Rural Communities: Government Support
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) on securing this debate.
The United Kingdom boasts a rich tapestry of rural communities, each with its unique charm, heritage and challenges. Over the years the UK Government have strongly recognised the significance of these communities and have implemented various measures to support their growth, sustainability and resilience.
Earlier this year, when I was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I wrote the foreword for, and indeed owned the whole document called “Unleashing rural opportunity”, in which we set out really important ways to ensure that our rural communities thrive. Whether it was about investing in the rural economy, removing barriers to enterprise or improving connections, we have already seen significant improvements in digital connection, and under Project Gigabit we will go even further.
There have also been connections on transport. I recognise what the hon. Lady said in that regard. Particularly in some rural areas, the sparsity of communities is challenging when it comes to providing a consistent public transport service. However, I hope that she welcomed the £2 bus fare cap, which I know has significantly improved the use of bus services in Suffolk. There has also been other support, which can often go towards things such as community volunteer transport or transport on demand, which, to be candid, I think is still going to be the most likely way to have an on-demand service for most of our very rural communities.
I also believe that there is more that we need to do on aspects of affordable housing and on aspects of energy. A decade ago, I was strongly involved in the fuel poverty challenge for properties off the gas grid. In fact, the Government changed the law under the Digital Economy Act 2017, a change that I helped to secure. That was to allow the opportunity to get information that the Government had but which was collected with certain powers that restricted its use, in order to open up that information to energy companies, so that they were able to go and identify the communities, or people in the community, who were off the gas grid, to try to help with the energy company obligation support. However, it was not unique to people who were off the gas grid.
I believe that it is that sort of thing where we probably need to put some more momentum behind what the energy companies are actually doing to be able to distribute that sort of support. It is there, but too often quite a lot of the money still goes, as I think the National Energy Association has said, into trying to identify people who might be eligible for support rather than going into delivering the solutions. I think the willingness is there. Now that I am back on the Back Benches, I perhaps have the opportunity to say that we should get that sort of connectivity going again and challenge things in that regard.
Regarding connectivity more broadly, enhanced connectivity lies at the heart of empowering rural areas, and I think that the UK Government have been dedicated to bridging the digital divide, ensuring that even the remotest villages have access to high-speed internet. The rural gigabit connectivity programme aims to deliver lightning-fast broadband to over 1 million homes and businesses in rural areas. That will bring economic opportunities and facilitate remote working, online education and, I hope, online healthcare, so that instead of having to travel long distances to get specialist care, people in rural areas might be able to receive such care online.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Before the right hon. Member gives way, may I just say something to her? I am sorry, but I forgot to ask her if she could sit down at 4.48 pm, so that I can get the other speakers in.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
And I will just repeat that the motion is:
“That this House has considered Government support for rural communities”,
because I am failing miserably in the Chair. Sorry. [Laughter.]
Dr Evans
Sir Charles, your failure is met by enthusiasm and has been offset as a result.
I thank my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the point she is making. On digital connectivity, the percentage of my constituency of Bosworth with 1 gigabit has increased from 0.1% to 67%. This kind of thing gives huge opportunity to businesses and folk in my community. Is that not exactly the kind of thing that the Government want to do, in order to unlock opportunities for businesses, so that they can create new reasons for people to be in a rural constituency, apart from the beautiful countryside?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. About a decade ago our ambition was to get to 10 megabits as the universal service obligation. We have much greater ambition that that now. Of course it is about delivery, and quite a lot of legislation in the past few years has been about unblocking some of the barriers to making delivery happen, but it is good that the process is under way.
However, I share the concerns about mobile phones. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) has undertaken an assessment, and will be working with DEFRA and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Ofcom needs to look again when it says an area is covered for mobile phones. All of us have examples from our constituencies of that not being the case. It is particularly distressing when I think about the removal of copper-line communications that is due to happen this decade and the impact that could have if Ofcom is working off not totally reliable communication points.
