guildford’s flood alleviation scheme more quickly through greater Government support, which would protect homes and unlock sustainable brownfield development. Without doing this, we are merely rearranging who pays for failure.

The proposals on flood performance certificates and Build Back Better are welcome, but they remain incremental. We need a step change—embedding resilience upgrades as standard, ensuring that insurers reward households that act, and bringing lenders fully into the framework. Serious gaps also remain: millions are excluded from Flood Re, including many leaseholders and those in homes built after 2009. If we are serious about fairness, those gaps must be addressed.

Finally, the transition to a risk-reflective market by 2039 cannot simply mean a cliff edge and higher premiums for those most exposed. Reform is needed, but it must be matched by ambition. Fairness, resilience and prevention must go hand in hand.

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady is quite right to say that we need to take action on the risk of flooding. That is why this Government are putting the most money into flood protection and taking action against flooding of any Government ever. In our first year in government, we delivered 151 flood schemes, better protecting more than 24,000 homes; that was after we put £108 million into maintenance to restore and repair our flood defences, many of which were in a poor condition. We are also putting £300 million into natural flood management—again, the most money any Government have ever put in. We have put in another £30 million for coastal adaption, and we have reformed the flood funding formula to ensure that it gives proper weight to deprivation, so that the communities that are most affected by flooding and least able to recover have more support. Total funding for internal drainage boards is £91 million, so I think we have ticked the box for “Have this Government put their money where their mouth is when it comes to protecting our country from flooding?”

We have not only done that; we are also looking at sustainable urban drainage systems and at introducing flood performance certificates, so that we can reward homes that have become more resilient to flooding. We are also looking at a fundamental change to how we address resilience and flooding as a country. When flooding happens, the people who go out there and do the work in the communities—whether local people, the Environment Agency or all the emergency services—deserve our absolute support, because the only thing I cannot protect this country against is climate change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The 500 households in Chesterfield that were flooded during Storm Babet, almost all of which were in council tax bands A and B, will welcome the Government’s intention to make sure that this scheme remains sustainable. It is important to remember that flood victims are just that— victims. They are not the cause of their problems; they are victims of our global failure to take the requisite steps on climate change, and of previous Governments’ and the water industry’s under-investment in flood protection. The example that the Minister raised is obviously ridiculous, and there is a need for those at flood risk to take the action they can to protect their houses. What assessment have the Government made of how many households will see increases in their premiums as a result of the steps being taken? Can the Minister assure us that households will not be unable to get insured, leaving us in the position we were in before Flood Re existed?

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

That is precisely why window 1 will be open next week to small farms and those farms without an existing agreement. It is also why we have capped the agreement level per year to £100,000. We want smaller farms to benefit from the SFI.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of her statement and I echo her thanks to Baroness Batters for her fantastic work on this issue. I also welcome the relatively new Farming Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), to his place.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the production of a long-term vision for farming and look forward to engaging with Ministers on the details. The road map rightly states that

“food production will remain the primary purpose of funding”,

but it continues to leave England as the outlier. It is now the only country in Europe with a farm payment system that does not actively support farmers to produce food. The consequences are as inevitable as they are inexcusable: the loss of farm businesses and the loss of food security at this dangerous time. I ask the Secretary of State to think again.

The road map also rightly observes the unfairness in the system, and that unfairness to farmers is a block to increasing output. Dairy farmers, especially, are right now being forced into ruin and despair because of unfair and sudden changes to farmgate prices, but there is no plan to strengthen or unify the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, two frankly weak and under-resourced referees with too few powers to protect our farmers from the abuse of market power from supermarkets and processors. Will the Secretary of State act, and if so when, to give us a strong referee to protect our farmers?

The reopening of the SFI is welcome, as is the update on the upland review, but still the Government insist on a first-come-first-served application process which always disadvantages our poorest farmers. On the uplands, the continued failure to provide support for common land is leaving our most precious landscapes, which make up 25% of the land mass of my constituency in the Lakes and the Dales at the risk of wildfires and biodiversity collapse, while our upland farmers sink into greater poverty. Is the road map not warm words but cold comfort for the uplands?

The review fails to put into practice the recommendations, in any serious way, of the Rock review on farm tenancies. [Interruption.] I will come to a conclusion. Does the Secretary of State not see that if tenants do not have protected long-term tenancies of at least eight years, they will have no chance of meeting the long-term environmental goals? Will she protect tenants from being evicted from their land in order to meet those goals?

Very finally, this is a report—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That was far too long.

[Emma Reynolds]

I hope to give the hon. Gentleman some brief answers, but I would be very happy to have a discussion with him after the debate, because he has put forward a lot of different questions. Food production is the primary role of farmers, but in the road map we also talk about the transition to more sustainable farming and regenerative farming, so I do not agree with his analysis. Actually, the focus of the road map and some of our SFI actions on healthier soils will help to ensure that farms are more productive and less reliant on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilisers.

