Animal Rescue Centres

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec. It is also a pleasure to hear from the Petitions Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for outlining the petitioners views. There were almost 110,000 of them across the country. Some of them are here today in the Public Gallery. Led by Paul and the other campaigners, they have driven so hard to get us to where we are today—not just this debate in Parliament or with the private Member’s Bill that I introduced, but in actually seeing that consultation brought forward by the Government, which is very much to be welcomed.

I begin by thanking hon. Members from across the Chamber: the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock); the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones); the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba); the chair of the APPG on cats, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), and the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) contributed in a really valuable way to this debate. It is without doubt that the breadth and strength of those contributions have demonstrated why this issue of licensed animal shelters and rescue centres matters so deeply to communities right across the country.

Now, it might be highly unusual to have the shadow Transport Secretary speaking in a debate on a subject for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I requested this one personally, given the fact that an incident that has been referred to, and that sparked off this position, happened in my own constituency at Crays Hill. Many Members will be aware of that and have made a reference to that horrible and tragic case—the appalling discovery of dozens of animals found dead at a property which was presenting itself as a rehoming centre. Some animals were taken back alive. Yet even when they were taken alive some had to have the most horrendous operations done to them, including one having to have its eyes removed because it was so badly maltreated. I was inundated with correspondence from my own constituents and people across the country who are determined to see high standards brought in for this sector and proper, meaningful oversight delivered.

I thank those 2,600 of my constituents who responded to this petition—more than any other constituency in the country. They are the reason that we are where we are today and the reason I brought forward my private Member’s Bill for establishing a licensing regime for animal shelters. Only by setting clear standards, and, crucially, as Members have said, by having them properly enforced, can we actually protect animals. That is why I am determined that, hopefully, with the Government’s consultation coming forward soon, we arrive at a licensing regime that puts animal welfare at its heart—and I look forward to hearing a few more details from the Minister in her response and very much welcome the proposal’s inclusion in the animal welfare strategy. That licensing regime must be one that clamps down on malpractice and bad actors while protecting and supporting the many kind-hearted individuals and organisations—from small individuals right through to some of our largest national charities—which provide safe, caring and responsible environments for animals and often animals in real need.

We have heard passionate speeches from right across the House in support of those small, often individual institutions in Member’s constituencies. I am heartened by the depth of experience and expertise that exists in the sector to help us get this licensing regime right as well. I place on record my thanks to the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, Farplace Animal Rescue and so many others for their outstanding work and leadership in this area. I obviously also have to pay tribute to Paul Watkinson. His dogged determination to protect animal welfare and ensure that high standards are there across the board also deserves recognition in this House, as do local campaigners in my constituency.

As the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford said, the problem, as has become painfully clear, is that anyone, regardless of their experience or their intention, can put up a sign and declare that they have an animal rescue shelter or rehoming centre. They will not face routine inspection, be subject to monitoring or be required to apply for any form of licence. That gap in oversight has led to consequences that are as clear as they are troubling: it has undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sector; placed intolerable pressure on reputable charities that are trying to get on with their meaningful work and that already face additional costs; and most importantly, it has resulted in animals suffering—not only dogs and cats but horses and the other animals that have been mentioned.

We know that it does not have to be this way. As we have heard, in Scotland, a licensing regime provided a clear bulwark against malpractice and has been in place since 2021. As was mentioned, in Wales, the Government have made plain their intention to move in the same direction. It is therefore vital that England, which is currently an outlier, moves in the same direction. To continue as we are at the moment is clearly not sustainable, and there is a clear advantage to addressing this issue now. As we set about fixing the problem, we are not starting from scratch. As hon. Members have mentioned, we can draw directly from the experiences of those who have gone before us to get it right. I have spoken to many animal welfare charities based in Scotland that are adapting to the legislation and want to see updates. We can help get it right. We can get it even better here than those charities have managed. That is why it is so important that we act now.

It is important to recognise that many rescue and rehoming centres already operate to the highest of standards. A significant number are subscribed to the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes voluntary code. That framework is the gold standard and was developed over many years with considerable care, expertise and sector-wide input. I am sure that the Minister will look closely at the voluntary code and work constructively with the association and the wider sector to ensure that the policy is delivered properly. At its best, the sector shows us what good looks like. The task before us is to ensure that those standards are applied fairly and right across the board, so that wherever they are, animals get gold-standard treatment.

The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the fact that, for licensing to succeed, it must be proportionate and, crucially, properly enforced. One message I have heard repeatedly from across the sector is that regulation without enforcement is no regulation at all. Clear standards must be matched by trained inspectors, adequate local authority resourcing and a system that allows concerns to be acted on before situations deteriorate into crisis, as clearly happened in my constituency.