Helen Morgan
The shared rural network is obviously designed to address that issue, but in many cases the equipment that providers have is not shared by other providers. Does the right hon. Member agree that either the equipment needs to be shared by all the main mobile providers or there needs to be rural roaming?
Dr Coffey
That is a good point. I do not know enough about the detail of what the hon. Lady suggests, but I know there are two sets of providers because they already share connection masts, but I appreciate that is not totally comprehensive.
I want to say a bit more about the importance of farming to our countryside and in our rural communities. Over the past year, I have made a lot of effort to try to ensure that that is recognised and that farmers are seen as the custodians of the countryside. Perhaps that speech will have to wait for another time, given the variety of issues that rural affairs covers, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome set out extensively.
One of the things that will continue to be of interest to me is school transport. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has a debate tomorrow on funding for rural councils. There is no doubt that young people miss some opportunities because they cannot necessarily get to their college, which is a long distance away. More broadly, hon. Members who represent urban constituencies may not understand that children leave home very early in the morning, have quite long days--although those days seem to get shorter—and often may miss out on the regular opportunities that others have for sports, debate and similar.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
You can have an extra minute, Dr Coffey. You do not have to give way, but I will give you till 4.49 pm.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady is extremely kind for giving way, and I apologise for missing the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke). I want to build on the point about transport, because there are massive issues in my constituency for transport for children with special educational needs. Children have to go from Selby up to Harrogate or Scarborough to receive the education they need. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need more funding and investment to transport those children who need that extra help in a way that better respects the fact that they are getting up very early in the morning and not enjoying school in the way that other young people are able to?
Dr Coffey
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. The situation varies around the country, but I know it is a challenge that councils have. We could actually have an all-day debate in the Chamber or in here to discuss the plethora of issues covered by the brief held by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), whom I welcome to his well-deserved ministerial role. Being from a rural Yorkshire constituency, he will know a lot of the challenges that are faced, but he will also know of the opportunities and what a special place it is.
In terms of Government support, we need to keep that funding going for post offices, and we need ongoing investment in rural access programmes, whether that is for health or the internet. I commend the Government for the progress they have made. Of course, I would say that because a couple of weeks ago I was in charge of the Department doing it, but I assure the House that there is a genuine passion there. We need to ensure that the rural proofing that operates right across Government is still done and gets the scrutiny it deserves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Legislation on Dangerous Dogs
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. As the Secretary of State who introduced this legislation—in fact, it was my last act in Government—I thought it appropriate to contribute to today’s debate.
The debate surrounding the ban on XL bully dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is itself a complex issue that evokes strong emotions. I understand that very much, and the approach taken was carefully considered. I was also aware before your earlier ruling, Dame Caroline, that there are potential legal challenges against the Government, so I need to be measured and not reveal all the information that we considered during this time.
I have had three rescue dogs, and my mother and sister have another rescue dog at the moment. There is no doubt that an adorable pet brings a lot to people’s lives and hearts. I am also very conscious of the challenges faced by those people who have suffered from dog attacks, whether it be against their children, themselves, or indeed their own pets. They obviously can be very distressed by that.
In reality, there was no knee-jerk reaction; there were simply too many attacks happening, and the proportion of attacks by XL bully-type dogs was considerably higher than others. Yes, I am sure we have all read about how other dogs—whether a collie, Jack Russell or potentially a rottweiler—have also been involved in many attacks. The issue is about the proportion and seriousness of the attacks, and indeed about how they can be stopped—that is pretty difficult. It is about the fatalities as well.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about how we define a breed, and some of the point is that this breed is not defined. I pay tribute to the chief veterinary officer and the many officials who have been involved extensively in this sensitive matter, working with animal welfare experts and experts from the police and, indeed, local councils, who will have to undertake a lot of this work. I want to assure the House that a lot of care has been taken over this approach, and that is also why a lot of this will be through guidance and there will be individual decisions.
