Waste and Recycling
Steve Barclay Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The receptacles that we recycle in are a game changer. In Stockton, we have these disposable bags that disappear off down the road whenever it is windy, never to be seen again. Having the right recycling receptacles is important. As a country, we need to look to the councils that do it well, learn the lessons and roll out best practice.
The previous Government kick-started plans for a comprehensive deposit return scheme. It is estimated that UK consumers go through about 14 billion plastic drinks bottles and 9 billion drinks cans every single year, often contributing to our litter epidemic.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend raises the issue of plastic. With the growth of anaerobic digesters dealing with more food waste, energy-from-waste incinerators are now burning more plastic. BBC analysis of five years of real data shows that incinerators are now the dirtiest way to produce power. Does he agree that in dealing with recycling and its growth, we should not be building more incinerators—and in particular not building the Wisbech incinerator?
Matt Vickers
I agree wholeheartedly. Putting these plants in the right place is a very big deal—I know how hard my right hon. Friend worked to prevent that. I could not agree more. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on the roll-out of the deposit return scheme and say when it is set to be delivered.
Of course, it is not just businesses but local communities that can support the Government’s goals to ensure responsible waste disposal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for raising this issue—he has certainly had a busy day, having moved from the Front Bench to the Back Benches—and I thank everyone else who has taken part in the debate.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that resources and waste are a priority issue for DEFRA, and I am pleased to share our plans in this regard. The Government are committed to the transition to a circular economy—a future in which we keep our resources in use for longer, reduce our carbon emissions and invest in critical infrastructure and green jobs in every nation and region, and in which our economy prospers and nature thrives. We want to abandon our linear and unsustainable “take, make, throw” model, which means that we extract resources from the Earth, make things and then throw them away, because there is no such place as “away”. If the whole world consumed resources as we do in the UK, we would need 2.5 times the Earth’s raw materials to sustain our current systems. Meanwhile, nearly 100 million tonnes of residual waste is disposed of annually, and waste crime alone costs our economy £1 billion every year.
That cannot continue. We must and will move toward a system that values longevity, repair and reuse over disposal. In our manifesto, we pledged to reduce waste by moving to a circular economy. That is why we have committed ourselves to developing a circular economy strategy for England, which we will create in partnership with experts from industry, academia, civil society, local government and beyond.
Steve Barclay
I am glad that the Minister has described this as a priority. She has a statutory target to halve residual waste, but what she has not mentioned is the impact that will have on mega-incinerators that are being built essentially to burn plastic. Does she accept that more than 30 environmental charities—charities usually linked to her party and the left—are strongly opposed to those incinerators, and will she commit herself to publishing an impact assessment on the effect of reducing residual waste on the need for incinerators?
Mary Creagh
I will come on to those points later in my speech, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene if he does not get the satisfaction and clarity that he seeks. Good things come to those who wait.
Let me begin with the strategy. We want to have an economy-wide transformation of our relationship with our resources, which is all about supporting the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth, make Britain a clean energy superpower, and accelerate the path to net zero through our efforts to tackle waste crime and take back our streets. To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Stockton West, preventing food waste is key to my Department, and we are reviewing a range of issues associated with food waste in the supply chain. We hope to make further announcements soon.
Let me address the collection and packaging reforms, which the hon. Member outlined. They are an important starting point in transitioning to a circular economy, and we are proud of the steps that we have taken so far. Over the next three years, simpler recycling, extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme will deliver transformational change, creating thousands of new jobs and stimulating billions of pounds’ worth of investment. Those three areas make up the three-legged stool of this Government’s plan to kick-start the circular economy, so I will briefly take each one in turn.
The first area is simpler recycling. We recently affirmed our commitment to delivering simpler recycling in England, which will be introduced for businesses from 31 March 2025 and for households from 31 March 2026. This Government inherited legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) that could have required households to have up to seven bins. As the hon. Member for Stockton West rightly said, some councils have up to 10 bins, but that is because they thought they were doing the right thing, given the signals that were being sent out under the previous Government. That places an unnecessary burden on people and businesses, and unnecessary clutter in everyone’s front and back gardens. We are simplifying the rules to make recycling easier for people, while stimulating growth, maximising the benefits and ending the postcode lottery for recycling. Across England, people will be able to recycle the same materials at home, work or school.