Any effective system must reflect the realities of modern rescue and rehoming, including foster-based rescues and online rehoming operations, as well as reflecting the work of organisations facilitating rehoming more broadly. The ADCH standards are excellent and many responsible rescue centres have rightly adopted them, but a voluntary system alone will always leave gaps, as rogue operators can simply opt out. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on a licensing regime for rehoming organisations, but that consultation must be followed by real clarity. The sector has been has been ready to engage for many years. What it needs now is a timetable and a clear scope, and there must also be reassurance that wildlife rescue centres will not be left outside of any framework and that there will be support for smaller organisations during any transition.

What happened in my constituency last year is not just deeply disturbing; it is a crime, and the man who was arrested for it has recently pleaded guilty and is now awaiting sentencing. I am glad that he will be brought to justice. The situation has galvanised campaigners, charities and Members from across the House to work together to ensure that this issue receives the attention it deserves. There is a clearly a broad consensus across Parliament, the sector and the devolved Administrations. The case for licensing is well made, but what is now required is genuine action.

Animals entering rescue and rehoming centres are, by definition, already the most vulnerable. Many have been abandoned, neglected or mistreated before. The very least we owe them is a system that keeps them safe and properly cared for, and we must hold those whose care they are put into to clear and enforceable standards. I urge the Government to ensure that England embarks on a structured roll-out of a licensing regime that is proportionate, inclusive and centred on animal welfare, regardless of the size of the organisation involved, at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the dogs at Crays Hill did not die in vain and we can prevent other tragedies in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I am sorry to hear that the SNP Government are not taking firm action, but perhaps where we have led the way, they would like to follow. I congratulate West Lothian Litter Pickers and pay tribute to Keep Britain Tidy, whose Great British spring clean, backed by the Daily Mirror, helped to tackle the 30 million tonnes of litter discarded on our streets each year, including 5 billion cigarette butts. Each cigarette butt can poison 1,000 litres of water. If we are serious about marine litter, we have to pick up our butts—and perhaps a little less talk and a little more action from the SNP.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I recently met with the Philpot family at the diverse and successful Barleylands farm in my constituency. Fly-tipping is a major concern for them and other local farmers, and they are working together to address it. They told me that, although fly-tipping is a major issue, it is not the existential threat that the tax increases this Labour Government are imposing on them are, with the national insurance tax increases and the massive rises in agricultural property relief and business property relief. They are right, are they not?

[Mary Creagh]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on weaving in a farms question on fly-tipping, but he is right—[Interruption.] Calm down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to increase transparency in the Attorney General's Office.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to manage conflicts of interest in the Attorney General’s Office.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

10. What steps she is taking to manage conflicts of interest in the Attorney General’s Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member will know that the Attorney General ceased all private practice following his appointment. The hon. Member refers to fee agreements, and he will know that there are different arrangements and requirements for declarations for Members of the House of Lords and for Members of the House of Commons. It does not matter which type of fee agreement is in place between a lawyer and their client, because the entirety of those agreements—whether a conditional fee agreement, a damages-based agreement, on a fully paid basis or when acting pro bono—will always be caught by the conflicts process. The requirements for the purposes of the House of Lords are the same for all peers and they apply just as much to the shadow Attorney General as to the Attorney General.

[Mr Holden]

Does the Solicitor General agree with the recent Policy Exchange research paper “Conflicts of Interest and the Law Officers’ Convention” authored by Dr Conor Casey, a senior lecturer at Surrey law school, and supported by three former Ministers who are all KCs, that invoking the Law Officers’ convention on questions about the potential conflict of interest relating to the work of the Attorney General would be an error, as such questions do not fall within the scope of the convention?

[The Solicitor General]

As I have said, the Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts and potential conflicts that arise from the Law Officers’ former practice. The Law Officers’ convention, to which the right hon. Member referred, exists for very good reason, which is to enable the Government of this country to receive full and frank advice. In any event, the Attorney General has been clear that he does not agree with that report. In particular, he does not agree that a Law Officer would indicate whether they have recused themselves from a particular matter, because that in itself would breach the Law Officers’ convention.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Richard Holden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. One of the reasons the Government commissioned a review into governance and regulation is because of the failure of the current system that the previous Government allowed to continue.

I share customers’ anger about the scale of water bill rises they seem likely to face. They are rightly furious at being left to pay the price of Conservative failure. I am grateful that the party opposite has indicated support for the Bill. It is just a shame its support has come so late. In December last year, while they were still in government, I called a vote on introducing a ban on unjustified bonuses for water bosses, but they refused to do it. They could have acted at any point over the past 14 years, but they would not do it. There have been many times in history when Labour has had to clean up the Tories’ mess, but rarely quite so literally as cleaning up the raw sewage polluting our country’s waterways.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Does he acknowledge, though, that under the previous Labour Government we saw none of the massive capital investment that we are seeing now with the Thames tideway tunnel, which was started under the Conservative Government in 2016? It will be completed next year and is one of the biggest changes to removing sewage from our waterways in history.

[Steve Reed]

The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system and they chose to do absolutely nothing. They have left it to the incoming Labour Government to clear up the mess they left behind.