The hon. Gentleman talks about unfair charges. We are bringing the Groceries Code Adjudicator under DEFRA and we are looking at what more we can do to make things fairer for farmers, including in the road map, bringing down barriers and helping more co-operatives to be established, because that redresses the power imbalance he talked about.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of uplands to the farming sector and to our countryside—I know he has a very beautiful constituency. We have increased the payment rates for upland farmers for some SFI actions and the road map talks about our plans to make it easier for upland farmers to access schemes. I am happy to have a longer conversation with him about that, including about commoners. As he knows, we have commissioned a review by Hilary Cottam. I think he has been working with her too, which is welcome.

A third of land is tenanted; it is a really important sector. We want a vibrant sector. I appointed the country’s first ever Commissioner for the Tenant Farming Sector, Alan Laidlaw. We know that a lot of tenants are very anxious about the shift away from long-term tenancies to shorter-term tenancies, so he is right to raise that. We have also commissioned the Law Commission to look at agriculture tenancy law. We are working with the sector to see what more we can do to ensure longer and more secure tenancies.

[Emma Reynolds]

May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all the work he did as Farming Minister? Indeed, some of his fingerprints are on the road map, so I want to thank him for that. He is right in what he says about food security and about innovation being central to it. That is why I announced extra funding of £53 million for the farming innovation programme today. At the second meeting of the Farming and Food Partnership Board, we talked about the two sector growth plans we are working on, horticulture and poultry. He mentioned poultry. We had a really good discussion on the barriers to further investment in poultry. Planning is one of them, but there are others too. That is a sector where we can make really good progress to ensure that we boost the production of poultry in our country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the publication of the farming road map. It may not have been rushed, but it is welcome none the less; all we need now is a revised food strategy, and the Secretary of State’s homework will be up to date. Is the implementation of the Batters review still being pursued as a discrete piece of work, or is it being subsumed into the farming road map? In as far as that relates to the operation of the market, why is she not involving farmers’ unions from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State refers to DEFRA as a growth Department. Agriculture accounts for 0.6% of UK GDP at the moment, so if we follow the road map and she gives leadership to the industry, what would she want that figure to be in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Questions are far too long. Show us how it’s done, Lee Pitcher.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I wonder if the Secretary of State agrees that for far too long farming has been undervalued because we have focused only on what goes out of the farm gate. We should focus more on the holistic contribution of farming—that is when we get good policy and can take our success forward for farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

We do want to see more British food in our institutions. As I said in response to a previous question, we are establishing a baseline—which was not established under the hon. Gentleman’s Government or ever before—to see what percentage of public sector contracts are going to British producers. That is the first step. May I also say that I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency? I spend some time there because my parents live in his patch.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Callum Anderson; he has gone. I call Jack Robertson—[Interruption.] You know when you stare at something and you can see it, but you are incapable of reading it? I call Dave Robertson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

It is in the road map, but I want to say, first, that I look forward to going on holiday in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency at some stage—sounds like we get a great service! I will let him know when I am on my way. He is right to mention this issue. It is something that we are looking at, and it is mentioned in the road map. I know that there are real problems for commoners getting access to some Government schemes, so that is something he will see in the road map. Upland farmers and others really need to ensure that they can access the schemes that we have.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I fear that that is more about the bottles of champagne than the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the fact that this farming road map recognises the importance of upland farmers like mine in High Peak. Will the Secretary of State set out what support will be put in place to support my farmers, and will she meet me to discuss access to the SFI for those farming on common land?

Fishing Industry

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Gelderd]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I completely agree that young people in our coastal communities are the future of the industry and the heart of our communities, and we must do all we can to work with them to ensure that they have an industry that is sustainable for the future.

Sixthly, I welcome the Government’s commitment to the fishing and coastal growth fund and the fisheries and seafood scheme. I ask the Minister to ensure that the schemes work for small-scale, owner-operator fishermen. Larger businesses have the capacity to prepare their bids and projects, while those with small boats often miss out simply because they lack the administrative time or support. In previous years, we have seen schemes close before many fishermen could even submit an application, something that I know causes real concern and frustration in my community. The last Labour Government addressed that by funding regional support officers to help small fishing businesses develop their plans, gather quotes and complete bids. I urge the Minister to consider restoring those roles, or introducing a similar support system, and basing that support in areas like mine, where small-scale fleets are concentrated, so that help and funding reaches the intended fleets.