The legislation for simpler recycling has already come into force. To confirm the final details of the policy, we laid regulations before Parliament on 3 December. The policy will support our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035. It is important to remember that figure, because when the last Labour Government brought in the landfill tax reforms in 2002, the original target was to have a recycling rate of 50% by 2015—a target that, sadly, was lost under the previous Government. Ten years on from that date, the target has still not been met.
The policy will also deliver an estimated £11.8 billion-worth of carbon savings between 2024 and 2035. As we have heard, local circumstances differ across the country, so we are making sure that councils and other waste collectors have the flexibility to make the best local choices. We know that local authorities may want to review their waste collection services to ensure that they provide best value for money. As is currently the case, local councils will continue to decide the frequency of waste collections in a way that suits the needs of their local community. The Government’s priority is to ensure that households’ needs are met, so we have recently published guidance to support councils in this area.
The second area is extended producer responsibility for packaging. To help fund simpler recycling, we are introducing in parallel extended producer responsibility for packaging, or pEPR, which will require obligated producers to pay the full end of life costs associated with the packaging that they place on the market. That will bring more than £1 billion of investment into local government waste collections, and incentivise producers to reduce unnecessary packaging and make what they use even more sustainable. Those regulations have now been debated in both Houses. They received unanimous cross-party support and will come into force on 1 January 2025.
The third and final leg is the deposit return scheme—DRS—for drinks containers. We have seen this work in over 50 countries around the world. The DRS will make a real difference to people’s lives by tackling litter and cleaning up our streets. Recycling rates will increase and the drinks industry will benefit from the high quality recycled materials that the DRS will provide. We are committed to delivering a deposit return scheme in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in October 2027 and we will continue to work closely with industry partners, the Scottish Government and the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to launch the scheme.
Mary Creagh
What we saw there was a local community campaigning to stop the stink, and I am pleased that the regulator has taken swift action.
On the point raised by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire about energy from waste, his Government failed to reach their recycling targets. We do not support over-capacity of energy from waste, and incineration should be an option only for waste that cannot be prevented, reused or recycled, such as medical waste or nappies.
In the waste hierarchy, recovering energy from waste is still preferable to disposing of waste in landfill. It maximises the value of the resources being disposed of, and avoids the greater environmental impact of landfill, which continues for generations, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). We cannot solve today’s problems by storing them up for future generations, so we will shortly publish our analysis of the need for further energy from waste development in England, following delivery of our reforms. However, I make it clear that it is for the relevant planning authority to determine the need for proposed developments. Our capacity assessment will help inform decision making on planning.
Steve Barclay
In a classic example of joined-up government, many of these incinerators, including the Wisbech incinerator, are classed as nationally significant infrastructure, so decisions on them are made by the Government, not devolved locally. I welcome the Minister saying that she does not support over-capacity of incineration, just as I welcome her ambition to increase recycling, but given that she wants increased recycling, there will be over-capacity of incineration. We need to see the impact assessment so that we can see the trajectory, and can see the increasing rate at which waste will be recycled. We can then avoid the over-capacity. When will we see that impact assessment, so that we do not have too much capacity in incineration?
Mary Creagh
I am a bit mystified by the right hon. Gentleman’s question, because he put a stop to planning decisions on energy from waste. Did he not conduct an impact assessment beforehand?
Steve Barclay
I do not want to intervene too much, but as a point of clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was recused as the Minister, so I certainly did not make that decision. I am making the argument against incineration; I would have thought that the Minister would support that, because she wants more recycling. Over 30 environmental charities say that incineration is the dirtiest way to produce energy—that it is as dirty as coal. Five years of analysis by the BBC found it was the dirtiest. I am highlighting the contradiction between the Government saying that they are for the environment and clean energy, and there being a risk of over-capacity in incineration, which burns plastics and is harmful to the environment. I am highlighting that contradiction and saying that that is the reason why the Government should publish an impact assessment.