The truth is that the water sector needs a complete reset. It needs reform that puts customers and the environment first for once, and a new partnership with the Government to invest for the future and upgrade our water infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

No, it is because they know that we have already put most of these powers into place and that this is a PR exercise. None the less, it is an important topic, which is why we will ensure that the Government improve the Bill—there is much improvement to be done—and work constructively across the House to ensure that that happens. We understand that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Calder Valley want clean water as much as my residents in Lincolnshire do.

In Committee and beyond, we will be working to improve this Bill, and I want to join the Secretary of State in thanking the noble Lords in the other place for already starting this task of improvement. In particular, I congratulate Lord Cromwell, who amended the Bill to improve accountability on debt levels and the financial structuring of water companies. Will the Minister please confirm that the Government will keep those amendments in the Bill?

[Mr Holden]

On a fairly small technical point, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) made the point that 12.5% of Conservative Members are here. Perhaps he should look at the statistics, because only 11% of Labour Members are here. I know that the last Labour Government were not interested in monitoring the outflows, but they could at least monitor their own Members.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend. That shows that we on this side can count, unlike the cockeyed accounting of the Chancellor and her Ministers.

In Committee and beyond, the Conservatives will look to deliver an effective limit on water company borrowing. We will boost the way that nature-based solutions can be used in drainage and sewerage management plans, as well as in water storage and tackling pollution. We will also seek to bring back the water restoration fund as an absolute priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

This is a heavily oversubscribed debate and I want to get as many Back Benchers in as I can, so Back-Bench speeches will be limited to a hard stop at four minutes. I call Matt Rodda, who is going to show us how it is done beautifully—

[Mr Holden]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr. Holden, is this a crucial point of order related to the business taking place right now?

[Mr Holden]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State had the opportunity today to make a declaration of interest, in having had football tickets worth £1,800 donated to him by Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, which also owns three quarters of Northumbrian Water. I just wonder whether he would like to make a quick declaration on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am not sure that it is a matter for the Chair to regulate Members’ declarations of interest. It is on public record, which is why the hon. Gentleman has been able to make that point on the Floor of the House, and no doubt it has been noted. Now, Mr. Rodda, you have four minutes. The floor is yours.

Future of Farming

Richard Holden Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of farming.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to bring this timely and important debate to the Floor of the Chamber. I did not think that it would be being debated at the same time in the other place. However, we will progress.

Farming has long been the backbone of our nation, underpinning food security, providing jobs and delivering significant environmental benefits. The agrifood sector across the United Kingdom contributes £148 billion to the economy and employs over 4 million people, including 462,000 directly in agriculture. It is an industry worth protecting and speaking out for.

Today, I speak not just as a politician, but as someone with farming in my blood—the daughter of a farmer, the wife of a farmer, and the mum of a little boy who dreams of becoming a farmer. The future of farming is deeply personal to me, as it is to many of the 209,000 farm owners across the UK, including 26,000 in Northern Ireland. These people work 17 million hectares of land to feed the nation, and care for the countryside. Their average farm size is 82 hectares, and their contribution to the UK economy amounts to £13.7 billion annually. Yet, they now face an existential threat from the proposed changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is talking about the direct impact on farmers, but in her opening comments she mentioned the broader agricultural, business and food sectors across the UK economy. Does she share my concern that, whether it is the tractor manufacturers or those who work in the farm shops in my constituency, the knock-on consequences will be huge if the Government’s proposed tax changes get through? They will impact not just the individual family farms themselves, which are the backbone of our economy, but all aspects of our rural and urban economy.

[Carla Lockhart]

I could not agree more: the knock-on impact will be immense.

The Budget’s decision to cap full inheritance tax relief at £1 million, with a 20% charge above that, will devastate family farms. These changes know no boundaries and will affect countless small and modest family farm businesses. Independent analysis shows that up to 75,000 farming taxpayers will be impacted over a generation—five times the Government’s initial estimate. In Northern Ireland alone, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs predicts that one third of farms and 75% of dairy farms will be hit the hardest. These figures are not plucked from the sky; these are real, evidenced figures from DAERA. Farmers face the grim prospect of selling off prime agricultural land, probably to big businesses that certainly do not want to use it for food production. This death tax will erode our food security and end future generational farming.

Three weeks ago, at the Eikon centre in Lisburn, I stood in front of 6,000 farmers who had braved Storm Bert to voice their concerns. Their message was clear: stop the family farm tax grab. The Government must listen. If they proceed with this policy, it will not only destroy an industry that feeds the nation, but tarnish their legacy, with the destruction of rural communities and livelihoods. When we are asked about this Government’s legacy thus far, sadly farmers and pensioners come to mind.

Rural Affairs

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate all those who delivered their maiden speech tonight, and I look forward to hearing more from them in the years to come. I welcome this debate, which is exceptionally timely and important, and the fact that it is in Government time. I say gently to those on the Treasury Bench that if this is the start of a process of engagement with rural communities, that is welcome, but there has to be a process; this debate alone will not be enough.