Finally, we import and eat almost double what we catch and export in seafood. Although we may be a nation of fish and chip lovers, we consume only 20% of what we catch. Given that some of the best seafood in the world comes from our waters, particularly those of South East Cornwall, we can all play a part by choosing locally caught fish at the tills and the checkouts, and by backing our local fishermen, not just with words but with our demand. I recognise those unsung heroes of our fishing industry: the families and loved ones who support the brave fishermen. The unsociable hours and the uncertain work schedules mean that the support of loved ones and families is vital to fishermen; their families keep the home fires burning, and we should pay tribute to all that they do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That has made me feel hungry. I call Andrew George.

Water White Paper

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the Government’s water White Paper, “A New Vision for Water”. The paper sets out once-in-a-generation reforms, putting consumers and the environment first and building a water system fit for the future.

For too long, the last Conservative Government turned a blind eye—perhaps that is why there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber to discuss this issue. They neglected the needs of people and the environment. The result: a whole-system failure, companies profiting at customers’ expense, vital infrastructure left to crumble, record levels of pollution in our waterways and public trust destroyed. It is no wonder that none of them—we may have one of two—has turned up to sit on the Back Benches.

This Government inherited that terrible failure, and we are not shying away from it. Every family in this country deserves clean water from their taps, seas safe for their children to swim in, and bills that are fair and affordable. This Government is turning the page on that Tory failure. Our goal is simple: a water system that delivers safe and secure water supplies, better water quality and a fair deal for customers and investors.

Within weeks of coming into office, this Government asked Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead an independent water commission. Sir Jon met over 150 stakeholders, including environmental groups, investors, Members of both Houses, and local communities. His call for evidence received more than 50,000 responses—there is much more interest from people out there than from the Conservative party. I thank Sir Jon and all those who contributed, including right hon. and hon. Members. The White Paper sets out our response to his recommendations.

The Cunliffe review was vital, but we did not wait for its conclusions to act. In our first year in office, we laid the foundations for the transformation that this White Paper sets out. We passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to give the regulator the power to ban bonuses for polluting water bosses and issue automatic fines for pollution; we ringfenced the money from consumers’ bills, so that it can be spent only on fixing and upgrading infrastructure and improving water quality, not diverted to pay bonuses or dividends; we secured an historic £104 billion of private sector investment to rebuild the water network; and we established the brand-new water delivery taskforce to get spades in the ground, fast-track the delivery of new infrastructure projects and drive economic growth.

This White Paper builds on those strong foundations and sets out a new vision for water in this country. Our reforms deliver three fundamental shifts. The first is the shift from fragmentation to co-ordination. Today, responsibility for water is scattered across four different regulators. The result is confusion, duplication and regulatory gaps. We will change that. We will abolish Ofwat and create a new and more powerful regulator, integrating economic and environmental regulation. We will hold water companies to account by moving away from a system of self-monitoring, in which water companies have been marking their own homework, to a more proactive and preventive approach.

There will be nowhere to hide for poorly performing water companies. We will introduce an MOT approach for water company infrastructure, requiring maintenance checks on pipes, pumps and water treatment works; we will introduce a chief engineer and ensure that there is engineering capability in the new regulator, so that decisions are grounded in practical understanding; we will take a new supervisory approach, holding companies to account in detail and recognising the different challenges they face; and our new performance improvement regime will give the regulator the power to step in faster and put things right earlier. That is prevention-first regulation.

However, regulation alone will not clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. We need everyone with a stake in our waterways to be pulling in the same direction. New reforms for regional planning will bring councils, water companies, farmers and developers together to tackle local pollution, manage water resources and support housing growth. That will strengthen community voices in the water system and drive greater use of nature-based solutions.

The second shift is from corporate interest to public interest. We must never lose sight of who this reform is for: customers and the environment. We will introduce an independent water ombudsman to resolve consumer disputes fairly. We will keep bills affordable through the wider roll-out of smart meters to help those who need it most. There will be a new water efficiency label on every appliance, so that when customers buy a washing machine or a shower, they will know exactly what it will cost not just to buy it, but to run it—to help bring their bills down. We are also cracking down on pollution at its source. We will tighten agricultural standards, including on sludge spreading. We will double funding for catchment partnerships, harnessing the power of nature to protect our rivers.

The third shift is from short-term thinking to long-term planning. For too long, the water sector has lurched from one five-year price review to the next, with no clear picture of where we are headed. We will publish a transition plan to provide a clear, simple road map for water companies, investors and the regulators. The plan will set out how the next price review will deliver those reforms, how we drive better co-ordination between existing regulators during the transition, and how we will make leadership appointments at the earliest opportunity to the new regulator’s board, including a chair-designate.