I come back to the fact that, of course, many of these dogs are pets. They are not necessarily status symbols, but we know that they have been used for that. We see a lot of that in how the ears of these dogs have been cropped to give them a more aggressive feel and appearance, despite the fact that that is already illegal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is not illegal to import the dogs, but we are talking about an extensive element where that is the case. Since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, there have been some amendments along the way, partly driven through case law. That was back in ’97, and there were further regulations in 2015, but there was a specific reason for that. I suggest that the extent of the attacks is the reason why the XL bully is the first breed to have been added to section 1 since 1991.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is an esteemed legislator of great repute. Does she agree therefore that in this Parliament we cannot legislate with imprecision? That is exactly what the statutory instrument does. It talks about “characteristics”, which it says may or may not be necessary for the definition. Surely we need to make the law clear beyond peradventure so that the people of this country know which side of the law they are on.
Dr Coffey
I would say to my hon. Friend that the guidance is as clear as it can be. It gives a number of physical characteristics, and I am sure the Minister will say more about that and the process being gone through. I suppose that in introducing the legislation, I very much wanted to put across that the issue is not being considered lightly and that a lot of care and attention has been given to the detail.
I must admit that I have had several death threats about this legislation and I am conscious that it is driving those strong emotions. What I will say is that the Government took an approach that would allow time for people to rehome an XL bully-type dog if they felt they could not keep it. Also, the situation is very different from what has happened recently, when people have had a pit bull or similar: owners can still apply to get a certificate and join the index of exempt dogs. The default here is that every person who registers their XL bully-type dog will get a certificate automatically and will automatically join the index. That is a significant difference, even though I am conscious it will cost some money to do that.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the former Secretary of State, and the point she is making should be considered. From 31 December, breeding, selling, advertising, gifting and abandoning XL bully dogs will be illegal, but there is also the issue of rehoming. A Sky report over the weekend said that 246 of these dogs are waiting to be rehomed. I had a constituent stop me on the high street who wanted to rehome one of these dogs but was struggling to get the information on how to go about doing that. I am slightly concerned because rehoming is one way of saving these dogs by ensuring they get support from a responsible owner who will take on a licence. Could a carve-out for rehoming be considered, so that it is pushed back to 1 February in line with the rest of the exemptions coming in?
Dr Coffey
I am not in Government anymore, so that is a question for the Minister. I think that was done to bring to an end the opportunity for the transfer of dogs. It is admittedly on a rapid timescale, but we must remember the reason why we are taking this approach at all: to try to stop attacks. People read about attacks every week, and they are happening around the country. Somebody may absolutely want to help a dog by rehoming it, but they need a certain amount of training to look after such a strong animal.
If we think about an adult XL bully dog, we are talking about something that weighs about 70 kg. These are big dogs. They really have a lot of strength and, frankly, the only way to unlock their jaws once they latch on to somebody is basically to choke them. Do not kick them in the head or anything like that—that will only make them grab on even tighter. That is what we are dealing with. Sadly, some of these dogs do get out of control and it is their characteristics that lead them to have that physical strength. Also, we must not get away from the fact that they were originally parts of various bits of pit bulls, mastiffs and similar.
It is, of course, understandable why people who have their XL bully dog next to their children every night, with the dog probably licking the children to death—if that makes sense—think it will protect them. But there is the risk and the results of that risk are happening too often.
I am not planning to linger in this debate; I will just say briefly why I think this an effective piece of legislation. I am very conscious of the reviews that have happened and how different Select Committees have called for more extensive action. I am also very aware that the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and similar charities do not think the legislation effective. However, the reality is that the number of attacks by pit bulls basically went away when this legislation was put into place. The muzzling and the different licence approach are things that we need to happen as quickly as possible for the existing XL bully dogs in this country.
As for alternatives, there has been a lot of talk about licensing. Well, licensing to own a dog was scrapped a long time ago. I do not think that councils would welcome having to take on the whole licensing of dogs right across the country. Of course there has to be enforcement on breeding and disreputable practices. In section 3 of the 1991 Act, there is a wider approach for all dogs; any dog can be dangerous. So far, however, five specific dogs have been singled out, because of their characteristics.