The truth is that in the countryside, there is a genuine crisis of confidence in communities’ futures, and in the future of farming. That is felt deeply in my constituency. I spent time on Saturday afternoon talking to four farmers in Orkney. Those young men had made a genuine commitment to the industry and are now at a loss. I really did not know what I could say to give them comfort or optimism. The language they used was interesting. One of them continually described the changes as “cruel”. It is worth reflecting on why he did that. It was not hyperbole. Here was somebody who had given his family and his community a commitment that he would farm for the rest of his days, and suddenly it felt as though he had been cut off at the knees.

The Minister will doubtless tell us the number of estates that will, or will not be, affected. Those figures will need rather more robust scrutiny than they have had thus far. However, it is not all about figures; it is also about the psychology and the commitment. These people are hurting, and if there is to be any chance of the Government turning things around, there will have to be a rather more substantial and prolonged programme of engagement. Farming is at the heart of the countryside community. This is not just about the money that goes to farmers; that money then goes to seed merchants, feed merchants, hauliers, marts, vets, contractors, and the one-man businesses that go around farms paring feet, scanning for pregnancy and the rest of it. It is right that the most significant feature of the Budget for the community was inheritance tax, but there was an awful lot more in it that caused me concern.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the consequences for the broader community and businesses of extra taxes on the agricultural sector. Those are felt in my constituency of Basildon and Billericay, where we have the big New Holland tractor factory. This weekend, constituents were already coming to me worried about how the changes will impact their jobs. It is not just rural Britain that is affected. Does he acknowledge that there is a knock-on effect across the entire economy?

[Mr Carmichael]

I fear that there absolutely is that impact. That is why I gently caution those who frame the issue as a debate between urban and rural communities to think a bit more carefully. There is a strong case to be made for explaining to people in towns why people in the countryside matter to them, their future and the economy, rather than setting this up as a contest between the two.

Beyond inheritance tax, other issues in the Budget caused me concern, including the return of changes to the treatment of double cab pick-ups, and the effect of the carbon border adjustment mechanism on fertilisers. We all know what happened to food prices the last time we saw a spike in fertiliser prices. That was not caused by the imposition of a tax, but it does not matter what causes it; the effect will still be felt by families. There are also the measures on furnished holiday lets. Farmers have for decades been encouraged by successive Governments to diversify their business. Many have gone into furnished holiday lets for extra income, but they now find that they are being clobbered again. They are having the rug pulled out from underneath them.

The inheritance tax changes have generated the greatest concern. I hear talk of scaremongering, but there has to be better respect than that for those concerned about the changes. I suspect that a lot of the figures that we hear have been affected by inter-vivos transfers between the generations. That is the most obvious way that inheritance tax can be dealt with by an estate or a family, but it leaves families open to difficult conversations and to the law of unintended consequences. Nobody knows what is around the corner, especially in farming, which, as we know, is one of the most dangerous occupations out there.

I have sympathy with the Government wanting to close fairly well reported and documented loopholes, but to do that at the expense of family farms is unjustifiable. The root of the problem, and the issue on which the Minister needs to engage with the Treasury, is that the threshold has been set far too low. When the Budget changes were announced, I went to estate agency websites in Orkney and Shetland, and I found two farms currently on sale in Orkney, both on one of the outer isles—further away, where we would expect land prices to be slightly lower—and both were being sold by the same family. One was for £2 million and the other was for £2.2 million. If those are the prices on an outer isle of Orkney, I can only assume that one would add a significant margin in Aberdeenshire, and a larger margin in Fife and the Borders. By the time we get to the home counties, goodness only knows what the price would be.

The concerns of agricultural and rural communities are genuine and well founded, and they need to be addressed. There is a serious debate to be had here, and I very much hope to be part of it. The Minister is well intentioned and diligent, but he needs to listen more to the people affected by his decisions—and, I am afraid, to listen less to the Treasury.

Pie and Mash: Traditional Speciality Guaranteed Status

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I will call Mr Richard Holden to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond to the debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention normally for 30-minute debates. However, we have one or two other Members present who may wish to intervene. It is obviously down to Mr Holden to determine who may or may not intervene on him, if he has not been given prior notice.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of providing traditional speciality guaranteed status to pie and mash.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, in this debate. What is this debate all about? Well, there is a big picture and a little picture, and I will start off small. In my constituency of Basildon and Billericay, there are two fantastic pie and mash shops: Robins Pie & Mash in the town square; and Stacey’s pie and mash shop on Timberlog Lane. Both of them provide fantastic local produce and they are absolute hubs of the local community. And it has been really interesting to see the feedback that I have already received from local people about this campaign to give protected status to this traditional British product.

What is pie and mash and why is it a traditional British product? It is a staple of cockney cuisine, moving out to places such as the east of England and Kent as the cockney diaspora moved post-war. That is why there are pie and mash shops in Basildon today. We seek recognition to safeguard the heritage of pie and mash, and to promote pie and mash, both here in the UK and internationally.