For too long the previous Conservative Government turned a blind eye to water system failure. Infrastructure was neglected, pollution went unchecked and public trust was betrayed. This White Paper draws a line under that era. It lays the groundwork for our upcoming water Bill and puts us on a new path; a path where water companies act responsibly, where customers get the service they deserve, where investors can invest with confidence, and where we can all enjoy clean rivers, lakes and seas. The British public voted for change, and we are delivering that change by building a system fit for the future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the main focus of our reforms is to create a single, more powerful and integrated regulator. At the moment, as I said in my statement, we have duplication as well as gaps. We have consumers who are not being served well, so we need a regulator that gets a grip on the investment in maintaining our water infrastructure and on bearing down on pollution incidents. We have already made a start on that, but the new regulator will have more teeth and more power to do that. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need that single, more powerful and integrated regulator to ensure we deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Although some proposals in this White Paper are welcome, it does not go far enough to guarantee the promised fundamental reforms. Record sewage spills of over 45,000 hours were recorded in Glastonbury and Somerton last year. The public are left in the dark as the Government refuse to record the true scale of the volume of sewage dumped, rather than just the duration. Fat cat-retention payments continue as water companies evade the 2025 ban on bonuses, with the former Wessex Water chief executive officer landing a £170,000 bonus through the parent company YTL, with Ofwat apparently powerless to oppose it. Why do the Government refuse to address the failed ownership model that has allowed pollution, under-investment and profiteering to persist for decades? Will the Secretary of State listen to Liberal Democrat calls for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Much shorter questions, please.

[Emma Reynolds]

Either myself or the Water Minister would be happy to meet the hon. Member. I heard about the incident of the chips on the beach. In the White Paper we are looking more broadly at other sources of pollution, including those from transport and agriculture, but we would be happy to have a meeting with him to discuss the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

We will set up the water ombudsman; we need the primary legislation to do that. The ombudsman will have statutory powers and will be able to take forward consumer complaints and disputes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I would say to the Secretary of State “Cofiwch Dryweryn”, because water has always been political in Wales. The White Paper suggests that the UK Government may finally devolve additional powers over water to the Welsh Government. Considering that could have happened years ago under section 48 of the Wales Act 2017, which was delayed—incredibly—at the request of the Labour Welsh Government, can she now set a timeline for when the people of Wales will have power over our own water?

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I pay tribute to all the fishermen throughout the United Kingdom who play such a vital role in helping to feed our nation.

The Bill also ensures that the UK has the necessary powers to implement decisions adopted at future meetings of the BBNJ conference of the parties, beginning with the marine genetic resource provision. Part 2 of the Bill sets out the requirements related to the collection and use of marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction and digital sequence information generated on those marine genetic resources.

These measures mean that UK researchers conducting collection activities from UK craft or equipment, such as royal research ships or autonomous systems, will need to notify a national focal point within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before and after the collection of these resources. Additionally, any users of marine genetic resources or digital sequence information will need to notify the national focal point once results of utilisation are available and make those results available in publicly accessible repositories or databases. The results of utilisation, including publications such as journal articles and patents granted, should detail the outcome of research and development on these resources. These notifications will provide valuable data on material collected and on the results of research in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These notifications will be passed on to a clearing-house mechanism—a core part of the future architecture of the BBNJ agreement.

The clearing-house mechanism will act as a global online notification hub, where parties to the agreement will submit their notifications, allowing researchers from the UK and elsewhere to see what is being collected from where and how it is being used. That function is key to the benefit-sharing mechanisms under the agreement, enabling researchers from developing countries to work from the same scientific data as a researcher in the UK. That will also facilitate the development of cross-national research groups crucial to supporting breakthrough scientific discoveries.

The measures in the Bill also require repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. That will apply to bodies like the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information from marine genetic resources will need to ensure public access. Marine genetic resources may hold the key to future medicines, enzymes and sustainable technologies. This is a fast-growing global sector, and our universities and biotech firms are world leaders. Taken together, the measures will allow our researchers and companies to remain at the cutting edge of marine genetic discovery, benefiting from and contributing to global research in this space.

Part 3 of the Bill provides powers to allow the UK to implement internationally agreed measures in relation to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Any such measures will be agreed in meetings of the conference of the parties and will aim to manage activities in geographically defined areas of the ocean to achieve conservation and sustainable use objectives. Part 3 also ensures that the UK can implement any emergency measures adopted by the conference of the parties to respond to any natural or man-made disasters in areas beyond national jurisdiction that may require, for example, restrictions on navigation of UK ships or discharges from UK crafts.

Part 4 updates domestic marine licensing legislation to meet the environmental impact assessment requirements set out in the agreement. These changes apply to licensable marine activities that take place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It provides the power needed to adapt the UK’s domestic marine licensing and related environmental assessment system as new international standards and guidelines are agreed by the BBNJ conference of the parties. For example, that may include applying the latest standards for environmental assessments or for the ongoing monitoring of impacts. In short, it will future-proof the UK’s marine licensing legislation, ensuring that we can keep pace with emerging technologies and activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

In addition to the Bill, secondary legislation is required before the UK can formally ratify the BBNJ agreement. We will need to make changes to domestic legislation to implement the BBNJ agreement provisions relating to environmental impact assessments and to define digital sequence information. Those issues require engagement with stakeholders, and statutory instruments will be laid before Parliament after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Once the secondary legislation is in force, a standard six-week process will allow us to finalise the instrument of ratification, which includes signature and formal submission to the United Nations.