I am very conscious that the job of politicians is to make law. I appreciate that one of my hon. Friends does not think this law is necessarily the right way. But this is what we do—one day something can be legal and the next day it can be illegal. We do these things because we believe they are the right thing to do.
It is of course open to Members to pray against this statutory instrument, but I really hope that does not happen because it is important that people get certainty and can take positive action. As I say, anybody who has an XL bully dog right now will be granted the certificate to join the index of exempt dogs. In effect, that will be automatic, as long as the conditions are complied with and they can say so on that register.
I am conscious that many people want to speak today. In conclusion, people must have time to rehome and everybody who loves their XL bully should be able to keep it. I commend the legislation, which is still passing through the House.
Simpler Recycling and Wider Waste Reforms
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Simpler recycling will help us all recycle more easily, doing our bit to help save the planet and make the best use of precious resources that we use every day.
On Saturday 21 October, we published the Government response to the “Simpler Recycling” consultation—formerly known as “Consistency in Household and Business Recycling in England”.
These new waste reforms make it easier for households and businesses to recycle by introducing a simpler approach to waste collections. This common-sense approach means an end to the postcode lottery so, for the first time, people across England will be able to recycle the same materials, as well as get weekly food waste collections. Whatever product you buy with the recycling logo, and all your food you do not use, you will be able to recycle it at home—wherever you live.
In line with the Environment Act 2021, we are requiring all councils to collect seven different types of waste from your doorstep to be recycled—glass, metal, plastic, paper and card, garden and food waste. We will also require councils to collect other residual waste at least fortnightly.
That does not mean households need seven bins though. The areas with the highest recycling rates use just three bins or boxes for every home to collect this already. If it works for those parts of the country, the Government think that this approach can be undertaken by all councils. To that end, we will be legislating in early 2024 to enable that. It will still be for councils to decide how many bins or boxes they offer households. We have listened to councils and households and as part of the simpler recycling policy, local authorities will have the flexibility to design and implement the reforms that works for their geographical areas and citizens.
We will also bring in stricter laws for those who manage and transport waste in England, and introduce mandatory digital waste tracking across the UK—taking on the dodgy dealers, rogue operators and fly-tipping cowboy criminals who blight our countryside and cost our economy £1 billion every year.
Alongside “Simpler Recycling”, we are also cracking down on waste crime to prevent illegal waste from blighting our communities and damaging the environment. Across England, we will be bringing in stricter regulations for those who manage and transport waste—carriers, brokers and dealers—as well as introducing mandatory digital waste tracking across the UK, using powers in the Environment Act to overhaul existing waste record keeping.
As set out in our landmark resources and waste strategy, we will go further and faster to reduce, reuse, and recycle more of our waste and resources, helping to leave the environment in a better state than we found it for future generations.
Together these measures will help us to achieve our 25-year environment plan commitment to eliminate avoidable waste by 2050, our Environment Act target to halve the amount of residual waste we produce per person by 2042, and our recycling ambition of recycling 65% of municipal waste by 2035.
“Simpler Recycling” will significantly contribute to the net zero strategy commitment to
“explore options for the near elimination of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill from 2028.”
This policy will be the main contributor to reducing residual municipal food waste per capita by the equivalent of 50% from 2019 levels, set out in the environmental improvement plan (EIP).
The Government remain committed to delivering the environmental benefits of their resources and waste package of reforms.
[HCWS1085]
Oral Answers to Questions
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Prime Minister made a decision about introducing the proposed ban on American XL Bully dogs, recognising the horrific consequences of recent dog attacks and the disproportionate amount of those being undertaken by such dogs. We are working at pace on the legislation, and importantly on how it will be put into practice, and I hope to say more on that soon.
