Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsThursday 16th October 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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 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.
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.
Male Chick Culling
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected amendment (a) tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
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.
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.
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.
Water Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsFriday 28th March 2025
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Water Bill 2024-26 View all Water Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Lewis
No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all.
Clive Lewis
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point.
The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent.
The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away.
But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country—
Clive Lewis
Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene.
Clive Lewis
I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress.
Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth.
I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the next Member, I trust that the microphones have been adjusted to their normal level.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Gentleman knows that it is entirely up to the Member who is speaking to decide whether they wish to take or reject an intervention, just as it is up to Members attempting to make an intervention to either persist in the attempt or not. We will let the debate continue, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is plenty of time.
Clive Lewis
People talk about whether something can be taken out of public control and put back into privatisation. Of course, Parliament is sovereign and that can always happen, but there is a point about giving control to the public. Let us take the NHS, which is a public service. Any Government in the post-war period could have taken the NHS back into privatisation. Why did they not do so? They would not have dared, because it would have been so publicly damaging and politically destructive. That is what would happen with our water. Does the hon. Member agree? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I remind people in the Public Gallery to remain silent?
Carla Denyer
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reminder about the analogy with the national health service.
Public ownership is not just essential for social and environmental justice; it is also, in this situation, a pragmatic necessity. It just makes sense, which is why almost everyone else does things that way. With water back in public hands, the Government could invest in fixing the crumbling infrastructure and cleaning up our rivers, or preventing them from getting into such a state in the first place, without haemorrhaging money to shareholders and allowing it to spill over—sorry; I couldn’t resist—into fat cats’ salaries.
People are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes. We cannot allow water companies to contribute to that situation by hiking up the bills that everyone has to pay. Without real change, we will not stop sewage flowing into our rivers and profits flowing into the pockets of shareholders. There is an obvious answer that makes both people and the environment the winners: if they so choose, the Government could bring water companies back into public hands, to end the profiteering, drive down bills, protect our rivers, waterways and coastline, and catch up with the public who, as the hon. Member for Norwich South pointed out, are way ahead of the Labour Government on this issue and much else.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind the hon. Member that interventions should be short.
Ellie Chowns
I remind the House briefly that all these issues are well investigated and understood, and the House has previously used this mechanism effectively.
Mark Ferguson
I am on the cusp of it. There are cost implications of asking members of the public to travel to another part of the country, and these things are inevitably in London. As somebody whose constituency is 250 miles from London, I would be concerned about members of my community being left out of such a consultation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the hon. Lady responds to that intervention, I know it is Friday but you do not intervene on an intervention, and interventions are short. They are not speeches.
Dame Meg Hillier
I think my hon. Friend makes some important points. We have seen from citizens’ juries, including in Ireland, which has a well-worn route for using these for their referenda, that people do drop out and do not always attend, because life gets in the way. That is why we are elected: to make hard decisions and defend difficult issues. We cannot make the world like the land of milk and honey—certainly not after the inheritance we received from the last Government after 14 years of mismanagement.
We have very big challenges and we need to tackle them. It would put heavy pressure on citizens’ juries to do that. The key point here is that, whatever the best practice, the Bill does not go into the detail of it, so we cannot assume that the good practice that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has highlighted from her constituency is necessarily what would apply—let alone the challenges that other hon. Members have raised.
Turning to the hon. Member for Bristol Central, I would be surprised that a member of her party is so willing to pass responsibility over, but then I look at what happened in Brighton when the Greens controlled Brighton council. I will put aside the rubbish collection issue and the infighting and look at the issue with the i360—the tower that is now a tourist attraction. The company behind it went bust with over £50 million of debt. It was the Green-run council that provided £36 million of public money to pay for that vanity project, and in the end taxpayers in Brighton and Hove were left £51 million out of pocket and Brighton and Hove council were left to pay £2 million a year for the foreseeable future.
I do not think we need to take any lectures from the Green party about how to manage public money, because when they have been in power, they cannot do it. No wonder they want to pass responsibility over to a citizens’ jury rather than take responsibility themselves.
I have been diverted, but I think it was useful. Before I move on to my next point, I will take one more diversion.
Clive Lewis
May I make a more general point? If the Bill went into Committee, we would look at this in far more detail, but a big part of the Bill is about a mission and our direction of travel. It is about tackling the crisis in democracy, and trusting our fellow citizens to give a point of view, with guidance from experts, so that we can make a decision. When the founders of the renaissance or capitalism sat down, did they know that the renaissance would happen, or that capitalism would end up like this? No. This is about heading in a certain direction and having some imagination—
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South for that helpful reply to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). I am just doing my best to facilitate debate here, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will appreciate the congenial atmosphere that I am trying to create. I do not know whether it is working; please let me know later.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
A lot of Members want to contribute today. I call James Frith.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, but I have been to Devon in my role before, and I will come to Devon again. I am always happy to meet farmers. I have spent quite a lot of time at this Dispatch Box answering questions from Conservative Members, so perhaps fewer questions will mean more time to go out and meet farmers.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Back in November, the farming Minister unbelievably said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was striking how many people were coming up to him at farming events and saying, “You’re right to be making these changes to APR and BPR.” Conservative Members have been out and about all over the country; indeed, I was in Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Shropshire yesterday, and I have not found one farmer who thinks that he is right. In fact, the level of anger and sheer disbelief among our farming community is immense as this Government’s attack on our farming cash flows continues through the dramatic reduction in delinked payments, the sudden stop of the sustainable farming incentive and the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions—I could go on. Business confidence is at an all-time low, so can the Minister provide the name of just one farmer he has spoken to who thinks he and his Government are right to be pursuing these changes?