The provisions in the Bill may appear to be narrow and technical, but once implemented, they will enable the UK to participate fully in global efforts to conserve and sustainably use the ocean beyond national jurisdiction. Working with our international partners, the BBNJ agreement will allow us to safeguard fragile ecosystems, protect endangered species and ensure that scientific benefits are shared fairly and responsibly.

The Bill is rooted in this Government’s broader environmental and international goals. We are protecting and improving the marine environment at home and internationally to meet the global commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and this Bill is a key instrument in delivering that goal. The Bill supports our efforts to maintain multilateral agreements and international governance as the bedrock of our global community, and to address collectively the biggest issues of our generation: climate change, food insecurity and harm to marine environments—issues that affect not just the UK, but every nation on Earth. I hope that Members will recognise the urgency and importance of this moment. The ocean cannot wait, and the consequences of inaction are profound. This Bill is an opportunity to act, to protect marine life, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of the ocean are shared fairly and responsibly. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am just wondering whether the hon. Member finds himself in the wrong debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am overseeing the debate. If the hon. Member had been in the wrong debate, I would have pointed it out.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us do care about our British overseas territories and the marine environment. Some of us have made these arguments for many, many years, as have many on the Government Benches. If we are to take this issue seriously, we need to take our responsibilities seriously. Otherwise, future generations, not just in this country but across the world, will look back at this debate and what we are doing today, and think, “What on earth were they doing, giving away such a vital part of the planet that we are responsible for?”

Either the Government truly believe that Mauritius will reverse course and persuade China to respect this marine protected area, or, as I am afraid the Chagos surrender treaty implies, we shall end up doing the heavy lifting while paying for the privilege. Forgive me for not being entirely convinced, but I do not believe that the statistics I have cited are those of a nation ready to take on responsibility for one of the world’s most delicate marine ecosystems.

Scientific assessments show that live coral cover in Mauritian waters fell by up to 70% in the late 1990s, while coastal erosion and reef degradation continue unchecked. A United Nations review in 2022 found that, while on paper Mauritius has environmental laws, enforcement is inconsistent, community involvement is limited and responses to emerging threats such as ocean acidification remain inadequate. Unbelievably, seagrass beds, which are vital for carbon storage and marine biodiversity, are still cleared to make way for tourism development. Is this really the environmental guardian that Ministers are entrusting with 640,000 sq km of some of the most pristine ocean on earth? It beggars belief.

We need to look around the world to see what happens when Chinese fishing interests move in. In Ecuador, thousands of octopuses and sharks have been left dead on the shore because of illegal fishing by Chinese vessels. We need to guard against that in future. Off the coast of Ghana, fishermen’s catches have fallen by 40% due to Chinese bottom trawlers decimating local fish stocks. Around the Korean peninsula, squid populations have collapsed by 70%. I hope that this legislation and this agreement will help to protect the oceans around the world and countries where there are no protections at the moment. If the Chagos islands are handed over, the same fleets will soon appear in some of those waters, and Chagos will be at the mercy of exploitation.

That is the context in which the House is considering the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. It runs to 26 clauses, as the Minister has said. It is impossible to run through them all today, but no doubt we will look at them in greater detail in Committee. There are, however, several points that must be addressed in today’s debate.

When will ratification happen? Clause 25 provides for the commencement of regulation, but without any statutory deadline or parliamentary trigger, leaving ratification entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. To add to that, clauses 9 and 11 grant far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing Acts of Parliament by secondary legislation. Where is Parliament’s role in that? How will the House scrutinise decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement? Will we be consulted before international rules are imposed on British institutions and industries? Will British waters or those of our overseas territories ever fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign or supranational regulator? We surely cannot allow global bureaucracy to override British parliamentary sovereignty.

Beyond the question of control lies the spectre of bureaucracy. Clauses 2 and 3 impose heavy reporting duties on marine research and genetic sampling. Clause 16 allows still more procedures by regulation. Has the Department assessed what that will cost in time and money for our scientists and shipping operators and for legitimate researchers? How will small British enterprises compete if they face mountains of paperwork, while less scrupulous nations exploit the same waters freely? We all support high standards, but in the world we currently live in, we cannot afford to lose innovation or competitiveness.

