Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Toby Perkins and Emma Reynolds(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The biggest cause of river pollution is agricultural run-off. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, through the sustainable farming measures, she is prioritising farms that are taking action on agricultural run-off? Will she confirm that in the clean water Bill the issue of agricultural run-off will be considered alongside taking action on failing water companies?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure my hon. Friend that agricultural pollution is top of mind for me as Secretary of State and for the Water Minister, and the issue will form part of the clean water Bill. We need to crack down on water pollution from agriculture in partnership with farmers, making sure that they have the tools that they need to do the right thing, because agricultural pollution accounts for around 42% of overall river pollution.
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Debate between Toby Perkins and Emma Reynolds(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
Oh, gosh, how do I follow that? Well, the first thing to say is that that the shadow Secretary of State is not in charge of reshuffles on the Government side of the House.
Let me outline where I do agree with the shadow Secretary of State. I agree that DEFRA is a really important economic Department of Government, and I have been focused on that since I was appointed to this role on 5 September. I also agree that Reform Members do not seem to care about agricultural farming, because they do not even bother turning up to such an important statement. So there are some things that she and I agree on, but that is probably where they end.
The shadow Secretary of State accuses us of dithering and delaying for two years, but her Government dithered and delayed for 14 years. We did not see any action such as this road map during the whole time that the Conservatives were in office. They sold farmers down the river with their Australia and New Zealand trade deals, and they could not be bothered to spend their own farming budget on the farmers who needed it, so I will take no lectures from the right hon. Lady.
The SFI scheme will reopen next week. I am proud that we have taken forward the recommendations in Baroness Batters’ review on reforms to SFI, including making it simpler and more cost-effective, and introducing a minimum hectarage requirement. We on this side of the House are serious about engaging with the farming sector, and we commissioned Baroness Batters, who has such great expertise—that was never done under the previous Government—to advise us on how to make the sector more profitable.
The shadow Secretary of State asks about the sanitary and phytosanitary deal, and I say to her that we are working very closely with the National Farmers’ Union and other farming stakeholders, because that deal is all about bringing down the barriers put up by the previous Government at the border that make it so much harder both to export raw ingredients and food, and to import.
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for what she said—this is one thing we do agree on—about both Baroness Batters and my saying that we must make sure the farming sector is more accurately measured. I think we need to reassess that, so that we do not just assess what is done on farm, but look at this from farm to fork, and therefore see the vital role of the farming sector in our economy.
The shadow Secretary of State asks about the Environment Agency. I will make no apologies for increasing the funding of the Environment Agency, which was so harshly cut under her Government. I will also make no apologies about having a plan, in this document and more broadly, for how we work with farmers to ensure that agricultural pollution is a problem we tackle together.
The shadow Secretary of State asks about gene editing and the SPS deal, and those negotiations are ongoing. However, we want to ensure that our farmers are able to use the best technology. We lead in agricultural technology in our country, and we want to make sure that it is harnessed by our sector. That is why there is such a big emphasis in the road map on the importance of innovation, and why we are dedicating Government funding to innovation, and on farmers sharing best practice so that they can become more profitable over time.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
First, I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks to Baroness Batters for this excellent report. She is also right to observe that Reform MPs have not bothered to turn up for this statement. She might also note that no Green MPs have bothered to turn up. They used to be interested in the environment, but sadly those days are long behind us.
On the sustainable farming incentive, can the Secretary of State tell us any more about how she will make sure that its new iteration not only is spent and gets to where it is needed, but is available for a wide range of farmers, including the family farms we speak so much about, and is not all snaffled by the major farm companies?
Emma Reynolds
That is precisely why window 1 will be open next week to small farms and those farms without an existing agreement. It is also why we have capped the agreement level per year to £100,000. We want smaller farms to benefit from the SFI.
Thames Water
Debate between Toby Perkins and Emma Reynolds(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Thames Water customers are paying the price for the incompetent regulation that allowed Macquarie to saddle the company with eye-watering debts at the same time as its environmental performance was so disgraceful. That debt ultimately led to shareholders writing the equity value down to zero. Those who bought the debt are now making this proposal. I entirely understand why the Secretary of State would not want customers to receive a service that was failing in its environmental responsibilities while they paid higher bills, but what assessment has she made as to whether Thames Water is a viable business? We have been told that this is the final offer from the company. Is there a viable business there that will deliver long-term investment within a reasonable cost window for billpayers? If there is not, at what point does public administration become inevitable?
Emma Reynolds
As I set out in my letter to the regulator, Ofwat, I am concerned that the proposal will mean delays to environmental improvements and to improvements to water infrastructure, with, as my hon. Friend rightly says, unfair cost being laid at the door of Thames Water customers. He asks whether it is a viable business and about next steps. This is a stage in the process where I have given my early views on this proposal. It is now for Ofwat to decide what to do next, and we wait to see what happens.