Daniel Zeichner
I suggest that the shadow Minister goes out and speaks to a few more people, because I was stopped in a local village just this weekend and encouraged —[Interruption.] I am not going to name names, but he should check with some of his Conservative candidates in elections. They said, “Keep on going, you are doing the right thing.” The situation is not as the shadow Minister describes. He might do well to look at the figures for projected farm business incomes for this year, which show that in many sectors, those business incomes are doing rather well. That probably explains why people are not as exercised about it as him.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Is the Minister aware that some of the farmers who will be worst hit by the APR changes are those who farm in severely disadvantaged areas in the uplands around our country, where typically property values are high and incomes are extremely low? When the change was made just last week with people being excluded from the sustainable farming incentive, 6,100 people had entered the SFI in this session, and only 40 of them were hill farmers. Is he also aware that his own Department’s figures show that at the end of the transition, the average hill farm income will be 55% of the national minimum wage? Does he not understand that his changes are bringing harm to the poorest farmers in the prettiest places, such as mine? Will he undertake to look at the Liberal Democrat proposal to bring in an uplands reward so that we do not plunge into poverty those people who care for our precious landscapes?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The questions have to relate to Hartlepool’s flood defences. I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The people of Chesterfield have great empathy with the people of Hartlepool, as we face exactly the same issues. A new report by Public First shows that each year of flood events causes decade-long downward pressure on the economy worth up to £6 billion. I am grateful that the Minister will shortly visit us in Chesterfield to see flood projects and vulnerabilities, but does she agree that there is acute need for projects like the one we require on the River Hipper, and the one required in Hartlepool? It endangers the Government’s growth mission if we are not able to get these projects going.
Emma Hardy
I think we all have empathy with Hartlepool, so I encourage more people to ask questions on this issue. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency to find out more about the projects he mentions. He is quite right to say—this is an argument that I hope we will all pursue ahead of the spring statement—that tackling flooding is a good, value-for-money investment, because it helps to protect our economy and ensure that we can have growth.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Like people in Hartlepool, we in Bath recognise that the Conservative Government left our flood defences in a poor state, and we welcome the extra funding that the Bath flood defence scheme has received. However, we worry that it has come too late in a lot of cases. Is there a timeline for when my Bath constituents will actually see improvements?
Emma Hardy
I am grateful not only for the work that my hon. Friend’s action flood group does, but for the work that flood action groups do right across the whole of his constituency. He raises an incredibly important and interesting issue. In the Sir John Cunliffe review, we are fundamentally looking at the management of water right across entire catchment areas. When we think about water management, we need to consider not only whether communities have enough water to meet their needs, but whether they have protection from flooding and drought. A holistic way of dealing with some of the challenges we face is certainly one of the answers going forward. My hon. Friend has given a great example, and I would be happy to explore it further with him.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Conservative Government protected over 600,000 properties from flooding, introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and committed to a £5.2 billion investment in flood protection. However, we know that the mental health impacts of flooding remain long after the waters subside. Rural communities face unique challenges, including outbreaks of diseases such as avian influenza and foot and mouth—a clear and worrying threat, given the recent cases in Germany and Hungary. Unfortunately, this Labour Government are exacerbating such stresses with their family farm tax and by scrapping the farming resilience fund, which supports mental health. Can the Minister confirm, for the sake of mental health, what support will be offered to rural communities in place of the scrapped fund?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the question from my hon. Friend. We are absolutely determined to make the best of this opportunity, not least because the previous Government did not know how much we were actually buying. The Secretary of State has announced that we will monitor the food bought in the public sector, and that will inform our policy of making sure that British farmers make the most of the opportunity for public procurement.
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)
The Secretary of State, in her speech to the Oxford farming conference, spoke about the plan for change, which was going to include a commitment to public sector procurement, but that was in January, and we are now in March. With the closure of the basic payment scheme and the ending of the sustainable farming incentive, farm incomes are under real cash pressure in the here and now, so when will we hear more detail about the very welcome commitments that the Secretary of State made at the Oxford farming conference in January?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Over the past 14 years, things only got filthier. This Government will turn the tide. Things will get cleaner thanks to the investment this Government are bringing in.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Chamber. He has been in hiding for a week. We were so worried about him that we were going to start a “Where’s Wally?” competition. The reason he has been in hiding is that he is ducking scrutiny of his dreadful decision to stop the sustainable farming incentive farm payment scheme immediately, without warning. Conservative Members have been inundated with messages from farmers saying that businesses will not survive this latest assault by the Government. How many farmers will be bankrupted as a result of the SFI stoppage?