Then there is the matter of expense. The impact assessment admits that compliance, licensing and enforcement will not be cheap, yet provides little detail on who pays. At a time of fiscal restraint, when every Department must justify every pound spent, can the Minister explain whether this legislation will truly be the best use of taxpayers’ money? How much will it cost to implement the BBNJ regime in full? Will the task of monitoring fall to the Royal Navy or the Marine Management Organisation, and what extra resources will they receive to do the job? What is the cost-benefit ratio, and have the Government assessed whether there could be indirect impacts on the taxpayer?

What of the impact on British industries, fishermen, offshore energy and biotechnology? Can the Minister assure us that British fishermen will not face restrictions, that our energy sector will not be burdened by impractical licensing demands, and that our biotech pioneers will not find their discoveries trapped in international bureaucracy?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister will have plenty of time to explain all these matters in detail in Committee. This is Second Reading, when we raise issues of concern. I look forward to Committee, and to all my questions being answered at that stage, if not today. I thank her for her intervention.

What safeguards will protect British intellectual property in marine genetic research? Will the benefit-sharing provisions prevent our scientists from developing the fruits of their own work? Will other nations shoulder equal obligations, or will Britain be left carrying the cost because we are doing the right thing and others are not? Our research institutions are some of the most prestigious global leaders in the marine sector, whether it is the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre or our magnificent universities. First and foremost, there must be a guarantee from the Government that this Bill will not drown them in red tape.

Clause 20 rightly extends the Bill’s provisions to the British overseas territories, which are central to our environmental success story. From the Pitcairn islands, with their 35 residents, to Tristan da Cunha, home to barely 240 residents, these far-flung Britons have shown what small communities can achieve for global conservation when they have British support. But how can they have confidence in the Government’s assurances when they witness what is happening in Chagos? If Ministers are willing to trade away one British territory without consultation or consent, what message does that send to the rest? I remind the House that conservation with the loss of sovereignty and without credible means of enforcement is a hollow virtue. The United Kingdom has a record to be proud of, from Captain Cook to David Attenborough. We must build on that record and not undermine it with rushed ratification.

If Ministers will answer the questions that I have laid out, and if they will commit in statute to parliamentary oversight, a fully costed implementation plan, explicit safeguards for British science and intellectual property, and legally enforceable protections for the overseas territories, many on the Conservative Benches will consider how to support measures that genuinely conserve our seas. If they will not, I and others—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Rosindell, can I check that you are nearing your conclusion?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Marvellous.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I was literally about to get there, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If Ministers will not do so, I and others will oppose any step that weakens Britain’s hand. I end where I began. As Conservatives, our principle is that we want to conserve, to keep safe, to steward and to defend what we are responsible for. We must be true to that principle. We must continue to act as custodians of the seas in a way that respects our sovereignty, honours our obligations to our descendants and protects the livelihoods and ecosystems that depend on the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague. He is absolutely right, and that is why today is so historic: this is the UK taking that leadership role and hopefully corralling some of the other countries that are more reticent to do the right thing.

The International Development Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, both of which I chair, have long been calling on both the previous Government and this Government to put in place the necessary legislation to ratify this agreement. To have finally reached this point is a credit to the Ministers—particularly the Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), but also the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman.

In an era of international fragmentation, I am relieved that 145 states have come together to forge this agreement and safeguard a global public good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) alluded to, 75 countries have already taken the next step of ratification. I am very proud that the Minister for Water and Flooding was championing this in opposition and has delivered on her word, leading this ratification in government. I thank her for that.

As a seafaring nation and a centre of expertise in maritime law, the UK is perfectly placed to lead the charge to protect the world’s oceans. Sadly, we are lagging behind many countries, including the Seychelles, St Lucia and Barbados, which ratified the agreement last year. It is not surprising that the small island developing states, or SIDs—or large ocean states, as they prefer to be called—were quick to ratify, because they recognise the existential threat that ocean ecosystem degradation poses to human societies and their economies.

As the International Development Committee argued in our report last year, SIDs need reliable partners. The UK talks a good game when it comes to responsible global leadership, but activists and policymakers from SIDs told the Committee they were concerned about the consistency of Britain’s commitment. I hope we will see that change at this moment, under this Government, and that we will stand up for small island developing states, particularly our overseas territories, which the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned.

The health of the world’s oceans is not an issue confined to low-income countries; it is an existential issue for all of us. As the Government’s impact assessment acknowledged, the impact of reduced fish stocks and decreased capacity will be borne by all of us, including future generations. The UK must seize this moment to match its international conservation ambitions with tangible action to protect our domestic waters. Bottom trawl fishing, a highly destructive practice, is still permitted across almost all of the UK’s seas, including in more than 90% of our marine protected areas. I welcome the Government’s consultation on that, and hope that they will take the necessary step to ban that practice wherever they can.