Back in the 1840s, pie and mash became an iconic food, closely associated with cockney culture and the social identity of non-posh Londoners. Over the years, more than a hundred pie and mash shops, typically family-owned, spread out from the inner London heartlands of Southwark and Tower Hamlets right across the areas across the country where the cockney diaspora had spread to.

Traditional pie and mash is an artisan food. The pie and mash and liquors are freshly made, using authentic family-owned recipes that have been passed down through generations like precious heirlooms. They are something that in Italy or France, let us say, would be instantly recognised as being worth celebrating and preserving, and I will say more on that broader point a little later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. I was speaking to him beforehand and told him about what I have been able to do in the past. The Comber Early is a special potato back home. I applied to the EU for special designation status for it, which the EU granted. Does he hope to pursue something outside the EU—now that the United Kingdom is out of it—for pie and mash that is similar to what we have done in the past?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

That is exactly what I am attempting to do and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in this space. Actually, there are not enough British products that we have talked up for their local credentials and their special place in our country’s heritage, national cuisine and national heart.

France has over 800 products that have similar protected status and Italy has just under that number; the number for the UK is under a hundred. Given our culinary heritage, and particularly the culinary heritage of London as a global centre of cuisine, and given the great and diverse range of products and foodstuffs that we have across the country, we should be doing more in this area to talk up Britain and British food, to boost both food exports and our tourism.

Having more of these marks of protected status, whether that is the protected designation of origin or the geographic indication, would be a good start, but I am also thinking today of the third category, which is the traditional status guaranteed. That is not specifically geographically limited but is about the way that a product is produced. Pie and mash would be another brilliant food to do that for.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. He picks up on a very important point. In Staffordshire we have the famous Staffordshire oatcakes, which are enjoyed across the world. Does he agree that we need to focus on bringing regional cuisine to the forefront so that it can be exported more around the world and across the country?

[Mr Holden]

I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more. We should be doing everything we can to talk up regional cuisine from all parts of our country. I cannot think of anything better to come out of this debate than to ensure that regional food products such as pie and mash or Staffordshire oatcakes find their way on to the House of Commons menu in one of our regular regional food events. I hope that the catering team are listening, so that we can get these products promoted further.

Traditional speciality guarantee does not rely on a geographical connection but the way that a product is produced. I am sure that the Modern Cockney group I have been working on this with, and their founder Andy, and Ben who has been working with them from Loadstone, will be more than willing to get into the nitty-gritty details of what is required with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the coming months. This is just a small step in what we should be doing for more of our food products from across the country.

Traditional speciality guarantee is needed because there is a well-trodden media narrative that pie and mash is in decline. We are in an age of global fast food brands, yet pie and mash has shown a stubborn refusal to die. It has been really good to see it thriving in the shops I have visited. I have been multiple times over the last few months, particularly to the ones in Basildon. I have seen families going there, with fathers taking their daughters out. It is important that that continues, because it is great to see it thriving on a local level.

Right across the country, we have seen changes in demographics and taste. This has perhaps seen the movement of traditional pie and mash shops from their heartland in London out to places like Basildon and the new towns of the east of England. Cornish pasties and Bramley apple pies have traditional speciality guarantee, but we now want to see that for pie and mash. Pie and mash made by artisans is the next step in that direction. It is too often looked down on, and we need to start thinking about how we can celebrate it better.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. Does he agree that we can be guilty at times of taking our heritage for granted? I would like to commend you for raising this, because you have made me realise just how fortunate we are to be a part of this. Would you agree with me that—

[James McMurdock]

Forgive me. Would the Chair please pass my message on that as with the Cornish pasty and the Bramley apple pie, this is something we should be very proud of, and we as a people should recognise that we have a lot to be proud of?

[Mr Holden]

I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Member any more. Many of his constituents wander across the road to get to the pie and mash shops in my constituency, and I encourage them to do so even more in the future. He raises an important point about us as a country not recognising some of the great food heritage that we have and what an asset it is to our country.

I had an email from a constituent today—a chef working in a Michelin-starred restaurant in London—who had read about the debate being proposed in Parliament. He and his son agreed that we need to talk up what we have traditionally produced. He said that they love the original pie and mash and that he wishes us every success in the campaign. I thought that was a really good sign. Yes, there is obviously high-end cuisine that we want to celebrate at a national level, and I am sure that is exactly what the Government and DEFRA want to do too, but traditional speciality foods need to be looked at in the broader context and celebrated too.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am grateful to my Essex neighbour for giving way. My pie and mash journey began when I was a child in north London. I then moved to Basildon, and have eaten pie and mash in the Robins Pie & Mash shop many times. I now have two good ones in my constituency: Rayleigh Lanes Café and the Turkish café on the high street, both of which do very good pie and mash, which shows what a cosmopolitan food it has become. Does my right hon. Friend agree that pie and mash is a great British food? I want to do everything I can to endorse his campaign and give it the recognition it deserves.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for raising that. I cannot wait to come down to Rayleigh and Wickford. Maybe we could do an Essex pie and mash championship and get an awards scheme going—maybe that is the next step for this campaign. But my right hon. Friend also makes an important point. Everybody starts somewhere on their journey with pie and mash. Mine started as a 19-year-old when I moved to east London and came across pie and mash for the first time. If we gave pie and mash a little bit of a status boost with traditional speciality guaranteed status, it would perhaps be opened up to more people, and more people might want to think about it. It would also provide a boost to that sector, particularly as our broader hospitality sector, as hon. Members know, has suffered since the covid pandemic and we are hoping to get it back on its feet.