Dr Hudson
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. As a veterinary surgeon, I strongly agree with the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State that we need to ban the dangerous American XL Bully dog as soon as possible to keep people and other animals safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in parallel to this necessary urgent action, we need to undertake important work with the public on responsible dog breeding, responsible dog ownership and better training and socialising of dogs as part of a holistic, long-term solution to dog attacks?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend has great credibility in this field, given his professional experience as a vet. I understand that many owners of XL Bully dogs are passionate about their animals—their pets. That is why we are working at pace, but taking our time to get right the definitions and the transition period that we anticipate. It is important that all dog owners work to make sure that their dogs behave and have appropriate training. That is why we established a taskforce that includes dog welfare charities. We expect it to respond to us by the end of the year, and we will potentially take forward some of its recommendations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As someone who has had a pet dog all my life and still does, I am conscious that some of those who own American XL Bully dogs think that their dogs are integral and safe, but many in the general public see them as a danger and have fear. Is the Secretary of State’s intention, as this process goes forward in Westminster, to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the police, in particular, to ensure that the law and the recommendations that come out of this place can be shared with them?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise owners’ concerns where they believe that they have very good dogs. That is to some extent accommodated already in the legislation that has evolved since 1991. On working with other nations, the law—the primary legislation—will apply in both England and Wales by default, but we are working with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Administration on potential moves to make this a UK-wide approach.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I listened carefully to the answers the Secretary of State gave to both hon. Members, but I am still not reassured that she has the planned legislation in place to ban XL Bully dogs effectively. Is she satisfied that we have the kennel space across the UK, enough vets to make assessments, and clear rules and legislation in place to make the ban effective?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady asks a fair question. The legislation has evolved since 1991, with amendments made to the primary legislation in 1997 and in the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015. In that, there is a combination of work with the police in particular and with local councils and, of course, the judicial system. We have been working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to take the matter forward. I want to ensure that the legislation is right. I am expecting to present two statutory instruments to make it effective, with one bringing the ban into effect and the other providing the transition element and some of the finer details that still need to be completed.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Met Office has issued various warnings. Indeed, as the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), pointed out, we are preparing for potentially significant storms, which is why the Environment Agency has mobilised its emergency operations centre and why temporary defences are being lined up in different parts of the country. We continue to encourage households to register for flood alerts and warnings and to take action, where appropriate.
Mr Hollobone
Ball Corporation has invested £200 million to create Europe’s largest and most modern aluminium drinks can manufacturing plant in Burton Latimer. Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to meet the company to explore her plans to support drinks can producers against potentially unfair market distortions as a result of the decision to exclude glass from the deposit return scheme?
Dr Coffey
I decided not to proceed with glass in the DRS because of the complications that would bring to its introduction; I would have thought his local company would benefit from that. However, I know that the chief executive recently had a constructive and useful meeting with the recycling Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who will take away the comments from that for further consideration as we finalise our policy.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady will be aware of the action that has been taken—that Ministers required Sheffield City Council to take—to accelerate measures to improve air quality. On the wider measures that she talks about, we are not seeking to ban important practices, but of course things continue to evolve. Air quality is improving and she should be grateful not only to her local councils but to the Government for making that happen in her constituency.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As the Secretary of State knows, my constituency is chalk stream central, with the headwaters of the celebrated River Test, the Bourne rivulet and the River Anton, which runs through Andover. What can the Government tell me to reassure my constituents that the unique ecology of chalk streams is uppermost in their mind as they work to enhance our rivers across the country?
Dr Coffey
As my right hon. Friend knows, I know that area well. I used to live in Whitchurch, which has the River Test flowing through it. We are making progress with our chalk stream action plan, but he will also be aware of the amendment that the Government agreed to work with Viscount Trenchard on and which is now part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I hope will become an Act very soon.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Some of the finest seed potatoes are grown in the north of Scotland. Right now, the seed potato farmers are worried sick, because a lot of their crop is below water. That also poses a question mark over the supply of seed for next year. I know that this matter is devolved, but as the Minister is a farmer will he put the maximum encouragement in the direction of the Scottish Government to please help the farmers?