The Government must consider introducing additional legislation to ensure that the UK’s marine protected areas are actually protected, because sadly, even though they have the title, many of them are not. The Bill also offers plentiful opportunities for the UK’s blue economy as a world leader in marine science and technologies. To support quick progress, the UK needs a definition of the use of “marine genetic resources”, and “digital sequence information”, by the time the agreement is ratified. That is to support all those who will implement it.

The UK’s next steps are vital to ensure that we fulfil our leadership role in ocean protection. The 120-day countdown has started. The first conference of the parties, Ocean COP1, will be held within just 12 months. With the clock ticking, will the Minister set out a timetable for the passage of the Bill through both Houses? We need it to pass quickly to allow the UK to play its full part in the first conference. Will the Minister also confirm whether the Bill legally extends the UK’s existing domestic duties to have regard to the precautionary and polluter pays principles to the high seas? If not, will she say whether something to that effect should or could be inserted into the Bill? Will the Minister consider producing an ocean strategy? Ocean issues currently fall between a number of different Departments, which unfortunately means they are under the ownership of none. The Bill is to be commended and must attain Royal Assent without delay. I strongly urge all Members to support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Male Chick Culling

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree that when a supply chain, however difficult, is established and we try to move away from it, there can be unintended consequences. We have to look at the whole series of issues along that chain, so that we do not end up in a situation that has lower welfare outcomes than the one we started with. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is well aware of that, and we will not move in any way if we would end up in a worse welfare situation than the one we started with, but he makes a perfectly good point.

As I was about to say, another issue flagged in the Animal Welfare Committee’s report is the fact that male chicks provide a whole food source for exotic animals, and we would have to replace that.

In recent years, there has been phenomenal global progress in the development of technologies that could help to end routine culling of male chicks by identifying or determining embryo sex before hatching, and it appears that this is going on in the dairy industry as well. There is clearly a lot of scientific work going on to see what we can do to get away from the current situation in our livestock supply chains. Several new methods and systems have appeared, and many refinements in existing systems have continued, since the publication of the Animal Welfare Committee’s report on this subject.

We welcome the UK egg industry’s interest in the development of day-zero sexing technology, which enables eggs to be sexed prior to the start of their incubation. Such a commercial system offers many benefits, including economic and sustainability savings by directly freeing up hatchery space, in addition to providing an ethical solution to the culling of chicks.

In Germany, one alternative is the rearing of male layer chicks for meat production, also known as brother hens. Due to their slower growth rate, rearing brother hens requires a greater input of feed and a longer rearing phase to produce a smaller bird with less desirable body composition, making it more challenging to rear them commercially at scale in the UK. There is a lack of published research on the welfare of brother hens, but animal welfare concerns have been linked to this practice. In particular, managing aggression and high mortality within all-male flocks can be problematic, often accentuated by housing inappropriate to the birds’ behavioural needs.

Aside from in-ovo sexing technology and rearing of brother hens, I was pleased to hear about an initiative to assess the viability of dual-purpose poultry breeds in the UK—that is, breeds that can be used for laying and meat. Clearly, they are not as specialist as the different breeds currently used for the laying of eggs and for meat, but since they are dual purpose, they do not result in the mass culling of males in the laying industry. The initiative was awarded funding earlier this year as part of DEFRA’s farming innovation programme.

Using birds that can serve both as egg layers and meat producers could offer an alternative to chick culling, but it is different meat—they grow and turn out differently than UK consumers are perhaps used to. It is also thought that dual breeds bring other animal welfare benefits, as hens of dual-purpose breeds have lower incidences of keel bone fractures, and some breeds show less injurious pecking behaviour than found in commercial laying hen breeds. The males of dual breeds have better walking ability, lower levels of pododermatitis and better feather cover than fast-growing meat chicken breeds.

In addition to the animal health and welfare benefits, the project is also looking at the sustainability benefits of dual breeds. Dual breeds have lower protein requirements, and a German trial found that locally grown beans were a suitable alternative to very high- protein soya. If this approach to chicken breeding can be made viable, become popular and be accepted by UK consumers—those three things all have to work—it may deliver sustainability benefits. Bringing value to male layer chicks is of key importance, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of this research and whether dual-purpose breeds might offer a more ethical and sustainable approach than our current one.

This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Our farm animal welfare policy is backed by a robust evidence base, and is supported and shaped by input from our many excellent stakeholder and expert advice groups. I look forward to speaking to hon. Members about this in more detail soon. Although, as I said earlier, this is principally an ethical rather than animal welfare issue, that does not mean that we should not be trying, very robustly, to address it. I look forward to seeing progress in this area over the next period.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was incredibly educational.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am extremely sorry to hear about Dani’s case. The previous Government closed over 260 court buildings, and the human cost of the delays as a result of the backlog is really considerable. Victims are waiting years for justice, and attrition in rape cases in particular has more than doubled in the last five years. As I said, on taking office we took immediate action, and not only in relation to sitting days. We have also committed to investing up to £92 million more a year in criminal legal aid, and we are taking action to ensure that there are more specialist counsel available, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Last year, 446 Crown court trials were ineffective because the prosecutor failed to attend. Given that the Government are getting to grips with the backlog they inherited by increasing sitting days and through Brian Leveson’s proposals, is the Solicitor General concerned that the CPS also needs to step up to the plate? What is she doing to ensure that that happens?