So what are we after? We are after traditional speciality guaranteed status. We are not after a geographical designation, but we are after something that recognises the important traditional heritage of pie and mash. When do we want it to happen? Well, as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will look forward to working with the Modern Cockneys and pie and mash shops to bring it to fruition.

This debate points to something wider about British culinary heritage, about how we view food in Britain, and perhaps a little bit about how we view our own food in this country. That is something we need to look at again. We need to look at how we can celebrate it more. I hope that, as hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned, other parts of the country will look at how we can champion their local food produce—yes, in order for it to be recognised locally, which is a nice thing, but also for the broader economic narrative, whether that is exports or tourism.

I thank my pie and mash shops in Basildon and Billericay for putting up with me invading them over the last few weeks, particularly Robins, which has had the national media with it over the last couple of days. To everyone, I say: get out there—try that pie and mash. To the Minister, I say: I hope we will be able to get this status. I hope that at the end of this process, we can say to him, “Yes, Pie Minister.”

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Richard Holden Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I thank him for his full tribute to his predecessor, Guy Opperman, who was loved on both sides of the House.

Very early in my political career, in 1999, when I was first elected as a councillor, my dad told me that nothing in politics is quite as vexed as the politics of the southern area planning committee of Test Valley borough council. He was right, but I reassure the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is responding to this debate, that the council has already modernised its planning committee. It has already taken great strides and, until the nitrate issue in the Solent hit us, it was one of the councils delivering the highest number of houses in the country, but it has faced challenges. I welcome the announcement on compulsory purchase orders and the changes that might come, but we need detail. I seek reassurance that the detail will come and will give real powers to local authorities, because Test Valley borough council has faced a challenge since 1982, when the Romsey brewery started its last brew. I was at school at the local primary school and I remember the smell well.

That brewery site has an extant planning permission that has not been built out in the last 40 years. It is a phenomenal shame to the town that every time the local council has tried to put place in a successful compulsory purchase order, the developer has simply started work on one more unit of accommodation to delay that from happening. Given the part of the country that you are from, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be familiar with Stanborough Developments, the company that brings that curse to Romsey. Its actions mean that we have a brownfield site in the middle of the town, with extant planning permission for a project that has never been finished, and that could be providing homes for local people.

I vividly remember a Westminster Hall debate on this subject back in 2019, brought forward by my former right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the great Anne Milton. That was the first occasion on which I had the dubious honour of trying to both chair and speak in a debate. Alex Cunningham, the former Member for Stockton North, said that the Labour party would bring forward “penalties” for this sort of developer. I appreciate that it will require retrospective legislation, but I seek reassurance that the Labour Government will make good on the promises made by Mr Cunningham about extant planning permissions, and that we will see developers like Stanborough suitably punished.

I reassure colleagues that I will not bang on about green belt this afternoon, for the good reason that there is no green belt in Hampshire, save for a tiny corner in the very south-west, designed, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, to prevent the spread of the urban conurbation of Bournemouth, which is in an entirely different county. We would love some green belt, but we simply do not have any. What we do have is an area that is under extreme water stress.

We cannot take our foot off the brakes on building without also considering where the drinking water will come from. The Abbotswood development in my constituency frequently has to have water delivered by tankers because Southern Water repeatedly fails in its duty to provide water. It is not exclusively to blame, because although water companies can be consulted on development, they have no right to say no to it. They have no ability to say, “We simply cannot deliver water to this development.” In areas like the Solent, the situation will become increasingly challenging. I saw in the pages of the Daily Mail that the expectation is that southern Hampshire will take an enormous amount of development under this Government’s plans. It cannot do that if those homes cannot have a water supply.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend talks about the need for proper infrastructure alongside developments. In my Basildon and Billericay constituency, around Burstead, Billericay and Laindon, there is a lot of concern about huge infrastructure going in without local consent. Do her constituents face that issue as well?

[Caroline Nokes]

Absolutely. Infrastructure is key to making new developments work, but we need to take communities along with us, and to work hand in hand with them.

In the debate, we have heard about villages up and down the country; they are the heart of our rural communities. Many villages in Romsey and Southampton North have worked incredibly hard to get their neighbourhood development plans in place, and held local referendums to confirm them, but now they are scared that that work will go to waste. Yet again, I seek reassurance from the Minister that that work will be upheld and cherished, because it will give us the scale and type of communities that we wish to see. When local people have been involved in the process, the Government should not turn around and tell them that their views are now irrelevant, and that a development will be imposed on them anyway.