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Publicly owned Scottish Water has invested £668 million since 2010 in improvements and committed another half a billion pounds between 2021 and 2027. That is why Scottish Water has had its product—the waters around Scotland—classified as being in “good ecological condition”. Why do English bill payers pay the most and get the mankiest water?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. There is a lot of chatter about water; we should never undermine the cleanliness of the drinking water that people enjoy. The interministerial group is working on different ways of measuring ecological status across the United Kingdom and we are looking to see what we might do about that. We made the change in 2016, which other parts of the United Kingdom did not, and we continue to work together as responsible Governments. I remind the hon. Gentleman, only 4% of storm overflows in Scotland are monitored—they would be better off getting on with that.
Support for Farming
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
This Government are committed to backing British farmers, who produce some of the highest quality food in the world, contribute billions to our economy and are the custodians of our countryside.
We plan to replace the basic payment scheme in England with delinked payments in 2024, making things much simpler for both farmers and the Rural Payments Agency—building on the simplifications we have already made to existing schemes. Delinking will free up farmers to focus on running their business and delivering the public goods that can be rewarded under the environmental land management schemes.
On 18 September we opened the sustainable farming incentive 2023 (SFI) to applications. As of 12 October, we have received over 14,000 expressions of interest—equivalent to more than one in eight farmers—with the first groups of farmers already implementing their SFI agreements, and many more due to start in the coming days and weeks.
We have also seen farmers continue to show their interest in other environmental land management schemes, such as landscape recovery, where we have received a significant number of high-quality applications that are now being carefully considered. With 7,881 mid-tier and 1,030 higher-tier countryside stewardship applications in this year’s round, we have also seen sustained interest in the countryside stewardship offer, following a two-week extension of the application window in response to a challenging harvest. There are now over 33,000 countryside stewardship agreements in place across England in September 2023—a 94% increase since 2020. We are now spending £688 million on rewarding farmers for environmental, climate and animal welfare outcomes this financial year, as part of the wider £2.4 billion that we are committed to spend supporting farmers every year of this Parliament.
To ensure that farmers are treated fairly, we are developing new legislation to improve supply chain fairness in the dairy and pig sectors, with further reviews into fairness in egg and horticulture supply chains due to launch in October and December respectively. To support long-term decision making, the Government also intend to publish their response to the independent review into labour shortages in the food supply chain later this autumn, as planned.
The Government are also committed to supporting farmers to realise their contribution to the rural economy. Together with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, we will shortly publish a review of permitted development rights on farms. We are working to grant funding for farmers to invest in the productivity of their businesses and, for the first time, barn-top solar by the end of this year.
We recognise both the pressures facing smaller abattoirs and the opportunities available to them, so we will be launching a smaller abattoir fund by the end of 2023, providing financing for capital investments to support productivity, improved animal welfare and adding value to primary products.
To continue our progress, we will maintain engagement with the agricultural sector and provide practical opportunities for farmers that maintain our food security and also deliver on our environmental ambitions.
[HCWS1061]
Global Biodiversity Framework and Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Last December, the world came together at the convention of biodiversity in Montreal, Canada, to agree the global biodiversity framework, with a priority objective to halt and reverse nature loss globally by 2030. Key to securing the agreement was the commitment to establish a GBF fund to be administered by the Global Environment Facility particularly to help the Global South in achieving this objective.
The United Kingdom announced that it would provide £10 million to the GBF fund during the GEF assembly in August, adding to the Canadian Government commitment. I am delighted that Germany became the third country to commit to this new fund during the UN General Assembly. As a consequence, the fund can now be operationalised and I expect the GEF to start funding projects next year.
Other significant progress was made on GBF implementation and our blue planet fund and ocean objectives during UN General Assembly and New York climate week. This included: the UK signing the ocean conservation pledge, building on our existing commitments to protect at least 30% of our own marine area by 2030; and announcements of funding for some key initiatives including £120,000 in funding to Plymouth Marine Laboratory, as the secretariat for the Ocean Acidification Research for Sustainability (OARS) programme and £2.5 million to tackle illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing by funding the Joint Analytical Cell, which provides much-needed intelligence for countries around the world on protecting fisheries. We have also welcomed Costa Rica, Panama and Peru to the Global Plastic Action Partnership to reduce plastic pollution, particularly in the marine environment.