Farming and Food Security
Steve Barclay Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the real and immediate challenges faced by British farmers as a result of wet weather and rising costs; notes the importance of food security as an essential component of national security in an increasingly uncertain world; regrets that the £50 million extension of the Farming Recovery Fund is yet to be paid out; is concerned that reports suggest the farming budget is to be cut by £100 million; calls on the Government to confirm that the full £50 million of additional Farming Recovery Fund support for those flooded, £75 million for Internal Drainage Boards to protect agricultural land from floods and storms, and £220 million allocated to technology and productivity schemes announced earlier this year will be used in full and without delay, that no reduction to the farming budget will be made and that any underspends will be rolled forward as in previous years, and to keep farming and food production high on the agenda by committing to continue to host the annual Farm to Fork Summit in Downing Street, continuing to publish the annual food security index, and appointing a Tenant Farming Commissioner; and further calls on the Government to secure the long-term future of domestic food production by ensuring the best agricultural land is protected from inappropriate development, including large solar developments, by tackling rural crime, and by ensuring that the next generation can get into farming by protecting Agricultural Property Relief.
Given the increasing uncertainty in the world, with covid, Ukraine and now the middle east, food security is more important than ever and should be seen as a key part of our national security. Britain’s farmers face real and immediate challenges, which means that the Government must take action now. That is why we have called this debate. Between October 2022 and March 2024, England experienced the most rain in any 18-month period since records began in 1836. In particular, Storm Babet and Storm Henk caused significant damage, leaving thousands of acres under water, and land saturated for prolonged periods. This has prevented many farmers from getting crops into the ground, and where they have been able to do so, their crops have been compromised.
Of course, farmers have done their best to respond, but recent research from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has suggested that England is heading for one of its worst harvests on record. The wheat harvest in England alone is estimated to be down more than 2.2 million tonnes, which represents an 18% reduction since last year, and the total harvest for the five key crops—wheat, winter barley, spring barley, oats and oilseed rape—is set to be down by over 13%, or 3 million tonnes, on the five-year average. We risk being increasingly reliant on imports, and unfortunately there seems to be no relief in sight; 10 English counties experienced the wettest September on record, and input costs remain high. If we do not support our farmers now, many farm businesses say that they are unlikely to survive.
As Secretary of State, I prioritised food production. At the Oxford farming conference, I announced more money, choice and trust for farmers. I increased rates paid under the sustainable farming incentive, and I announced in January that I was introducing new options to better reflect the range of farms.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
In the shadow Secretary of State’s time in office, why did he and the Government of the day fail to get £300 million out of the door and into farms in constituencies such as mine?
Steve Barclay
I will come on to the underspends, because that is one of the key dividing lines between the two sides of the House. After we came out of the EU, I secured an agreement with the Treasury that all the underspends from the new schemes would remain in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget, for farmers and for DEFRA. At the end of this month, in the Budget, we will see whether the Secretary of State has secured the same terms for any underspends.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We know that the previous Government made a whole raft of commitments that there was no way of paying for, so there is no credibility to the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman secured something from the discredited Treasury that he was under. The key question is: if that money was so desperately needed, why was it not being spent?
Steve Barclay
As we came out of the European Union, new schemes were set up, including the SFI, to support nature and farming. They represented a shift from the EU scheme, under which 50% of the money went to 10% of landowners. We were able to design new schemes. We listened to farmers, and that is why I announced at the farming conference an average increase of 10% in payments, and 50 more choices to better reflect the variety of farms, including upland farms. We responded, but the point is that underspends all remained within the DEFRA budget. The key question, which I am sure the Secretary of State will come to, is whether he will give a similar commitment to the House that any underspends will remain in DEFRA, given that we have just faced the wettest winter in 150 years, and given that in September, 10 counties had the worst rain on record.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I would add one thing to what the shadow Secretary of State is brilliantly saying: this is a matter for farmers in Herefordshire as much as for those elsewhere. Ross-on-Wye, a rural town, was under water as a result of the floods. Does he share my view that the whole ecosystem ultimately feeds into the river, and into river pollution, on which he took such a lead with the action plan? Does he share my hope that the plan will be supported by the new Government, as well as by the river champion that he put in place?
Steve Barclay
I very much agree. My right hon. Friend alludes to one of the key questions being asked by many farmers around the River Wye: what has happened to the £35 million that was announced for farming support around the River Wye? Again, there has been so little detail from this Government, so I hope the Secretary of State is able to give some reassurance to my right hon. Friend.