In the minute I have left, I wish to make a couple of further points. Over the last 48 hours, a number of issues have popped into my inbox. First and foremost, there is still a problem with the quality of new builds. When houses are thrown up at speed, people are sometimes left with significant build quality problems. One gentleman emailed me yesterday saying that he had to spend £350,000—fortunately, he had insurance covering that amount—to rectify the developer’s problems. In my constituency, we have sometimes seen houses torn down because the build quality was not good enough. Let us ensure that we do not see a repeat of that.

While we are talking about new-build estates, can we solve the issue of estate management companies ripping off homeowners and not bringing estates up to the quality needed if the estate is to be adopted? [Interruption.] I can see that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is taking that on her shoulders. She should believe me. I will be beating a path to her door, because there is much that still needs to be done to ensure that the housing that is delivered is of good enough quality for people to live in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who gave a wonderful speech. It was interesting to hear about her constituency; I confess that I did not know much about it before, but I certainly know a lot about it now. It was generous of the hon. Lady to pay rightful compliments to her predecessor, Chris Clarkson, who is much missed on this side of the House.

A couple of weeks ago, the Labour party won a mandate for the manifesto that it put before the British electorate. We respect that; it was part of the British parliamentary system and we respect the peaceful transfer of power. However, I say gently to the Labour Government that it is concerning that the King’s Speech and subsequent comments from Ministers have rejected the notion that local communities should be at the heart of developments in their areas.

One particular issue affects my constituency of South Leicestershire: the proposed Hinckley national rail freight interchange. On 8 July, the new Chancellor stated that she would ask the Secretary of State for Transport, who will make the decision on the interchange, and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to

“prioritise decisions on infrastructure projects that have been sitting unresolved for far too long.”

She did not, of course, explain what she meant by “sitting unresolved for far too long”, but let me help the new Chancellor and Government. “Sitting unresolved for far too long” is perhaps an unfortunate euphemism; what should actually be said is that in our system of laws we respect and listen to local communities. We listen to stakeholder groups and neighbourhood groups. Of course, in most instances local authorities—elected councillors—are, in most planning instances, the ones whose remit it is to make these decisions.

On the issue of the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, I should say that South Leicestershire already has its fair share of developments. It has one of the largest housing developments in Leicestershire, with New Lubbesthorpe; and Magna Park, one of the largest logistics parks in Europe, is to be doubled in size. It has Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, which plays host to many industrial activities, and it has the prospect of a new village—Whetstone Gorse or Whetstone Pastures.

It is not nimbyism in South Leicestershire that has led to the objections to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange; it is the fact that there are five other rail freight interchanges within a radius of 30 miles of South Leicestershire. I am glad the new Deputy Prime Minster has taken a seat to listen to my speech about this matter, but it is important that the Labour Government listen not just to me and my constituents, but to Leicestershire county council, to Warwickshire county council and even to Labour-led Rugby council, all of which have raised issues with the planning process for this unwelcome proposal.

[Mr Holden]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that that decision is now with a Labour Minister to make at a national level, overriding those local concerns?

[Alberto Costa]

My hon. Friend is quite right: the decision now rests with the new Labour Government to make. I am afraid that Labour councillors and other Labour activists who might have opposed the Hinckley national rail freight interchange should look now to their party colleagues in government, who will be making this decision within a matter of a few weeks.

I urge the Government to listen to the people of South Leicestershire and the stakeholders I have mentioned. I urge them to listen to the people of Elmesthorpe, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville and Stoney Stanton, and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who himself has made some valuable comments against the proposed rail freight interchange. It is a deeply unwelcome proposal.

I want to offer a solution to the new Labour Government. Before they recommend this unwelcome development for approval, I suggest the relevant Minister meets me and the stakeholders, including Labour-run Rugby council, to discuss the proposal. They could perhaps look at drafting a national planning framework for the proper location of rail freight interchanges, rather than just riding roughshod over the views of the people of South Leicestershire, as a constituent of mine emailed me two hours ago to say he fears, and as I fear, the Labour Government will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State and the ministerial team on their appointments and wishing them well. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who did a lot of the hard yards in opposition and missed out on ministerial roles this time.

I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speeches we have heard on both sides of the House today. We started with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who I was delighted to hear has significant rural areas in his constituency and has an interest in this sector. We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who gave the House an informed tour of his constituency. We had a fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who brings real practical and professional experience to rural affairs and rightly focused on the need to tailor policies to the needs of rural communities.

We heard from the new hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), who was very generous in his tribute to his much-respected predecessor. We had a brilliant speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who highlighted the importance of the rural economy and water quality—what an asset she will be in the House. We also heard from the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who talked about farming as the beating heart of his constituency, while the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) spoke about the radicalism of a former figure from Middleton—I hope that will inform her relationship with the Government Whips Office moving forward.

We had two outstanding closing speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) spoke about the importance of infrastructure in the rural economy, and focused particularly on planning. We also witnessed the huge experience, which is respected across the House, that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) brings as a surgeon. I know he will be an important voice in health debates, among others. I am delighted that all those new Members chose to make their maiden speeches on the issue of rural affairs in the King’s Speech.