Working with countries around the world is vital in making progress on the GBF. That is particularly true of working with the Commonwealth of Nations. I chaired the first ever meeting of Commonwealth Environment and Climate Ministers, alongside its Secretary General, Baroness Scotland, which explored ways to strengthen collaboration to tackle global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, desertification, ocean degradation and the energy transition.
Key to making progress on GBF implementation is bringing in private finance. Building on our 10-point plan for financing biodiversity, earlier this year we established a global initiative with France on biodiversity credits to accelerate high integrity investment that delivers for nature. At UNGA, the independent co-chairs Dame Amelia Fawcett and Sylvie Goulard of the international advisory panel met panel members in person for the first time and shared the work undertaken so far.
Further to this, the UK has been instrumental in supporting the global, market-led Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. The TNFD framework has been designed by 40 private sector institutions representing over $20 trillion of assets under management. The aim of the TNFD is to generate decision-grade natural capital reporting data that can facilitate the alignment of global financial flows in support of improving nature. The panel launched its recommendations on 18 September at the New York stock exchange and again in London on 25 September. The UK Government have been instrumental in providing catalytic funding and political support to the TNFD since 2019. I welcome the commitment from GSK to use this framework from 2025 and hope that many more companies and institutions will start. Now that the recommendations have been launched, the UK Government will explore how best to incorporate it into UK policy in a manner that is coherent with global sustainability reporting in general, and nature themed standards development in particular.
[HCWS1064]
Water Companies
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The price review is an independent, five-yearly process run by the economic regulator, Ofwat, to determine investment plans for water companies and customer bills over the next five years—in this case, from 2025 to 2030. This will include assessing future investment in enhancing the resilience of our water supplies, environmental improvements and customer support.
Following Ofwat’s timeline, I can inform the House that by Monday 2 October all water companies had submitted draft business plans for the 2024 price review (PR24) and published them on their websites.
The draft water company business plans submitted are the opening position in an independent regulatory process stretching to the end of 2024. I expect Ofwat and the Environment Agency now to look closely at the plans and ensure that they meet legal requirements and give customers the best value for their money. We do not allow water companies to charge consumers twice for investment that should already have happened, and through the PR24 process Ofwat will scrutinise business plans to ensure this does not occur.
Following this scrutiny process, Ofwat’s decision on total investment and consumer bills will be finalised in December 2024.
This builds on Ofwat’s announcement on 26 September that, following its assessment of water company performance against targets set for 2022-23, under-performance by the majority of companies means £114 million will be returned to customers next year.
I am also taking this opportunity to update the House on recent developments pertaining to the Government’s actions to reduce discharges from storm overflows.
On Friday 15 September the High Court ruled in favour of the Government’s storm overflows discharge reduction plan, following challenges brought by WildFish and others. All claims were dismissed, meaning the Government won on all grounds considered by the High Court. The judgment supports the Government’s position that the targets under the Government’s plan goes substantially further than existing legislation to tackle the use of storm overflows.
The Government welcome the High Court’s decision and have always been clear that we will go further and faster to tackle the issue of storm overflows wherever possible.
That is why on Monday 25 September, following consultation, the Government published an expanded “Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan”, extending the targets of the plan to coastal and estuarine storm overflows. We have also expanded the list of storm overflows that are prioritised for early improvement, to include both marine protected areas and shellfish water protected areas.
The targets outlined in the expanded storm overflows discharge reduction plan provide an achievable, credible route to tackling sewage and delivering the improvements that customers expect without disproportionately impacting consumer bills.
Furthermore, recognising public calls for action to tackle plastic pollution in waterways, on Saturday 14 October the Government also launched a public consultation on a proposed ban of wet wipes containing plastic. This will help tackle wet wipes containing plastic breaking down into microplastics over time, which can be harmful to the environment and human health. The consultation delivers on DEFRA’s commitments set out in our “Plan for Water”.