We also gave farmers other support. In February, we introduced the biggest package of productivity grants, in order to boost the deployment of the latest technology and enhance yields on farms. We improved protections to prevent the best land from being taken out of food production, including through the announcement in May on strengthening the guidance on solar farms. We responded positively to the National Farmers Union’s request through the annual food security index, and we hosted the farm to fork summit in Downing Street.
Steve Barclay
I know that the clustering of solar farms on some of the best food production land in Lincolnshire is a live issue; I suspect that might be what my right hon. Friend wants to address.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not want to get into the debate for and against solar farms, but even those in favour of them should surely agree that we should not have a concentration of them—10,000 acres of them—around one town, namely Gainsborough. Should the Secretary of State not consider such matters in the round, and take all the applications together?
Steve Barclay
The Secretary of State should be doing that, but there is a marked difference between us. I persuaded the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to strengthen the guidance against solar farms, but the Secretary of State is being pushed around by his Cabinet colleagues. The Energy Secretary has already walked all over him, granting permission for a whole load of solar farms, and allowing the clustering that is causing such an issue.
I will give the House an example of how the Secretary of State is not championing farming. Baroness Rock was a true voice in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for tenant farmers, and she wrote the review of tenant farming that I commissioned in a previous role in No. 10, but it seems that she has been sacked or asked to leave the DEFRA board. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State said why such a respected and talented figure had to leave her role.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr Johnson
My right hon. Friend is talking about the clustering of solar farms, but that is not the only problem. They are being built on high-quality agricultural land, which is nonsensical.
Steve Barclay
It is, and a further concern in my constituency is that the consultants who do soil sampling for the developers are often felt to be interpreting and grading the quality of soil in a way that is not consistent with local knowledge.
Back in May, the previous Government allocated £50 million of additional support to farmers hit by the wet weather. They extended the farming recovery fund to 1,000 more farmers, so that it covered all those affected in England. On top of that, in March, we announced the allocation of an additional £75 million to internal drainage boards, which are essential to protecting agricultural land from floods and storms.
We now have a Labour Government who neither understand nor care for rural communities. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] They were not so vocal when they launched their manifesto, which devoted just 87 words to farming. There was not a single mention of farming in the King’s Speech, because the Government have made the active choice to de-prioritise British farming and food production.
On the immediate challenge, the answer to a recent parliamentary question backs up what the sector is telling me. The £50 million of additional farming recovery fund support is yet to be paid out. We have just established that we have had the wettest weather for 150 years and that 10 counties have had particularly challenging weather, yet despite having a known scheme, with an extra £50 million, they have not allocated that much-needed, time-critical support. The Secretary of State needs to explain why. The NFU says its members simply cannot wait any longer for the support, yet Labour seems to want to keep them waiting. Reports suggest that the £75 million for the internal drainage boards is also on a go-slow, and we need to know why.
For the longer term, Labour Ministers have overruled officials to cover some of the country’s best farmland in solar panels. They have rejected the plans for binding food security targets. It has even been suggested in media reports that they plan to cut the farming budget by £100 million. Indeed, it was reported that the NFU president has said that his members are being “kept up at night” by the “cliff edge” that Labour’s lack of commitment on the agriculture budget is causing.
The Government need to change course. They need to give immediate confidence to the sector and show that they care about food security. To do so, they need to commit to five things: first, that the full £50 million of additional wet weather support we announced in May will be paid out in full.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As the first ever female director of the National Farmers Union in 100 years, I think I can speak with some credibility here. I represent Tiverton and Minehead, which includes the Quantocks and Exmoor. I have to say, you have some chutzpah—my farmers tell me that you sold them down the river. I say to Government Members that we need to work together on this, because our lot on the Liberal Democrat Benches know more about farming than they do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if they use the word “you”, it means me.
Steve Barclay
I would never suggest such things of you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not quite spot the hon. Lady’s question—it seemed to be more of a statement. I am sure that farmers in Tiverton, as well as those around the country, want to know why the £50 million that was allocated in May has not been given out. The Lib Dems may not care about that money, but Conservative Members want that support for farmers.