Labour campaigned on a slogan of change, but they are offering only uncertainty to farming and fishing communities. It is no surprise that, just last night, the president of the National Farmers Union said that farmers are facing a “cliff edge” and are

“being kept up at night”

by the uncertainty. That uncertainty is not because the Labour Government have not had time to prepare their policies for farming and fishing; it is because the issue is not a priority for a Labour Government. That is why the Labour manifesto had just 87 words on farming and nothing at all on fishing. It is why this King’s Speech has nothing for the farming and fishing communities. It is why the Government have not even given any dates for when this uncertainty will end. We should be clear in this House that that is an active choice. It is a point that the Government have chosen to prioritise, in contrast to the prioritisation we were willing to make with the additional funding that we committed.

Is it not all the more ironic that just a few years ago, the now Prime Minister went to the NFU and admitted that farming and rural affairs had for too long been an afterthought for the Labour party and promised to change that? That is an early example of promised change that is not then delivered. We can see that uncertainty in the farming budget. The Government have made no commitment to what the budget will be, or whether they are continuing it or increasing it. We were willing to make decisions to prioritise £1 billion of additional funding over this Parliament. There is nothing from Labour on that, leaving farmers uncertain. Can the Secretary of State confirm what his budget will be? Does he even know? Has the Chancellor told him? Can he even tell the House when he might know? We do not even know when the spending review will be. He is probably as much in the dark as the rest of us.

What about the uncertainty on food security? We made commitments with the food security index, the annual farm to fork summit, the food security duty, the biggest ever grants payment, and the additional funding to deal with the wet weather that farmers had recently faced. What is the commitment from the Labour Government on food security? There is nothing in the King’s Speech about legislating for that. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether they intend to legislate and it was just an omission that they did not get around to, or is it something that he is now ruling out?

What about the uncertainty about just how much farmland will be lost as a result of this Government? We know what their 2030 environmental targets are—to triple solar, to increase onshore wind and to increase the pylons connecting to offshore wind—so can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he will publish before the summer recess an impact assessment on how much farmland will be lost as a result of delivering his 2030 environmental targets? Does he even know?

[Mr Holden]

One cornerstone of the Conservative manifesto was for an underground-first approach to new electricity pylons. That is an important matter for my constituents in Basildon and Billericay. Will my right hon. Friend also highlight to the Government exactly how important that is and try to seek an answer on what their proposals are in this space?

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue, because if a Government are promising change, they need to be able to say what the timelines are. They need to say what the budget is and what legislation they will pass to deliver that. On all those things, there is silence in this King’s Speech.

The Labour manifesto has lots of high-sounding things that are hard to disagree with. Labour wants more food security, and says that food security is national security, and we on the Opposition Benches agree. Labour says it wants to raise animal welfare, and we have done a huge amount to do so. That is fine. However, if the Government say they want to end the badger cull, when will they do that? There is nothing in the King’s Speech on that, so what are the timelines? Dairy farmers would like to know. Will the Secretary of State publish the analysis from the chief veterinary officer on what the impact of ending the cull would be on the trajectory? We know that the current approach has seen TB cases come down in England from 34,500 in 2018 to below 20,000. Certainly the advice that I had was that vaccinations would not be ready for some time. Will he publish the trajectory and tell us when the cull will end?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

It is a huge honour, on my first opportunity to speak from the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State, to close today’s debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech. I welcome my predecessor, now the shadow Secretary of State, to his place and thank him for the way he has worked constructively with me. I look forward to that continuing, although I prefer it this way around.

It has been an honour to be present for maiden speeches from across the House. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go through their excellent comments in much detail, but I would like to mention my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Many of them represent rural constituencies, and they all showed what great assets they will be to this House and to the communities they represent.

I cannot respond to everyone who has spoken—I am sorry about that—but I will do my best to cover what I can in the limited time available. I will start with the subject of planning. This Government were elected on a mandate to get Britain building again. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, reforming the planning system is the key to unlocking our country’s economic growth. The existing planning system is too restrictive, slow and uncertain, which undermines investor confidence and means that the homes that we desperately need do not get built. We will overhaul the planning system to tackle the chronic shortage of homes and power up the economy.

Alongside that, we were elected on a platform to deliver for nature, and will take urgent action to meet the Environment Act targets that the previous Government missed. We will protect, create and improve spaces that increase climate resilience and promote nature’s recovery on land and at sea, recognising that ensuring a positive outcome for nature is fundamental to unlocking the housing and infrastructure that this country so urgently needs.

We must take tough action to tackle the housing emergency and build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament, but we remain committed to preserving the green belt. Our brownfield-first approach means that that authorities should prioritise brownfield sites. However, brownfield development alone will not be enough, so we will also transform lower-quality grey belt land, such as wasteland or old car parks, into housing, including affordable homes for those most in need.

[Mr Holden]

rose—