[HCWS1063]
Roadmap for Rural Communities
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Earlier this year, with the publication of “Unleashing Rural Opportunity”, the Government set out their roadmap for rural communities, including a range of measures across four priorities for rural areas: growing the economy, connectivity, homes energy, and rural communities.
On 1 October, I announced further measures to boost broadband connectivity, transport and the supply of affordable homes in rural areas.
The measures I announced include:
A consultation on reviewing and updating the broadband universal service obligation which already gives homeowners and businesses the legal right to request an affordable, decent broadband connection.
A consultation on further proposals to improve broadband provision for very hard to reach premises, which are unlikely to receive a gigabit-capable connection via either a commercial or Government funded intervention. This will ensure communities with the most limited connectivity experience a step-change in their digital connectivity as soon as possible, fuelling the economy and supporting jobs growth for decades to come.
A statement from Homes England setting out its work to support rural communities and families by enabling the delivery of good quality, affordable homes. The statement includes case studies of successful rural housing schemes currently operating within Cornwall and the Yorkshire Dales.
The publication of “Future of Transport: Helping local authorities to unlock the benefits of technology and innovation in rural transport” to help rural local authorities, their communities, and other stakeholders to harness transport innovation, helping to improve access to services, tackle isolation and increase access to jobs in rural and remote areas.
Whether through improved connectivity, housing or transport we are championing rural communities as we seek to grow our economy, so that every part of our country gets the support and opportunity to thrive.
[HCWS1060]
Dangerous Dogs
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government are taking urgent action to bring forward a ban on XL bully dog types following a concerning rise in attacks and fatalities, which appear to be driven by this type of dog.
Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a definition of the “American XL bully” breed type needs to be specified in order to impose a ban. The Environment Secretary and the Home Secretary will convene experts to define the “American XL bully” breed type. This group will include police, canine and veterinary experts, and animal welfare stakeholders. This is a vital first step towards adding it to the list of dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act. We will engage with the relevant devolved Administrations about adopting a UK-wide approach.
The Government will then legislate to add it to the list of dogs banned under the Act. I intend to have the legislation in place to deliver this ban by the end of the year. This will make it an offence to own an unregistered XL bully, or to breed, gift or sell one. We need to safely manage the existing population of these dogs. Therefore, there will be a transition period. Further details on how this period will work will be provided ahead of the tabling of the legislation later this year. Dog owners do not need to take any action at this stage.
We have been working hard with the police, local authorities and animal welfare groups to help prevent attacks by encouraging responsible dog ownership, to ensure dog control issues are addressed before they escalate and to make sure the full force of the law is applied. Owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control are already breaking the law, and we already have a full range of powers to apply penalties to them. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, any dog that is dangerously out of control can be euthanised and their owners put in prison for up to 14 years and banned from ever owning a dog.
While the courts have the power to allow people to keep banned breeds with certain conditions, like being muzzled and neutered, the number of so-called exempted dogs is higher than a decade ago. That was not the intention of the legislation passed over 30 years ago. Therefore, we will also review our guidance to enforcers of the law.
[HCWS1040]
Water Resource Infrastructure
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Following the approval of the House, I am pleased to inform the House that I am today—18 September 2023—designating the national policy statement (NPS) for water resources infrastructure under section 5(1) of the Planning Act 2008, and have arranged for publication as required by section 5(9)(a) of that Act.
The national policy statement for water resources infrastructure provides a clear framework for those making development consent applications for water resources infrastructure, in particular by setting out the need for infrastructure providing assessment principles against which an application should be examined and determined. The NPS gives water companies clarity regarding the Government’s planning expectations, and added certainty about the areas planning inspectors might consider at a planning inquiry. This also supports the implementation of the Government’s “Plan for Water” and securing our water supplies by enhancing the resilience of water infrastructure.
The next step is for applicants to develop their plans, and then carry out further public consultation as required under the Act. Any application for development consent will of course be considered carefully and with an open mind based on the evidence provided, including through a public examination by the independent Planning Inspectorate, before a final decision is made.
[HCWS1037]