Secondly, the £75 million of support for internal drainage boards needs to be deployed in full and without delay. Thirdly, the £220 million allocated for technology and productivity schemes needs to be honoured in full. Fourthly, the Government need to confirm there will be no cuts to the farming budget—an issue that is causing so much concern—so that we do not lose the £2.6 million that has been allocated for this year. Fifthly, we need a commitment from the Government that they will keep the farm to fork summit in Downing Street, they will have the food security index and they will appoint a tenant farming commissioner.
Looking further ahead, the Government must do more to give farmers confidence. That means ruling out the removal or reduction of the agricultural property relief, better protecting farmland from schemes for solar and pylons, and ensuring that food production is central to the land use framework. Only by doing those things can they show that they are backing our farmers and protecting food security, but sadly I fear an urbancentric Government simply will not do that, not least with a Labour Secretary of State who is currently getting pushed around by his Cabinet colleagues. It is only this Conservative team who are, and will be, a voice for rural businesses, rural communities and our rural way of life, with improved farming production at its very heart.
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Barclay Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Both in that answer and in the earlier answer from the environment Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), the House has heard Government Front Benchers say that no decision has been taken on the farming budget. However, media reports say that the Chancellor has decided to cut the farming budget by £100 million, as she prioritises her trade union paymasters over farmers. In these first DEFRA questions of the new Parliament will the Minister rule out cuts to the farming budget? Farmers are watching these questions, and need to be able to plan their business and have confidence that the budget will be maintained.
Emma Hardy
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that it was the previous Government—in fact, the Department for which he was responsible—who underspent the farming budget, despite their promises to spend £2.4 billion a year. That underspend broke a manifesto promise. He will also remember, because it is not all that long ago that he was on the Government Benches, that decisions about the Budget are made as part of the spending review.
Mr Speaker
Order. Saying that the hon. Member “tried to cover up” is suggesting that a Member is lying, and I do not—
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member cannot raise a point of order now. He has been here long enough to know that they come at the end of questions. [Interruption.] Order. I am dealing with this. We really have to reflect on what we say about other Members in this House, and I would like the Secretary of State to withdraw what he has suggested.
Mr Speaker
I remind those on the Front Bench that it is topical questions, so questions and answers have to be short and punchy. The thing is, I have to try to get in as many as I can. Let us see a good example of that with the shadow Secretary of State.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has repeatedly talked tough with the water companies, yet the Water (Special Measures) Bill that he announced actually weakens a number of measures, such as the automatic fines for category 1 and 2 prosecutions, and removes the unlimited penalties that would apply. He said that the review of water regulation would strengthen requirements on water firms; will he therefore confirm to the House that there will be no regulatory easements as part of that review?
Steve Reed
The very Bill that the right hon. Gentleman referred to strengthens regulation. We will be looking further at regulation through the review. The intention will be to make it stronger, not weaker, because it was far too weak under the previous Government and we need to turn that around.
Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs
Steve Barclay Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
You need to respect the science.
Steve Barclay
Of course we respect the science. The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, but I presume he will get the same science brief—in a way, he makes my point—that I got from the chief vet, which was that the vaccinations were not ready and the cull was being effective. In fact, we only need to look at Labour’s policy in Wales, where the opposite is happening, to see that. I hope that, as he represents Cambridge, he will follow the science, because the Government made a commitment that does not. Perhaps that is the sort of change they mean—a change from what they committed to in the manifesto. It did not take long.
Speaking of things at a high level that no one can disagree with, the Government talk about making more use of public sector procurement. Again, the Conservatives not only agree with that, but we have helped the Government with it. The former Member for Colchester did a fantastic review, the Quince review, looking at how that will be done, but the Government are silent on the funding for that. Will it be funded out of the budget of the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Defence, local government—or will it come out of the Secretary of State’s budget? It is difficult for him to say, because he does not even know what his budget will be.
The reality is that we have empty slogans from a party that does not care about the rural economy. The Government are not giving clarity to farming and fishing; they barely mentioned farming in their manifesto, and they did not even mention fishing. This King’s Speech does nothing for the farming and fishing communities. The decisions that we have seen so far take vast amounts of farmland out of food production in order to prioritise the eco-zealotry that we have heard so often in this House. I hope the Secretary of State will give the clarity that is sadly lacking in the King’s Speech on what the Government will do—and when—on the budget, on food procurement, and on dairy farmers and the badger cull, and will end the uncertainty that the president of the NFU and so many others in the farming and fishing community currently face.