River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick]

The Minister will have heard the points we have made about the lack of supervisory authorities. Will she write to the Welsh Minister responsible and ask him to look into the case of the Brecon canal?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is very quick on his feet. I call the Minister.

Flood Preparedness: Carlisle

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution as always and for his interest in this area. The management of locks and weirs probably does not come into the scope of the flooding formula review, but I have heard the point he is making, and I will talk to officials about whether the management of locks is taken into account with flood plans and how that is managed consistently around the country. I will write back to him on that, if that would be useful.

The Government’s record two-year investment in our flood defences will better protect communities across the country from flooding. It will also boost economic growth in local communities by protecting businesses, delivering new jobs and supporting a stable economy in the face of the increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change.

Through our plan for change, this Government will deliver a decade of national renewal and economic growth, and we are committed to ensuring that communities are better protected from flooding in the first place. We will continue to deliver and repair flood defences, improve drainage systems and develop natural flood management schemes. As ever, the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities, voluntary organisations and Government Departments stand ready to support affected people in any future flooding event, and I pay tribute to them all. It is a personal priority and a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding, and I will continue working to ensure that this country is more resilient to floods.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As the Member for Carlisle mentioned her mother’s 91st birthday, it is only appropriate that I wish Freda Minns—what a beautiful name—a very happy birthday.

Question put and agreed to.

Sewage

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I inform the House that the Speaker has selected amendment (a) tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a typically good speech. Does he agree that water from areas where one cannot swim still ends up in areas where one can? The Roden and Perry rivers in my constituency suffered over 2,000 hours of sewage spills in the past year—the Perry is affected by a spill into the Common brook near Oswestry. Not only does that water go past farmers’ fields, but it ends up in Shrewsbury, where there is a designated swimming area. I want to swim in it. Does he agree that the blue flag status would clear up the whole catchment, not just the places where people go swimming?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before you get back to your feet, Mr Farron, I remind you that you can speak as long as you want, but the longer you speak, the less likely it is that colleagues will be able to contribute.

[Tim Farron]

I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will allow maybe only two more interventions. I am coming towards the end of my remarks. I am trying to be not selfish but generous by getting the balance right. I do not want to squeeze people out altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank the Secretary of State. I have just been reading about his core reforms, and I note that, as he has said, core reform 3 changes the way in which the season for bathing is determined. However, it continues the principle that water is not tested by the Environment Agency throughout the year. This is an important omission that must be rectified. During a bathing season, the water can become polluted. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing all-year-round testing for our Blue Flag areas?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I would like him to consider the fact that more than 30 colleagues wish to contribute. The longer he speaks, the less likely it is that they will all get in.

[Steve Reed]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not take any more interventions. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. Public health is a priority in the reforms that we are making.

The Environment Agency must consider public safety and the environment when it assesses applications for bathing waters, and remove the harmful automatic designation of bathing waters so that we can continue to invest in and improve these sites. Applications for new bathing waters will open next month, adding to the more than 450 bathing waters around the country. Details of how to apply are online.

The sewage scandal ends with this Labour Government. Our groundbreaking Water (Special Measures) Act will give the regulators tough new powers to hold water companies to account. They will no longer get away with polluting our waterways and rewarding themselves with undeserved bonuses for what they have done. This is a fresh start for the water sector—a fundamental reset that will clean up our waterways, create thousands of jobs, grow the economy and give us a reliable water supply for decades to come.

Exciting progress is already being made. The Thames tideway tunnel was fully activated in February—an amazing feat of British engineering and entrepreneurial spirt that will reduce sewage spills into the Thames by around 95%. Since coming into operation, the tunnel has captured enough sewage to fill Wembley stadium five times over and stopped it pouring into the river. I want to see innovation like that not just in London but right across the country, bringing investment, driving regional economic growth and cleaning up our waterways for good.

Many of us cherish memories from childhood of summer holidays on the beach, exploring rock pools or splashing about in the waves. Today’s children deserve to make the same magical memories. This is our moment to give our children back the future that is their birthright, to restore pride in our rivers, lakes and seas, to end the sewage scandal and to clean up our waterways for good. That is the prize, and this is the Government who will make it happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Because the Front-Bench contributions have been so substantial, Back Benchers will now be on a time limit of three minutes. I call the shadow Secretary of State.