Steve Reed
We are fighting to have the honour of responding to the former Prime Minister! Of course I agree with him. Our focus on farm profitability is precisely so that family farms up and down the country can have a bright and secure future. Any sector that does not make a profit is not going to attract investment and will not have a future. We want farming to succeed in his constituency and in every constituency across the land.
The Solicitor General
The work to improve our public services has to include the better use of technology. The Government are taking decisive action to enable law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities to harness innovative and cutting-edge technologies to reduce the court backlog, improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and lead to better outcomes for victims. I am pleased to say that the Government Legal Department is providing leadership in this area through its artificial intelligence centre of excellence, which offers expert support to colleagues across Government.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
With shameful vandalism of buildings in Eastbourne’s Gildredge park and the torching of park benches in Shinewater park reflected across the country, we clearly need more tools to tackle such crimes in Eastbourne and beyond. Technology is one of those tools. Will the Solicitor General share with my constituents what tech the Government are set to deploy to help us address those crimes more efficiently through the criminal justice system?
The Solicitor General
I know my hon. Friend has raised those important issues on the Floor of the House previously. I also know how hard she is working to ensure the safety of residents in her area.
Too many town centres and high streets are plagued by antisocial behaviour and shoplifting. Those crimes are too often dismissed as low-level, but communities have to deal with the consequences. This Government are taking action: we are putting an additional 13,000 police and PCSOs on our streets and introducing respect orders to ensure that disruptive antisocial behaviour is eradicated from our town centres. I have been visiting local CPS units around the country and have seen at first hand their hard work to ensure that crimes are successfully prosecuted and that perpetrators are put behind bars.
The Solicitor General
The criticism would carry a little more weight were it not for the fact that the Conservatives spent the last 14 years driving up the record court backlog. The root causes of the backlog are a direct result of the Conservatives’ choices. The previous Government closed over 260 court buildings, and the record court backlog now stands at 73,000 cases. As we have said, the human cost of those delays is considerable—victims are waiting years for justice. The Lord Chancellor is taking robust action. She has increased the number of Crown court sitting days, increased magistrate courts’ sentencing powers and asked Sir Brian Leveson to lead an independent review of our criminal courts to look at options for longer-term reform. The previous Government did not act; they drove up the backlog. This Government are taking action.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As the Solicitor General says, the Lord Chancellor has substantially increased sitting days. The lack of a judge is only one reason that courts stand empty. In the first nine months of 2024, 368 Crown court trials were rendered ineffective because the prosecutor failed to attend. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with the CPS on improving prosecutor attendance, so that Crown courts can sit closer to judicial capacity?
Sustainable Farming Incentive
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend asks an important question. This is, of course, an EU legacy scheme, and we are considering the best way of taking that forward in the future, but we are absolutely committed to supporting and working with the horticultural sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have around 35 minutes remaining. Questions must be short and the Minister’s response must be on point and tight. I call the Father of the House.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I do not know how to break this to the Minister: I do not know if he realises this, but when the thousands of farmers come to Westminster, they do not come to thank him or the Secretary of State. Yesterday, we had the sustainable farming incentive announcement. Today, there is an announcement that there is to be no extension to the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). That, of course, follows the family farm tax.
The Minister’s announcement today speaks very ill of the financial management of his Department. I make no apologies for repeating the questions asked by my right hon. and hon. Friends. When did the Minister know that he was hitting his budget ceiling? When had he set that as a criterion? What discussions has he had with the Treasury to increase the budget? Why was he deliberately, I presume, misleading farmers by pledging a six-week notice period, when it was not even six seconds?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Just before the Minister responds, the hon. Member knows that he cannot use the term “deliberately misleading”. I ask him to withdraw that statement.
Points of Order
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has been asked repeatedly why no notice was given to farmers of the closure of the SFI scheme. He has given a range of answers, including that “people have known for weeks and weeks—months”. He even stretched it to five years ago. This is important, not least because business decisions are having to be made on the fly today, but also because there may be legal consequences to the answer that the Minister has given. How can we encourage the Minister to correct the record and state the fact that no notice was given to farmers?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ statements in the House, but she has put her point of order on the record. I do not believe that the Minister wishes to respond—
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
indicated dissent.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct the record and make a declaration of interests. In my excitement while making my first intervention during proceedings on the Employment Rights Bill yesterday, I did not point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or mention my proud membership of the Community, GMB and Unison unions. I would like to ensure that that is on the record as well as in the register.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of her point of order. I know that she has been diligent in seeking advice on how and when to declare an interest. That is now on the record.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21 May 2024, the former Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), published records of blood and urine tests relating to nuclear test veterans. He said at that time that there were 150. It has now become clear from the correspondence of a court case brought by the British nuclear test veterans that there are 370 documents mentioning blood and urine. That includes 265 that were previously unseen and unreleased. That raises the possibility, as you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Atomic Weapons Establishment misled Ministers about the number of records, and that, inadvertently and entirely innocently, the Minister brought the wrong information to this House. I seek your guidance on how the Government can correct the record and publish those extra records. The nuclear test veterans deserve nothing less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of ministerial statements in the House, but he has put his point on the record and no doubt those on the Treasury Bench are taking note and listening.